YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

Bought with the income
of the
RICHARD S. FELLOWES FUND

SIMON DE MONTFORT

' Malo potius sine terra mori, quam. perjurus a veritate
recedere ' — Simon de Montjort
' Seductorem nominant SlMONEM atque fallacem,
Facta sed examinant probantque veracem' Political Poem
' The man who finally gave to English freedom its second
and more lasting shape, the hero and martyr of England in
the greatest of her constitutional straggles, was Simon of
Montfort, Earl of Leicester' — E. A. Freeman

THE LIFE

OF

SIMON DE MONTFORT
EARL OF LEICESTER

WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE

PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF HIS TIME

BY

GEORGE WALTER PROTHERO

Fellow and Lecturer in History
Kings College, Cambridge

WITH TWO MAPS

LONDON
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
1877

A 11 rights reserved

LONDON : PRINTED BY
SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE
AND PARLIAMENT STREET

TO

MY FATHER AND MOTHER

I DEDICATE THIS WORK

PREFACE
If the attempt to go: over ground already trodden
by a historian of the power and learning of Dr.
Pauli should carry with it an appearance of pre
sumption, I may plead by way of excuse, and, as I
hope, of justification, that in the first instance I had
thought of confining myself to the office of a trans
lator, and of asking permission of Dr. Pauli to repro
duce his history in English. But as I went further into
the history of the period, I found myself unable to
agree with many of his conclusions, while the necessity
of fuller treatment in certain portions of the subject,
especially the constitutional aspect of it, forced itself
upon me. I therefore began to study the history of
De Montfort's time afresh, and the present volttme is
the result.
I have no fear of being charged with any wish of
superseding the work of Dr. Pauli, or any others
which may be the fruit of conscientious toil, for it is
generally admitted by historical scholars that the
student can derive nothing but benefit from care
fully studying the views even of a large number of

viii Preface.
independent writers on the same subject. I trust,
therefore, that the following pages may be found
to contain matter, not to be found elsewhere, which
may deserve the attention of the historical inquirer.
As regards the personal life of Simon de Mont-
fort I have been able to add but little to the admirable
account of Dr. Pauli. Still' even here I have seldom
relied on my predecessor, but have based my conclu
sions almost entirely on the records of the time. I
say this however with no idea of casting a veil over
my obligations to this eminent historian. The readers
of this volume cannot fail to see the value which his
work has for me.
The other book to which I owe most is, I need
scarcely say, the ' Constitutional History of England,'
by Professor Stubbs ; and here, again, if it should be
necessary to anticipate any charge of not acknow
ledging my obligations, I may say that the portion
of my book which has special reference to the con
stitutional struggle was written before the second
volume of Professor Stubbs' work appeared. In that
part of the volume some of my conclusions involve a
slight dissent from his views ; but it was with hearty
satisfaction that on reading his pages I found I was
in the main in agreement with the greatest of living
authorities. My obligations to him are, however, not
only such as appear on the surface : I cannot suffic
iently express my gratitude for the invaluable aid he
has given me, especially in the correction of the sheets

Preface. ix
as they passed through the press. My best thanks
are also due to Dr. Hort, to the Rev. H. R. Luard,
and to Mr. Henry Bradshaw, for their kindly assist
ance and encouragement.
The references in the notes to Risk. Chron. are
to the Chronicle of Rishanger, edited by Mr. Riley
for the Master of the Rolls ; those to Risk, de Bellis,
&c. are to the other Chronicle attributed to the same
author, edited, by Mr. Halliwell for the Camden
Society. Kings College, Cambridge :
yanuary 1877.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I. Introduction —
§ i. Rise of Parliamentary Government
§ 2. The Great Charter ....
§ 3. Early Years of Henry III .
II. Family and Early Life of Simon de Montfort
III. Parliamentary History, 1232-1249 .
IV. Simon de Montfort in Gascony .
V. Parliamentary History, 1249- 125 7 .
VI. The Position of Parties in 1258 .
VII. The Revolution of 1258 ,
VIII. The Reaction 
IX. The Barons' War 
X. The Government of Simon de Montfort .
XL The Last Year 
XII. Conclusion 

1-14
'5-24
24-30
3i-58 59-86
87-107
108-130 131-185
186-220
221-242243-281282-3103"-346347-368

xii Contents. PAGES
Appendices —
I. Pedigree of the Family of Montfort
l'Amauri  369-370
II. 1. — Miracles of Simon de Montfort . . . 371-373
2.— Songs in Honour of Simon de Montfort 373-380
3. — Character of Simon de Montfort by
Rishanger  380-381
III. List of those who took part in Events of
Importance between 1244 and 1267 . . 382-387
IV. Portions of an Office in Memory of Simon
de Montfort  388-391
lNDEX  393-409

MAPS.
Battle of Lewes  To face p. 272
Battle of Evesham  ,, 338

SIMON DE MONTFORT.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION.
% I. RISE OF PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT.
The Norman kings of England, in their efforts to chap.
found an absolute monarchy, made good use of every - _^__.
opportunity to crush the power of their mightier Io66— I2IS
vassals, while, as a balance to that power, they kept view.
alive, if they did not actively encourage, the remnants
of national feeling and popular government. This
community of interest, however slightly developed
under his predecessors, bore fruit under Henry I ; in
the struggle between him and his nobility the people
stood by their king. Under his successor the pent up
spirit of feudalism burst forth; it had its day and
proved for ever its incapacity for government. The
exhaustion of the older baronage, and a natural re
action against the anarchy of the preceding reign,
enabled Henry II to rebuild the edifice of monarchy
on foundations deeper than those which had been laid
B

Simon de Montfort.
by his forerunners. A strongly centralised adminis
tration of justice and finance made the king practically
^Gener i^ '"dependent of his barons, while it revived the ancient
view. popular institutions, and brought every class into
contact with the throne. A new aristocracy arose,
mainly dependent on the monarchy, but far more
national than that which sprang from the Conquest.
The union of king and people was stronger than
before ; it bore the strain of oppressive taxation and
religious struggle, of war without and rebellion within.
But the strengthening of the monarchy was not
the only result. When the sovereign supported him
self by aid of the law, the thought was sure to occur
that the chains he forged for others might be used to
bind himself. The nobility he had done most to
raise, the people he had educated into a belief in law,
would be the first to cry out against a violation of
that law by the authority which gave it. Henry was
wise enough to avoid this danger : Richards personal
character and his long absence from home prevented
an outburst ; but Johns folly, tyranny, and vice
united all elements against him. The process of
amalgamation, which had been going on for a century
and a half, was now complete ; more than a generation
before it had been said that English and French-born
were no longer to be distinguished. The universal
pressure of a strong government, the tendency to
wards equality inherent in the rule of law, had helped
to complete the union, the last obstacle to which was
removed by the loss of Normandy ; and under a
sense of common wrong the new-born spirit of nation
ality sprang into consciousness of its power. There
was no longer an alliance between the king, the -

Rise of Parliamentary Government. 3
Church, and the people, against the feudal nobility ; chap.
it was now for the first time an alliance of the Church, . L .
the barons, and the people against the king. The Io66— I2is
newer nobility, in whom the political sense was
strongest; the remnants of the older baronage striving
to recover their position ; the smaller barons, the sub
tenants, and others, who eagerly grasped the occasion
to make their complaints heard ; the towns, with
London at their head, in the first freshness of muni
cipal and mercantile importance ; and above and
embracing all, the Church, with its broader notions of
justice and its popular sympathies — these were the
forces to the union of which John had to give way at
Runnymede. Such in a few words was the general course of Growth of
national development, such the relations, between Parliament
king and people, before 1215. Along with and de
pendent on the growth of the nation, grows the idea of
a Parliament, or representative council. In a people
composed of elements so different as those of which
England consisted immediately after the Conquest
there was- no possible centre, no representative of
national unity, but the monarch. As the different
elements coalesced, a representative body became
possible ; no sooner was the national unity complete
than Parliament in its modern form began to appear.
But between the baronial assemblies of the Norman The Na-
kings and the Parliaments of our own day there is council
very little similarity, though there is a distinct and ™der the
unbroken connexion. Many attempts have indeed kings.
been made, chiefly by ardent supporters of Parliament
ary rights, to trace back those rights to an antiquity
equal to that of the monarchy ; but regularity of

\ Simon de Montfort.
chap, composition and consistency of authority do not seem
-' to have belonged to the earlier councils of the realm.

The Na-1 On certam regularly-recurring occasions the Norman
tionai kings were in the habit of gathering round them their
under the vassals. The king wore his crown, his greater barons
king?an appeared in all their state, with long trains of attend
ants, who heightened the splendour of their lords.
Such an assembly was calculated to overawe a
subject people, and to inspire respect in strangers who
visited what was then perhaps the most splendid court
of Europe.
Discussions At such times state business was sometimes dis-
Counoii. cussed if the king willed it ; sometimes there was no
discussion ; if it appeared inconvenient to hold the
assembly, there was no scruple in omitting it alto
gether. The subjects discussed were only those
which the king chose to bring forward ; with him
rested all initiative ; until Stephens reign there seem
to be no records of such discussions as could have led
to a division.1
The Coun- Next to the object of displaying a somewhat bar-
Counof Daric magnificence, the purpose of these assemblies
justice. was primarily judicial. But justice resided only in
the king, or in those to whom he delegated his au
thority ; there is little trace of a great feudal court of
justice ; the tendency was more and more to look on
the king alone as holder of the scales. The prejudices
of the barons in favour of judgment by their peers
were satisfied so long as the Curia and the Exchequer
were recruited from their ranks.2 Although import
ant trials were sometimes carried on before the Great
1 Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 357.
2 Gneist, Verw. i. 241 seq.

Rise of Parliamentary Government. 5
Council, yet the permanent courts, and commissions chap.
named at will by the king, usurped more and more \ ._ ¦
its claim to judicial functions. Further, there is no Io66— I215
trace of any constitutional authority which might be j^werrf™
supposed to be conferred on legislative acts by the *,e coun"
fact that they were made by the king in council. But
here a different tendency at once appears. The moral
force which such acts would gain if backed by the
magnates of the realm was too evident to be neg
lected. Thus the heading of the so-called Laws of \™^\ Wil"
William I, which in their oldest extant form are said
by Professor Stubbs to date from the reign of Henry I,1
states that the said laws were made by the Con
queror, ' with his chief men,' although the terms of
the statutes themselves hint at nothing but an act of
the kings sovereign will.2 So too the charter issued
by Henry I on his accession speaks of the laws of
Edward having been granted by his father, with
additions made by him, ' with the counsel of his
barons ; ' and in the Act separating the ecclesiastical
and civil jurisdictions, 'the one authentic monument
of Williams jurisprudence,'3 the king declares it to be
done ' in common council and by counsel of the
higher clergy and all the great men of the realm.'
Whatever argument may be deduced on behalf of under wn-
parliamentary authority from these enactments of the

Conqueror is considerably weakened by the fact that
there are said to be no traces of legislative assem
blies under his successor.4 On the other hand, the
1 The form given in Fad. i. i is said by the same author to be a
fabrication of the 13th century.
2 Volo, interdicimus, hoc pracipio et volo, ego prohibeo, and the like
are the terms used. — Stubbs, Sel. Chart. 80.
3 Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 213. * Lords' Report \. 36.

underStephen.

Influence
of the Na
tional Council in
taxationunder the
Norman
kings :

Simon de Montfort.
(charter of Henry I attributes his coronation to ' the
mercy of God and the common counsel of the barons
of all England ; ' and it is just this right of corona
tion and the form of election, still kept up, which seem
more than anything else to have preserved the notion
of constitutional rights from complete oblivion. The
' consent of the barons ' is stated to have been given
to the kings tenure of forests ; while concessions were
made by the ' kings free gift,' and assemblies sum
moned ' by royal authority and power.'1 Florence of
Worcester declares the queen to have acted in Henrys
absence ' with common counsel of the great men,' but
the vague use of terms by the chroniclers renders such
testimony very unsafe. It is evident however that
the theory of assent to legislation was partially re
cognised, even if it be true that Henry I never called
together a legislative assembly except at his acces
sion.2 Of Stephens reign it is scarcely necessary to
speak. His election is said in his charter to have been
made ' by assent of clergy and people ; ' we hear of
a General Council in 1 1 36, at which the bestowal of
temporalities on a bishop was made ' in the hearing
and with the acclamation ' of certain vassals ; and at
the end of his reign ' a convention of bishops and
other chief men of the kingdom ' swore to the terms
of peace made between Stephen and his successor.
But except on these and a few similar occasions con
stitutionalism was dormant.
There is the same scarcity of proof that the Great
Councils had any real weight in the matter of taxation
under the Norman kings. William the Conqueror
and his sons, owing to their immense revenues, were
1 Fad. i. 8. 2 Cf. the Lords' Report on this head.

Rise of Parliamentary Government. 7
tolerably independent of the assent of their tenants- chap.
in-chief, and would seldom have required to tax them .  ^  .
beyond the regular feudal aids. Personal service took lo66~ I2I5
the place of a war budget ; the taxation of socage
tenants, the tallage exacted from towns and other
royal demesne, were limited by nothing but the kings
will and the length of the purses to be emptied.
The Conqueror was lord of both nationalities, and
used both systems — the feudal, which he brought with
him and improved ; the native, which he found and
adapted : he needed the aid of neither party to tax
the other, and was thus independent of both. The
royal power in this respect was somewhat limited, or somewhat
at least reduced from the dimensions to which it had under
grown under William II, by the charter of Henry I ; Henry l'
but even here the limitation is ' the kings own gift'
The same king speaks of ' an aid which the barons
have given me ; ' but not much stress can be laid on
the use of such a word to imply that the barons were
entitled to withhold the gift. We find no instance
in which the right to a share in the taxation is
stated ; • no parliamentary opposition to the king on
this head or that of legislation, in the declaration of war
or the regulation of the Church, appears in the records
preserved to us. The difficulties to be met by the^
king are such as spring from the isolated resistance
of feudal barons, not from a Parliament with tradi
tional rights to defend. The Peers' Committee thinks jXeThan
that the consent of military tenants-in-chief was nominal.
considered necessary in the case of extraordinary
taxation ; but the theory, if it existed, seems to have
gone no further than this, that the levying of such
1 Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 370. Anselm was not supported by the
Church.

.8

CHAP. I.
1066 — 1215
Slight in
fluence of
the Na
tional
Council
under the
Norman
kings.

Composi tion of the
National
Council
under the
Norman
kings.

Simon de Montfort.
taxes without the form of approval by a council was
held to be in some way or other unjust. As to legis
lation, the rights of the baronage seem to have been
:confined to that of being present and supporting, but
not opposing, the kings acts. New laws, properly
so called, during this period there were none ; royal
edicts and charters, of so fleeting a character that it
seems to have been considered needful to confirm
them at the beginning of each reign, supplied their
place. Sir John Fortescue says, some three centuries
later, that it never was a maxim in England that
' that which the prince wills has the force of law ; ' but
it is very much to be doubted whether it did not hold
good during the first century after the Conquest.
It is very hard to decide, owing to the constant
variation of terms, what were the component parts of
a Great Council under the Norman kings. The ele
ments and size of the councils vary according to
circumstances, time, and place, from the small councils,
or rather courts, consisting of the higher officers of the
realm and the regular attendants of royalty, with
whose aid the king transacted the ordinary business
of government, to the great assemblies of all feudal
tenants, whether tenants-in-chief or subtenants, pos
sibly of the whole body of landowners, such as that
of 1086, at which the Domesday survey was ordained.
Such great assemblies were however very rare, and
even those that occurred can hardly have been attended
by all who might have been expected to be present.
The ordinary Great Council appears to have been
attended by archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and
persons called, sometimes alone, and sometimes in
conjunction with the rest of the proceres or magnates,

Rise of Parliamentary Government. g
by the name Barons. This word seems generally to chap.
include all who held by military tenure of the king L ¦
in chief, except those who held of him by escheat, io66-I2is
that is, those who by the death of their mesne lord greaterTnd
were no longer subtenants but tenants of the king. smaller ;
It was however used in many different senses, and
its meaning is very obscure. The distinction between
earls and others, called especially barons, is already
evident under the first Norman kings ; and in the
charter of Henry I a distinction is made between
barones and homines, the former alone being recog
nised as members of the council, and apparently
including earls and those barons who are called
Majores Barones in Magna Carta. There naturally
grew up a distinction between those who habitually origin of
attended and those who did not ; the number of mili- tioen.c lstmc"
tary tenants-in chief was even under William I far
too large ever to have met practically for the purpose
of consultation ; the smaller barons would not have
received the special summons directed to the greater
and better known ; and thus a precedent was gradu
ally established by which a distinction not originally
existing was introduced and confirmed. Included in „
° Towns and
the list of barons would doubtless have been some of church.
the inhabitants of London and the Cinque Ports, but
such would have attended as barons in their own
right, and in no way as connected with those towns.
Corporate tenure, such as that obtained gradually by
most great towns, conferred no right of membership,
nor could such right have been exercised until the
system of representation was introduced into politics.
Ecclesiastics who were present, even if they kept at
first the position they had held in the Witenagemot,

IO CHAP. I.
1066— 1215
Limited
nature of
the Na
tionalCouncil.

Thesmaiier
tenants-in- chief theo
retically,not actu
ally, members.

Simon de Montfort.
must soon, in a feudal assembly, have been looked
on primarily as feudal tenants, obliged to do military
service like any other tenants-in-chief.
Thus the whole great class of freeholders, including
all tenants not holding by military tenure, that is, all
socage tenants, tenants of royal demesne and others,
were left entirely without share in the government,
and were subject to tallage and other exactions at
the kings will. The class of subtenants, gradually
rising to greater power, some of whom were superior
in importance to many tenants-in-chief, while others
were at the same time tenants-in-chief themselves,
were considered, fallaciously enough, to be represented
by their mesne lords. In the time of Henry II the
number of such tenants holding by knight-service of
their lords was nearly equal to the whole number of
knights fees in the kingdom. The force of such a
body may be imagined when they first became con
scious of their political needs. The smaller tenants-
in-chief who, from inadvertence, from fear of expense,
very often perhaps because they were not summoned,
had ceased, except on rare occasions, to attend the
Council, were theoretically perhaps members but had
no real power. It cannot have been pleasant for them
to attend merely to be overridden by the physical
force of the greater barons ; and the latter were not
likely to encourage those who, nominally their equals
by similarity of tenure, were in reality so far their
inferiors in strength. Even in the case of the greater
barons, that the king could abuse his privilege of
summoning the members so as to keep out an ob
noxious noble, is shown by the provisions of Magna
Carta on that point.

Rise of Parliamentary Government. 1,1
This constitution of the national council as a chap.
feudal assembly lasted after the accession of Henry  ,1_^
II up to and long past the date of Magna Carta. Io66— I2I5
With regard to this point the utmost demanded in tionai
that charter is that all tenants-in-chief shall be in n^^'
some way or another summoned. Unsettled as it may iHem7 n :
have been before, the theory that this was the legiti
mate form seems to have grown up during the reign
of Henry II.1 The importance of the council had
meanwhile been growing in no small degree. In itsinfiuence
right of legislation, it is true, not much advance was ["o^ ^^~
made. The Charter of Liberties issued by Henry slight.
II confirms that of his grandfather, and the same
form, that of a donation or concession, is kept up.
The Constitutions of Clarendon are the report of a
body of recognitors made in the presence of the great
men, lay and clerical, and confirmed2 by archbishops,
bishops, earls, barons, and the nobler men and
elders of the realm ; the latter seem to have been
the great officers and men of experience connected
with the kings courts, who would naturally attend
such a council. The Assizes of Clarendon and Wood
stock were made ' by assent of ' a similar body ; but
the authority by which other assizes were issued
during this reign is not stated to have been any other
than that of the king. How little is to be inferred
from this action by common counsel of the great men
is evident from the fact that, when in 1177 Henry II
assembled his whole army for an expedition to Nor-
1 Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 356 : cf. Vita S. Thomce, quoted in Set.
Chart. 123, where ' omnes qui de rege tenerent in capite, ' are said to
have attended at Clarendon in 1164 ; this can hardly, however, include
any but military tenants-in-chief.
2 'Recognitus' is the word used. — Stubbs, Sel. Chart. 131,

12 CHAP. I.
1066 — 1215
The Na
tionalCouncilunder Henry II :

under his
sons.

Its influ
ence in
taxationmuch in
creased
under Henry II :

Simon de Montfort.
mandy, he is said to have postponed the attempt ' by
their counsel,' though how the advice of so vast an
assembly could have been taken we are not told.1
Still, although documents fail us during this reign,
it appears from the chronicles that Henry II was
accustomed to consult his council on a great variety
of topics, as might indeed have been expected from so
wise a king. From the first to the last years of his
reign this habit was kept up ; in some cases the king
appears to have yielded to the advice given.2 Although
no general opposition is said to have been offered to
the kings wishes on questions of legislation, yet this
increasing habit of consultation must have greatly
strengthened, if it did not create, the theory that the
assent of the national council was necessary to give
authority to law. During the reigns of Richard I
and John the principle seems to have been kept up,3
yet so little was it recognised that no legislative
power is claimed for the council in Magna Carta.
On the other hand, the theory of a right to assent
to taxation struck firm root during this period. The
commutation of military service for scutage introduced
by Henry II, while it made the king at first more
independent of his vassals, seems in the end, partly
because it was an innovation on feudalism, partly
because it was so much more liable than the older
system to abuse under a tyrannical monarch, to have
rendered opposition easier and more justifiable. It
1 Ben. Abbas i. 178 ; the text implies the counsel to have been that
of the whole army.
2 ' Quorum (sc. episcoporum) consilio rex adquievit.' — Ben. Abbas
i. 311. 3 e.g., at the Assize of Measures in 1197 (but see Lords' Report i.
49 here), the Assize of Bread in 5 John ; summons to barons, &c,
' nobiscum tractatun de rebus arduis,' in 6 John.

Rise of Parliamentary Government. 13
was to this tax that resistance was first offered by chap.
Archbishop Theobald in 1156; his opposition seems ^_  ,' --
not to have been successful, but a precedent was set Io66— 12I5
up. There was possibly in this case nothing more to the
than a mere denunciation of the tax, and that not in aspect of
the council. The refusal of Archbishop Thomas to taxation:
consent to a change in the system of taxation proposed
by the king in 11 63 was more serious ; it was made
in the presence of the great men of the realm, and an
example was set that could not be forgotten. During
the next reign the government was carried on for the
most part in a constitutional manner by men trained
up under Henrys rule of law, but signs were not
wanting to show the growth of a popular party. Not
much evidence on this head can be deduced from the
opposition to Longchamp, whose offences were pro
bably much exaggerated by John for his own ends ;
but the rising under Fitz-Osbert makes it clear that
the lower classes had begun to feel their needs and
their strength. The noble position of the Church as under
. , , , .f .... Richard I :
the champion- of national liberties was maintained in
1 198, when Hugh, Bishop of Lincoln, refused to make
a grant from his lands for a war beyond the shores of
England.1 Under Richards successor constitutional
feeling was to win its first great victory, but during
the time of the Interdict the mind of the people was
divided between indignation against Johns tyranny
and unwillingness to submit to papal dictation, while
until the arrival of Langton there was a want of leaders
to give expression to the popular discontent. The underjohn-
resistance of the Archbishop of York in 1207 to the
1 'This event is a landmark of constitutional history.' — Stubbs,
Const. Hist. i. 509.

14

1066 — 1215

Growth of
parliamentary oppo
sition.

Simon de Montfort. .
levying of a thirteenth was overridden, and the
archbishop exiled. This tax had been voted, how
ever, 'by common counsel and assent of the kings
council,' which might perhaps be taken to imply that
the opposition of the archbishop was illegal.1 The
opposition of the laity, which ended in Magna Carta, ,
began with the refusal of the Northern barons in 12 13
to serve abroad, and their example was followed by
the rest of the baronage.
Thus the idea of parliamentary government grew
and strengthened during the first century and a
half after the Conquest. The opposition to abso
lutism, offered at first by isolated individuals, became
gradually the policy of a class, though it was not
yet universal or really parliamentary. At the same
time its character changed : it was no longer solely
prompted, as in the first years of Henry II, by
feudal anarchy, but was more and more the out
come of the tendency towards constitutional liberty.
The piinciples upon which it acted, first distinctly
laid down in Magna Carta, were checked for some time
by the reaction which followed, and left to formulate
themselves anew in the reign of Henry III. A general
account of the charter would be out of place here,
even if it were not impossible for me to throw any
new light on a subject exhausted by the ablest writers;
but a few words will be necessary to sum up the
results of that famous document from a political
point of view, inasmuch as the constitutional struggles
of the following half-century would to a great extent
have been anticipated had it retained its original form.

Fad. i. 96 ; see Stubbs, Const. Hist. ii. 240.

The Great Charter. 15,
CHAP. I.
§ 2. THE GREAT CHARTER. 1215""
John was surprised, not crushed, at Runnymede : f"ult of
he contemplated and nearly succeeded in effecting a death.
complete abrogation of the concessions extorted from
him. After such a breach of faith his subjects could
hardly again have come to terms with him except by
some such method as was applied fifty years later to
his son. His opportune death cut the knot. The
greater part of the opposition would hardly have been
induced by anything but despair to seek foreign aid,
though the Pope had set an example by calling in Philip
against John. No sooner therefore was the immediate
cause of fear removed, than the national impulses
regained their sway. From a child of nine years old
there was little to dread ; the sins of the father could
not with any justice be visited on his son. His re
presentatives republished the charter, at least the
greater part of it, with promises that the disputed
points should be settled after fair deliberation. The
retreat of the French removed the last obstacle to a
pacification ; this was followed by a third issue, again
with considerable alterations, in what was, as far as
concerned the charter itself, its final form.
The differences between the charter of 12 15 and Differences
that of 1 2 17 were many and important, and involved, thVoriginai
at least if construed literally, a great constitutional ^^^
retrogression. The struggle afterwards to be related the charter.
was a struggle to regain the ground lost in those
two years. Magna Carta was in reality a treaty of
peace, an engagement made after a defeat between
the vanquished and his victors. It was not intended

i6

CHAP. I.
1215
Modifica
tions intro
duced into
the charter.

Compari
son of Mag
na Carta
with the
Charter of
Henry I.

Simon de Montfort.
so much to bind the monarchy as a particular mon
arch : when he disappeared, it was but natural that
the other side should abate their precautions. That
spirit of compromise, which seems innate in English
men, together with a misgiving on the part of the
barons that they might have gone too far, a natural
unwillingness on the part of those in authority to
bind themselves, and a conviction that the elaborate
machinery of government needed strength and unity
at so critical a time, induced the one side to propose
and the other to accept certain modifications.1 What
these were will perhaps be most easily understood, if,
instead of analysing Magna Carta according to modern
ideas of a specialised political system, we regard it as
containing, on the one hand, a recapitulation and con
firmation of existing rights, and of such rights as
were directly deducible from these, and, on the other
hand, an enactment of certain provisions and the
establishment of certain machinery for the better
preservation of those rights.
Of these constitutional safeguards some were
merely temporary, some were intended to be per
manent. The latter were little more than statements
of political convictions which had grown up during the
last sixty years, but which had as yet received no
recognition in law. The Great Charter was thus based
on that of Henry I, but went far beyond it. That
charter had been mainly of a feudal character ; it '
contained no provisions for, and scarcely even hinted
at, a constitutional form of government : the general
enactments were summed up in a promise to keep peace
in the land, and to observe the laws of Edward. The
1 Cf. Stubbs, Sel. Chart. 330; Gneist, Verw. i. 290.

The Great Charter. 17
modes of oppression to which the Church was subject chap.
were somewhat more clearly defined and denounced, •  ,-¦ — •
while the rights of the vassal alone were minutely laid 121S
1 • • r , Confirma-
down, his protection carefully ensured, and the same tion of
rights extended to the subtenant. These ancient rights!2
rights were therefore amplified and proclaimed anew
in Magna Carta, and with slight alterations reappear
in the subsequent editions of 12 16 and 12 17 ; the sub
tenant was in all cases as scrupulously protected as
the tenant-in-chief. But this was not all ; the advance
made in other ways since 1100 had to be recorded
and confirmed. We find therefore the judicial and
administrative system established by Henry II
preserved almost intact in Magna Carta, though its
abuse was carefully guarded against. The limitations
introduced were somewhat strengthened in subsequent
confirmations, and point, on the one hand, to an ex
cessive growth of royal power, and, on the other, to
the necessity of concession to the feudal spirit. So
too were confirmed the rights and liberties of the
Church, including, at least in the charter of 12 15, the
-newly-granted freedom of election ; the liberties of
the towns were recognised, and London and the Cinque
Ports specially mentioned ; finally, the great progress
made in the forest legislation was recorded, and, having
been somewhat vaguely stated in the charter of 12 15,
was incorporated two years later in a separate charter.
But the greatest advance made in Magna Carta, Univer-
and that which gives it its most lasting fame, is the Magna
regard paid to the liberties of all subjects.1 The same Carta-
1 It is worth while to notice that the words in which these liberties
are stated in §35 of the charter of 1217 are considerably fuller and
clearer than the corresponding declaration in the charter of 1 21 5.
C

1215
Univer sality of
Magna Carta.

Advance
visible in
Magna Carta :

necessity of
securingthis,

Simon de Montfort.
spirit is visible in the charter of Henry I, and is in
herent in both charters, as engagements in which the
most powerful class promises to extend to others the
benefits it claims for itself. But whereas in I IOO this
spirit did not go beyond the bounds of feudalism, in
1 2 15 it embraces the whole nation. The people, the
' communa ' of the land, are called upon to undertake
with their leaders the defence of their newly-won
liberties ; while the barons, the representatives of a
foreign system, of the feudal invasion, acknowledge
their fusion with older elements by a special extension
to themselves of a right more ancient than feudalism,
the right of judgment by their peers.
So far then existing rights, whether they trace
their origin to immemorial usage, or to the ancient law
of the land, or to charters and edicts of the kings,
were stated, amplified, and confirmed. A great advance
had been made since the last important charter, but
the advance had been made on the same lines ; that
part therefore of the charter which embodies those
rights with their logical extensions, and confirms the
established system of government, was kept almost "
intact in the subsequent confirmation's and in the final
form. Now the recognition of public rights, of uni
versal liberty, was a great step, but how was it to be
secured ? The word of an absolute monarch was not
a sufficient guarantee. But the constitutional ideas of
the time were vague, and the measures in which they
found expression were incompatible with the existing
conception of monarchy. The spirit of nationality,
of which the chief portion of Magna Carta was at once
the product and the seal, was a fact that could not be
gainsaid ; but the principle of self-taxation and the

The Great Charter. 19
other constitutional principles announced in 121 5 had chap.
not yet struck so deep a root. The constitution of ¦  '<¦ — -
the Great Council seems indeed to have been at least I215
1 , • • !,'.,, Political
in theory such as it is stated to be in the charter ; principles
the clause concerning its composition and the summons cartafia
to it is merely a statement of usage in danger of
becoming obsolete. Further, the right of self-taxation
had already been asserted, as we have seen, and that
too successfully : it was connected with the existing
appliances for self-assessment : it was deducible from
other and more general rights. When it was once
allowed that the person and property of the subject
were not to be liable to excessive punishment or
tyrannical caprice, it was not hard to argue that his
purse must be protected from financial exaction, even
in the name of the State ; that the taxpayer must
have a voice in the levying of the tax ; that his assent
must be secured in regular form and after due delibera
tion ; that the great officers who administer the law
under which he lives must be men of the same blood
as those whom they govern, and must be instructed
in the law of the land. These objects then were pro
vided for in the Great Charter of 12 15, but further
than this its compilers dared not go. Not a word their limi-
was said of any share in general legislation, of any
control over the executive, of the appointment by \
Parliament of the great ministers of the Crown.1 The
right of consent to taxation was claimed only in the
case of an extraordinary tax, and that only for the
tenants-in-chief ; 2 the regular feudal aids were looked
1 Cf. Gneist, Vena. i. 288.
2 It seems doubtful whether the clause ' simili modo &c.,' in § 12 of
the charter of 121 5 implies more than that the aid taken from London
shall likewise be ' rationabile ' ; cf. Lords' Report i. 65.
C 2

so Simon de Montfort.
chap, on as a matter of course, though confined to three

special occasions ; the only limitation to their amount
1215 was that they were to be ' reasonable,' and to London
alone, besides the great vassals, was even this vague
privilege extended.
Reaction So little appearance was there at this time of a
subsequent Parliament according to modern ideas, and from even
issues of so moderate a statement of principles its authors seem
Carta. to have shrunk back in alarm at their own boldness.
The omission in succeeding confirmations of the clause
in the charter of 12 15, which granted liberty of elec
tion to the Church, is regarded by Professor Stubbs
as showing merely the reluctance of the clergy to
receive the privilege as a royal favour, the right itself
being included among the liberties confirmed by the
opening words of the charter. But there is no such
way of accounting for the omission of the clauses
bearing on the composition and rights of the national
council. A promise was given in the issue of 12 16
that certain ' serious and doubtful matters,' touching
scutage and aids, the holding of the council, and other
questions, should be treated of with due deliberation,1
but even this promise disappeared in the issue of the
next year. The charter of 12 16 made no promise as
to the appointment of fit persons to the high offices
of the realm ; the clause 2 concerning this important
point was omitted without comment in that and later
issues. Further, in the charter of 1 217, it was provided
that scutage should be levied as in the days of Henry
II, a provision which probably secured against the
arbitrary increase of the amount which had taken place
under John, but which deprived the council of any
1 § 42 of M. C. 1216. 2 § 45 0f M. c. 1215.

The Great Charter. 21
legal influence in the levying of the tax. The omission CHAP-
of the clause protecting the tenants-in-chief brought

with it of course the omission of the clause protecting 0ther "
subtenants from similar arbitrary exactions.1 differences
Besides this retrogression in those points where quent
constitutional legislation might have been expected to Issues-
be permanent, those articles which put a check, pro
bably never intended to be lasting, on the royal power
were naturally omitted. The clumsy expedient in
tended to secure the execution of the charter, the esta
blishment of a committee of government of twenty-
five, did not reappear. It would have been a mere
drag on the executive, for its powers were so unlimited
that it could have interfered on almost any pretext,
while its numbers almost precluded the possibility
of united and energetic action. In spite of its failure,
we shall see how the experiment was repeated, with
almost equal want of success, in later years. Other
occasional articles, whose objects had already been
carried out, were also omitted ; one important addition
was made in 12 17, the order for the destruction of
the adulterine castles built since the outbreak of war
between John and the barons, a provision which shows
how far the country had relapsed into a state of things
similar to that of seventy years before. This clause
was found to be no longer necessary in 1225; with
this exception, the issue of that year is almost identical The lssue
r J of 1225.
with that of 1217. There is however an important
difference in the way in which the charter was issued.
It is said to be granted of the kings own good-will,2
1 It is observable that § 14 of M. C. 1215, concerning the composi
tion of, and the summons to, a Commune Concilium, was not contained
in the articles presented by the barons on which the charter is based.
2 ' Spontanea et bona vohmtate nostra.' — Preamble of M. C, 1225.

2 2 Simon de Montfort.
chap, a statement recalling the charter of Henry I ; but as
 ; — - the price of this concession, and for the gift of these
1215 liberties, the people of the realm grant the king a
Tti6 char-
ter of 1225. fifteenth of their goods.1 These two points are closely
connected ; they contain from one point of view a
great advance in theory, but from another the reverse.
If , the liberties granted do not belong of right to the
people, as is implied by the conception of the grant
as a royal gift, it is obvious they can be withheld by
the king at will, and only granted in consideration of
a certain payment. To acknowledge this was to give
up a great point of vantage, the argument from the
abstract and inherent justice of the peoples claims.
On the other hand, the recognition that property be
longs to its possessors and not to the king, and that
therefore the tax to be levied was a concession on the
part of the people, was a great step gained, and as the
king was sure to want money, it showed his subjects
a way of enforcing their claims, of which they were
not slow to take advantage.
Magna The Great Charter then, as it stands in its finaL
finaiform!5 shape, is, with the exception of its appendix the
Forest Charter, little more than a definition, extension,
and confirmation of the charter of Henry I, with the
judicial and administrative changes and the grants of
privilege made since. This, it is true, forms the surest
basis of political reform, but the attempt to formulate
and legalise such reform was, as we have seen, no
sooner made than it was allowed to fall through. The
improvement on the earlier charters is indeed so great
that the later one quite supersedes them ; hencefor-
1 ' Pro hac concessione et donatione libertatum istarum, &c.' M.C.
1225 ad fin.

The Great Charter. 23
ward it is the Great Charter, and no other, to which chap.
all appeal is made ; it is the Great Charter which is so — — 'r  -
repeatedly confirmed. But it too, like other early codes, I2IS
was mainly negative ; feudalism and class-interest
were still strong in it, though it contained the germs of
a broader and nobler spirit. The constitutional prin
ciples advanced in it were legally thrust aside, legally,
but not really, for they were too closely connected
with existing custom, too much engrained in mens
minds, for their memory to perish ; the very advance
made in Magna Carta was likely to urge the sons of
those who made it to outdo their fathers. The prin- T,he Prm"'
1 pie of self-
ciple of self-taxation underlies the whole struggle of taxation :
the succeeding reign ; other demands, such as that of
the appointment by Parliament of the great officers
of the Crown, were strictly connected with it; the right
to dispose of the tax when paid is a corollary to it ;
and exactions, favouritism, and administrative con
fusion only made the necessity of its recognition more
patent. Yet it was not till the resistance became cor
porate instead of individual, universal instead of par
tial, constant instead of spasmodic, that the practical
difficulties in the way of collecting a tax without
support of Parliament became so great as to render
the assent of that body indispensable. The attempt as yet pre-
to introduce the principle was as yet premature. There and par-
was also a glaring inconsistency visible in the partial applied.
expression given to it in 12 15. It was not only the
tenants-in-chief, but the subtenants, the freeholders,
the townsfolk, who paid the taxes. For these however
there was as yet no adequate means of representa
tion, except in so far as the subtenants were repre
sented by their lords. If the principle was to be

24 Simon de Montfort.
chap, recognised, these classes must be admitted to a share
" - in the government ; but the magnates were unwilling

1215-1232 to admit them, nor was it perceived that the necessary
machinery already existed. This was understood
later, and the principle received due recognition ; but
the issue of the struggle through which this point
was attained shows at once the prematurity and the
essential justice of the ideas which prompted the
charter of 121 5.

Govern
ment under
a regency.

The
regents.

§ 3. THE EARLY YEARS OF HENRY III.
The first sixteen years of the reign of Henry III
did not introduce any new principles, though the
kings minority naturally strengthened the idea of
parliamentary rule, and the cloud of popular discon
tent rapidly formed after he had taken the govern
ment upon himself. It was about the year 1232 that
parliamentary opposition began to take a more solid
form, and thenceforward it continually increased, to
gether with a corresponding development of constitu
tional ideas, in spite of interruptions and temporary
relapses, till it culminated in the events of 1265.
There was at first, as we have seen, a considerable
reaction. The want of a more elaborate constitution
was not immediately felt. Copious legislation is not
a feature of an infant state, and the condition of the
country was such that a strong government was far
the most pressing need. Henry was on the whole
fortunate in those who represented him during his
minority. The great Earl of Pembroke and Arch
bishop Langton steered the country through the most
critical period, and with the help of Cardinal Gualo

Early Years of Henry III. 25
got rid of the French, and conciliated, at least out- chap.
wardly, most of their partisans. The influence of the v- ,' _*
legate, backed by the strength of the spiritual arm, was I2Is~1232
at this crisis most beneficial. It was unfortunate that
gratitude to the papacy for the saving of his crown led
Henry, in his devout subservience to Rome, to forget
the interests of his country. The year 12 19 saw a
change for the worse. The Earl of Pembroke died,
Cardinal Gualo was recalled, and the legate Pandulf
took his place. Soon afterwards the struggle between Hubert de
Hubert de Burgh, the justiciar, and Peter des Roches, urg '
Bishop of Winchester, Henrys tutor, began. For a
time Hubert, supported by the archbishop, was prac
tically supreme. He ruled well and strongly, but his
severity produced much ill-feeling. In 1222 he sup
pressed with no little cruelty disturbances that had
arisen between the citizens of London and the Abbot
of Westminster ; the rebellion of Falkes de Breaute
in 1224, which was countenanced by the Earl of
Chester, the head of the opposition, was directed
against, and to some extent excused by, his deter
mined policy. The rebellion was put down, and with Tran-
it the troubles originated by John seemed to be over, restored.
As a kind of seal to this happy consummation the
Great Charter was again confirmed, in the final form
spoken of above. Aided by the lull at home, by the
fifteenth granted to the king, and by the confusion
consequent on the death of Louis VIII, the English
succeeded in regaining Gascony and Poitou, though
the issue of the war, so much less favourable than it
might have been, added but little to the reputation of
the Government.
At this conjuncture the king, though not yet

26

CHAP. I.
1215-1232
The king
declareshimselfof age.

Unpopularmeasures.

National
discontent.

Simon de Montfort.
twenty years old, declared himself of age, and took
the government into his own hands (January 1227).
He dismissed the hated Peter des Roches and his
following, but another of his first steps did not pro
mise well. He began his reign without the issue of a
charter of liberties. The custom had been dropped,
it is true, since the accession of Henry II, but it must
have been expected as a prudent measure of recon
ciliation after the recent troubles. A further declara
tion, that all charters issued during the kings minority
would require renewal, was thought at first to en
danger the Great Charter and the Charter of Forests ;
but even if Henry, as is probable enough, thought of
breaking loose from all restrictions, his action seems
to have resolved itself into a mere threat. We are
told indeed that he actually cancelled the Forest
Charter, as ' made and signed when he was not his
own master, wherefore he was not bound to keep
what he had been forced to promise.' : The proceed
ing, whatever it was, was calculated to alarm all lovers
of liberty, and was a blunder in which it is hard to
acquit de Burgh, with his innate tendency towards a
strong government, of all share. It was naturally
attributed to him, and did not raise him in popular
estimation. The temper of the country was already
disturbed, and many of the nobles alienated from the
Government. The papal exactions from England as
a fief of the Church continued to be paid ; the number

1 Matt. Par. 336, 337. Gneist, Verw. i. 300, quotes Matt. Par., as
given by Parry, to the effect that the king cancelled both charters ; but
Matt. Par. mentions only the Forest Charter, stating that the magnates
under Richard demanded its restoration, though he does not say whether
this took place. For a solution of the difficulty see Stubbs, Const.
Hist. ii. 39.

Early Years of Henry III. 27
of foreigners promoted in the country was already be- chap.
ginning to cause discontent ; only the year before, the •  'r  —
clergy, with the archbishop at their head, had refused I2I5-i232
a demand from Honorius III for two prebends in
every cathedral. The position was difficult, and re
quired first of all things in the ruler a strong and
steadfast policy. But that was not to be. Whatever weakness
had been the faults of her princes, England had not ofthekmg.
since the Conquest felt the want of a king with a will
of his own ; but this king was all his life the plaything
of his favourites. It was a bad omen when, in July
of this same year, an injustice done to his own brother
Richard, Earl of Cornwall, for the sake of one of his
creatures, produced a general rising of the great barons,
with the Earl of Cornwall at their head, who with
sword in hand compelled the king to make restitu
tion of his brothers rights.1
It was not long before the other great cause of Growing
dissatisfaction, the kings subservience to the Court of Rome.
Rome, made itself felt. Gregory IX had been made
pope the year Henry came of age, and the excom
munication of the Emperor Frederick II, which soon
followed, showed that the policy of Innocent III, a
policy so disastrous to England, was to be resumed.
Next year Stephen Langton died, and in him the
staunchest bulwark of English freedom disappeared.
The Pope kept up the precedent of his appointment
by quashing the election of one of their own number
by the monks of Canterbury, and choosing Richard le
Grand, Chancellor of Lincoln, who was proposed by
! Matt. Par. 337. Several names, conspicuous thirty years later,
appear here : the Earls of Gloucester, Warenne, Hereford, Derby,
Warwick, and others.

28

CHAP. I.
1215-1232
Papal ex
actions,

opposed by
the laity.

Henryquarrels
with Hubert de
Burgh.

Simon de Montfort.
the bishops of the province1 ; a nian of energy and
high principle, but without the broad views and com
manding ability of his predecessor. His firmness was
soon put to the test. The Pope demanded a tenth
of all moveables from laymen and clergy throughout
England, to prosecute his war with the Emperor.
After showing great reluctance the clergy yielded,
Henry having, it was said, consented through his
proctors at Rome ; but the laity obstinately refused,
and the old Earl of Chester went so far as to forbid
any of the clergy in his County Palatine to pay the
tax. The baronage was not inclined to pay for the
quarrels of Rome, especially those with the Emperor,
with whom negotiations had been entered into five
years back, to end in his marriage with the kings
sister six years later. The whole story throws a
remarkable light on the position of the parties con
cerned : the use which the Curia made of English
gold ; the subservience of the king ; the reluctant con
cessions of the Church ; the opposition of the laity. It
was a mournful foreshadowing of the evil to come.
Still Henry might have staved off much trouble
had he had the wisdom to cling to his faithful
minister. It was at the outset of the unfortunate
expedition to France that his fickleness and ungovern
able temper led him into what seems to have been
his first quarrel with Hubert de Burgh. Irritated, it
appears, by the want of transport, the king, in one of
those sudden bursts of passion which characterised
him, called him ' a hoary traitor, who had betrayed
1 The theory that the right of appointment to the archiepiscopal see
rested with the pope was still more strongly illustrated in the choice of
his successor, Edmund Rich, in 1234, after the rejection of three other
candidates.

Early Years of Henry III. 29
his country for French gold,'1 and, drawing his sword, chap.
would have rushed upon him had he not been pre- •  i- — •
vented by the Earl of Chester. The expedition was 12IS_I232
. 111 Expedition
only postponed, to be taken up next year (1230). to Fiance.
The complete want of success which attended it, in
spite of the disadvantages under which the French
laboured, showed the want of administrative power
in the Government, and the incapacity of the king as
a commander. When he returned, after much loss Pecuniary
both of honour and money, he found difficulties on £eg£ulties
all sides. He had with some trouble obtained an aid
before starting. It was voted by the clergy only after
deliberation, and with mention of their rights. At the
close of the war they refused altogether, on the ground
that their assent did not depend on that of the laity,
but in spite of their opposition the king got the
money. Up to this time the efforts of the clergy were
mostly confined to resisting the king, while the lay
barons made it their business to oppose the Curia ;
it was not till many years later that the coalition of
the two exactors rendered a hearty alliance of clergy
and laity inevitable.
It was however already felt that the great contest Popular
between the papacy and the empire was draining the "oRome "
life-blood of England. A kind of secret society was
established, which affixed letters to the doors of mon
asteries and other ecclesiastical buildings, threatening
speedy punishment if the clergy gave way further to the
exactions of Rome. Armed men with masks on their
faces pillaged the granaries of Italian dignitaries, and
gave away or sold the corn cheaply to the neighbour-
hood. Meanwhile financial difficulties, caused by the
1 Matt. Par. 363.

30 Simon de Montfort.
war with France and thoughtless liberality towards
continental favourites, pressed heavily on the king.
1215-1232 jn the midst of these troubles his evil genius, Peter
des Roches, reappeared. He regained his influence
over the king by persuading the magnates to grant a
fortieth, and shortly afterwards succeeded in ousting
Dismissal his old rival Hubert de Burgh, who was dismissed by
of Hubert ° 1 j ¦
de Burgh, his sovereign with undeserved contumely and ingra
titude. With him went the only remaining security
for good government, for the Earl of Chester died about
this time ; and the king delivered himself hand and
foot to the ruinous counsels of his favourite. At this
the mark of p0jnt may be said to begin a new period in the history
a new r J ° r J
period. of the reign : Henrys worst tendencies, till now some
what kept in check by his minister, ran their course
without restraint ; collisions between the monarchy
and the baronage became more serious and more
frequent ; the claims of the latter and their constitu
tional ideas became more definite. Henry had held
the reins of government for five years, and the sketch
I have attempted to give of that period will perhaps
suffice to show that all the elements of future disaster
were already distinctly visible. It cannot have
needed very great political insight to foretell that
with such a king a rupture was inevitable. But before
1232 the man who was destined to play so important
a part in the struggle had already appeared upon the
scene.

CHAPTER II.
FAMILY AND EARLY LIFE OF SIMON
DE MONTFORT.
Simon de Montfort was the descendant of a family chap. ii
which took its name from a stronghold known still  ^ — -
as Montfort I'Amauri. The little town so called ia28"1128
1 i 1 • i ,i Montfort
is situated on the high ground between the valleys I'Amauri.
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 per
petuates 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 I'Amauri lies just half-way be
tween 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 south
west, 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.

32 CHAP.
II.
1028-1128
Origin of
the family
of de
Montfort :

they obtain
Evreux.

Simon de Montfort.
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-de-fer, 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.2 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
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
I'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 how
ever, 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.

1 These details are mostly taken from FArtde Verifier les Dates, vol.
iii, pp. 675 seq. and 803 seq. See Appendix I.
2 Recueil des Rois de France (Du Tillet), p. 65, quoted by Pauli.

Family of de Montfort. 33
But this new dignity brought with it some evils in chap.
compensation, for the traditions of the Montfort family •  ^ — -
were those of adherence to the crown of France, while io28~1128
1 'Kg funnily
Evreux was decidedly Norman, and both Richard of ofdeMont-
Evreux and his son William had fought for their duke p^nce
on the field of Hastings. Nevertheless William,
when he came to be Count of Evreux, showed him
self 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 11 18, 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
1 128, Henry converted him from foe to friend by
putting him in possession of Evreux and all his in
heritance. Under his second son, Simon III, began a Connex-
closer connexion with England.1 His difficult position, England.
on the frontiers of France and Normandy, must have
1 The persons of this name who are found before this in connection
with England, e.g. Hughde Montfort, one of the most powerful allies of
Duke William in his invasion of England, and Robert de Montfort, one
of four Barons who tested the charter of liberties issued by Henry I, seem
to have been members of another though possibly related family, the
Montforts of Risle. D

34 CHAP. II.
1128-1190

The earl
dom of
Leicester.

Simon the
crusader.

Simon de Montfort.
brought into play the state-craft which was so notable
in his son and grandson. In spite of a divided alle
giance, and the hostilities between Henry II and
France, he seems to have managed to keep well with
both sides, although compelled in 1 159 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.1
But Simon gained more than he lost. He was
fortunate enough, about the year 1160, 2 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 op
position in the early years of Henry III. It would
have been hard, at the opening of the thirteenth cen
tury, 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 '
1 Fad. i. 79.
2 Pauli says ' not later than 1 1 73 ;' it could not well have been later
than 1 160, for the husband of his daughter Bertrade, the Earl of Chester,
died in 1 180. How it was that Amauri of Evreux did not become Earl of
Leicester before his brother does not appear, nor is Dugdale clear as to
how he gained or lost the earldom of Gloucester.

Family of de Montfort. 35
Bouchard V, Sire de Montmorenci, a woman noted chap.
for her piety and wisdom,1 and in courage and energy — — ^ — -
no unworthy companion for such a husband. Simon II9°~1207
himself, if we are to believe the report of an enthu
siastic admirer,2 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,3 built up with bigotry and cruelty that
have rarely been surpassed, and supported mainly by
the terror of his name.
His connexion with England was little more than Simon iv,
nominal. Robert, Earl of Leicester, died in 1204, Leicester.
and Simons right to his mothers heritage seems to
have been recognised almost immediately. In August
1206 we find him spoken of as Earl of Leicester;4
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 Eng
land.5 This great office had become hereditary in
connexion with the Earldom of Leicester before the
end of the reign of Henry II, though even then the
1 Hist. Albig., Recueil xx. 22, quoted by Pauli.
2 Id. 23.
3 Chron. Guill. de Nang. p. 156.
4 Rot. Lit. Claus. 28 Aug. 1206. ' Comitissa mater comitis
Leicestriae.' In Rot. Lit. Claus. of the year before she is called 'Amicia
Comitissa de Montford.' The author of the article in Quarterly Rev.
cxix. calls Simons mother Petronilla, but in Fad. i. 96 Petronilla is said
to have been mother of the late Earl of Leicester (i. e. Robert), and there
fore was grandmother of Simon IV.
5 Fad. i. 96. Hudson Turner (Household Expenses vii. ) says there
is no charter of his creation in existence, but it seems to have been lost,
for, besides the mention of him in the writ of 28 Aug. 1206, we read in
that of March 10, 1207, 'comitatus Leircestr' unde ipse comes est.'

36

CHAP. II.
1207-1218
Simon IV,
Earl of
Leicester ;

deprived of the
earldom.

Simon de Montfort.
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.1 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,2 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 ad
vantage from his earldom, for in the very same year,
1 207, we find that the king deprived him of his pos
sessions.3 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 ap
pointed Captain-General of the French forces in the
crusade against the Albigenses.4 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

1 Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 343, 345. Gneist, Verw. i. 235.
2 Pauli, Simon de Mont., 25.
s Rot. Lit. Claus., 27 Dec, 1207.
1 Raymond of Toulouse was Johns brother-in-law.

Family of de Montfort. 37
seems to have been regarded by the baronial party, chap.
Whether the statement of one chronicler,1 that the —  ^  -
barons in 12 10 conspired to elect him king of Eng- I2°7~1218
land, 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.2
Simon was however too busy in the south of France Simon iv,
to pay any attention to his English estates. His sue- AibJensian
cesses there made him a dangerous foe, and for some Cmsade-
time there was good prospect that he would fully
compensate for his losses by conquest from the con
tinental 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 favoured 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 Eng
lish king. One of the last acts of John was to restore The eari-
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.3 This seems to have been continued
by Henry III, at least till the death of Simon before
Toulouse, in 12 18, after which the custody of the
earldom was given to Stephen de Segrave, and in
1 Ann. Dunst. 33.
2 Rot. Lit. Pat. 1207, quoted by Hudson Turner.
s Rot. Lit. Pat. 17 Joh. m. 19.

him.

38 Simon de Montfort.
chap. August 12 18 to Peter des Roches, Bishop of Win-
— — £ — - Chester.1
1218-1231 With the death of its founder feli the short-lived
dants of power of the de Montforts in the south. Amauri, the
Simon iv. sixth de Montfort 0f his name,2 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 mothers 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 re
turn 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.3
Renewal of The hostile relations between England and France,
the eari- which were almost continuous during the first fifteen
domof years of the reign of Henry III, seemed to destroy
all hope that the earldom of Leicester would ever re
turn to the family of de Montfort. The peace how
ever which was concluded in 123 1 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 Henrys general taste
1 Rot. Lit. Clans., 28 July and 26 Aug. 1218.
2 Amauri, elder brother of Simon IV, held the title of Count of
Evreux. Simon IV seems to have been the first Count of Montfort, his
predecessors having been called Barons.
3 For this and many of the preceding details see I.'Artde Verifier fcf
Dates, vol. iii, pp. 675 seq.

Early Life of Simon de Montfort. 39
for foreigners, which gained the suppliant access at chap.
the English court. But the English nobility regarded / -
the matter with eyes different from the kings. To I231
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 re- First
quest on behalf of his younger brother Simon, the 0f simon°e
second and third brothers, Guy, Count of Bigorre, fortMont~
and Robert, being apparently dead.1 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 119S, 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 ; his early
but since his brother Amauri had for teacher Master
Nicholas,2 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.3 He
may have first seen service under the elder Simon at
Toulouse, and there laid the foundation of that know
ledge of Gascony and Aquitaine of which he made so
good use in later years.
1 Guy died in 1218 or 1220, in the war against Toulouse ; Robert
died about 1226. — Nichols' Hist, of Town of Leicester, 104.
2 Probably the brother Nicholas, who was afterwards confessor to
Innocent IV, and Bishop of Assisi. — Mon. Francisc. 61.
3 Chron. Lanercost, 39, 77.

'I

4° Simon de Montfort.
chap. The first news • we have of him is characteristic of
- — ^ — - his stirring nature. We are told2 that he embraced
1231-1232 tjie j7ngijsh gjde^ an(j fleeing from the displeasure of
obtains the Queen Blanche, then regent, made his way to Eng-
Ldce°ster° land, 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 ; 3 but he
seems to have returned to France again, whether with
the king or not we do not know. In 1231 he ob
tained a grant of his fathers 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.4 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.5 With the formal renunciation of all claims
on his fathers property in England made by Amauri
in June 1232,6 Simon de Montfort took his place
among Englishmen.
1 There is a report given in Matt. Paris that in 1226 he claimed
restitution from the King of France of the fief of Toulouse ; but it seems
to rest on but slight foundation, and is probably owing to a confusion
between him and his brother. See Nichols' Hist, of Town ofLeic. 105.
2 Chron. Will, de Hang., ed. Giraud, p. 191. Hie. Triv. Ann. 226.
3 Royal Letters, i. 362, ' cum essetis apud nos in Anglia.'
4 Rot. Lit. Claus. 1 23 1 ; Royal Letters i. 401, letter announcing
the homage, dated 13 August ; Fad. i. 203. See too Household Expenses,
p. xii. 5 If not the letter of Amauri (Fad. i. 202), in which he begs the
king to give him the land, or, if not, to give it to Simon, must belong
to 1 23 1, and not 1232, as there given.
e Letter of Amauri (Fad. i. 205). The deed however in which

Early Life of Simon de Montfort. 41
But his difficulties were by no means over. He chap.
had to encounter the waxing opposition of the English  ,J  -
nobility to foreigners, which seems to have been so I232~I236
far successful as to keep him for some years from the counters
title, as well as the most substantial advantages of his ™[jeSdl '"
earldom. It is probable that the Earl of Winchester
refused to give up what he held of de Montforts
moiety, the greater portion of which, in addition to
his own share, his father Saer had held in 1206.1
The meagre income yielded by the remainder2 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
favour 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.' 3 A tardy recognition
of his rights obtained for him the grant of four years
revenue from the Leicester estates, to count from his
fathers death, ' in order to pay his debts.' 4 It is no
wonder that under these circumstances he, as other and lives
needy gentlemen have done, spent most of his time abroad.
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
Amauris resignation is made (Fad. i. 203) appears to belong to a later
date, since it was made in the presence of Cardinal Otho (cf. Pauli,
Simon de Mont. , 34) ; if so, the resignation was probably renewed on the
occasion of Simons marriage, or investiture with the earldom (1239).
1 Rot. Fin. 7 Joh. m. 10, quoted by Hudson Turner.
2 Rot. Lit. Claus. 8 and 9 Joh., quoted ibid.
3 Royal Letters, i. 407.
1 Rot. Lit. Pat., 28 July, 1236.

42 Simon de Montfort. ,
chap, time that he was foiled in two attempts to better his
- — ^ — - fortunes by marriage. He appears to have won
123 ~123 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.1
Simon, as a The marriage of Henry III with Eleanor of Pro
vence seems to have brought him home. At the
nuptial festivities he performed the duties of Lord
High Steward,2 and from this moment his rise was
rapid. He began to appear as a member of the
kings council in the most important transactions of
the day, although he still signed as plain Simon de
Montfort, not as Earl of Leicester.3 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 remon
strating with his brother, alluded to him as one of
' the evil and suspect councillors ' who were the causes
of all the trouble.4 However, a way to much higher
wooes the advancement was soon opened to him. His personal
Eleanor5 er 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 be-
1 Alber. de Trois Font. a. a. 1237, quoted by Pauli.
2 Matt. Par. 421, ' Comite Legecestrise regi pransuro in pelvibus
aquam ministrante.' He appears however to have had some difficulty
in making good his title, which had been claimed by Roger, Earl of
Norfolk. A compromise was arranged, Simon giving the earl the
services of ten knights, in consideration of which Roger renounced his
claim. — Nichols' Hist, of Town of Leic. 107.
3 Fad. i. 231, 233 ; he was present too at the confirmation of Magna
Carta in 1237. — Ann. Tewk. 103.
4 Matt. Par. 446.

Early Life of Simon de Montfort. 43
fore her fathers death, had been betrothed, while still chap.
a child, to William, Earl of .Pembroke, the son of the ¦  ^ — -
1236— "1 2 ^8
great Protector. The earl died suddenly in April E]eanor
1231, in the midst of the festivities which the mar- Countess of
riage 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,1 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 per
petual 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.2 Of the
great possessions which became hers after her hus-
'bands 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 Pem
broke, 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
Henrys devoutness would have allowed him to sanc
tion the marriage had not the omission of some for
mality set his shallow conscience at rest. Be that as
1 He was probably at least twenty years older than she.
2 Greens Princesses ii. 59, 61. This book contains many other
interesting details about the Countess and the Earl of Leicester.

44

CHAP. II.
1238
Simons marriage.

Oppositionof the
Church,

and the
baronageheaded by
the Earl of
Cornwall.

Simon de Montfort.
it may, the king, in spite of the warning of Arch
bishop Edmund, looked with the greatest favour on
the match, and with his own hand gave away the
bride.1 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 arch
bishop suddenly to leave the country, and, according
to one chronicler,2 before he turned his back on Lon
don, 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 ? ' 3 The whole

1 Mail. Par. 465.
1 Chron. Lanercost, 39. According to Hemingburgh and Knighton,
the Bishop of Lincoln prophesied ill of the marriage ; but this is evi
dently false, as he was Simons chief supporter about this time.
3 He had at the same time married Richard de Clare to the daughter
of the Earl of Lincoln.

Early Life of Simon de Montfort. 45
kingdom was in an uproar ; the legate could not get chap.
a hearing. The magnates drew their forces together ; >  ^ — -
the citizens of London, twenty years later Simons I238
staunchest allies, joined in the cry. The king, over
whelmed 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 oppor
tunity to sweep from the land the hated plague of
aliens, and blessings were showered on his head. But, The Earl
by the time the barons were assembled, intrigue had wall ap-
done its work. By his submissive bearing, by pro- not so the
mises and gifts, it was said, perhaps by his personal rest-
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 simongoes
dangerous foe, the rest of the barons were not ap
peased, 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,2 and
with the still more necessary supply of gold, which
he extorted from his tenants for the purpose.3 On meets the
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 Frede
ricks disposal,4 and then went on his way with the
1 'Factus est suspectus qui credebatur baculus fortitudinis. ' — Matt.
Par. 468.
2 Rot. Lit. Pat. , 22 Hen. 3, m. 8, quoted by Hudson Turner.
8 Matt. Par. 468.
4 Id. 46S, 471. Pauli suggests he may have fought at the siege of Brescia.

to Rome,

Emperor,

46 CHAP.
II.
1238-1239

and re
ceives the
Papal per
mission.

His return
to Eng
land.

Birth of his
eldest son.

Simon in
his own
home.

Simon de Montfort.
additional aid of imperial favour, 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 favourable 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 au
thority 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 favour of the suppliant,2 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.3 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.4 In his home at Odiham or Kenilworth the sky of
Simons fortunes seemed without a cloud, when sud-

1 Matt. Par. 471.
2 Papal letter quoted by Pauli ; also Matt. Par. 471.
3 This castle was formally bestowed on the earl in 1243.
description of it in Greens Princesses, ii. 81.
4 Matt. Par. 483.

See a

Early Life of Simon de Montfort. 47
denly 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.'1 On Quarrel of
August 9 the earl came with his wife to attend the thTkhig.1
churching of the queen at Westminster, when the
king turned suddenly upon him, called him an ex
communicated 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 sove
reign ; 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 fulfil the latter,
he had deservedly fallen under sentence of excom
munication ; nay more, he had made the king, with
out his knowledge, security for his bond and partner
in his fraud.2 The earl, we are told, withdrew, blush- Simon
' ' leaves
ing with shame or anger, and as soon as night fell England.
1 Matt. Par. 488. 2 Id. 498.

48

CHAP. II.
1239
Causes of
the quarrel.

Dr Shir-
leys opinion :

reasons against this.

Simon de Montfort.
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 appa^
rently 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 pub
lished 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 Popes greatest foe. De Montfort had there
fore 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. Butwas the papal
influence in England at that moment so high, or the
kings friendship for his brother-in-law so far cooled,
as to account for this ? Only last year Henry had sent
Frederick men and money,2 and letters of expostula
tion written by the latter this year, together with a
very friendly one two years later,3 seem to show that
the good-feeling between them was never really inter
rupted, at least till the death of Isabella severed the
1 Quart. Rev. cxix. 31, Pauli, Simon de Mont., 36.
2 Matt. Par. Hist. Ang. 408. sFad. i. 236, 237, 241.

Early Life of Simon de Montfort. 49
bond of relationship between them. And, even if the chap.
papal party had been so strong, there is nothing to -  rl— „-
show that Simon was in such bad odour at Rome. It I239
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 allu
sions 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.1 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 Probable
was not likely to be pacified by the papal dispensa- quarrel.
tion. It would not have been difficult for any Iago
of the court to whisper in Henrys ear the insinuation
that there was only too good reason for the eagerness
with which the marriage ceremonies had been hurried
1 ' Victa Veritas Romans cessit avaritiae,' &c. — Matt. Par. 498.
E

5©

Simon de Montfort.

CHAP. II.
1239
Quarrel
between the king
and Simon,

Falsity of
the first
charge.

Reason of
Henrys
anger.

on. He, with his strange mixture of credulity and
distrustfulness,- would have been easily persuaded ;
and the sight of his late favourite would have kindled
his resentment into flame. The fact, that a reconcilia
tion so soon followed, seems to show that we need
not look further than to Henrys character for the
explanation of a scene which disgraced the monarch
and alienated his most attached subject.1 If this
explanation is correct, it follows that the first accusa
tion was false, and the facts, as far as they go, bear
out this. Such a charge, twice made and utterly un
supported, 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 favour 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.2 In a letter3 writ
ten just after de Montforts disgrace, the bishop bids
him bear his trouble patiently, according to the name
he holds ; but he never so much as hints that he con
siders the punishment deserved. The point of the
letter is, ' Whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth,' not
' Be 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 Henrys anger, which,
once stirred, looked round for what might be con
sidered less selfish motives, is probably to be discovered

1 Cf. Hudson Turner, Household Expenses, xvii.
2 This is urged by Dr. Shirley, Quart. Rev. cxix. 31.
* Grosset. Epist. 243.

Early Life of Simon de Montfort. 51
in the latter part of his speech, in which he accuses chap.
de Montfort of bribing the Curia, and using his name . IL .
as security for extravagant promises. The fact of I239
the bribery seems undeniable. Payment for justice,
especially at the venal court of Rome,1 was so ordinary
an occurrence that we need not wonder that Simon
yielded to the custom. It was a dishonourable trans
action, doubtless, and has therefore been considered
by some writers so alien to Simons character as to
make it impossible to attribute it to him.2 This rests
perhaps hardly on sufficient grounds. He was not
immaculate, and the job would hardly have been con
sidered dishonourable. Further, it is likely enough
that he made more use of Henrys name than the
latter liked ; though this would almost be justified by
the favour 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
fulfil his engagements, his creditors, Italian money
lenders 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 allu
sion to that danger.3
The earl and countess bowed before the storm, Simon
and avoided the consequences by a voluntary exile France.0
of seven months in France. Though the kings anger
1 This is borne out by frequent allusions in contemporary poems and
chronicles. 2 Quart. Rev. cxix. 31.
' Hudson Turner, Household Expenses xvii.

52 CHAP. II.
1240

Simon returns to
England,

and is
nominallyreconciled
to the king.

Prepara-
t'on for a
crusade.

Simon de Montfort.
seems to have pursued them even there, : it was soon
mitigated, probably in a great degree by the efforts
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 honour. 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 com
pletely recovered his position at court, and continued
to raise it in the country, his friendly relations with
the king were irremediably shaken. Whatever con
fidence he can have had in Henry must have dis
appeared ; 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 kings side in the con
stitutional 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 pre
pared, 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

1 Royal Letters, ii. 16, in which Henry bids his proctors at Rome do
what they can to help Peter of Brittany in a dispute he has with de
Montfort.

Early Life of Simon de Montfort. 53
been released from this vow,1 and it seems doubtful chap.
whether he ever really started on the expedition. We l\' _ .
hear nothing of his exploits in the Holy Land, nor is I24°
he mentioned by Matthew Paris as having joined the taimyas to
army, though both the departure and return of William wheJher he
Longespee, heir of the earldom of Salisbury, are crusade or
especially noticed.2 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.3 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.4 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.5 A letter written in June
1 241 by the nobility of the kingdom of Jerusalem to
Frederick II,6 asking him to allow Simon de Mont
fort, 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
1 Letters of Greg. IX, quoted by Pauli.
2 Matt. Par. 536. 582.
3 Ann. Osney, 129.
4 Matt. Par. 742.
5 Id. 530, (?) Babylon.
6 Letter printed in Household Expenses, xix. dated 7 June, 1241.
It is obvious however that the letter might have been written, though
Simon should never have been there. Nichols seems to be wrong in
stating that the Annals of Dunstable say Simon went to the Holy
Land.

54

CHAP. II.
1240-42
Richard of
Cornwall
in the East.

Simon
returns to
England.

Simon de Montfort.
only ground,1 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 Richards 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.2 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.3 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
1 About the same time however Simon sold property to the Canons
of Leicester to the amount of 1,000/. — Greens Princesses, 77.
2 See Richards own letter, giving an account of the expedition. —
Matt. Par. 566.
3 Matthew Paris gives an interesting account of the musical and other
entertainments, and especially of the performance of two Saracen girls
of great beauty, who danced exquisitely on rolling spheres, and glided
to and fro over the polished floor wherever they would, singing and
clapping their hands, interlacing their arms, and bending their bodies to
the tune of the cymbals and tambourines on which they played.

Early Life of Simon de Montfort. 55
at the important council of that year, in which the chap.
king met with the most determined opposition to his IL
demands for money, and had to submit to a sound I242
rating from the assembled baronage for his wasteful- ^on^or
ness, and his unconstitutional action in breaking the *ar with
truce with France without their consent.1 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 un
certain. 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, Henrys 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 Expeditionto France.
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 Contem-
very interesting satirical song; written by a French
man, on a certain assembly held in England to discuss
an expedition against France.2 The writer, in sarcastic
1 See below, p. 66.
2 Polit. Songs, p. 63. Mr. Wright refers this song to 1264, and
says it alludes to the mediation of the King of France. But nothing in

porary
poem.

56

Simon de Montfort.
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. There
upon 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

the song agrees with this hypothesis. There is no allusion to an act of
mediation ; invasion and conquest are alone spoken of. The opposi
tion mentioned is just that of the Parliament of 1242 ; we know of no
Parliament in 1263, or 1264, at which the events of the song would
have been possible ; at the iatter period there was no talk of an inva
sion of France, and Normandy was formally given up in 1259. The
only difficulty is that Edward, then three years old, is called a bold
knight ; but that is probably only a satirical exaggeration of his fathers
pride in him.

Early Life of Simon de Montfort. 57
foreign author, there is much probability in them. chap.
The attitude in which Simon de Montfort is repre-  ,- — -
sented is just that which he is likely to have taken ; I242~43
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 tio6n.expeC
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 favour
in which Simon already stood at this time with the
king,1 and which the Count of Toulouse and the King
of Aragon, hereditary foes of the house of Montfort,
tried in vain to undermine.2 Henry bestowed upon Simon in
him several marks of friendship ; 3 he held a most w;fn tne°ui
important position in the royal council ; and when the klng'-
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 characterised those who had been
1 Lettres de Rois, 58, where Henry uses his royal privilege of taking
possession of all prisoners in Simons favour : the letter is dated 3 July ;
battle of Saintes fought 22 July.
2 Matt. Par. 590, 596.
3 Gifts mentioned by Pauli, Simon de Mont. , 46. A year later Kenil
worth was finally conferred on the earl and countess ; the king became
surety to Eleanor for 400/. a year, owed to her from her Irish estates ;
Simon was made guardian of Leicester Castle, and had certain wardships
made over to him. — Greens Princesses, 82, 85.

5 8 Simon de Montfort.
once his fathers 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 honour 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.

59

CHAPTER III.
PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY, 1232-49.
We left the king at the point when he had just
dismissed his old and faithful servant, the Earl of
Kent. In spite of the unpopularity of the justiciar, it
was an evil day for the country when he fell. It was
better to be fined by Hubert de Burgh, than to be
robbed by Peter des Roches. The bishop was now
completely master of the situation. He soon intro
duced numbers of Poitevins, his fellow-countrymen,
and others into England : many were placed in posi
tions of authority, others served him as armed de
pendents. The expedition of 1230 had produced a The go-
financial crisis. The clergy had already refused the m^diffi-"
taxes demanded. In the council of March 1232 the culties-
lay magnates declared they were already half-ruined
by the expenses of personal service in the war, and
were neither able nor in duty bound to give further
aid. The clergy evaded the question with the plea
that they could not vote in the absence of many of
their members. So soon then had men come round
again to the position taken up by the framers of
Magna Carta. Here were both the great principles Principles
therein stated, the necessity for completeness in the ofthe. .
composition of the council, and the right of assent tol

6o

CHAP. III.
i232~34
Opposition to Peter
des
Roches.

Danger of
civil war.

Simon de Montfort.
an extraordinary tax, again clearly put forward ; here
were the clergy and the laity again simultaneously,
though not yet jointly, opposing unlawful claims.
Peter des Roches had already made the king believe
that it was his own fault if he could get no money
from his subjects. Henry now procured from the Pope
a dispensation from the oath to Magna Carta, on the
ground that he had sworn in youthful ignorance to things
injurious to the welfare of his realm and to his royal
prerogative.1 The temper of the country was growing
dangerous. The barons refused to appear at Oxford,
and backed their refusal with the threat that, if Henry
did not dismiss the bishop, they would look to choos
ing another king. When at length, after a third sum
mons, they made their appearance, it was in arms.
The Earl of Pembroke, against whom the chief efforts
of Peter des Roches were directed, and several other
great barons, were outlawed, and their properties con
fiscated and given to the Poitevins. Robert Bacon, a
Dominican, and a clerk in the Curia, when preaching
before the king, told him to his face that he would
have no peace till the bishop and his satellites were
gone. It was no opportune time for a foreigner like
Simon de Montfort to be claiming his rights, and
during all this period he was probably, as we have seen,
absent from England.
The declaration of Peter des Roches, when the
bishops tried to protect the outlaws, that there were
no peers in England as in France, and that the king
could punish rebels as he pleased, seems to have
brought matters to a crisis. Collisions between the
1 Letters of Gregory IX, 1233 and 1234, quoted by Pauli, Gesch.
von Eng. iii. 594.

Roches.

Parliamentary History. 61
Earl Marshall and the kings troops followed in the chap.
winter ; the Welsh, at the earls instigation, entered . n1, .
Wiltshire, and freed Hubert de Burgh from captivity. x232-34
The Pope himself1 wrote to ask mercy for the man
who had worked with his legates to preserve England
from a complete rupture with the holy see. At last,
in the Parliament of February 1234, Archbishop
Edmund, who had just been appointed by the Pope,
took the lead of the opposition. In full council he
reminded the king of the evil done by this same Peter
des Roches in the days of his father John, and de
clared that he and his had incurred the ban for their
violation of the law of the land. The king yielded tof
the voice of the Church. Peter des Roches was dis- Dismissal
missed. Hubert de Burgh was restored to favour, but not des
to office ; the other outlaws were pardoned. Stephen
de Segrave, one of the most odious of the kings in
struments, was also degraded from his office of justi
ciar ; and this important post seems to have remained
unfilled, or reduced to political insignificance, till the
appointment of Hugh Bigod by the barons in the
Mad Parliament.2
Thus the first important constitutional victory of
1 Fad. i. 211.
2 See Foss, Judges ii. 136, 151, ed. 1848. It has been implied,
from a passage in Matt. Paris, p. 495, that Simon de Pateshulle held
the office of Chief Justiciar in 1233, and his son Hugh in 1234; but
this rests on a misinterpretation of the words. The latter was only
one of the justiciars at this time, and was appointed, not to the office
of Chief Justiciar, but to that of Treasurer. Foss is of opinion that the
former office remained vacant frum 1234 to 1258. He also believes the
office of Chancellor to have been vacant from 1244 to 1 261, though
several persons are mentioned in the interval as Custodes Sigilli, a new
title first used in 1255, whose holders seem to have taken the place of
the Chancellor. Stubbs, Const. Hist. ii. 275, says, 'There (sc. in the
exchequer) the treasurer stepped into the place of the justiciar, and be
came from the middle of the reign of Henry III one of the chief officers
of the Crown.'

62 CHAP.
III.
1234-36
Importance of the
dismissal
of aliens.

The kings
marriage.

Pecuniary
difficulties.

Simon de Montfort.
the reign was won ; thus was a great maxim of State,
England for the English, successfully upheld. The
dismissal of foreigners from office formed an im
portant stipulation in Magna Carta ; there was no
point perhaps which attracted so much attention all
through this period. But it was not yet understood
that such relief was only temporary ; that the evils
abolished were noisome weeds, whose strength lay
far beneath the surface, only to be uprooted by the
ploughshare of a radical reform. Two events soon
made this fact visible to all. The king, urged by his
dynastic ambition, succeeded in 1235 in bringing
about the marriage of his sister Isabella to Frederick
II ; but, as if to neutralise any good effects which
that alliance might have had, he next year united
himself to Eleanor of Provence, whose sister had
shortly before become Queen of France. For both
these affairs much money was wanted. Henry bound
himself to pay 30,000 marks as Isabellas marriage-por
tion. His marriage with Eleanor was celebrated with
a magnificence 1 which, for the moment, all that was
high and rich and splendid in England united in con
tributing to produce. But a Nemesis was at hand.
The king could not claim the regular feudal aids in
either of these cases ; he had therefore to collect the
money under other names.2 His difficulties are shown
by the fact that he had to ask the Emperor for a
respite, and did not pay the full amount of the dowry
till 1237.3 The demand, repeated in that year on

1 See a detailed account in Matt. Par. 420.
2 The Annals- of Tewkesbury say that tallage was exacted ; in Ann.
Dunst. 142 it is said scutage was taken.
8 Fad. i. 228, 232.

Parliamentary History. 63
account of the expenses of his own marriage, was pro- chap.
bably the main reason of the opposition which pro- -  "!:  .
duced another confirmation of the charters, a remedy I23&
not yet seen to be hopeless with such a king as
Henry III.
Meanwhile the old cause of discontent had ap- influx of
peared again. With the queen had come over her continued.
uncles, William, bishop-elect of Valence,1 Peter,
Boniface, and Thomas of Savoy. It will be remem
bered that it was at the kings marriage that Simon
de Montfort, himself a foreigner, made his first public
appearance. Nothing in the history of that great man
is more striking than the complete unlikeness between
him and all those with whom he was at one time
classed, under the hated name of alien. The popular
feeling against foreign interference was not slow in
manifesting itself. At the Great Council which met The
at Merton in 1236, shortly after the marriage, it was a Morton."
significant fact that the lay magnates, in resisting the
wish of the clergy to introduce the papal decision as
to the legitimacy of children born before marriage,
appealed to the law of England, and protested against
any alteration therein. The laws passed at this
council, which are regarded as the first statutes
passed by king and Parliament together, were little
more than a kind of appendix to the feudal regula
tions of Magna Carta ; but, as such, their tendency
was to protect the unprotected, to introduce law in
stead of caprice, to prevent unjust action on the part of
the kings officers. Moreover, the union of interests,
so remarkable in Magna Carta, was strengthened,
1 To be distinguished from William of Valence, the kings step«
brother.

64

CHAP. III.
1236-37
Constitutionaladvances.

Appointment of
ministers.

Simon de Montfort.
as in 12 1 5, by the extension to subtenants of the
same privileges which the greater nobles extorted
from the king. The statutes were indeed not alto
gether satisfactory to the barons ; they had in vain
attempted to diminish the centralisation of power in
the kings hands.1 They had more success shortly
afterwards, when they insisted on the privilege of
meeting only at Westminster. This principle had
been hinted at, though not exactly laid down, in that
clause of Magna Carta which provided that the
council should be summoned to meet at a certain
place. It will be seen later to what use it was put by
the constitutional party. In this same eventful year
(1236) another great advance in constitutional prin
ciples was made. The king tried to force Ralph,
Bishop of Chichester, to give up the great seal. The
bishop boldly refused, saying that it had been given
him ' by common counsel of the realm, and without
assent of the same he would not resign it.'2 This was
a distinct improvement on the principle enunciated in
Magna Carta, when it was only demanded that the
great officers should be men acquainted with the law of
the land, not that their appointment should depend on
the authority of the National Council.
The principle, that national assent was necessary
for taxation, received a confirmation next year (1237),
when the council, according to the precedent of twelve
years before, made the grant of a thirtieth dependent
on a renewal of the charters. At the same time it was
proposed that the council should have a share in the

249.

1 In the question of jurisdiction in cases of trespass. — Ann. Burl.
! Matt. Par. 430. He had been appointed in 1233 for life.

Parliamentary History. 65
disposal of the tax. The money was to be put into chap.
the custody of certain of the magnates, to be spent . IIL .
by their, counsel for the good of king and country. 1237-38
The barons also strengthened their hold upon the
lower classes, by special provisions ensuring a just
assessment by four men elected for the purpose, and
protecting the poorest class from suffering from the
tax.1 The confirmation of the charters which was the
price of this concession is the first public document
to which we find the signature of Simon de Montfort
attached.2 But he was not ready yet ; had Richard Richard of
of Cornwall taken up with a good heart the position as°™ieader.
to which the popular voice called him, he might have
rendered the labours of de Montfort to a great extent
unnecessary. But he had much of his brothers fickle
ness and want of purpose. He was not without in
sight and sympathy with the people, but allowed
himself to be led away by dynastic ambition and the
enjoyment of wealth from the performance of sterner
duties, and his temporising character led him con
stantly to appear as arbitrator and mediator when the
possibility of half-measures was long past.
After this second great success the constitutional influence
struggle seems to have experienced a slight lull.
The king took advantage of it merely to heap up
materials for a fresh disturbance. William of Valence,
the queens uncle, remained supreme ; his brothers
and other foreigners were richly endowed with lands
and offices. To such an extent did this reach that extrava-
in 1238 even the Pope found himself constrained to faking.
1 Fad. i. 232 ; Matt. Par. 436 ; Stubbs, Const. Hist. ii. 53.
" Ann. Tewk. 103 ; confirmation dated Jan. 28, 1237. The same
authority states that ' cives et burgenses et alii multi ' were present at
the ' colloquium ' in which the money was voted.
F

66

Simon de Montfort.

chap. hi.
1238-42

Grievances
of the
Church.

Thecouncil of
1242.

remonstrate with Henry on his ill-judged liberality to
prelates and nobles, on the ground that such conduct
was damaging to the Church, of which England was a
fief.1 To protect the papal interests the legate Otho
had been sent to England the year before. The feel
ing against him may be guessed from the riot at
Osney, the protection of the actors in which was one
of the first steps by which Bishop Grosseteste won
his universal popularity. The general state of the
country was not likely to be happy under such a rule.
Robbers were unusually numerous in different parts of
England.2 The grievances of the Church produced a
strong remonstrance from the clergy, headed by the
Bishop of Lincoln, in 1240.3 But it was all in vain;
the legate, though appealed to, would not or could
not protect them. The clergy, it is said, as a body,
refused to pay ; but it is evident that many persons,
principally the higher" clergy, were forced separately
to contribute.4 On this Church, already losing all
confidence in him as a protector, Henry had tried to
force William of Valence in the place of Peter des
Roches ; but before the struggle ended that prelate
died. He was more successful in obtaining the elec
tion of Boniface of Savoy to the vacant see of Canter
bury, in the place of the sainted Edmund.
During the absence of Richard of Cornwall and
other magnates on crusade there was not much
chance of parliamentary opposition ; but when, soon
after their return, the king resolved on the expedition
to France, financial difficulties revived it again. In
the famous council of 1242, of which some mention has
been already made,5 followed the first instance of an
1 Fad. i. 234. 2 Ann. Tewk. 115. 3 See below, ch. vi.
* Ann. Tewk. 115, compared with Ann. Dunst. 154. 5 See p. 55.

Parliamentary History. 67
absolute refusal of aid,1 the confirmation of the charters chap.
having usually solved the difficulty. So important -  -i_-
was this refusal considered at the time, that a special I2+2
report of the proceedings2 was drawn up, in order o/th?1"0"
that the barons' answer might not be forgotten. They baronage :
enumerated the various occasions on which tax had
been paid, and the conditions under which assent had
been given. The king had not kept his promises ; his
confirmation of the charters was worthless. They
asked, pertinently enough, what had become of the
money voted five years before, and declared moreover
that the king used judicial means to amerce his sub
jects unjustly. As for the war with France, it would
be time enough to discuss that when the King of
France had broken truce. In this famous protest the [political \
• ii,, r , • • principles \
right to know what had become of their money is advanced. \
clearly'demanded,and the report incidentally proves notl
only that discussion on taxation was usual, and that a
tax, instead of being merely announced, had come to be
demanded, but it shows that the barons had begun to
interfere even in the executive. The discussion of
peace or war is a great step towards the actual exercise
of executive authority. The summons to this Par
liament, addressed by the king to the magnates,
recognises the right, in stating that the object of their
meeting is to discuss 'certain important business
touching our State and that of our kingdom.' 3 One
would much wish to know what part Simon de Mont
fort took in this debate. Many barons supported the
1 ' Contradixerunt igitur regi in faciem, nolentes amplius sic pecunia
sua ffustratorie spoliari.' — Matt. Par. 580.
2 Matt. Par. 581, 582 ; Stubbs, Set. Ch. 359.
3 This was not however the first time the summons had taken this
form, as Gneist, Verw. 302, seems to imply ; see note top. 12.
F 2

68 Simon de Montfort.
king in the field, though they had withstood him in
the council-hall, and among them, if the song already
mentioned can be relied on, was Simon de Montfort.1
From May 1242 till September 1243 the king was
abroad. No sooner did he return than the constitu
tional difficulties began again. The year 1243 was
an important one for England. It was the year of
the accession of Innocent IV, under whom the
gigantic struggle between the papacy and the empire
came to its climax, and ¦enlisted on one side or the
other all the forces of the civilised world. The policy
of the Church had a most important effect on the
internal affairs of England, and more than any other
; single cause contributed to the outbreak of 1258.
Innocent, immediately after his accession, made stre
nuous efforts to collect funds for a renewal of the con
flict with the empire. The visit of the papal nuncio,
Martin, who came armed with unusual powers, and
enforced local contributions throughout England early
in the year 1244, produced an indignant remonstrance
Protest of from the English Church.2 The clergy, besides de-
the English . . . , ,..,.. . , ,
Church. clanng the demand in itself unjust, in that the
Emperor was not yet condemned by the voice of Chris
tendom, set forth the evils produced by this constant
drain on the national Church, whose funds ought to
have been devoted to other purposes, and declared that
without consent of the king and magnates, their joint
patrons, they had no right to contribute at all. The
spirit of the protest is intensely national ; the clergy
were anxious to join with the laity to protect their
1 See p. 55.
2 Ann. Burt. 265. It is given also by Matt. Par. 535, under the
year 1240, as coming from the rectors of Berkshire.

Parliamentary History. 69
common rights. In another protest,1 apparently chap
drawn up about the same time, they appeal to the

origin of the English Church and the objects for I242_44
which it was endowed, while they point out the
danger of an attack from the Emperor, which this
subservience to Rome may cause. Nor were the Pecuniary
laity backward in the struggle. The disastrous ex- pr0duCees
pedition to France, condemned even by the kings g™eral.
1 J ° opposition.
partisans,2 had exhausted the private means of many.
The inhabitants of the Cinque Ports had defended
the coast at their own expense.3 Individual con
tributions, extortions from the Londoners,4 and the
like had just sufficed to keep the Court from penury
while the king remained in France. But the evil day
could not be avoided ; Henry appeared again as a
Suppliant before his Parliament.
In the autumn of 1244 the magnates assembled The coun-
for the usual Council at Westminster.5 The king
opened the proceedings by putting forward his demand
for an aid, and received the answer that the question
should be discussed. The clergy took counsel by union of
themselves, and, having resolved on united action, jc^yand
proposed to the lay magnates that they should join
their forces. The barons replied that they would do
nothing without consent of the whole body. There
upon they elected a committee of twelve, four from
1 Malt. Par. 622.
2 T. Wikes, 90. 'Consumpta inutiliter, ut assolet, innumerabili
pecunia.' 8 Fad. i. 250.
4 Matt. Par. '600. ' Secundum voluntatem et aestimationem extor-
torum pecuniam civium mutilarunt.'
6 The chronology is much confused here, but it appears probable that
this council was held between the end of August and the middle of
November— such at least is the verdict of Prof. Stubbs, Const. Hist.
ii. 61, note 3. See Matt. Par. 639 seq.

/o

protest and
demands
j of parlia
ment.

mi

The king
fries to
coerce the
clergy.

Simon de Montfort.
each of the three bodies into which the council ap
pears to have been theoretically divided.1 There were
four earls : those of Cornwall, Leicester, Norfolk,
and Pembroke. From the corresponding class of the
clergy there were four chosen : the Archbishop-elect
of Canterbury, and the Bishops of Winchester,
Lincoln, and Worcester. Of the baronage, lay
and ecclesiastical, appeared two abbots and two lay
barons. It was resolved that what the twelve thought
best should be explained to the whole body, and that
the twelve should enter into no negotiation with the
king but by consent of all. A formal complaint was
then drawn up, stating that the king had not kept the
promises made at the confirmation of charters in 1237,
that the public money was wasted, that for want of a
Chancellor unjust privileges and exemptions were con
ferred.' They demanded therefore that a Justiciar
and a Chancellor2 should be appointed, who should
uphold the Commonwealth.
The king, after repeated efforts which failed to
bend or weary out the stubborn resistance of the
baronage, prorogued the council till next spring
with certain vague promises, trusting that dis
sension would cause a split in the enemies' camp.
Hoping to find the clergy more amenable than the
lay barons, he attempted to coerce them separately

1 The committee is said to have been elected by the clerus, the laid,
the barones, four from each class. The usual division of the clergy
attending a council into bishops (including archbishops) and abbots,
answered to that of the laity into earls and barons ; but here the clerus
are the bishops, the laici are the earls, and the barones are the rest of
the clergy and laity.
2 The Chancellor, Ralph, Bishop of Chichester, was just dead
(Jan. 31, 1244); the last justiciar was dismissed ten years before (see
note 2 p. 61).

Parliamentary History. ji
by exhibiting letters from the Pope, bidding them chap.
contribute to the support of a king, ' of all the kings  ^  -
of the earth, the dearest to the Holy See.' The I244~45
clergy, unable to resist the pressure put upon them
by king and Pope, were at their wits' end, and were
beginning to yield, when the noble bearing of Bishop
Grosseteste turned the scale. Persuaded by his words,
' Let us not be divided from the common council ; for
it is written, If we be divided, we shall all die,' they
avoided the royal solicitations by a timely flight from
London. They were however soon assembled again
to hear the demands of the nuncio Martin, who had
lately arrived, and, having been somewhat roughly re
pelled by the king, had made direct application to the
clergy. Placed thus, as they themselves expressed The clergy
.. ,., , .,, , . ,1 , .1 inclined to
it, like corn in the mill, they began to argue that tney yield.
would have to choose between two evils, and seeing
that the kings petition was supported by the Pope,
and that it did not do violence to their national pre
judices, they resolved to give way to the royal de
mand. Meanwhile the magnates had sketched out Proposed
a plan,1 in accordance with which the king should \ovem-
transact the business of government with the aid of mentl
four Councillors or Conservators of Liberties, as they
were to be called. These were to be elected by the
whole body of the baronage, and two of the number
1 Matt. Par. 640, gives what appears to be a draft sketch of a scheme
of government, to be presented to the king, his consent to which, with
a confirmation of charters, was to be the condition of a new vote. It is
inserted by Matthew Paris without any remark, and may possibly not be
long to this year, but the ideas expressed in it make it appear improbable
that it should come any earlier, while they are in accord with the
demands put forward at this time. Prof. Stubbs points out (Const.
Hist. ii. 63) that in several respects this scheme resembles the later
plans of de Montfort.

CHAP. III.
1244-45
Parliamen
tary con
cessions to
the king,

but not to
the nuncio.

Parlia
mentary
difficulties continue.

Simon de Montfort.
at least were to be always in attendance on the king ;
the Justiciar and the Chancellor were also to be
chosen by the council, and no writ not signed by the
latter and sealed with the great seal was to be con
sidered legal. It does not seem however that this
plan was ever presented to the king.; for although
the lay magnates, on hearing of the likelihood of de
fection on the part of the clergy, besought them to
act only by common counsel of all, as they had agreed
to do, yet, when the council met, the king, by pro
mises and solicitations addressed to individuals, per
suaded the members to grant him what he asked.
Even so however it was given under the name of one
of the three feudal aids, that for the marriage of his
"eldest daughter. This is most important, as showing
that the principle of assent was no longer restricted
to the levying of extraordinary aids, but was now
extended even to those which in Magna Carta had
been allowed to belong of right to the king. At the
same time a list was made and presented to the king
of ail the taxes levied during his reign, as a reminder
that such a state of things could not be suffered any
longer. The nuncio however, who, thinking to avail
himself of the appearance of concession, now renewed
his application to the clergy, received so decided a
rebuff that he is said by the chronicler to have howled
with rage and mortification.1
The money voted in this council went the way of all
the rest. Even the staunchest royalists must have been
in despair. The king, having undertaken an expedition

1 ' Dicitur magister Martinus oblatrasse comminando. ' — Matt. Par,
644. The clergy were aided by the kings prohibition to contribute
from their lay fees.

Parliamentary History. 73
against the Scotch in 1244, which was only prevented CHAP.
from leading to a war by the resolute bearing of the • — -^ — -
King of Scotland and his army, and by the mediation I244"4S
of certain nobles, proposed an attack on the Welsh
in the autumn of the next year. These attempts were
doubtless intended to stir up a warlike enthusiasm,
and to open the purses of the refractory nobility. But
the barons were not to be duped so easily. To Henrys The kings
renewed demands they returned a point-blank refusal, refused.
in contempt of a king whose self-indulgence and prodi
gality had reduced him to such a point that he could
hardly appear in public for the crowd of debtors /,
waiting to assail him.1 It is evident that the feeling ' '
of disgust at such a government as this, and the con
sequent resistance to the king, were increasing rapidly.
But the .popular party did not yet understand their Disunion
true interests. Against a disunited enemy the king popular
could still make head.2 Ten years more were needed party'
before the union became firm ; the frequent use
of committees testifies to that jealousy which pre
vented the malcontents from joining under one mans
headship. At this time Bishop Grosseteste was
perhaps most capable of taking the lead ; but, as we
have seen, he was not master even of his own class.
The above-mentioned council is especially interest- Attitude of
• • 1 • 1 r> • i-n/r r Simon de
ing to us as being that in which Simon de Montfort Montfort.
formally took his place in the ranks of the opposition.
He had now been for seven years a member of the
royal council. Although nearly half that time had
been spent abroad, he had had plenty of opportuni
ties of seeing the way in which the government was
1 Matt. Par. 650.
2 The magnates are said to have been ' vacillantes et dissidentes. ' —
Abbrev. Chron. 292.

74

CHAP. III.
'24S
Attitude of
Simon de
Montfort :

his position
as a leader.

Protest
against

exactions

Simon de Montfort.
carried on. His early leaning towards the king,
which was probably prompted by motives of personal
ambition, and the necessity of gaining a safe footing
in the country, had received a rude shock five years
before, and the incapacity of Henry, evinced in the
French expedition and its consequences, seems finally
to have opened his eyes. The king had, as we have
seen, made great efforts lately to secure him as a
partisan ; and that he did not as yet throw himself
heart and soul into the opposite scale is shown by his
appearance on this same occasion as a mediator be
tween the king and the bishops.
Still his appearance among the twelve representa
tives of the community tells its own tale. It is hard
to see what opportunity he can have had of raising
himself to that position, unless it were in the great
debates of 1242, in the Court at Bordeaux, or in the
preliminary discussions in the Parliament of this very
year. It does not however follow that he was at this
time more decided in his opposition than Richard of
Cornwall, who was also a member of the committee.1
Although the attempt at an alliance between
clergy and laity broke down in 1244, they seldom pre
sented a more united front against papal exactions
than in the next year. A protest from ' the magnates
and the whole people of England' was sent in 1245

1 Dr. Pauli does not seem to give sufficient weight to the appearance
of Simon in this parliament, or to the part he took in 1246. He says,
(Simon ae Mont., p. 46,) ' S. blieb stummer Zuschauer der Missregier-
ung ; ' and p. 48, ' fiinf Jahre lang sah der Graf ohne Partei zu ergreifen
diesem Treibenzu.' It is very improbable that his mind was not made
up before the year 1258, as Mr. Green too (Short History, p. 149)
implies. I now find however that Prof. Stubbs (Const. Hist. ii. 64)
expresses a similar opinion : ' Simon .... must have led a quiet life on
his estates till 1248.' Comparatively quiet it was, no doubt.

Parliamentary History. 75
to the Pope, then in council at Lyons. Frederick II chap. hi
had been excommunicated, and the Pope made yet  ^ — -
more exorbitant demands on his fief of England ; but I24S
the English proctors withstood him to the face, and,
knowing well the real object for which the money was
wanted, refused to allow the pretext that it was to be
applied for the liberation of the Holy Land.1 The
English nobility were directly injured by the trans
ference of patronage from them to the Curia ; Italian
ecclesiastics, it had been calculated, drew a larger
revenue from England than the king. This last fact,
which a commission appointed by Henry himself this
year had brought to light,2 seems to have restored him '
for a while to his senses.3 He too was infected with The king
the prevailing enthusiasm, and posed for the next two sition to
or three years as the head of the antipapal party in the Pope'
England. He had already last year forbidden the
bishops to contribute from their lay fiefs. Now, when
the Pope, after deferring his answer to the English
proctors for some time, wrote to the bishops bidding
them renew the oath of fealty, which involved the
yearly tribute to the Holy See, the king in a rage vowed
he would protect the liberties of England, even if the
bishops would not. So strong was the opposition
that Innocent had to resort to conciliatory measures.4
The nuncio Martin was however driven from the Thenuncio
1 Walter de Cantilupe, Bishop of Worcester, and Roger, Earl of exPelled-
Norfolk, were two of the proctors.— Ann. Dunst. 167.
2 The amount calculated was 60,000 marks yearly. — Abbrev. Chron.
294; cf. the protest from 'magnates et universitas regni Anglia;.' —
Fad. i. 262.
3 < Rex aliquantulum con versus ad se coepit detestari curia? cupidi-
tatem.'— Matt. Par. 659.
4 Bulls promising to reward English prelates with permission to
enjoy plurality of benefices, and confirming to the lay magnates the
right of patronage. — Fad. i. 262.

76 Simon de Montfort.
chap, kingdom. He had taken up his abode in the Temple,
 <^ — - and thence sent his letters and collectors forth to drain
1245 the rich monasteries and chapters of all their wealth;
The nuncio His insatiable greed at length forced the baronage to
expelled. take the Jaw into their Qwn hands_ Yu\k Fitz-War in
was sent to bid him begone, and that within three
days, or he and his would be cut to pieces. The terri
fied priest sought in vain for help from Henry. To
his tequest for a safe-conduct, ' May the Devil give
you a safe-conduct to hell,' was the reply of the pious
king. He was however allowed the escort of a single
groom, and lost no time in making his escape to Dover.1
According to one authority, even the regular papal
tribute was objected to in the council, on the ground
that it had not been voted by the national as
sembly.2
Vacillation But, under this seeming firmness, weakness and
ot the king, ... . ' ..
vacillation were already apparent.** Orders having
been given to prevent papal legates or letters entering
England without permission, a papal bull had been
seized at Dover ; but the king was frightened by
Martin into ordering its delivery. From this and
similar proofs the nature of the opposition was soon
bishop ¦ seen- The bishops, utterly distrustful of the kings
protection, and knowing his character as well as did
the Pope, thought it hopeless to resist and less ruinous
to conciliate. Under this idea they had agreed to the
papal demands at the Council of Lyons,4 in the hope
1 See an amusing account in Matt. Par. 659.
2 Bart. Cotton, 125.
s ' Anglorum nobilium corda mutantia, necnon et regis inconstantia
muliebris.'— Matt. West. 208.
4 These demands were a sum of 6,000 marks, and the first years
revenues of vacant benefices in the diocese of Canterbury. — Matt. Par.
692, 707.

Parliamentary History. 77
that the Pope would be satisfied. The Bishop of chap.
Lincoln went so far as to send round the letters >. ,: _„
authorising the appropriation of the revenues of I24S
vacant benefices. This was a distinct invasion of the way totJe
royal privilege, in accordance with which the revenues Pope'
of at any rate the more important benefices when
vacant belonged to the Crown. On the publication of
these letters the king was at first much enraged, but,
thinking discretion the better part of valour, he soonj
gave way, and the Pope at once increased his demands.*.
This abortive ebullition of wrath on the part of the
king was repeated several times this year. The list
of papal exactions is too long to relate. Henry resisted
for some time, but the Pope knew with whom he had •
to deal. 'This petty king is recalcitrant,' said he,
' and must be chastised.' With that he instructed the
Bishop of Worcester, in case of further resistance, to
lay the kingdom under an interdict. The king yielded
and England was given over to papal avarice.1 It
must be acknowledged as some excuse for the king
that the bishops at this time, actuated a good deal by
schemes of their own,2 neglected the paramount duty
of resisting these unlawful aggressions, and even threw
their weight into the opposite scale ; but it was Henrys
own fault that they had lost all confidence in him.
Encouraged by this victory, the Pope seemed bent Further
upon trying how much the patience of the English 0f "me"
Church would bear. He put forward the almost in- Pope'
credible demand of one-third from all beneficed clergy,
one-half from all non-residents, and one-twentieth
1 'Impune hiatibus Romanae avaritiae satisfactum. ' — Matt. Par.
709. 2 See ch. vi.

78

Simon de Montfort.

chap. hi.
1246
Remon
stranceagainstpapalexactions.

from certain exempted persons.1 The collection of
this enormous tax was for the time postponed by the
royal prohibition, which the bishops were glad enough
to obey. But meanwhile the papal exactions, added
to the expenses of a Welsh war, resultless as usual,
had produced in the Lent Parliament of 1246 a
summing-up of all the grievances which the English
Church and nation suffered at the hands of the Pope.
The Parliament was summoned expressly to discuss
the state of the realm, at this time ' tottering and in
urgent need.' 2 The remonstrance was sent by the
magnates, the barons of the sea-ports, the clergy, and
the whole people. Simon de Montfort signed his
name on this famous document next after the Earl of
Cornwall. In this letter, the last protest addressed by
the representatives of the nation to their oppressor
— for the letter sent in the spring of next year did not
emanate apparently from the 'universitas ' — the barons
declared the discontent of the nation to have risen to
such a height that, spite of the affection they bore to
the Church, they would soon have to take active mea
sures, and would help the Church and people of Eng
land to the best of their power. The danger both to
Church and king was great, and only to be avoided by
timely concession. They proceeded to state the results
of the papal policy in England, and remonstrated
humbly but firmly with the Pope on the injustice
of his claims. The letter was supported by one from

1 There are slight variations in the statement of this demand, but
the amount is well substantiated by Matt. Par. 716 ; Ann. Burt. 276 ;
T. Wikes, 94.
2 Matt. Par. 696 ; in Hist. Angl. 4 it is said to have been the
demand made in 1245 for one years revenue of vacant benefices which
first produced the storm.

Parliamentary History. 79
the clergy, confirming the justice of the barons' com
plaints, and introduced by one of similar tenour from
the king. The only answer vouchsafed by the Pope
was an increase in his demands as stated above.1 The
objections of the clergy, carefully drawn up, and their
appeal to the general council, were equally ineffec
tual. One more despairing appeal from ' the clergy
and people of the province of Canterbury ' was sent
next year, but the tone is that of a crushed and broken
people, humbly praying the tyrant to leave them
enough to support life.
The struggle seems for the time to have been a compro-
given up as hopeless. Still this letter produced some ™cSePteci
effect, for the Curia, fearing to drive their petitioners
into a desperate resistance, yielded so far as to com
mute their various demands for a lump sum of 1 1,000
marks, and gave up the claim on the personal pro
perty of ecclesiastics dying intestate, which the Pope
had made the previous year. This seemed to the
heads of the Church so advantageous an offer that
they closed with it at once. The policy of the bishops Disunion
had however produced disunion in the Church, and ;?,the,
... r . . Church.
they became the object of so much suspicion and ill—
1 The Popes letter (Fad. i. 266) cannot be an answer to the remon
strance of 1246, and must really belong to 1247, not 1246, as given by
Rymer, since (a) it is dated 12 June, in the fourth year of Innocent IV,
he having been elected 24 June, 1243 ; (b) it is in answer to the kings
request to give up the twentieth, whereas no such request occurs in
Henrys letter of 1246 ; (c\ the twentieth was not demanded, with the
other exactions, till 30 April, 1246, while Henrys letter accompanies
the barons' letter, dated 28 March. (The twentieth alluded to may be
the 6,000 marks promised by the bishops at Lyons in 1245 ; cf. Ann.
Burt. 280 seq.). Further the bull specially touching the half to be
taken from non-residents, given in Fad. i. 264, under 1245, belongs to
1 246, being dated 29 Dec. , in the fourth year of Innocents pontificate.
The Popes letter (Fad. i. 266) must therefore be in answer to a letter
from the king, no longer extant, probably accompanying the remon
strance of 1247. But see Mr. Luards note on this letter (Ann. Burt. 285).

So

Simon de Montfort.

CHAP. in.
T246-49
Disunion
in the
Church.

Universaldistrust
and de
spair.

feeling that they absented themselves from Parlia
ment, knowing that ' the hearts of men were sore.' '
On the other hand, the exemptions of several orders —
the Templars, Cistercians, and others — the special ex
emptions given to various branches of the regular
clergy, and the somewhat subservient proselytism of
the Franciscans and Dominicans, who were looked on
by the older foundations as the Popes jackals,2 must
have produced a sense of unfairness, and sown the
seeds of distrust and discord among the leaders of the
English Church. Truly, as Ranke says, 'England ap
peared no longer a free country ; all her riches went
to serve the Pope of Rome, and the Crown itself be
came the tool of the hierarchy.' 3 And with the sore
ness from these exactions came the bitter feeling that
English contributions produced not gratitude but con
tempt ; the Curia laughed at those whom they robbed,
the Pope called Henry a partisan of the Emperor, and
seemed to threaten him with a similar fate.
The affection of all classes towards the Church
began to grow cold.4 The disappointment of all hope
of help from the king, and his want of faith in par
ticular instances,5 caused a suspicion that his resist
ance was merely pretended, that he was in reality
doing his best for the Pope. This, like the still vaguer
suspicion of collusion between the Pope and the

1 'Corda omnium sauciari.' — Matt. Par. 719.
2 ' Seduli papalis pecuniae collectores ;' ' omnia ad commodum
domini Pap£e diligentes negotiatores.' — Matt. West. 245. Friars
Minors were sent to collect in 1247, among whom two Englishmen,
Alexander and John, are especially named. — Matt. Par. 722.
3 Eng. Gesch. i. 57, quoted by Pauli.
4 ' Tepuit devotio fidelium et filialis affectus charitatis.' — Matt. Par.
719. 5 A flagrant instance of this is given in Matt. Par. 730.

Parliamentary History. 81
Emperor,1 which must have been dissipated ere this, chap.
shows the universal distrust, and partly accounts for  ^ — -
the lack of effort which prevailed, and which would Ia46~49
have resulted in complete despair had not the people
found some one in whom they could confide. At this
time even the news of a combination of French nobles
to resist the papal exactions in that country failed to
rouse the English baronage to a similar effort. Crime
of course abounded. Money had deteriorated so Bad state
much in value in consequence of mutilation that it country.
was resolved to issue a new coinage ; the die was
altered by the prolongation of the cross to the mar
gin, the object being to make it no longer possible
to clip the coin. The mint was handed over to
Richard of Cornwall as compensation for the debt of
20,000/. which his brother owed him. The change of
coinage was managed so badly as to produce great
distress in the land.2 In 1249 a terrible system of
robbery and collusion therewith was discovered at
Winchester. Several of the culprits belonged to the/
kings household, and pleaded that they had been
driven to crime by the non-payment of their wages.3
But while the king omitted to pay his lacqueys, he
enrichebThis relations and favourites. The plague of New influx
aliens had broken out afresh. The king took pity on
his half-brothers, who were now orphans, their mother
having died in 1246. They came to England next
year, and with them a swarm of hungry Poitevins.
Noble English youths were married perforce to pen
niless and, as report said, ill-born and ill-favoured
foreign maidens ; William of Valence received a rich
heiress ; his brother Aylmer was raised to the bishopric
1 Matt. West. 205. * Matt. Par. 748. 3 Id. 760.
G

82

CHAP. III.
1246-49
Degrada tion of
England.

No ad
vance in
constitu tionai
principles.

Parliamentof 1248.

Simon de Montfort.
of Winchester, though he died soon after consecration
without having enjoyed the see. Even Baldwin, the
banished Emperor of Constantinople, came to Eng
land as if to the worlds poor-house.1 No wonder that
the English were despised and robbed by other nations;
that the whole world acted on the new version given by
the Pope of the saying, that of those who have much,
much shall be required. The Emperor called the
English weak as women, and even the opponents of
papal arrogance likened this country to Balaams ass,
spurred and beaten till she at length found a voice.2
And soon the king, not to be behindhand in the race,
began to give up all resistance, and joined eagerly
with the spoilers in wasting the land committed to his
charge. The English are indeed a long-suffering race,
but the miseries they endured during this time leave
only a feeling of amazement that the revolt of 1258
did not break out ten years sooner.
The parliamentary history of this period is little
more than a wearisome repetition of demands for
money, and resistance generally made in vain. Since
1 244 no new ideas made their appearance. It was
the time during which the papal claims usurped every
ones attention. Just at the close indeed a new turn
was given to affairs by the kings desertion of the
national policy he had, however feebly, pretended to
take up. His renewed extravagance and favouritism
caused the tide of opposition to begin to flow against
1 Matt. West. 226, 227.
2 ' Angli vilescunt et depauperantur.' — Matt. West. 249, under year
1251. ' Puteus inexhaustus est (sc. Anglia), et ubi multa abundant de
multis multa possunt extorqueri,' words of the Pope, Matt. Par. 705 ;
see the picture given by a certain cardinal, an Englishman, of the posi
tion of the papacy in 1246, when opposing the Popes intention of
putting England under an interdict. — Id. 715.

Parliamentary History. 83
him rather than against Rome. His demands for chap.
money at the Lent Parliament of 1 248 met with a

stubborn refusal. ' How was it,' the barons asked, I246-49
' that he did not blush to make such a request, in de- of Pariia-
spite of all his promises ? ' A long list of complaints ment ;
was brought forward, accusing him of extravagance
and manifold injustice, and showing the fatal conse
quences of his acts ; the old demand for the appoint
ment of the high officers of State by the council was
renewed. The king prorogued Parliament, but with
out effect. Finding the barons still refractory, he at resisted by
last refused outright to allow the principle for which ' e mg' .
they strove, and argued that he was only claiming a
privilege allowed to every free man in acting without
counsellors and as he would.1 The barons therefore
unanimously declared their resolution not to submit
to further spoliation, and the council broke up, neither
party having gained its object, in mutual anger and
disgust. The king seems however to have yielded
at least in word, for Parliament met at Easter 1249
to carry out what he had promised as to the election
of officers of State ; but owing to the absence of
Richard of Cornwall, who was still looked up to as
the head of the opposition, nothing was done.2
It had been discovered by this time that the only Appoint-
means of checking the judicial abuses which prevailed, JU^^s
and the enormous power conferred upon the king by bv the
, , , ,.. ., . ¦ council.
his command of the administration, lay in getting
possession of the great offices under which the dif-
1 Matt. Par. 748.
'' Id. 765. The same reason is given in the original text of
the Hist, Angl. 51 ; the later text, which states that Henry refused the
demand again, seems to be taken from the account of the Parliament of
1248. G 2

84

CHAP. III.
1246-49
Appoint ment of
ministers by the
council.

Political
attitude of
Simon de
Montfort.

Simon de Montfort.
Aferent branches of government were organised. The
Jsystem established by Henry II was, as has been
/often said, a great bureaucracy. To keep such a
j machine in order it was necessary that a man of
I business like its founder should be at its head. It was
encompassed by many dangers, both to king and
people, though a blessing to the latter under an able
monarch. To the former the chief danger was that
the great offices should become hereditary in certain
great families, or that the baronage should get the
appointment to them into their own hands. A cen
tralised government, though immensely powerful when
the centre is strong, is more open to assault when the
centre is weak. The barons were right in directing
their efforts on the citadel ; the king tried to hide his
weakness by leaving the chief posts unfilled, and ruling
through subordinates.
It seems hardly doubtful that Simon de Montfort
took a leading part in the struggle which I have at
tempted to sketch. Whenever any names are men
tioned as taking the lead, though this, it is true, is
seldom enough, his is amongst them. He was present
at the Parliament of 1248.1 How much is owing to
him it is impossible to say. But we have seen the
opposition growing stronger and stronger, and the
character of the last debate, the boldness of the ac
cusations brought against the king, the emphatic
refusal of his demands, seem to point to the rapid
approach of a crisis. It is difficult not to connect in
some way the absence of Simon de Montfort on the
Continent with the sudden lull in the internal politics
1 Matt. Par. 743. Pauli, Simon de Mont. 50, says he took no part
in the opposition on this occasion, but on what ground does not appear.

Parliamentary History. 85
of England after his departure. If the opposition chap.
flagged, it was not because the evils under which the  ^ — -
country laboured were less. They were gradually I24 ~49
accumulating, till the thought of them became a fixed
resolve that such a state of things must have an end.
Meanwhile the man who was to give that thought
expression had another work to do ; and while the
way in which he performed his task is quite sufficient
to justify the choice, the tendencies he had already
shown, and the obvious dislike and jealousy with
which the king regarded him while he was in Gascony,
make it hard to avoid the suspicion that Henry was
glad to see him out of the country, and perceived in
him already his most determined opponent.
Of Simons private life during the period we know private
but little. A young family was growing up around g[£,°n de
him in his home at Kenilworth. We hear of his visit- Montfort.
ing the monastery of Waverley in the spring of 1245,
in company with the countess and two of their sons ;
an event recorded with much satisfaction by the
chronicler.1 In the year 1247 he and his wife took
the cross, but the expedition to Palestine, if such was
contemplated, was postponed indefinitely by his ap
pointment in Gascony. He lived in intimate friend
ship with the Bishop of Lincoln, in whose house his U
children were for some time brought up ; with the I '
Franciscan Adam Marsh, one of the most learned
men of the day, who seems almost to have filled the
post of confessor to him and his wife ; and with John
of Basingstoke, Archdeacon of Leicester, a man who
had studied at Athens, and was deeply versed in the
1 Ann. Wav., quoted by Mrs. Green, Princesses ii. 87.

86 Simon de Montfort.
chap, literature of Greece and Rome.1 He studied Grosse-
 ^ — • testes political pamphlets, and interchanged with him
I24 ~49 and other friends letters on the chief topics of the
Attitude of r
Simon de day.2 At the same time he doubtless watched with
careful eyes the feelings of the less influential classes
around him, as he did those of the baronage in the
council hall at Westminster. Knowing as we do his
character and after-life, it is hard to believe that he ,
remained idle all this time, or that he emerged from
obscurity into the daylight of public life when he
took upon himself the task of saving Gascony for the
English Crown.
' His death in 1252 caused the earl much sorrow. — Matt Par.
835- 2 Monum. Francisc. noseq. 163, 170, &c. Grosseteste sent him a
treatise, ' de principatu regni et tyrannidis,' which he returned through
Adam Marsh. He was much struck by the bishops proposal ' de liber-
andis animabus, ' and was prepared to support it ' cum complicibus suis,
si tamen inveniantur.' This seems to show that Simons ideas were
too far advanced to find much support yet.

87

CHAPTER IV.
SIMON DE MONTFORT IN GASCONY.
It was in the year 1248 that Henry resolved to send chap.
Simon de Montfort as his viceroy to Gascony. Henrys , Iv-
own experience, gathered in the expedition of 1242, I248
showed how untrustworthy were his allies, how rebel- Gascony
lious his subjects. At the head of the restless nobility
stood Gaston of Beam ; on the south the King of
Navarre only waited for a chance of attack; on the north
the progress of France was always a cause of anxiety.1
Surrounded by jealous neighbours, and torn by internal
faction, the rescue of the province demanded the
best man that could be sent — a soldier, statesman,
and diplomatist in one. The condition of England
and the fickleness of Henry had had a bad effect on
the dependency ; the seneschals had been changed
nearly twenty times since Henry came to the throne.
Many of the merchants were thinking of exporting
their wine to Spain instead of England,2 and the King
of Aragon was ready, as we shall see, to bring forward
a claim to the province. Henry knew the danger, and
gave Simon extraordinary powers. He was called Simons
not by the usual title ' seneschal,' but ' locum-tenens ' P°wers-
1 Pauli, Simon de Mont. 51. 2 Royal Letters ii. 379.

88

Simon de Montfort.

CHAP. IV.
1248-49
Simons powers :

he sub
dues the
the pro
vinces,

and re
appears in
England.

He returns
to Gas
cony :

his difficui-
ties abroad,

of the king.1 Henry made him a grant of mone}',
which however, like most of his promises, seems to
have remained unfulfilled ; and secured to him the
revenues of his earldom for eight years after his death.
Money was borrowed for his first expenses, and large
sums extorted from the Londoners.2 With such funds
hastily collected, and with royal authority for six years,3
Simon started in the autumn of 1 248, and on his way
through France succeeded in prolonging the truce,
but only from September to Christmas 1248.4
He immediately set to work with such energy that
he brought Gaston of Beam to submission, and com
pelled the King of Navarre to agree to the arbitration
of a committee of four, to be chosen by the opposing
parties.6 He had taken prisoner one of the most
prominent freebooters, Bertram of Egremont, and re
turned at Christmas, much to the joy of the king and
the whole Court, to bring the news of his success, and
take counsel as to his future proceedings.6
In February 1249 he returned to the Continent.
On his way through Paris he addressed a letter to
the king, which shows the difficulty of his position in
Gascony, and the uncertainty of support at home.'
He tells the king he has received news of a conspiracy
of the Gascon nobles who had forfeited their estates,
1 He was however afterwards generally called ' Senescallus Vas-
coniae.' 2 Roy. Lettei-s ii. 380 ; Malt. West. 235.
3 Rot. Lit. Pat. 7 Sept. 1248 ; Matt. Par. 838.
4 Fad. i. 269.
5 Ibid.
6 Matt. Par. 757 : ' Cujus (sc. Comitis) adventus Regem . . . non
mediocriter exhilaravit.'
' Roy. Letters ii. 52. The letter is not signed or dated, but, as Dr.
Shirley says, it can hardly be from any one but Simon. If so, it is es
pecially interesting, as it is the only literary production of his which we
possess.

Simon de Montfort in Gascony. 89
which would be certain to break out about Whitsun- chap.
tide. His position is dangerous, since he befriends — — ^ — -
the lower classes and defends the rights of the Crown, I249
and therefore is hated by the nobility. He wishes
to speak with the king again, and to get sufficient
forces, for of the royal rents he cannot get a penny.
Another difficulty is the guerilla character of the war ;
the rebels move in troops of twenty to forty, burning
and pillaging as they go. But the most important and at
reason why he must speak with the king is, that his
enemies will accuse him at Court, and say he is the
man who set the province all aflame with civil war.
He then assures the king of the good state of his
castles and garrisons in Gascony, and says that he
will visit him as soon as his business in Paris is done.1
His fear of Henrys fickleness was only too well
justified. His position was indeed a hard one ; no
money, no troops of the right sort — he probably
wanted some light-armed Welsh or Irish, such as
were found useful on a later occasion — a series of
isolated castles to take, secret foes at home, and the
constant danger of a war with France.
Whether he returned home or not seems uncertain ; He sub-
at any rate he found time in the course of the summer province
to bring the rebels again to subjection. This time he a§am-
sent Gaston of Beam and others to England, and
proceeded to secure his conquests with a string of
forts. His success appears to have delighted the king,
for in June we find him renewing to Simon and his
1 This business was probably a prolongation of the truce. It seems
to have been prolonged from Christmas 1248 to mid -June 1249, when
Peter of Savoy was sent out to prolong it to 1 Nov. of that year. In
1250 Richard of Cornwall went to prolong it for sixteen years. — Lettres
de Rois i. 82.

90 CHAP.
IV.
1249
The king
"throws difficulties
in his way.

Appeal to
him from
the citizens
of London.

He com
pletes the
subjection
of Gas
cony.

Simon de Montfort.
son his former gift of the Norman escheats within his
fief, and in November he allowed him the Irish
revenues and the proceeds of the sale of the royal
wine, to fortify and protect the province.1 But
Henrys weakness already threw difficulties in his
way. Some of the rebels seem to have escaped from
Gascony, and to have come of their own will to
England to beg the kings mercy.2 Of these Henry
took hostages, and sent them back to be tried in
Gascony, with injunctions that they were to be
treated with moderation ; at the same time destroying
the whole effect of Simons work by pardoning Gaston
of Beam and Arnold de Hasta. ' Such a labour of
Sisyphus was the service of Henry III.'3 It may
have been on this account that he returned to England,
for he was again in the country some time this year.
We find the citizens of London appealing to him
and other magnates for protection in their suit with
the Abbot of Westminster — a sufficient proof that
1 'he had already won a reputation as a friend of the
people. The magnates, among whom was the kings
brother, immediately attacked the king and the abbot
with threats and reproaches, and compelled the former
to retrace his steps.4 This intervention on the part
of Leicester is not likely to have put him on better
terms with the king. Nevertheless he went on bravely
with his work. In the course of the year 1249 he
took the castle of Egremont, and forced the Count of
Fronzac, in accordance with his injunctions, to submit.5
1 Roy. Letters ii. 55, 56, 380.
2 Fad. i. 271.
3 Quart. Rev. cxix. 40.
4 Lib. de Ant. Leg. 13 seq ; Matt. Par. 783.
5 The Count of Fronzac had been accused before the king last year
(Foed. i. 2.71), and the latter had warned Simon of it.— Roy. Letters ii. 63.

Simon de Montfort in Gascony. 91
Finally, on the first Sunday of Advent, he compelled chap.
the citizens of Bordeaux to settle their quarrel,1 and ¦  ^ — -
with this his victory, in spite of the kings folly, I249_SI
seemed to be complete. No wonder his praise was
in every ones mouth, and that he was said ' in all his
dealings to have followed nobly in his fathers steps.' 2
In a task like his constant effort was needed, and Simon in
r rr -r. 1 need of
for constant effort constant supplies. But these it money ;
was impossible to obtain ; a well-regulated finance
was one of the most conspicuous wants in the England
of the day. The scanty aid from home was soon
exhausted ; Simons private means followed. At returns to
t- ¦ 1 1 ¦ • t- 1 , tt England,
Epiphany 125 1 he was again in England. He seems
to have returned some time in the winter of 1250-
125 1, arriving worn and travel-stained at his home,
with only three attendants. In February 125 1 he
was with the queen at Windsor, endeavouring, it
would seem, to persuade his sister-in-law to use her
influence in his behalf.3 But others had been there
before him, and though the king could not resist his andap-
appeal when made face to face, the answer shows Peking,
what had been going on behind the earls back. He
had been accused of severity and injustice, and even
treachery, and it is evident the king more than half
believed the reports. Still, so bravely had he fought,
and so emphatically did he deny the charge, and re
mind the king of his own experiences in Gascony,
that Henry could not resist. 'By the head of God, who gives
Sir Earl,' said he, 'thou hast said the truth, and I
will not refuse thee aid, since thou hast fought so well.
1 This peace, given in Fad. i. 275, was confirmed by the king on
3 June, 1253. — Lettres de Rois\. 83.
2 ' Per omnia patrissare diceretur.' — Matt. Par. 767.
3 Matt. Par. 810 ; cf. Mon. Franc. 152.

92

CHAP. IV.
1251
Simon
returnswith sup
plies to
Gascony.

His
enemies at
court.

Simon de Montfort.
But grievous complaints have come up to me, how
that those who came to thee, aye, even those whom
thou summonedst as if in good faith, thou hast thrown
into prison and allowed to perish in their bonds.'
With this surly acquiescence the earl had to content
himself.1 The requisite men and money were raked
together from all quarters, from the Leicester estates,
from Flanders, and elsewhere. With them Simon
returned to Gascony, accompanied by his wife, in the
autumn of 1251, and put down the rebels for the third
time. His expenses, doubtless, were great ; Adam
Marsh had to v/rite to the countess, warning her not
to increase them by luxury and display in dress, and
to beware of giving way to licence of tongue, lest she
should thereby increase her husbands difficulties ; on
the other hand, she was to help him in every way, to
keep him to his engagements, to restrain him from
lavish expenditure.2
It was a hydra-headed opposition that he had to
meet. He might drive his foes before him in Gascony;
it was only that they might reappear in more dangerous
form in England. Fortunately he had friends at
home, who kept him informed of the state of affairs.
He had been encouraged during his last stay in
England by news from Adam Marsh of a favourable
change in the attitude of the king.3 During his
absence in Gascony, Adam wrote to him words of

1 About the same time the royal favour was manifested in various
ways, the acknowledgment of a debt, permission to build a castle, and
so forth. — Roy. Letters ii. 382, 383.
2 The letters of Adam Marsh (Mon. Franc. 294, 297, 299) are
probably, with Pauli and Mrs. Green, to be referred to this year,
though Mr. Brewer would refer the second to 1252, when the countess
was however not with her husband.
3 Mon. Franc. 281.

Simon de Montfort in Gascony. 93
comfort in his difficulties, referred him to the example chap.
of patience in the Book of Job, and added more  ^ — -
earthly consolation in the shape of reports of con- I2SI
Letters of
versation held with the king, who showed himself at Adam
heart well inclined, if it were not for the influence of ars '
those about him. But this news was soon followed
by worse ; the king, wrote Adam, had been much
annoyed by certain utterances of Simon which had
come to his ears ; the earl is therefore warned to set
a watch upon his tongue, for ' the heart of fools is in
their mouth, but the mouth of a wise man is in his
heart.' The good friar had however himself incurred
the displeasure of the king by boldness of speech, and
could no longer further the earls business at court.1
The more precious must have been the assistance of
his steadfast friend, Bishop Grosseteste, in whose care
he had left his two eldest sons on his departure for
Gascony. It was evident however that his presence Simon
was wanted at home, and shortly before Christmas Enriand°
125 1 he returned with his wife to England.
The feeling of the king towards him was by no Heisoutof
means favourable, and though Henry came to meet theTing!"
him it was not to see him, but his half-brother Guy
of Lusignan, who came over with the earl. Simon
had left behind him men whom he could trust in
possession of his castles ; but this did not prevent the
Gascons from rising again as soon as his back was
turned. They pretended not to rise against the king, ^
but against the tyranny of his lieutenant. He was, ;
they said, the real traitor, for he extorted from nobles Causes of
and worthy citizens money to enrich himself, and hid agamst'"1
the truth from the king ; they repeated the old accusa- him-
1 Mon. Franc. 275-

94

CHAP. IV.
1251
Henry
believes the accu
sationsmadeagainst
Simon :

theirorigin.

The other
side not
heard.

Simon de Montfort.
tions of false imprisonment, and the like. Henry, as
ever, at once distrustful and credulous, could not
altogether disbelieve the reports of Simons doings,
and doubtless his action had been violent and his
wrath severe enough to give some colour of truth
to these stories. Henry failed to see that the earl
ought to be supported to the utmost, that if he could
not grant him pecuniary aid, he could and should at
least give him his moral support. But jealousy and
ungenerous dread of greatness would not let him be
convinced. When the earl demanded why he trusted
traitors rather than him, his tried and faithful servant,
Henry only answered that, if he knew himself to be
honest, he ought to be thankful enough for an inves
tigation. It is very probable, from what we know of
Simons temper, that he quenched rebellion sharply
and sternly ; he was not the man to bear gently with
the open and secret resistance he had to meet ; but
the castled brigands of Gascony could not be put
down by gentle means, and we should have heard
little of these complaints had not the kings suspicious
ear drunk in only too greedily all that the enemies of
his great lieutenant chose to pour into it. The voices
of the lower orders, and the merchants whom he pro
tected by destroying the robbers' nests,1 could not be
heard ; the way in which the peace was made between
him and certain of the citizens of Bordeaux 2 testified
in vain to the growth of those constitutional principles,
and that sympathy with the people, which characterised
1 See the report of the citizens of Castel d'Uza, Roy. Letters ii. 57i
and the description of Egremont in Matt. Par. 810.
2 Fad. i. 275. ' Haec fuerunt ordinata ... in prsesentia Baronum
. . . et totius communis Burdegalia;, qui ad haec audienda et appro-
banda fuerunt specialiter congregati.'

commission of
enquiry :

Simon de Montjort in Gascony. 95
his later life. But the clamour of his enemies travelled chap.
across the sea, and found easy entrance at the English  ^ — .
Court. Simon de Montfort and the rebels of Gascony I2S2
were regarded as having equal claims to respect.
Accordingly, in spite of the possibility of a war Appoint-
with Navarre,1 and the certainty that such proceedings
would put new life into the efforts of the malcontents
in Gascony, a committee of eleven English nobles was
appointed on January 4, 1252, to examine into the y
justice of de Montforts demands for aid ; 2 while at '
the same time two commissioners were sent out to
make enquiries into the matter in the province itself,
and in fact to supersede Simon in the settlement of
breaches of the truce with France. Orders were given
to the citizens of Bordeaux to send six delegates to
England to plead their cause before the king.3 The
commissioners sent to Gascony were Rocelin de Fos,
Master of the Templars in England, apparently of
Gascon extraction, and Henry of Wingham, a former
governor of Gascony.4 The result of their investigations
was what might have been expected ; the Gascon gave *eir ver-
his verdict for his countrymen ; the Englishman, who
knew what it was to be seneschal in Gascony, was
equally positive on the other side. The presence of
the kings half-brother, William of Valence, who, as
we shall see later, was no friend of Simon, did not
contribute to a satisfactory settlement. The com-
1 Roy. Letters ii. 283.
2 Id. ii. 68 ; cf. ii. 386. The constitution o this committee was
afterwards modified (16 March) ; it seems at first to have been pretty
equally divided between Simons probable partisans and enemies ; but
in that part of it which eventually discussed the question, the Bishop of
Worcester was the only one on whom Simon could have reckoned.
3 Id. ii. 69, 70. Matt. Par. 832, states the commission to have
been a secret one.
4 Pauli, Simon de Mont. 60.

96

CHAP. IV.
1252
Complaints againstSimon.

Arrange
ment
between Simon and
the king.

Simon de Montfort.
missioners seem however to have been of one mind
in refusing to accept the excuses of Gaston and his
friends, who used a political quarrel among the
citizens of La Reole as a pretext for occupying the
citadel.1 Meanwhile the citizens of La Reole, or
some part of them, addressed a letter of complaint
to the king, in which they inveighed against the
treatment of their hostages by Leicester, and the
taxes levied by him. It was these taxes that seem
to have caused the disturbance, for the party that was
inclined to the English entered the castle, where they
were supported by Leicester, and attacked by Gaston
and his associates. A truce was brought about by
the Archbishop of Bordeaux, and according to him
was broken by both sides simultaneously. Simons
lieutenant, William Pigorel, acted energetically in the
affair, and therefore had to bear the chief brunt of the
attack.2 Whether Simon was in Gascony at this
time or not seems uncertain ; he appears to have
returned thither about the middle of March 1252.
He was at Court shortly before, and had entered into
a solemn engagement with the king to lay all his
pecuniary transactions before commissioners, the king
promising at the same time to pay him whatever
should appear from their decision to be due. At
the same time he was to give up three castles into
the kings hands before Whitsuntide, a step nearly
equivalent to putting them into the power of his
enemies. Although power was given him to raise two
thousand marks for official purposes, to be accounted
for before the commission, -he does not seem to
have taken any measures during this visit to Gascony
1 Roy. Letters ii. 78. » Id. ii. 77.

Simon de Montfort in Gascony. » 97
which were calculated to cause a fresh outbreak. The chap.
object of his journey was probably to collect witnesses ! '

Commis
sion in

on his own side for the approaching trial. These, it I2S2
must be confessed, he seems afterwards to have richly revisits
rewarded.* He must have left England before March Gascony-
23, for on that day the king wrote to him bidding him
not to go, but the letter arrived too late. He returned
to England shortly after his accusers, probably early
in May.2 The commissioners on arriving in Gascony had Royal
commanded a suspension of hostilities, and shown
letters from the king inviting the malcontents to send Gasconv-
delegates to England. This they were at first un
willing to do, but agreed on the condition that peace
should be maintained during their absence. An
agreement which Simon had forced upon his enemies,
that they would not appeal against him, was cancelled.
This was of course a necessity, and it is hard to see
what can have induced Simon to insist on so untenable
a stipulation, and one which would be so likely to
prejudice mens minds against him. Be that as it
may, the cancelling of the agreement went still further
to undermine his authority, and prejudged the case
before it came before the court. The Gascon delegates
arrived in England towards the end of April ; but the
king, though every minute of delay was so much loss Another
to his power abroad, sent out another commission,3 con
sisting like the first of a Gascon and an Englishman, out
the latter, like Henry of Wingham, a former seneschal.
1 So at least sajs Bart. Cotton 129.
2 Roy. Letters ii. 81, 384, compared with Matt. Par. 836, and Mon,
Franc. 123.
3 Nicolas de Molis, seneschal in 1244, and Drogo de Barentin. The
three castles were to be handed over to the former. Pauli, Simon de
Mont. 61. II

commis
sion sent

98

CHAP. IV.
1252
Royal
Commis
sion in
Gascony.

Trial of de
Montfort.

Simon de Montfort.
They were but a short time absent, and on their
return declared their opinion that, although Simon
had in some cases dealt severely, it was no more than
the delinquents deserved. Whereupon the Gascons
vehemently demanded a trial, and a day was fixed.
Meanwhile the earl had returned in great haste to
England, and fortunately his partisans, with Richard
of Cornwall, the Earl of Gloucester, and other chief
men of the kingdom at their head, mustered in force
to prevent the unjust action which it was feared the
king would take. The trial, if such it could be called,
began early in May, and for a whole month the de
legates, a numerous body, poured forth a flood of
accusation against the earl. The king showed his
incapacity . as a judge by frequent interruption and
contumely directed against the accused, all of which
Simon bore with great moderation and self-command.
' Among his friends there are said to have been only
three who were of real use to him, the Bishop of
Worcester, Peter of Savoy, the queens uncle, and
Peter de Montfort, Simons cousin. The rest were lavish
in their praise, and in promises of assistance ; but these
were little more than words.1 The Bishop of Lincoln,
who would doubtless have been his staunchest parti
san, was not present. The Gascons brought forward
their old accusations, and tried to support their case
by a reference to the supposed prosperity of the
country under former governments.2 It was with
1 ' In tam frequenti vocali benevolentia experiebatur perraram
realem amicitiam. ' — Letter of Adam Marsh in Mon. Franc. 1 24, from
which this account is chiefly taken.
2 Matt. Par. 838. The same writer states as a reason for the part
that Richard of Cornwall took, that the king, having formerly conferred
Gascony on him, afterwards resolved to give it to Prince Edward, and
in 1242 insisted on Richards giving it up. The latter refusing, Henry

Simon de Montfort in Gascony. 90
great difficulty that Simon and his adherents obtained
an audience, but, on this being granted, he related in
order all the events of his lieutenancy, proving his
assertions by trustworthy witnesses. After him, his
partisans from Gascony, armed with letters from the
commons of Bordeaux, showed to the satisfaction of
all present how well Simon had discharged his duty,
proving that the only reason of the opposition he
encountered was the energy with which he put down
sacrilege, murder, and crime of all sorts. 'It is very
possible,' said Simon, turning to his accusers, ' that I
have taken away from you privileges granted by Earl
Richard and my predecessors, but it is because you
got them by dissimulation and forfeited them by
treachery. Who is to believe you, whom the king
himself has found to be no friends, but foes and
impostors ? '
The earl and his party were ready to submit to Decision in
trial by combat, or any other mode of decision, in ,s favour'
England or Gascony, whichever their opponents
should choose ; but the latter would agree to nothing.
At length even the king was obliged to own that the
plaintiffs could not prove their case, and the whole
court chimed in with its approval. Leicester then He
bade the king make good his word ; he had ruined ^ration.
his estate, he said, in the kings service : the king ,
should at least pay his debts. The king gave vent
tried, though in vain, to get the Gascons to seize him. Richard fled to
England, and Henry then persuaded the Gascons by large sums of
money to exchange their allegiance. Richard and he had never been
on good terms since. In presenting Edward to the Gascons in 1252,
Henry said his brother did not care ever to see Gascony again ; the
sea-voyage was unpleasant to him, and the province cost more than it
brought in. This may have been true, though Henry got more than 1,000
marks a year from Bordeaux alone, but if so it was his own fault.
H 2

Simon de Montfort.
to his vexation at the failure of the trial in the hasty
answer, that with a traitor and supplanter like him he
1252 thought it no shame not to keep his word. There
between upon Simon could keep his temper no longer; he
uSgand sprang to his feet and gave the king the lie. 'And
' but that thou bearest the name of king,' he added, ' it
had been a bad hour for thee when thou utteredst
such a word. Who would believe thou art a
Christian ? Hast thou ever confessed ? l ' I have,'
said the king. ' What is confession worth without
repentance ? ' asked de Montfort. ' Never did I
repent of aught so much,' retorted Henry, 'as of
suffering thee to enter England, and win honour and
land therein, that thou mightest grow fat and kick'
The scene was cut short by the intervention of the
bystanders ; it remains as a valuable illustration of the
;' 1 I two men, the weakness and vehemence, the injustice
¦ j / and imprudence, which characterised the king ; the
' equally violent passions, the impatience of contradic
tion and control, which were the most conspicuous
blots on the character of de Montfort. His moral
superiority over Henry is evident throughout.1 The
Attitude of attitude of the rest of the baronage towards Leices-
Baronage. ter is very remarkable. Sixteen years before they
had joined to thrust him from the country as
an alien and an upstart, and it was all Henry
could do -to protect him from their wrath. The
same body now assembled to defend him from the
injustice of his sovereign, and when Henry again
brought the subject before them, in the autumn of
1 Compare the accounts in Matt. Par. 836-839, and Mon. Franc.
122-128. In ihis and other portions of the trial one may remark the
sarcastic tendency of Simons oratory ; the allusion to confession was
a home-thrust at Henrys excessive but superficial devoutness.

Simon de Montfort in Gascony. 101
1252, they turned upon him with reproaches, taunt- chap.
ingly alluding to his failures, and declared it was right . , lV/ .
well done if the earl had striven to destroy the whole I252
pack of Gascon thieves.1
The trial was over, and Simon gave the king the The king
alternative, of letting him return to Gascony with Gascony
full powers, whether the matters in dispute were pa^'fUy
r r into his
decided or not, or of allowing him to resign, on con- own hands.
dition that he and his should be secured from loss or
damage of any kind. But the king, as usual, preferred
half-measures ; he sought to prevent disturbance by
a series of edicts, to hold good till he should appear
in person ; guardians of the truce were appointed,
being the two Gascons who had acted as commis
sioners in Bordeaux ; jurors were to be chosen equally
from the two parties. Meanwhile Bertram of Egre
mont had been set at liberty ; authority was given to
the Bishop of Bordeaux to examine into certain
questions in dispute ; the power of the kings lieu
tenant could hardly have been less had he been for
mally deposed.2 The province was given over again
to its former state of anarchy. Simon was then dis- Dismissal
missed with the words 'Go back to Gascony, thou
who lovest to stir up war ; there thou mayst find
plenty, and get the same well-merited reward which
thy father got before thee.' This too before the
Gascons, who, we are told, were highly delighted
by the kings wit, and the taunting reference to the
elder Simon and his fate. But the earl only answered,
'Willingly do I go, and I will not return till I have sub
dued thy rebellious subjects, and placed thy enemies
1 Matt. Par. 853.
2 Roy. Letters ii. 86-90, 390 ; Fad. i. 282.

102 CHAP. IV.
1252
Simonleaves England,

andreturns to
Gascony.

Fresh out
break of
hostilities.

Simon de Montfort.
beneath thy feet.' With that he retired, and cross
ing at once with his eldest son Henry to France, soon
drew together in the country of his birth, by the help
of his family and friends, a sufficient force, with
which, burning for revenge, he marched upon Gas
cony.1 He stayed some time at Boulogne on his way,
and seems to have wished to see and consult Adam
Marsh on affairs of importance. The Countess of
Leicester went to Oxford, but failed to persuade the
Franciscan to undertake the journey. A little later
Adam wrote to the earl, announcing the approaching
confinement of his wife, and rebuking him for carry
ing off the parish priest at Odiham to be his chap
lain.2 The delegates returned to Gascony in high dis
pleasure at the attitude of the English nobility, hav
ing first done homage to Prince Edward, on whom
the king now formally conferred the province. But
on their arrival they found the earl awaiting them.
The ridiculous precautions taken by the king in the
hope of keeping peace were seen in a moment to be
worthless ; both sides at once proceeded to hostilities.
The Gascons had at first a slight success, and, routing
an ambuscade set for them, carried off a certain knight,
a dear friend of the earl. Thereupon Simon roused
himself as if out of sleep. Asking him who brought
the news whether the enemy were far off, he at once set
spurs to his horse, and, without waiting for his followers,
attacked the enemy with all the headlong vehemence
which distinguished him in battle. He speedily

1 Matt. Par. 844.
2 Mon. Franc. 262, 336. These letters are probably to be referred
to this date.

Simon de Montfort in Gascony. 103
released the prisoner, but was unhorsed and sur- chap.
rounded. The Gascons turned all their force against  ,J  -
him, and he was in the greatest danger, when the I252
knight whom he had rescued clove his way through
the press, and, mounting the earl upon his horse,
brought him out unharmed. The battle lasted half Victory of
the day, but ended in the complete rout of the enemy.
Five of the chief nobles were taken, and the Gascons
did not dare again to meet de Montfort in the field.1
Soon after this the news of Henrys last attempt
against him, alluded to above, was brought to the earl,
who only remarked, ' I knew the king would make the
attempt, in order to enrich some Poitevin or Provencal
with my earldom."2 Meanwhile however strenuous
efforts were being made at home by the countess in
his behalf, and in her attempts to mitigate the kings
anger she was supported by the queen, with whom
she was on excellent terms.3 Eleanors influence over
her brother, that of a strong character over a weak
one, had always been considerable, and doubtless con
tributed largely to the change we find taking place
shortly after these events in the kings attitude towards
the earl.
Towards the end of the year 1252 Simon retired He retires
into France. It is a striking testimony to his wide- Fr^nce_
spread fame, and the general respect for his character,
1 Matt. Par. 845, ' nee sunt ausi amplius inimici ejus contra ipsum
obgrunnire.' 2 Id. 853 ; see above, pp. 100, 101.
* Mrs. Greens suggestion (Princesses ii. 106), that the letters of Adam
Marsh (Mon. Franc. 393, 394) relative to the above are to be referred
to this period, is most probable ; but that authoress seems to have no
ground for saying that Simon returned to England this winter, though
Adam expects he will next spring, and warns him to beware of danger ;
the dismissal of which she gives an account on p. 107, appears also to
be misplaced.

ic>4

Simon de Montfort.

CHAP. IV.
i2S2"S3
Offer of
the High
Steward
ship of
France to
Simon.

Anarchy in
Gascony.

Simon resigns his
office.

that the French nobility, after the death of the Queen
Regent and during the absence of Louis IX on cru
sade, offered him a place among the guardians of the
Crown, and the office of High Steward of France
with all the honours appertaining to it.1 It is a still
more striking proof of the justice of that estimate
that he twice declined this splendid offer, ' being un
willing to prove a renegade ' from the service of him
who had called him a traitor a few months before.2
Hardly had Simon turned his back on Gascony
than the miserable country was again in uproar.
Civil war broke out ; every mans hand was against
his neighbour ; Gaston of Beam transferred his alle
giance to the King of Aragon.3 Some authorities
declare that the king deposed Simon in the autumn
of 1252, and ordered the edict to be proclaimed in
Gascony.4 If this is true, it is probably the reason
why he left the country. His last expedition seems
to have been undertaken merely with the object of
taking private vengeance on his foes, and not in his
quality of seneschal. Even if he had not been for
mally dismissed, the events of the past year must
have shown him that it would be impossible for him
any longer to hold the province. At any rate he
practically resigned his post in the winter of 1252-
1253. He was afterwards compensated in a pecuniary

1 Matt. Par. 863, 879. His brother Amauri, now dead some
years, had been High Constable of France.
2 ' Constanter comes, ne transfuga videretur, renuebat.' — Matt. Par.
865. 3 ' Se transtulit ad regem Hispanite.' — Matt. Par. 864.
4 Matt. West. 250; Matt. Par. 867 says it was in 1253; Ann.
Dunst. 184, say the king deposed him, but he refused to obey ; T. Wikes
J04 says the earl, enraged at his dismissal, gave up three castles to the
enemy, these being probably the three he gave up to Henry (above p. 96).

Simon de Montfort in Gascony. [05
point of view, at least to some extent, for the re- chap.
maining two years of his term of office. He remained •  ^ — •
inactive in France some time, and looked on at the I253
failure of all attempts to allay the disorder. The The king
king arrived at Bordeaux early in September 1253, Gascony:
having placed the Regency in the hands of the queen
and the Earl of Cornwall. As late as April he had,
or pretended to have, the intention of going to the
Holy Land ; when he was on the point of starting for
Gascony the Pope excommunicated all who should
disturb the kingdom during his absence in Palestine.1
The crusades were a pretext which Henry and the
Pope knew well how to use.
On his arrival in Gascony Henry succeeded in his success
recovering his own castles, though at great loss ; his partial :
army suffered terribly from privations. At the same
time he busied himself in furthering the marriage of
his son Edward to the sister of the King of Castile,
and of his daughter Beatrice to the eldest son of the
King of Aragon. He hoped doubtless to anticipate
any attempts on Gascony from that side. His efforts
towards subjugating the country were confined to the
destruction of vineyards.2 He released his prisoners,
who at once rejoined their companions. Soon after
his arrival he had summoned Simon de Montfort to he applies
his aid, but apparently in vain. Matters were now f°rSa™on
looking so hopeless that he had to repeat his request
in a humbler tone, begging the earl to come and treat
with him, promising him a safe conduct and leave to
return if he wished to do so. At the same time he
1 Fad. i. 289, 292.
2 Which the Gascons 'pugnam anilem reputabant.' — Matt. Par,
877.

io6

Simon de Montfort.

CHAP. IV.
i253~54
Simon comes to
the kings
aid.

Partial re
conciliation.

Henry
returns to
England.

made efforts to conciliate him by grants of money.
Simons influence in France was invaluable to the
king, and he was begged to bring with him all the
light troops he could find.1 At length he gave way.
If he had seen with secret joy the kings distress, he
had now the serene satisfaction of returning good for
evil. The last words of the old Bishop of Lincoln
are said to have prompted him to this exercise of
charity ; he obeyed ' that dear friend who had been to
him as a father confessor,' and went with a large force
to the kings assistance.2 The Gascons, ' who feared
him like a thunderbolt,' 3 gave way at once ; the Pope
opportunely excommunicated Gaston of Beam and
his associates, and the province was again reduced
to order. Financial difficulties were settled between
the brothers-in-law, at least in some degree, and the
breach was for the time healed over. How long
Simon remained with the king we do not know. He
may have spent Christmas with the Court, and have
returned with Earl Richard and other magnates
immediately afterwards for the Parliament which met
in January 1254 to discuss the kings demands for
aid. He was in England at any rate by Easter of
that year. Whether it was want of money, or the
arrangements for Prince Edwards marriage, which
kept Henry at Bordeaux, is not clear ; at any rate
he remained there in wasteful idleness till the autumn
of 1254, and then returned by way of Paris, where
1 Lettres de Rois i. 87, 90, 95, 96.
2 ' Cui (sc. episcopo) comes tanquam patri confessori extitit familiar-
issimus.' — Matt. Par. 879.
3 ' Tanquam fulgur formidabant.' — Matt. Par. 879.

Simon de Montfort in Gascony. 107
the two Courts vied with each other in splendour and chap. iv
extravagance, to England. He landed at Dover  ^  .
shortly after Christmas in that year.1 I254
1 His debts incurred during this expedition are said by Matt. Par.
913, to have amounted to more than 300,000 marks. This is over and
above what he actually paid.

io8

CHAPTER V.

CHAP. V.
1249-52
Pecuniary
difficulties

The Pope
grants the
king a
tenth for
three years.

PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY, 1249-1257.
The state of things in England had not improved
during Simons absence in Gascony. The wearisome
tale of oppression and futile resistance, of broken pro
mises and disunion, need not be told in full. The
king tried all sorts of means to get money, mulcted
the Londoners and the Jews, and made spasmodic
efforts to be thrifty, but all in vain. He did not give
de Montfort much aid, but the contributions, which
apparently nothing but Simons presence could ob
tain, small as they were, increased his difficulties. In
1252 there came a change. The king, who, as we
have seen, had already given up the part of national
leader which sat so badly on him, was now in close
communication with the Pope, and had procured a
bull granting him a tithe of the spiritual revenues of the
Church for the space of three years, on the pretext of
an aid for his expenses in the contemplated crusade.1
An assembly of the prelates accordingly met in
London in October 1252. The clergy appear to
1 According to Matt. Par. 834, he had got the bull as early as April
1252, and had ordered the crusade to be proclaimed in London with
great solemnity, vowing to start on it before 24 June ; but his intention
was mistrusted from the first. The original bull appears not to be
extant; that given in Fad. i. 280, under the year 1252, belongs to
1253, and alludes to an opposition to the grant of the tenth.

Parliamentary History. 109
have been summoned separately at first, in order that chap.
they might be prevailed upon the more easily when •  ;  .
deprived of the assistance of the laity. Both arch- I2S2
bishops were absent. The papal bull, granting the oftheS"
three years' tithe, was then read aloud to them, and clei'§y'
the kings proctors, assuming the grant as a matter of
certainty, went on to ask that the money for one
year, or at least half of it, should be paid before the
king started. Upon which the Bishop of Lincoln
exclaimed, in great anger, ' What is this, by our Lady !
ye take things too much for granted. Think ye we headed by
. shall consent to this accursed contribution ? Far be teste.Se
it that we should so bow the knee to Baal.' l And
when the Bishop- elect of Winchester, the kings half-
brother, hinted that France had submitted, and Eng
land would have to do the same, Grosseteste retorted
that for that very reason England should not yield,
and so strengthen the exaction by a precedent. The
great majority of the bishops supported him. The
king then altered his tactics, and requested submis
sively that an aid might be granted him. But the
bishops remained firm, and pleaded the absence of
the primates of York and Canterbury as an excuse
for avoiding a decision.2 Henry then tried, as usual,
to influence them singly, and began with the Bishop
of Ely. The bishop still refusing to yield, he turned
1 Matt. Par. 849. ' O quid est hoc, pro nostra Domina ? Absit
heec a nobis ad Baal genium incurvatio. ' The account illustrates well
the superiority of Grosseteste, and the vacillation of the majority of the
Episcopate. 2 The Archbishop of Canterbury returned 18 Nov. 1252 (Hist.
Angl. 127). The clergy of the northern province had, it appears,
already consulted on the matter, and had made answer to the king that,
seeing that the interests of the whole English Church were at stake, they
could not decide without their brethren of the province of Canterbury. -
Stubbs, Const. Hist. ii. 67, quoting Roy. Letters, ii. 95.

no CHAP. V.
i252"53
The king
demands
moneyfrom Par
liament,

but is
refused.

Grant of
moneymade.

Simon de Montfort.
savagely upon him, and bade his servants ' turn out
that boor.' Meanwhile the lay baronage had begun
to assemble, though in small numbers. The season
was very rainy, the roads were almost impassable, and
when the travellers arrived, wet, dirty, and out of
.temper, they found London a sea of mud, provisions at
famine prices, and the city so full of people that it
was almost impossible to get a lodging.1 And for
what were they summoned ? Only to hear once
more the never-ending demand for money. The
king however does not seem to have dared to lay
before the laity the demand for the tenth, which in
deed did not immediately concern them, but asked
their advice in the matter of Gascony, laying the
blame of the troubles there on the Earl of Leicester,
whose violence, he said, had so disturbed the pro
vince.2 At the end of his address, as if merely by
the way, he requested money to help him on the, cru
sade. The magnates answered that their reply must
depend on that of the clergy, and laughed in secret at
the ' silly king who, without skill or experience in war,
was going to make an attempt in which the King of
France and all his chivalry had failed.'3 The council
broke up in the midst of universal indignation.4
However, in the spring of 1253, when de Mont
fort had left Gascony and was staying in France,
affairs in the province had come to such a pitch as to
necessitate active interference, and the Easter Parlia-
1 Matt. Par. 852.
2 Whether it was at this Parliament or at a smaller meeting held
later in the year that Henry met with the rebuff alluded to above (p. 100),
in his attempt to raise the baronage against Leicester, I am unable to
say. 3 ' Regulum istum,' &c. — Matt. Par. 852.
4 'Cum omnium indignatione.' — Hist. Angl. 126.

"53
Confirma-

Parliamentary History. 1 1 1
ment yielded to the kings request. After a discus- chap.
sion, which lasted more than a fortnight, the barons
granted him a scutage, and the clergy acquiesced in
the collection of the tithe. As the price however of tion of the
the concession they demanded that the king should \
observe all privileges and liberties previously granted,
both lay and clerical, and, on his promising this, a
solemn excommunication of all those who should in
fringe the charters was pronounced with book and
candle by the assembled prelates, the king and the
whole council taking part.1 But the effect of this im
posing ceremony was spoilt by a deed, which perhaps
caused more universal indignation than any other, and
made the name of the chief actor in it ' to stink in the
nostrils ' of all Englishmen.2 Peter d'Aigueblanche, Money got
Bishop of Hereford, a native of Savoy, proposed to
the king a plan for getting money, to which the latter
consented, but which nowadays would send its per
petrators to the common gaol. The royal seal was
affixed to a schedule which was fastened so that the
inside could not be seen : the schedule was blank.
The swindlers then, under some pretext or other, ob
tained the signatures of several bishops and abbots to
the schedule, which was taken to Rome and filled up
with an obligation to pay certain merchants of Sienna
sums of money owed them by the king. The Pope
was duped into believing that the prelates in question
had signed with their eyes open, and threatened them
with excommunication if they did not act up to their
engagements. This story is given by so many authori-
1 Fad. i. 289 ; cf. Matt. Par. 865. The writ of excommunication,
with the bishops' signatures, is dated 13 May 1253.
2 ' Cujus memoria fcetorem sulphureum exhalat.' — Ann. St.
Albans.

I 12

Simon de Montfort.

chap. v.
*2S4
Parlia
mentaryopposition.

Refusal of
aid.

ties that in its main features it cannot be doubted : '
it fully accounts for the vengeance taken upon the
Bishop of Hereford ten years later than this.
Meanwhile the parliamentary struggle continued,
rising and falling with monotonous variation. The
magnates who assembled in January 1254, in the
kings absence, refused his demand for an aid, suspecting
that his pretext, the state of Gascony, was nothing
but a false alarm : they promised however to go in
person to help him should it appear to be necessary.
It is remarkable as a step in the theory of assent to
taxation that the bishops and abbots, while pro
mising an aid on their own account, refused to bind
the rest of the clergy by the same obligation.2 The
partial good-will shown by the magnates on this occa
sion was soon cooled by the discovery that the king
had been attempting to dupe them. They assembled
after Easter to hear his renewed requests. They
were made, as before, on the ground that an invasion
by the King of Castile was imminent. This was a
strange excuse, seeing that just at this time Eleanor
of Castile was formally betrothed to Prince Edward.
Unfortunately too for Henry, Simon de Montfort
was present, and was able to give the magnates in
formation as to the real state of things in the pro
vince, which confirmed them in their decision not to
send aid till they were better certified as to the truth

1 Ann. Osn. 107. In Ann. Burt. 360 it is said that the Bishop of
Hereford feigned himself proctor of several religious houses, and so
brought them into debt ; so too Ann. Dunst. 199 ; Matt. Par. 910.
Flor. Wigorn. 185 says that almost all religious houses in England were
bound for sums varying between 200 and 500 marks. Cf. Ann. St.
Albans 373-385-
2 Malt. Par. 881 : cf. 'Richards report of this to his brother, Id.
Additam. 189.

Parliamentary History. 1 1 ;
of the Spanish invasion. It was strange, they said, chap.
that they never heard of such a danger when the Earl s_ — ;  -
of Leicester was in Gascony. So the council was 12^-5^
dissolved, and Henrys ruse failed.1 On the kings
return, after Christmas 12.54, the council, which met
first at Portsmouth, was shifted to London, and then
to Winchester, and was finally dissolved without any
result.2 At the Easter Parliament of 1255, which Consiim-
was very largely attended, the barons answered the mands''1"'"
kings request for money, this time in the shape of
horngeld, by a renewal of the demand for the power /
of electing the three chief officers of the Crown. They
now supported the claim by a reference to ancient
custom, though history would hardly bear them
out on this head. They also laid to his charge fresh
violations of the charters, and, as the king would
not yield to their request, Parliament was prorogued,
in order that some change of feeling might induce
one party or the other to give way.3 The names of
those who were present at this Parliament are not
preserved to us, so that we do not know whether
Simon de Montfort was there or not. He was in
England, at any rate, in the preceding autumn,4 and
there is no reason to suppose, especially after his
1 Ann. Dunst. 190 ; Matt. Par. 887, 'per comitem Simonem, qui
tunc de partibus rediit transmarinis, edocti, &c.' From the context it
is most probable that these words refer to the present council ; if not
they can only refer to that of January. It was to the Parliament of April
1254 that four knights representative were summoned from each county,
being the first certain instance of such representation since 1 2 13: see
Stubbs, Sel. Chart. 367.
2 Ann. Tewk. 155.
* Ann. Burt. 336 ; Ann. Dunst. 195 ; Matt. Par. 904, ' Exigebant
. . . ut de communi consilio . . . eligerent, sicut ab antiquo consuetum
etjustum.' 4 He was present at the burial of W. de Cantilupe, 30 Sept., 1254,
and with the Earl of Hereford bore the body to the grave. — Ann.
Dunst. 192.

lian scheme

114 Simon de Montfort.
chap, nominal reconciliation with the king, that he absented
. v- . . himself. He had been so far reinstated in his former
1255 position as to be sent in the summer of 1254 on a
confidential errand to Scotland, with a message for the
king, so secret and important that it could not be trusted
The sm- to paper.1 What its import was one can only guess.
By this time the real cause of the kings renewed
demands had become known. The late Pope, Inno
cent IV, had endeavoured to make Henry his firm
ally by appealing to his dynastic ambition. He had
first of all offered the throne of the Two Sicilies, as
a fief of the Church, escheated after the death of
Frederick, to Richard of Cornwall ; and when that
cautious and somewhat miserly prince drew back, he
chose the kings younger son Edmund as the recipient
of his favour.2 The weak but ambitious father, with
his usual imprudence, eagerly took the bait, and this
was the crusade for which the tenth was to be
granted. The enemies of the Church were the im
perialists : the promised land was Sicily instead of
Palestine. The great emperor and his two sons were
dead, but the Ghibeline party did not perish with
them, and Manfred, Prince of Tarento, natural son of
Frederick, was not likely to yield without a struggle.
the Popes'. But the king shut his eyes to all difficulties, and
the death of Innocent IV in 1254 caused no inter
ruption, for his successor, Alexander IV, took up
the scheme with equal energy. Innocent had ex
tended the grant of the tenth to Henry for a further
1 It is strange that Dr. Pauli should declare Mrs. Greens allusion to
this embassy {Princesses ii. Ill) 'totally unfounded,' when the appoint
ment appears in a writ, Pat. Vascon.,^% Hen. Ill, m. 8, p. 2, quoted in
the Foedera. It was perhaps connected with the marriage of Margaret.
2 Bull for Richard, 5 Aug., 1252; for Edmund, 6 Mar., 1254, in
the Fcedera.

pressed by

Parliamentary History. 115
term of two years ; 1 he had bidden both king and chap.
queen to abstain from useless expenses, in order the - — r — •
better to prosecute the affair ; more than once he I255
urged Henry to enter actively on it, and one of the
last acts of his life was to bid him hasten to the pro
tection of Apulia, or he would have to find some
other more worthy of the throne.2 Even Richard,
though too cautious to undertake the conquest of
Sicily, could not withstand the temptation of an
imperial crown ; Henry urged his election, in the Ambition
hope of an accession of strength against France ; the of Henry :
Pope eagerly promoted the same object, and he was
crowned at Aachen, though only supported by a por
tion of the Electors, in 1257. Henry, once started on
this ambitious policy, could not stop ; and though
unable to hold his provinces in France, accepted the
worthless offer of half the lands belonging to the King
of Castile in Africa as a dowry for Alfonsos sister.3
The Pope, while allowing him to change his vow of
crusade for the help to be given to the Church in
Sicily, would not go so far as to let him dispute with
the Saracens in Africa this chimerical possession.4
The conditions on which the kingdom of the Two hisagree-
Sicilies was given to Edmund were embodied in a j^p™*
formal agreement in 1255, by which the future king
was reduced to the position of a mere slave of Rome,
restricted in a most degrading manner under terms
which no feudal lord would have thought of imposing I
on a vassal. The obligations entered into by the
king included the immediate liquidation of a debt of
more than 135,000 marks, said to have been incurred
1 Fad. i. 303. 2 Id. i. 302, 304, 312.
3 Id. i. 301. * Id. i. 304, 316 ; Roy. Letters ii. 112.
I 2

1 1 6 Simon de Montfort.
chap, by the Pope in the conquest of the land. The neg-
 ; — . otiations connected with this engagement are the pro-
1255 minent feature of the next few years, and did more
than anything else to bring about the catastrophe.
TheSici- The attempts made by the Pope to expel Manfred
checked"6 fr°m Southern Italy were not successful. The papal
forces were almost annihilated by that prince, aided
by a large body of Saracens, whom Frederick had
settled at Nocera. Shortly before this event the
Bishop of Bologna had been sent with the ring of in
vestiture to England, and on his arrival the king lost
no time in getting the ceremony performed, and in
addressing his son in public as King of Sicily and
Apulia. His paternal pride was however destined
its unpopu- to receive a rude check. The scheme was thoroughly
En^and unpopular in the country ; the report that a papal
legate was on the point of arriving added greatly to
the general discontent, while the attitude of many of
the greater barons, at this time thought to have been
bought over by the king, brought the nation to the
verge of despair.1 The Earl of Leicester, the one
steadfast friend of national liberty, was probably at
this time absent in France. He had gone thither on
business of his own, and was empowered to prolong
the truce, as it was a matter of great importance that
no obstacle should prevent the passage of the army
which Henry, with a childish sanguineness, hoped to
convey to Italy.2
1 Matt. Par. 911. The Earls of Gloucester, Warenne, Lincoln, and
Devon are mentioned as having been thus corrupted, but not the Earl
of Leicester ; cf. id. 846.
2 The truce was prolonged by S. de Montfort and P. of Savoy in
1255, according to the writs in Fad. i. 324, for three years, though
from subsequent events the period seems only to have been one year.
Early in 1256 P. de Montfort was sent to France, to amend and con-

Parliamentary History. i 1 7
The papal ambassador did appear, though not, as
was dreaded, furnished with the authority of a legate ;
his name was Rustand ; he was a lawyer, and a
Gascon by birth. On his arrival the Sicilian affair
was brought forward by the king in the October
Parliament, 1255, with pressing demands for. money.
Earl Richard headed the opposition, and declared he
would have nothing to do with an engagement under
taken without his counsel and the assent of the
baronage. The barons, returning in a remarkable
manner to the original form of the Great Charter,
complained that they had not all been summoned to
Parliament, and, in the absence of so many of their
peers, could, in accordance with the charter, assent to
nothing.1 At the ecclesiastical assembly held at the
same time, the Bishop of London vowed he would
lose his head rather than submit, and was supported
by the Bishop of Worcester, who professed an equal
readiness to be hanged. The hopes raised by these
bold utterances were further encouraged by the pro
clamation of the Bishop of London, that no one in his
firm the truce already made by his cousin (writ dated 20 Jan. , 1 256), and
with him J. Mansel and another (writ dated 24 Jan., 1256 ; cf. Matt.
Par. 912). This staved off the danger for some time, but the election
of Richard so much increased it, that in June 1257 a commission of
three was sent over, consisting of the Bishop of Worcester, Hugh Bigod,
and Adam Marsh, and they were empowered to act under the direc
tion of the former ambassadors, S. de Montfort and P. of Savoy, who
were to cross at the same time ('quos similiter ad partes illas trans-
mittimus,' writs dated 22 June, 1257). S. de Montfort and J. Waleran
were to have been sent at first (Roy. Letters ii. 121). It appears that
the ambassadors did not start till the end of Sept. 1257, and did not
return till 2 Feb., 1258 (Matt. Par. 955). Roger Bigod went out
instead of Adam Marsh, who died about this time. Peter of Savoy
and John Mansel were appointed at the same time to conduct the
negotiations with regard to Sicily (see writs dated 28 June, 1257, in
Fad. i. 359, 360.) cf. below, p. 127, note I.
1 Matt. Par. 913. The allusion is of course to the suppressed con
stitutional clauses of Magna Carta.

n8

Simon de Montfort.

CHAP. v.
1256
Oppositionof the
church.

A crusade
preached.

Vain efforts
of Henry
and the
Pope.

diocese should obey the orders or instructions of
Rustand. Upon this the king violently attacked him,
and threatened to persuade the Pope to unfrock him.
The bishop made the memorable reply, ' Let them
take away my mitre, and I will put on my helmet.' '
The clergy in general, in their diocesan assemblies,
agreed on a single form of protest, in which they
objected that the tenth had been granted without
their assent, and that the previous concessions had
been made for a specified object, which had not even
been attempted.2 Meanwhile Rustand and others
vigorously preached a crusade, which, being directed
against Christians instead of heathens or heretics,
provoked more scoffing than enthusiasm.3 Large
sums had already been sent to Italy, and had been
swallowed up by the war against Manfred, whose
success, joined to a natural feeling of indignation
against the way in which the Pope had handed over the
country to an unknown foreigner, caused all Apulia
to swear allegiance to him.
The opposition of all classes in England rendered
the payment of the sums demanded quite impossible.
The Pope sent letter after letter urging haste, and
threatening with excommunication all who refused to
pay the tenth. He even threatened to put the king
dom under an interdict, and left no stone unturned to
get the money.4 Next year the king instead of
lowering raised his demands. He produced papal
1 ' Tollant mitram, galea remanebit' — Matt. Par. 915.
2 Ann. Burt., 360. In spite of all this the feeling with regard to
both Pope and king was that they acted in ignorance, being led away
by evil counsellors.
' ' Moverunt sannas et risum pnedicatorum mutabilitates.' — Matt.
Par. 914.
4 Fad. i., under the year 1256 passim.

Parliamentary History. 1 1 9
letters in support of the claim for a renewal of the chap.
tenth for five years, and other extravagant exactions.1 s_  / _.
The prelates, assembled separately in February 1256, I2s6
hard pressed by king and Pope, bullied by Rustand,
were on the point of giving way, but for the support
of the lay magnates. They however remained firm.
It seems almost strange that they should have thought Arguments
it worth while to argue the point, or to give reasons a?aj?st the
for their refusal. They urged however in self-defence scheme.
the state of the realm, the disturbances in Wales,
Scotland, Ireland, and Gascony ; pointed out the
difficulties of the Sicilian undertaking, the disadvant
ageous conditions offered by the Pope ; and finally,
since the contract was made without their knowledge,
refused the aid demanded.
Meanwhile the object of Henrys wishes was critical
rapidly falling from his grasp. He was sorely vexed jhl" atlon of
by the news he received of Manfreds successes. The country.
election of Richard to the German Crown raised up a
rival in the King of Castile, and a feeling of jealousy
in France which threatened every moment to burst
forth into war. This situation of course produced
disturbances in Gascony, which were fomented by the
Spaniards. The Welsh harried the frontiers, the
nobles of the northern marches were disaffected
towards the English king and his son-in-law of Scot
land, yet the infatuated monarch would not give
up the struggle. He thought to impress his subjects
with a fait accompli, when in the Lent Parliament of
1 Ann. Burt. 388, 390. Such were the demands for the first years
income of vacant benefices during the next five years, half the income of
non-residents, the revenues of all but one of benefices held by pluralists
(the right to hold a plurality was conceded by the Pope to the English
Church in 1245), &c— Cf. Ann. Osney, 115.

120 CHAP. V.
i257
Henry per
sists in thi
scheme

and exacts
contributions.

A Welsh
war.

Simon de Montfort.
1257 he produced his son Edmund, with the royal ring
on his finger, and in the Apulian dress, as King of the
Two Sicilies, before the assembled magnates. At
the same time he confessed the enormous debt of
350,000 marks, which he owed on his return from
Gascony,1 and the full extent of which seems to have
been hidden from the public hitherto. In answer to
his appeal the laity remained obstinate, and the king
was forced to use the expedient of a scutage for an
expedition against the Welsh, which probably could
only be levied on the poorer and weaker tenants.2
The clergy however, seemingly in despair, voted the
king the large sum of 52,000 marks, on consideration
of that which ere now must have been seen to be the
weakest of safeguards, a fresh confirmation of the
charters, and the promise of redress of grievances
which were to be embodied in a protest.3 This was
the last great contribution which went to swell the
list of papal and royal exactions. Whether the
money was ever collected or not seems uncertain.
The king is said to have refused to accept so paltry a
gift. The convocation which assembled in the follow
ing August to draw up the list of grievances was
dissolved prematurely on account of the Welsh war,
and the grant was probably lost sight of in the con
fusion of the next year. The ravages of the Welsh
drove the king in the summer of 1257 to summon all
the forces of the kingdom against them, but the army,
1 Matt. Par. 913.
2 'Ad maximum paupertim gravamen.'— ^»«. Tewk. 158.
a Matt. Par. 947. The sum is said by Matt. Par. 951 to have been
42,000 marks. The sum of the unnecessary expenses which Henry had
incurred since he began to be ' regni dilapidator,' was computed in this
year to amount to nearly a million of marks, which, as Matt. Par. 948
says, is ' horribile cogitatu,' when we recollect that it is equivalent
to about fifteen millions at the present day.

Parliamentary History. 121
by wanton destruction of the crops in order to anticip- chap.
ate the enemy, did more harm to the country than  ;  .
the Welsh. After suffering several defeats the famine I2S7
which they themselves had produced forced them to
return. The failure of the expedition, and the wound
it inflicted on the national pride, were apparently the
last thing needed to break down the reverence of the
people for their king.
At the same time a change occurred in Henrys Change in
foreign policy, which shows incidentally the growing policy;
strength of the opposition. It is remarkable that all
the ambassadors sent with Simon de Montfort in the
summer of 1257 to prolong the truce with France
were among the earls supporters, excepting Peter of
Savoy, who however had been one of his best
friends in 1252, and was after all but a lukewarm
royalist.1 Hugh Bigod was the baronial Justiciar arabassa-
next year. Adam Marsh was one of his oldest and d°rs
J chosen
most intimate friends ; the mantle of Grosseteste had from
fallen on Walter de Cantilupe, Bishop of Worcester, friends.
Although the same cannot be said of the ambassadors
appointed to conduct the Sicilian affair in conjunction
with the earl, yet their instructions left no doubt as
to what must be the result of their embassy, and
coincided with what we find afterwards to have been
Simons policy. The king was still very unwilling to
relinquish the enterprise, and wrote to the Pope to
say that in spite of the opposition of the barons he
hoped still to carry it through.2 The commissioners
1 See note 2 on p. 116, where I have collected the details respecting
these negotiations.
2 Roy. Letters ii. 126. This letter is said by Dr. Shirley to have
been written in Jan. or Feb. 1258. It is not dated, but it seems pro
bable that it is rather earlier than this. The ambassadors who really

122 Simon de Montfort.
chap, were entrusted with full power to amend the con-
. v- . ditions on which the concession of the kingdom of
1257 Sicily had been made. They were to obtain a re-
the1p£ope.t° laxation of the threat of interdict, and a further
respite in the performance of the kings engagements.
If possible, the matter was to be peaceably arranged
by the marriage of Edmund with Manfreds daughter.
If the Pope refused these proposals, they were to
offer him a choice between three courses, which were
such that he was extremely uniikely to take any one
of them. In case of need they were empowered to
renounce the whole scheme. It was evident that the
Pope would hardly grant such conditions as would
satisfy de Montfort, and that if he had the direction
of the affair it would end in a complete renunciation.
It was announced that the object of the embassy to
' France was to secure peace for the prosecution of the
Sicilian scheme ; the best result of the embassy to
Rome would have been that of securing peace with
France by the removal of the cause of jealousy, the
Simon goes _. ... , . ,. _. ,„,, ,. ,
to France. Sicilian scheme itself. Simon de Montfort did not go
to Rome, nor did his colleagues ; they could ill be
spared by their respective parties at this crisis. They
did however go to France ; but, though kindly re
ceived by the king, they got nothing but hard words
from the nobility, and returned with small success.1
As long as the English claims on Normandy were
kept up, a lasting peace with France was impossible.
Both these embassies, though unsuccessful, were
went to Rome were the Bishops of Bath and Rochester, and the Arch
deacon of Lincoln ; they seem to have only postponed the affair. See
Fad. i. 368, 369.
1 Matt. Par. 955. Dr. Pauli is however of opinion that they did
not go at all.

Parliamentary History. 1 2 3
signs of a new foreign policy, which struck at the
roots of one of the great causes of internal discontent.
They are the first indications that the steady oppo
sition of the English people to unwise interference in
foreign affairs was beginning to tell. It was the first
triumph of a tendency which the final cession of
Normandy two years later, when Simon de Montfort
was in power, shows to have been after the earls
own heart. The king in giving way so far as he did
seems to have had an inkling of what was about to
happen ; he may well have been appalled at the
temper of the country. He had just had a warning 1
of the fiery passions smouldering around him, only \
waiting for an opportunity to burst forth in a great 0uarr 1 b -
conflagration- It was apparently at the time when tween de
,, , , , . T , . , Montfort
the magnates were assembled in London for the and w.
Lent Parliament of 1257 that a violent quarrel broke
out between the Earl of Leicester and William of
Valence. The latter, trusting that his royal brother
would support him in his insolence, and not content
with humbler prey, had made an inroad on de Mont
forts lands, and carried off some of his property.
The earl seems to have brought the matter before
the king, and in the dispute which arose William
added insult to injury by calling Simon, in the
presence of the assembled barons, a traitor, which, as
the chronicler naively observes, is a great offence to a
knight. Whereupon Simon was so enraged that he
drew his sword, and would have revenged himself
upon his enemy then and there but for the inter
vention of the king, who, in fear for his brothers life,
threw himself between the disputants.1 The incident
1 Matt. Par. 950.

Valence.

124 Simon de Montfort.
chap, was probably soon forgotten, but it was enough to
-  ;  . show what was to be feared. However, after the
1257 Welsh expedition, a moment of quiet ensued ; several
of the chiefs of the opposition were absent in France ;
the year closed without any indication that an out
break was nearer than it had been any time within
the last five years.
Character Meanwhile Henry found leisure to visit the Abbey
enry. Q^ g^ Albans, and means to make princely offerings
to the shrine. These were indeed the occupations
which best suited him, the only consolations which he
still retained. Such a spectacle arouses feelings of a
mingled nature. For while we condemn Henry as a
ruler, and find him hardly less despicable as a man,
yet, in the midst of such trouble as was shortly to
burst upon him, some feeling of pity is mingled with
our resentment. The death of his daughter Katharine,
.'the illness of the queen, the triumph of the Welsh,
the disappointment of his hopes in Sicily, threw him
about this time into a violent fever.1 He was now
just fifty years old. The gaiety and conversational
powers which had enlivened his brothers table at
Wallingford, and astonished the monks of St. Albans,
had given place to a violence of temper, to which
indeed he had always been liable, but which had now
reached such a point that when the fit was on him
\ — and the slightest opposition sufficed to rouse it —
j his most constant attendants dared not approach him.
He had hardly a man, beyond creatures like John
Mansel, whom he could call his friend ; he had
¦ ' Rex audito infortunio, &c. ... in tantam precipitatus est tris-
titiam, quod in febrem tertianam ... est prolapsus.' — John of
Oxenedes, 192.

Parliamentary History. 125
alienated almost all his vassals in turn ; the English chap.
barons whom he tried to win took his gifts and *.  _;  .
opposed him in the council ; the foreigners whom he ChaJ2?7r
pampered sneered at him, and used him for their own of H;nry.
selfish ends. But though no one loved him, hisl ,
character was not such as to make him hated as his^ I
father was ; he was the object of dislike and contempt
rather than of hatred and fear. With his brother
Richard he was never on good terms ; even his
eldest son, in whom a noble character was nearly
ruined by paternal indulgence, had openly called him
to account for his injustice. He had no claim on the
affections of his people ; he had not added to, nay, he
had diminished, English power abroad. He could
not dazzle the nation with feats of arms like his uncle
Richard, or enforce their respect like his grandfather
with administrative reform. Affectionate he was, but
his was too often the random affection which is ,
worthless to , its object ; liberal, but with oihbr mens ! ¦
money; personally brave, but no commander; virtuous,
but his virtues were of a negative kind. He was not
cruel, but he looked on the traders and the Jews as
sheep kept only to be shorn ; he was not by nature a
despot, but he had no idea of political rights. He
was ambitious, but short-sighted ; credulous, but dis
trustful ; sanguine, but timid. He was not resolute,
but obstinate ; not selfish, but weak ; a man of great
desires, but little will. He possessed a certain
cunning, but not the astuteness and decision of John.
He had the same want of political insight, but neither
the nobility of character nor the power of inspiring
affection, which characterised Charles I. To his credit
it must be acknowledged that, with a father and

126

CHAP. V.
i257
Character
of Henry.

Simon de
Montfort ;
his part
in the
politicalstruggle.

Simon de Montfort.
grandfather who were notoriously licentious, Henry
was a blameless husband ; but this very uxoriousness
was no small cause of his troubles. In a super
stitious age two traits in his character commanded
some respect, however little they may win now.
Although not grateful as a rule, but rather chafing
under an obligation, he never forgot the debt he owed
to Rome for saving him his crown. Although no
oath was sacred to him, although he thought nothing
of seizing without the shadow of an excuse the goods
of a merchant, his devoutness was such that the pious
King of France said, ' Whatever be his sins, his
prayers and offerings will save his soul.' * *
Of the character of his great antagonist it is
harder to judge. Hitherto we have seen but little of
him ; our view has been confined to the general
course of the constitutional struggle, which I have
traced, however imperfectly, up to the point where it
suddenly enters upon a new phase in the Revolution
of 1258. The history is a somewhat wearisome and
monotonous one ; the contest seems endless and
resultless ; the country is to all appearance as badly
off, the chance of relief as distant, the deadlock in the
government as hopeless, as ten years before. But in,
the interval parties have been forming, political ideas

1 A striking illustration of his devoutness is given in an extract, to he
found in Lettres de Rois i. 140. When Henry was in Paris, on a visit
to Louis IX, on the way from his palace to the council-room he had
to pass a number of churches. At each of these he heard mass, and in
this way the whole day was occupied, so that the King of France and
his nobles waited in vain till evening. This happened next day also,
and on the third day Louis ordered all the churches on Henrys route
to be closed. This time he appeared early enough, but asked, in
terror, if the kingdom were under an interdict. Explanations followed,
which resulted in Henry being allowed to satisfy his religious feelings
without interrupting the course of political business.

II

Parliamentary History. 127
ripening ; the conviction that such a state of things chap.
must have an end has grown stronger and stronger. %., ,' _-
It is impossible to trace with certainty the part pu^nfe
Simon de Montfort took in the preliminary struggle, of Simon
_ . ... , . , . r . 7 _ && de Mont-
The few allusions to him after his return from Gascony fort.
leave the impression that the king tried at one time
to conciliate him, at another to keep him out of the
way. We find him acting as ambassador to France
and Scotland, though on no occasion does he seem to
have stayed long away. With his public duties on one
of these occasions he combined certain private trans
actions in France,1 and such matters may have
demanded his attention at other times, but we may
fairly believe that during the greater part of the four
years previous to the meeting of the'Mad Parliament
he was in England. He had increased the kings
obligations to him by becoming his creditor to a large
amount, not only for what was still owing to him
from the Gascon accounts, but for a voluntary loan.
Various more or less doubtful securities were given
him for this debt : the money owed by the Earl of
Norfolk to the Crown ; the debts of a certain Jew,
Aaron by name ; lastly the castle and lands of Bigorre,
in Gascony.2 He took his place among the nobles
who witnessed the writ by which in 1256 the title
of the young king of Scotland to the earldom of
1 Roy. Letters ii. 107. Dr. Pauli says (S. v. Montfort, p. 71),
' Weder die freundschaftlichen Beziehungen zu dem Konige waren wieder
hergestellt, noch trat er der Opposition der Englischen Magnaten bei.
Er lebte vielmehr zuriickgezogen mit den seinen in der franzbsischen
Heimath, u.s.w.' I can find no ground for this. He was certainly in
England the greater part of 1254; the countess was in England in 1255;
the earl in 1256, and again in 1257. I cannot find any proof of his
being in France during this time except once in 1255-
2 Mrs. Green (Princesses ii. Ill) quoting from Rot. Lit. Claus.

128 Simon de Montfort.
chap. Huntingdon was confirmed.1 In the next year several
__^:  . knights fees were conferred upon him, and he received
1257 a promise from the king not to dispute a will he
intended to make.2
Was Simon With such scant notice of the public life of de
ment dur- Montfort we must be content. Of his private life,
ing these sjnce the death of Bishop Grosseteste, we know less
vc£irs than ever : the letters of Adam Marsh to him, if any,
as does not appear probable, were written during this
period, tell us next to nothing. There seems no
reason to believe, as has been suggested, that he sub
mitted to a voluntary exile in France, away from his
fair lands of Kenilworth and Odiham.3 We need not
suppose, and it is of itself very improbable, that a,
man who stood in the very first rank of the baron
age, nominally reconciled to, if not actually on
friendly terms with, the king, should have left his
country and abstained from politics at such a crisis.
There were indeed during the last four years no such
vigorous attempts to resist the oppressor as those of
1246 and 1248— the resistance had become rather
sullen and passive — nor were there the like opportu-
p obabilit mt;ies °f personal distinction. But are we therefore
that he to conclude that the man who was so prominent in
active part, the period before he took office in Gascony, and who
appears as the recognised leader in 1258, lived in
retirement all this time ? If his name is not men
tioned by contemporary historians as a leader, no
more is the name of any other. Yet leaders there
must have been even of such opposition as there was,
and it is impossible to account for the position Simon
1 Roy. Letters ii. 120. 2 Id. ii. 121, 392.
3 See note i., p. 127.

Parliamentary History. 129
de Montfort assumed immediately on the outbreak of chap.
the revolution, by any other hypothesis than that he  '— — •
was one of the foremost of those leaders. His opinions . 12S7
and character had long been known to a small body Cai chara'c-
of liberal-minded men : a much larger party were now ter'
beginning to look up to him as the one man in whom
they could trust.1 I have already alluded to the
change of Heniys foreign policy in the year 1257, as
a proof that the principles embraced by the earl were
making way. And by whose agency should they
have made way, if not by his ? He was not the man
to hurry on a premature development in order to call
attention to himself. It is no wonder if the chroniclers,
noting down events year by year, failed to observe till
the outbreak the steps by which he won the lead.
His rise was gradual and unobserved by many. His
was not the flashy liberalism of unthinking youth, but
the settled judgment of a mature experience. We do
not know that he ever theorised in politics ; he cer
tainly did not found a school ; in statecraft there were
probably living some, though not many, who were his
superiors. The popular reverence for him was like
wise slow in growing. A nation, especially perhaps
1 Cf. p. 86, note I, where the ' complices' of Simon de Montfort are
alluded to. In Mon. Franc. 225 we read, ' Simon comes Leycestrise,
cujus et ad divinum honorem et ad utilitatem publicam flagranter
anhelat desiderium, a quo plurimorum salus tam propter evidentes quam
propter secretas causas pendere cognoscitur, &c.' ; id. 277 (letter to
the earl), ' super negotio quod nostis videtur mihi nihil scribendum hac
vice, praesertim cum agaturde re maxima, ethinc speratur salus summa,
illinc vero timeantur extrema pericula. ' The warmth of the expressions
in the former letter hardly warrant its being placed much earlier than
this time, and it cannot be later than 1257, when Adam Marsh died ;
the latter was written before 1253 (for Grosseteste was alive), and ap
pears to allude to some weighty consultation, when the Bishops of
Lincoln and Worcester were with the earl, on a matter too important
to be committed to writing. K

IIO

Simon de Montfort.
the English nation, is slow to recognise its great men.
The feeling which placed Simon de Montfort on the
same pedestal with St. Thomas of Canterbury was not
the growth of a day, but it had its roots in the heart
of a people. That which gave him his strength, that
which drew men to follow him to the death, was this :
that the love of right, the feeling of sympathy with
an injured people, became in him a stern resolve
which no temptation could shake, no obstacle stay,
no danger intimidate. As the men of an earlier day,
the links between the gloomy present and the glories
of the Great Charter, one by one disappeared, he
stood forth alone. His peers were almost all more or
less suspect : on him rested no stain of yielding. The
friends and counsellors on whom he had depended
were gone ; he was far past the prime of life. But his
was not the nature to be daunted by the lonely
heights , solitude showed him his strength. The time
was come, and with it the man.

CHAPTER VI.
THE POSITION OF PARTIES IN 1258.
BEFORE we enter upon the final act of the drama, it chap.
will be better perhaps to pause and review the parties , vr- „
which were arrayed against the king, the steps in I258
his policy and in that of the Pope which had led to national
the union of the national forces against them, the Part.v-
evils complained of, and the claims made. The
national party may be said to have consisted of the
whole body of the clergy, the greater portion of the lay
baronage, including almost all the smaller barons,
and London with the sea-port towns ; the other towns
were perhaps rather on the kings side than on that of
his opponents, and the lower classes cannot be said to
have had much influence on affairs as yet. The kings The kings
supporters were at first, with the exception of a few party-
lukewarm members of the baronage, and some still
rarer exceptions in the Church, only his creatures, his
foreign relatives, and the crowd of parasites whom he
had introduced ; these however with their depend
ents made up no contemptible force. Later on, by
the desertions from the opposition, by the aid he
received from the foreign clergy in the country,
through the moral influence of the Pope and the King
of France, his party became far superior to that of

132 Simon de Montfort.
chap, his foes. It is observable that the originators of the
VI
•  ^ — revolt of 1 21 5, the northern barons, had much less to
„ I2S do with that of 1258, and afterwards took up a
Compan-
son of the neutral if not royalistic attitude. Tne strength of the
STa^s61113)! opposition lay at this time in the great midland
and 1215. 1 baronage, which had in the earlier struggle formed
1 the second rank in historical order if not in import
ance. The weight of the smaller barons was now
much greater, and the civic element had received an
accession of strength in the south-eastern sea-ports.
The influence of the universities must not be neg
lected, but, though morally great, it was not of much
practical use when it came to blows. In the earlier
revolt the national party, though more completely
successful at first, and though it left behind it an
imperishable monument, hardly preserved its superi
ority long enough to find time to disintegrate ; but
signs were not wanting to show that, had circum
stances permitted, had John been really overpowered,
it would have broken up of itself, as it did after the
victory it won in the Mad Parliament. It was a
great disadvantage in the latter case that there was
no churchman of the eminence and character which
enabled Stephen Langton to take the lead of the whole
party. Deprived of their natural head — for Arch
bishop Boniface was in no way worthy of the chair of
St. Thomas — the clergy could only take up a subordi
nate position, and their ranks were less united than
Eari before. It was also a great drawback that there was
dis"advan- n0 Fitz-Walter, no William Marshall. Simon de
tages. Montfort was by birth, and in the opinion of his peers
remained to the end, an alien. The popular instinct
saw as usual more clearly than the eyes which were

The Position of Parties in 1258. 133
blinded by the prejudices of an exclusive caste. It chap.
must be allowed that as a whole the baronage do not .  1 — •
come nearly so well out of the ordeal as their fathers. I2sa
True national feeling was not so strong in the most
powerful portion of society as it had been fifty years
before ; it had descended one step, and it received
expression at the hands of an individual rather than a
class. The kernel of the constitutional party, the band
of men that followed Simon de Montfort to the end,
was so small and comparatively so weak that it never
had any chance of ultimate success. The class that was
to win by his most advanced reforms was not ready
to enjoy, nor strong enough to hold, the benefits he
offered them. The movement of 1258 was only the
natural result of thirty years of bad government ;
its chief result was to show the incompleteness of the
political ideas of the time, and to throw the real leader
into clearer relief. The movement of 1264 was prema
ture ; its budding principles were nipped by the frosts
incident to a too early spring, but they contained the
germs of a fruit which is far from having ripened yet.
Of the elements of the opposition above-mentioned Elements
the Church had probably most to complain of, and to pOSitionP~
her we owe more than to any other body the protec- Q^h. jts
tion of our freedom in early days. It has been relations
already seen how for half a century before Magna papacy,
Carta the opposition to unjust taxation was kept up
by the Church and by the Church alone. Edmund
Rich had not the courage or the power needful' to
follow in Langtons steps, but he did his best ; the roll
of great names was continued by Grosseteste, Cante-
lupe, Sewal, Basset. It is impossible to say how much
we are indebted to the example of the Church, to its

134 CHAP. VI.
1258
influencedby the
general re
lations of
England with Rome ;

under In
nocent III,

HonoriusIII,

Gregory
IX.

Simon de Montfort.
broadening and anti-feudal influence, to its institutions,
which kept the idea of universal equality combined
with order, of authority and the popular voice, ever
before the people. Still for a great part of this cent
ury the English clergy were thrust out of their right
position by the general situation of the Church. The
key to the papal policy in England during the first
half of the thirteenth century is the struggle between
the papacy and the empire ; the immediate harm the
struggle did was immense, and the papal power de
clined from the very moment of victory ; but out of
evil comes good, and it may be fairly said that we
owe the constitutional advance of that century in a
great measure to the ambition of Rome.
Fortunately for England, the simultaneous deaths
of John and Innocent III gave her time to recover
from the effects of the civil war and of papal inter
ference. It was in opposition to king and Pope
that the barons had won the charter ; the leader of
the opposition was the head of the English Church,
and before the Reformation that Church was perhaps
never nearer a schism than at that moment. Hon
orius III did not lose the opportunity of influencing
England through the monarchy ; his protection of the
youthful king was most hearty, and, on the whole,
beneficial to the country, for his legates, avaricious as
they were, exerted themselves in the cause of order,
and order was what the country wanted at the mo
ment. But the accession of Gregory IX, the policy
of Frederick II, the coming of age of Henry III,
gave a new direction to the relations of England and
Rome. Henry was full of gratitude and devotion to
the papacy ; both temporally and spiritually he felt

The Position of Parties in 1 2 5 8. 135
himself bound to support the Church ; everyone who chap.
could claim any connexion with Rome found a wel- *  Y}:  .
come at his Court. But his weakness allowed unscrup- I258
ulous men to get him into their power, and under
the evil auspices of Peter des Roches papal exac
tions reached an unprecedented height. Fortunately
the national spirit of Langton rested, to some extent,
on his immediate successors, and the fall of the
Bishop of Winchester checked for a time the sub
servience of England to the Pope.
Still the growing vehemence of the conflict be- struggle
tween Frederick, ' the wonder of the world,' and the innocent
papacy, a conflict in which not Christendom alone, p^"^ k
but Mohammedanism too, was involved, prevented u ¦ its
England from remaining aloof. The bond which had England.
been signed by John, degrading England to the posi
tion of a fief of Rome, supplied- the legal ground of
exactions, which, apart from Peters pence and the
regular feudal tribute of a thousand marks, were
limited only by the endurance of the English people.
England had not remained untouched by the distant
waves of the storm raised by Hildebrand and Henry,
by Alexander and Barbarossa ; but it was under
Innocent III, and still more under his successors, that
she was drawn into the full influence of the hurricane.
She was as yet untainted by heresy, and though the
cruel deceptions of the Albigensian crusade obtained
but little sympathy here, political reasons may be
sufficient to account for the notable absence of
Englishmen from the armies of the elder Simon de
Montfort.1 But although men from every part of
Europe had contributed to crush the spark of free-
1 Pauli, Simon de Mont., 27.

136

chap.
VI.
1258
Feeling
towards Frederick
H;

universal
change of
feeling to
wards the
papacy.

Simon de Montfort.
thought that arose in a corner of France, it was a
different matter when 'heretical opinions were, rightly
or wrongly, attributed to the temporal head of Christ
endom. Frederick, the fascinating embodiment of
the spirit of that early renaissance, drew all eyes upon
him by the splendour of his youthful achievements,
the vigour of his intellect, the novel luxury and
eastern elegance of his Court, the air of mystery which
at once attracted and repelled the vulgar gaze. His
caustic epigrams went the round of Europe, and were
treasured up against him in the note-books of the
Popes. But what told more for him than all this was
the fact that the battle against the lemporal power
was no longer fought by a pure Church, aiming at
most at a complete spiritual independence, but by
an arrogant hierarchy, organised and disciplined on
feudal principles, aspiring to universal dominion.
Gregory excommunicated Frederick for not going on
crusade, and was enraged beyond measure because he
went. The policy of Innocent, who used the voice of
the Church assembled at Lyons to pull down one of the.
two pillars of Christendom, was condemned even by
the saintly Louis. The restoration of the kingdom of
Jerusalem, though not reckoned by Rome, was re
membered to Fredericks advantage by the rest of
Europe, and men shuddered, as at the .worst of civil
wars, when the forces of the Emperor, with the red.
cross still upon them, marched to meet the forces of
the Pope.1 The exactions of the Curia would have
offended the national sense of Englishmen, even had
they been devoted to the crusade against the infidel

1 Cf. Milrnan, Lat. Christianity, bk. x. ch. iv.

The Position of Parties in 1258. 137
for which they were noninally made ; but when it chap.
was known that the crusade was against fellow- >._ rJ  .
Christians, the demands of Rome were felt to have no I258
ground. The general feeling in Europe was ex- taintyof
pressed, though others dared not express it so boldly, £!*}£„
by the Paris priest, who, when bidden to publish the
ban against Frederick, declared from his pulpit that the
Pope excommunicated the Emperor, and the Emperor
the Pope ; which of the two were right he could not
tell, but ' in the name of God who knoweth all ' he ex
communicated him who was in the wrong. In Eng
land the feeling is stated by Matthew Paris to have
been, as elsewhere, one of great confusion and uncert
ainty ; men knew not which side to take. ' The
Church,' they said, ' and especially that most devoted
branch of it, the English Church, suffers daily oppres
sion from the Curia, but never has she been oppressed
by the Emperor. The Pope accuses the Emperor of
heresy; but in his letters he writes as a humble
Catholic concerning God.' Opinion thus divided
needed but little to throw its full weight on the anti-
papal side.
The papacy could hardly have won as it did but influence
for the aid of three things : first and foremost that of Friars in
the two great orders of Friars Preachers and Friars Ensland'
Minors, noble instruments in the hand of an evil
policy; that of the Lombard cities, whose liberties
Frederick vainly and foolishly endeavoured to crush ;
and that .of English gold. With the first and last only
of these we are concerned here. The enthusiastic
devotion, the self-denial, the early simplicity and
poverty, of the friars won them a hold on the lower
classes in England, which was a strong tower of

138

Simon de Montfort.

CHAP. VI.
1258
Influence of
the Friars
somewhatambiguous;

their con
nexion
with Gros
seteste,

and with
Earl
Simon.

support to the Church. How should the authority
which canonised St. Dominic and St. Francis go
wrong? And not only among the lower classes did
their influence extend : the Franciscans became con
fessors to the highest nobles ; they were the leaders of
education at the universities. Their chief enemies
were the older monastic foundations, who were
prompted by a kind of professional jealousy, added to a
feeling of shame at the work which the friars did
and which they left undone, and of envy at the
bestowal of papal favour, to revile the new comers as
slaves of the papacy, and to proclaim upon every occa
sion the growing corruption which too soon began
to eat into even the order of St. Francis. Thus the
friars held an ambiguous position, and those who
patronised them, as Bishop Grosseteste, were com
promised in the eyes of the great body of the regular
clergy, who suffered most of all from papal exactions. '
On the other hand, this connexion would not have
had any of the like disadvantageous effects on the
position of a layman like Simon de Montfort, who,
while on most intimate terms with Adam Marsh
and other leading Franciscans, did not appear in
the light of a public patron of the order. This long
friendship is however specially interesting to us, as
testifying to the serious and earnest character of
Simons mind, to his thirst for knowledge, and to his
deeply religious disposition, while at the same time
it may have originated, or at least matured, those
broad and popular sympathies which afterwards so
endeared him to the people.
But it was the last of the three supports above-
mentioned, and the outrageous demands of the Curia,

The Position of Parties in 1258. 139
which did most to determine the position of the chap.
English clergy in the constitutional struggle. This -
position was not taken up at once. The attitude of I258
the episcopate during these years varied considerably, papal exac-
and is full of apparent contradictions. It depended ti°enpOos"ti0n
chiefly on the changing relations of king and Pope, to of th?
both of whom the good-will of the English Church Church.
was of the greatest importance. In accordance with
these relations the kind of influence and the amount
of pressure brought by the Pope to bear upon his
ecclesiastical vassals in England varied considerably.
On what grounds did this influence rest, and how
was it applied ? Innocent III had laid down the law Papal
of episcopal elections ; they were to be free on the exerted
part of the clergy, but subject to the consent both 5,;°"™al
of Pope and king. But he further extended the papal appoint-
, ¦ tt , r ,, 1 -i r ¦ ments;
claim. He asserted successfully the right of sanction
ing the election to bishoprics, and John having given
up his share of the right, he became sole arbiter. It
was already evident from the case of Archbishop
Stephen, that this right was equivalent to that of ap
pointment. Still this could hardly be extended to the
whole of the episcopate, and it did not give the Pope
sufficient hold on the English Church. The hierarchical and the
tendencies of the episcopate were a more real support cairtende-n-
to the papacy than the right of appointment, and these Jjes of the
were more fully understood and more boldly used by
Innocent IV. The question of the episcopal visitation
of monasteries and of episcopal rights over cathedral
chapters was that which most agitated the English
Church at this time. The most influential of the English
bishops, Grosseteste of Lincoln, Cantilupe of Worcester,
and others, were making great efforts to assert their

140 CHAP. VI.
1258
Hierarchi
cal tenden
cies of the
Bishops :

how used
by the
Pope.

Simon de Montfort.
authority over the regular clergy within their dioceses™
and, on the whole, they seem to have been success
ful. Their attempts met with very strong opposition
on the part of the regular clergy, and invectives on
this head are constantly met with in the monastic
chronicles of the time. Grosseteste appears to have
visited his diocese yearly, and in his first visitation
deposed seven abbots and four priors, while he made
diligent enquiries into the rights of the beneficed
clergy.1 His example was energetically followed by
the Bishop of Worcester. We find the latter enforc
ing rules of his own on the monks, and banishing the
recalcitrant to other abbeys.2 Innocent IV seems to
have perceived that the bishops in England were more
important to him than the religious orders. He
therefore favoured these efforts, supported the Bishop
of Lincoln in the question as to the right of visitation
of the chapter, and sought to win rather than subdue
the episcopate.3 He listened favourably to their ob
jections against archiepiscopal visitations, and laid
down the mode of that visitation, and a regular scale
of charges. He even went so far as to bribe them
with a hint that he would allow pluralities,4 and con
ferred on the bishopric of Lincoln the privilege that
no one offered for preferment by the Pope should be
provided for out of the patronage of that see without
special recognition of the power to withhold the gift.
It was not till near the end of his life, when he had a
more facile ally, that the Pope turned against the
Bishop of Lincoln, and refused to allow his appeal
against the exemptions granted to the Cistercians and

1 Ann. Dunst. 143 ; Hist. Angl. 69.
8 Ann. Dunst. 166, 168.

2 Ann. Tewk. 146, 150.
4 Fad. i. 262.

The Position of Parties in 1258. 141
other orders.1 It was owing partly to this politic chap.
action of Innocent IV, and partly to the conviction -  ri  -
that it was hopeless to depend on the king for protec- I258
tion,2 that the bishops were induced to vote such this policy
enormous sums of money for the support of the papal ""^Ahe
see. In the early years of. Henry III they had episcopate;
staunchly opposed royal claims for money,3 and had
even resisted the encroachments of papal power ;4
but, as time went on, their resistance to the latter
had grown very weak. Their opposition to the king
was always stronger, and they were never at one with
him ; it was only at one period, about the year 1247,
that even the lower clergy were on his side, and then
he was raving at the episcopate for conceding to the
Pope the aid they refused the sovereign. These
causes then — the claim of visitation and the conces- disunion in
sions made to the Pope by the higher clergy — were church.
chiefly instrumental in producing the split that for so
long a time divided the Church of England, and made
a firm defence of their rights impossible. The epi
scopal policy will be best understood by a brief examin
ation of the character and conduct of Bishop Grosse
teste, the most distinguished churchman of his day.
Robert Grosseteste,5 during the latter half of his Episcopal
episcopate, and, in the absence of Archbishop Boni- illustrated
face, the real head of the English Church, was a Kq^v
staunch churchman, a man full of belief in the eccles- teste-
iastical power, in its world-wide extension, its holy
1 Matt. West 240.
2 ' Ecclesia Anglicana quasi inter duas molas (sc. Papam et regem)
conterebatur : hinc Scylla inde Charybdis timebatur.' — Matt. Par. 709.
s In 1229, 1231. 4 In 1226.
s See Mr. Luards preface to his edition of the Letters of Grosseteste,
and Dr. Brewers preface to the Monum. hranciscana.

142 CHAP. VI.
1258
Opinions of
BishopGrosse
teste ;

on the
papacy,

themonarchy,

the empire ;

his opposi
tion to the
Pope.

Simon de Montfort.-
office. He was moreover an ardent supporter 6f the
papacy, a believer in rule and order ; though sprung
from the people, he was no democrat ; in a word, he
was as real a member of the hierarchy as Gregory or
Innocent. But this high opinion of the Church brought
with it a deep-rooted conviction of its great respons
ibility, its dangers, and its duties. This vast power
must be exercised only for the glory of God ; no taint
of earthly motives must corrupt that dignity which
is so high above the earth. It was this noble ideal
which he defended alike against king and Pope. The
power of the Pope was unlimited, he thought ; he
allowed to Pope and cardinals the right of all present
ations, but this right should not be abused to thrust
Italians, unable to speak English, or relatives of the
Pope with nothing else to recommend them, into
English benefices. The last act of his life was to
refuse Innocents demand of a canonry at Lincoln for
one of his nephews. The monarchy was ordained of
God, he considered, but its duty was not to waste the
people committed to it, nor to coerce the Church
which was independent of it. Carrying this notion
of spiritual superiority further, he placed the papacy
above the empire, and therefore supported it in its
struggle, which he regarded with somewhat of pre
judice, as carried on by the Church and not by
an individual. He seems never to have opposed a
demand for a contribution to be made bona fide on
behalf of the Pope. It was a different matter when
the tenth was demanded for the king by the Pope in
1252. It was not till the temporal ambition of the
Pope became fully apparent, and Innocent leagued
with Henry for the prosecution of so worldly an

The Position of Parties in 1258. 143
object as the Sicilian crown, that he set his face against chap.
the project with all the vigour of a character which *_ — ^ — -
remained strong as ever in spite of approaching death. I2s8
_,, , . , . ... , . . . . , , His posi-
This being his attitude, it is not surprising that he tion mis-
was misunderstood, and it must be confessed that his mEngiand:
notions of the ecclesiastical power led him at first to
sacrifice the national interests to this object. He
would have said that he regarded the souls of his
people rather than their pockets ; but the mass
of the clergy, whose laxities he visited so severely,
and who had to bear the expenses to which he con
sented, were hardly likely to sympathise with him.
We accordingly find him and the rest of the bishops
becoming suspect throughout England, and considered
weak and cowardly.1 Grossetestes sympathy with
the friars, and its effect on his position in the Church,
have been already alluded to. The feeling of hostility hostility to-
which he stirred up could not altogether be obliterated
by his constant support of national liberties against
royal encroachment, and his unswerving refusal to
appoint incompetent aliens to the dignities of the
Church. There were few souls high enough fully to
appreciate and love him ; he was looked upon as an
Ishmael, whose hand was against every man, and
every mans hand was against him.2 Still, the beautiful
legends told of what happened at his death, and the
miracles said to have been performed at his shrine,
show that the classes in which his friends the friars
had most influence revered him as a saint.3 His last
1 Matt. Par. 730, 'suspecti ;' 951, ' erervati et meticulosi.'
2 ' Omnibus adversans, Ismaeli similis.' — Id. 688.
3 On the night of his death bells were heard in the sky by the
Bishop of London ; some friars, on their way to Bugden, where he died,
heard heavenly music in the air, the music made by angels come down

i44

CHAP. VI.
1258
Antipapalpolicy of
Grosseteste.

Change in
the rela
tions of the
English Church
with the
papacy,

Simon de Montfort.
opposition to the Pope, on the question of presentation,
seems to have obscured the true^conception of his
character, which is evident from his life as a whole ;
Matthew Paris, constrained to find some ground of
praise, calls him in terms which he would have been
the first to reject, 'an outspoken opponent of king
and Pope, the hammer of the Romans ; ' while he goes
on to acknowledge his many other virtues, and his
fulfilment of all the highest duties of a bishop.1 Such
was the friend, the protector, the counsellor of Simon
de Montfort. About the time of Grossetestes death a change
occurred, which caused this split to heal, and united
the clerical party. Innocent IV had, from the time
of his accession, taken up a still more decided line of
action than his predecessor. The fruits of this were
soon felt in England. ' He laid aside all shame,' we
read, and extorted larger sums of money than any
before him, so that ' a murmur of complaint, loud
though late, rose up from the heart of England.'2
His opinion of England was expressed in the words,
'Verily it is an inexhaustible fount, and where there
is much abundance, thence can much be extorted.'3
But for some time, and especially during the heat of

to take his soul. I may mention here a story showing the close connex
ion of Grosseteste and de Montfort in the popular imagination. On
the Sunday before the battle of Evesham a lad was brought to be healed,
at the bishops tomb, of dumbness and contortions. He fell asleep, and
slept long ; on waking he began to speak, and told his parents it was
needless to wait longer, for the bishop was not present ; he was gone to
Evesham 'to help Earl Simon, his brother, who was to die there.'—
Rish. Chron. Camd. Soc, p. 71.
1 ' Regis et Papae redargutor manifestus . . . malleus et contemptor
Romanoram, &c.' — Matt. Par. 876.
2 Matt. West. 180.
3 Matt. Par. 705 ; see above, p. 82.

The Position of Parties in 1258. 145
the struggle, when Innocent depended mainly on'
the episcopate, the kings opposition threw difficulties
in his way. We have seen the warmth of Henrys I2s8
youthful devotion and gratitude to the Holy See,, ^^gbey
which Honorius did not live to put to the test, intheat-
Gregory IX stood towards him in the double re- the king.
lation of a feudal lord and a spiritual father ; J while
claiming the right of appointment, he recognised to
a certain extent the ancient royal rights over the
Church.2 This policy bore fruit in the partial approval
shown by Henry of his action against Frederick, as
testified by the publication of the ban in England.
But during most of his papacy, and the first part
of that of Innocent IV, the connexion between
Henry and his great brother-in-law the Emperor, the
threats and entreaties of the latter, and the authority
exerted by the Pope, without royal leave, over the
bishops, did much to cool the ardour of Henrys
devotion. From the first Innocent IV had paid Policy of
considerable attention to him, and had issued bulls ivTowards
confirming his rights, declaring his intention not to Henry-
interfere with lay patronage, bidding the clergy sup
port their king ; 3 such favours were however too cheap
to win Henry completely. After the death of the
Emperor and the collapse of the secular power he
made greater efforts. Henry had now nothing more
1 He sanctioned the marriage of Isabella to Frederick II ; he inter
fered on behalf of Hubert de Burgh ; he stood security for Isabellas
marriage-portion ; he warned the king against extravagance and impru
dent generosity.
2 He forbade the election to a bishopric of anyone unpleasing to the
king ; he* commanded the Bishop of Lincoln, during the vacancy of
Durham, not to interfere in that diocese to the prejudice of the kings
rights. 8 Fad. i. sub annis 1 244, 1245. L

146

Simon de Montfort.

CHAP. VI.
1258
Policy of
Innocent IV towards
Henry

undergoesa change.

Effect of
this on the
EnglishChurch.

to fear from the indignation of the Emperor ; his
dynastic ambition could be utilised to its full extent,
Innocent perceived that he could not win all interests,
he therefore confined his attention to the king, and
sought to make him his firm ally by more substantial
favours. About the same time Henry, on his side,
showed an inclination to come to a better under
standing with the Pope. As early as 1250 we find
him requesting the tenth. The Pope at that time
declined to grant it, declaring it unconstitutional to
do so without consent of the clergy.1 He also refused
to allow him the tenth requested from the Church
of Scotland, a demand which he styled ' utterly un
heard of.' 2 But such petty scruples soon gave way
when it occurred to him that he might make use of
Henry as a tool to uproot -imperialism in Italy. The
crusade from which he had formerly dissuaded him,
as endangering the peace of his own country, was now
urged upon him with the greatest eagerness ; the un
constitutional tenth from England, and that unheard-
of contribution from Scotland, were now granted
willingly enough.3 The move was a bold one, and at
first appeared likely to prove successful ; but the Pope
had over-reached himself. It was this alliance of
their foes which united the different sections cf the
English clergy, and welded them into the solid mass
they had formed forty years before. Instead of the
mutual support which king and Pope expected,
1 Fad. i. 272.
2 ' Penitusinauditum.' — Id. i. 277.
* It was however not the tenth, but a twentieth, which was granted
from Scotland. The feeling as to the tenth granted to the king is ex
pressed in Gest. Abb. St. Alb. i. 369, where it is called a ' novitas a seculis
inaudita,' that the Church should pay for the support of the laity, instead
of the reverse.

The Position of Parties in 1258. 147
nothing went further to undermine the influence of chap.
both than this unnatural union of the temporal and . _ VL .
spiritual power, this coalition of the Pope who ought I258
to have been an emperor with the king who ought to
have been a monk.
Along with this process of union grew the political Original
ideas of the Church, and its clearness of political vision. the^ngUsh
Nothing is more remarkable than the reverence dis- Churc]1
a towards
played at first for the papacy. In the long lists of Rome;
grievances drawn up by the representatives of the
clergy, it is constantly suggested that the true state
of the case is hidden from the Pope and the Curia,
that if they knew the reality they would never
countenance such exactions. The convocation in
1255 declared their intention of appealing to the
Pope, ' who beyond doubt was a most holy man.' l
But the truth began to dawn upon them at last, cooled by
although as late as 1257 they resolved to claim the ofethaeCti°n
papal protection against the king. Long before this papacy.
it had been darkly hinted that Pope and king were
intriguing merely to get money, and the temper of
convocation in 1257 showed that they were becoming
convinced of the fact. The deception by which money
was demanded as a subsidy for the crusade, while it
was intended for the Sicilian scheme, and the exposure
of the still grosser piece of trickery practised by the
Bishop of Hereford,2 must have shown everyone
the truth. The crusades were in many ways one of
the chief supports of papal power during this age, and
the Popes knew well how to convert the crusading
spirit to their own ends. But at this time devotion to
the Church, we are informed, began to grow cold, and
1 Ann. Bui-t. 265. 2 See p. m.

148

CHAP. VI.
1258
Theory of
a National
Church ;

and of
papal
supremacy.

Simon de Montfort.
therewith the impulse towards crusades. Moreover,
with the growth of national feeling in England had
grown the idea of a National Church. In 1244 we
find the theory of a distinction between Churches
advanced ; the clergy in their remonstrance ' say
that as the Church of Rome has its patrimony, so
other Churches have theirs ; that they are not tributary
Churches, the Pope having indeed the care of all souls,
but being in no sense the owner of all Church property.
On the contrary, they recognise the right of lay
patronage, and the consequent claim to a voice in the
management of Church property which belongs to lay
patrons. Once too, in 1246, they recollect that there
is an authority yet higher than the Pope ; they threaten
to appeal to the General Council ; but they do not
seem to have dared to carry out the threat. They
replied to Rustands demands with the argument, that
it is true in a certain sense that the property of the
Church belongs to the Pope, but only inasmuch as it
is under his protection ; he has no more right to the
enjoyment or appropriation of it than a king has to
seize the property of subjects whom it is his duty to
defend.2 The venality of the Curia, from which they
had often to buy the confirmation of elections, the
secular character of the struggle in which the Pope
was engaged, scandalised many whom the mere
amount of the papal exactions might not have
offended.3 ,
But the less ideal grievances they had to complain
of— the vast number of Italian ecclesiastics in possession

' Ann. Burt. 265. 2 Matt. Par. 920.
2 ' Gratiam ab ilia venali curia obtinuerunt,' — Gest. Abb. Si. Alb, i.
309; cf. Ann. Burt. 265.

The Position of Parties in 1258. 149
of English revenues, amounting, according to one chap.
calculation, to more than three times the ordinary  A — -
royal income ; the incompetence of these persons, and „ ,I2S
Ori 6 Vein ccs
the consequent neglect of their cures ; the summoning of the
of English ecclesiastics out of England to plead before church
the Curia ; the pernicious effect of the clause ' Non a&ainst the
. papacy:
obstante,' so often introduced into papal decrees, and
thence imitated in royal edicts,1 by which all con
fidence in agreements and grants was destroyed ; that
' most obnoxious statute,'2 that all prelates must come
to Rome to be confirmed in their sees ; and, more than
all, the ever-increasing pecuniary demands — these
were doubtless more present to their minds than the
advanced theories mentioned above. The avarice of papal
Rome is a constant theme of the satirical poems, avance'
whose punning verse assailed not only the Curia, but
many English prelates too. Certain bishops are said t
to prefer lucre to Luke, marks to Mark, the bag to \
the Book. But at Rome matters are at their worst, and
and if the head of the world be foul, how is the rest venality-
of the body to be clean ? Everything is for sale in
Rome : ' Give, and it shall be given unto you,' is the
rule ; he that gives most gets most favour from the
judges. Pope and cardinals lead the race for wealth,
all other dignitaries follow in their order ; all pillage
as they can.3 If such were the feelings raised by
1 This provision was one inserted to cancel all existing privileges
which might interfere with the execution of any given decree. It was
specially mentioned in the remonstrance of the English Church as one
of the greatest evils. — Fad. i. 265.
2 'Statutum cruentissimum.' — Matt. Par. 956.
3 ' Sic lucrum Lucam superat,
Marco marcam praeponderat,
Et libra; librum subjicit.
Polit. Songs, ed. Wright, p. 10.

*50 CHAP. VI.
1258
Effect of
royal con
nivance at
papal ex
tortion.

(b) Rela
tions of the
English Church
with the
monarchy :

its submis
sion to the
Norman
kings.

Simon de Montfort.
papal extortion, what was likely to be the effect when
the king joined hands with the extortioner, and
brought the whole weight of popular indignation on
himself, with far less dignity and reverence to defend
him than belonged to his ecclesiastical ally? It was
but natural, if the efforts of the English Church were
henceforward more heartily and more effectively di
rected against the encroachments of the king than
they had been against those of the Pope.
It remains to consider the constitutional position
of the Church in England, and its relations to the
king. The new ideas concerning the independence of
the Church, as yet comparatively moderate and vague
in Lanfrancs day, had been recognised to a certain
extent by William I. The corner-stone of ecclesiastical
liberty, a separate lay and clerical jurisdiction, though
only partially granted by him, showed how far things
had advanced from the almost complete fusion of
Church and State before the Conquest. Yet under
the Conqueror the Church was full of Norman vassals,
and was little more than an instrument of royal
despotism. It was revivified by the purity of Anselm,
but the successful tyranny of Rufus shows how
little able it was as yet to stand firm against the
king. The slight support which Anselm received
from Rome threw the English Church back upon
itself, and contributed to the growth of its nationality ;

Again,

' Roma caput mundi est, sed nil capit mundum.
. . Romanorum curia non est nisi forum.
.. . Dabis atit non dabitur ; petunt quia petis.'

-Id. p. 14.

Another poem quotes ' Cui caput infirmum csetera membra dolent/and
' Quicquid delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi,' and the like.

The Position of Parties in 1258. 151
but Anselm was and remained an Italian, and the chap.
struggle for investiture which he fought had far less •  1 
of interest for England than the struggle which made I2s8
St. Thomas a popular hero. It was not till Stephens independ-
reign that the Church began to take up a really in- ence :
dependent position. About the same time the religious
revival, and the increased study of the canon law,
gave the Church at once a hold on popular veneration
and a greater sense of its own dignity. It began to
appear as the representative of popular liberties, at
least by force of example. By Beckets time England
had learnt to consider the English Church as its own,
and this feeling was strengthened by Beckets well-
known attitude towards the papacy. He was disgusted
by the compromising policy of Alexander III, who
dared not offend Henry : never would he go to Rome,
he swore ; let them go who prevailed in their sins. He
was less of an ultramontane than Robert Grosseteste.
His martyrdom was a victory for the English Church, ^ffe^1 °f
and frustrated the plans by which Henry had hoped death.
to subject it to the state ; it was also a great ad
vantage for the papacy. After that event papal
influence rose, and royal influence fell, till John gave
up the right of consent to election which Henry I had
formulated in law, and conceded to the Church perfect
freedom in the matter. The omission of any special
mention of the right in subsequent confirmations of
Magna Carta was probably due to the same feeling
on the part of the regents which prompted the omis
sion of the constitutional clauses. Taking advantage
of this, Henry III constantly ignored the claims of the
cathedral chapters to the choice of bishops. The per
sons selected by those bodies seem, it is true, to have

1 52 Simon de Montfort.
chap, been often so unworthy as to justify papal interference,
. VL . and to the papal choice we owe some of the greatest
i2ss ornaments of the English Church. But the same
Abuse of defence cannot be made for the king ; Peter des
the royal °
power of Roches, Archbishop Boniface, Aylmer of Winches-
men™111" ter, Peter d'Aigueblanche, are mournful illustrations
of the use he made of royal power. It is evident
that the theory of the independence of the Church
had made but little advance in England, though it had
received constitutional recognition in Magna Carta,
The English Church was indeed less independent of
the king in 1258 than in 121 5, and far less independent
of the Pope than in the days of Becket.
Opposition But this subjection to royal power was more and
Church to more resented. Ideas on this point were now further
royal developed ; ecclesiastical principles were more closely
applied to the existing state of society than ever
before. In the great manifesto of ecclesiastical rights
which Grosseteste published about the year 1236, in
the form of a letter to the primate,1 he opposed the
recent ordinance by which the king appointed abbots
as itinerant justices, laying down the principle that no
Theories of ecclesiastic can hold a secular office. The subjection
?™"gteste of ecclesiastical to secular tribunals ' in actione per
sonalis and especially in cases of supposed disobedience
to royal mandate, was objected to on the ground that
consecrated members are freer than lay members of
the great body of the Church, just as the spirit rules
the flesh, not the flesh the spirit. Ecclesiastical judges
ought to decide in disputed questions whether a case
belonged to the ecclesiastical or to the secular court,
' Grosseteste, Epist. lxxii. p. 205.

The Position of Parties in 1258. 153
seeing that authority is delegated by the former, as chap.
by a superior, to the latter. The king, it was alleged,  ,- — -
violated this principle ; nay, he went further, and often I2s8
prevented ecclesiastics from deciding in purely eccles
iastical cases, or hindered their decision, sometimes
even gave judgment himself. Bishops ought not to be
compelled to give account of their right to presenta
tion, or their reasons for refusing those offered for
preferment ; in cases of disputed patronage the eccle
siastical courts should decide ; it might even be
questioned whether laymen ought to have patronage
at all. This last principle was not, as we have seen, collisions
the general opinion of the bishops, nor did Grosseteste °na?g"artceh
make a dogma of it ; but, even omitting this, the
theory put forward was one which could not fail to
bring the eoclesiastical into perpetual conflict with
the secular power. It is noteworthy that Grosseteste
in this letter never appeals to Magna Carta : once
only he appeals to the Oxford Council of 1222, in
which Archbishop Langton excommunicated the
violators of ecclesiastical liberties. His arguments
are chiefly deduced from analogies from the Old
Testament, from the primitive Church, or the writings
of the Fathers.
The wrongs which the Church, like other bodies, Grievances
had to complain of under Henry III were not so church
much consistent oppression as constantly recurrent ||^"st
molestation, an ever-varying infringement of privilege,
a total want of sympathy with other mens opinions,
an inherent love of irregularity. The king often in
terfered with elections ; 'he strove, when unable to
persuade the clergy en masse, to extort money from
the prelates separately, he made monasteries pay for

i54

CHAP. VI.
1258
Grievances of the
Church
against Henry

produce an
advancein theory.

Simon de Montfort.
a conge d'ttire,1 issued edicts affecting the Church
without its consent, claimed the property of ecclesi
astics dying intestate, and finally endeavoured to
prevent discussion in the ecclesiastical assemblies
altogether.2 The great difficulty of determining the
lay and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which Grosseteste
tried to settle, was constantly appearing. The clergy
in 1240 complained of the interference of secular
judges in ecclesiastical cases, and the articles3 which
the English Church in 1258 declared to be of the
most pressing importance have special reference to
the summoning of prelates before secular tribunals,
the liberation by secular authorities of culprits con
demned in ecclesiastical courts, as well as the punish
ment of the latter by loss of temporal property, and
many other questions of a similar nature. An at
tempt was made by the king in 1247, at a time when
he was on unusually good terms with, the majority of
the clergy, owing to. his temporary opposition to the
Pope, to settle many of the disputed points, and
rather to the advantage of the Church : 4 but, if we
are to believe the clergy, he did not regard his own
enactments in this more than in any other matter.
We have a list of grievances, drawn up by Bishop
Grosseteste, in which the same complaints were
made, and many minor charges brought against the
king and his sheriffs and bailiffs, of unjust action at
law, interference with the testaments of priests, and
the like.5 It must, of course, be remembered that we
have here only one side of the question ; still, grant-

1 E.g. St. Albans.paid 3po marks in 1235.— Gest'. Abb. St.Alb. i, 307.
2 Ann. Burt. 401. s Id. 412-422.
* Matt, Par. 7.27,. 5 Ann. Burt. 422.

The Position of Parties in 1258. 155
ing that there is some exaggeration, there will remain chap.
a large residuum of truth, which must have weighed . VL .
very heavily against the king in the approaching I2S8
struggle. The list of privileges of the Church, com
piled by Robert Marsh, under the direction of the
Bishop of Lincoln, contains theories still further
advanced than those in the protest already men
tioned, with which he began his episcopate. The Theories of
principle of separate jurisdiction is maintained in this in 1250.
document, even to the extent that no ecclesiastic
should be compelled to take an oath in a secular
court ; and the theory of the sacredness of Church
property, of the servants of the Church, of property
under its protection, is expressed with great fulness
and vigour. 'As the father is not subject to the
son,' argues the compiler of this ecclesiastical Bill of
Rights, ' neither should the ecclesiastic be subject to
the layman.' Such then were the relations in which
the Church stood towards king and Pope, such its
internal condition, and the ideas that animated it,
such the grievances that aroused its opposition and
welded it together, till it grew to be the soundest
element of the party at the head of which Simon de
Montfort stood.
The other of the two great supports of the na- ii. The
tionai party, the lay barons, had not so much to com- fitness :
plain of as the Church, while they had more power of tneir.
, . ... opposition.
of resisting oppression. Consequently their resist
ance was more fitful and their principles less devel
oped, though on the other hand their temporal power
made them more important when it once came to
blows. Their greatest ground of complaint, as it was
one of the greatest in the Church, was the ruinous

156

Simon de Montfort.

CHAP. VI.
1258
Grievances
of the
baronage :
aliens,

their per
nicious influence,

abuses of
feudal power for
their sake :

influx of aliens into England. These persons, headed
by the queens uncles and afterwards by the kings
half-brothers, seized upon the posts of honour and
emolument near the kings person, were thrust into
important positions, as sheriffs, bailiffs, and castellans,
and completely occupied the kings ear, to the exclu
sion of the rightful governors and councillors of the
realm. ' England for the English' was the cry which
raised the loudest response ; the expulsion of the
aliens was the first step of the victorious barons in
1258, as it had been the first step of the reformers of
12 1 5. Not only was universal jealousy stirred up,
but enormous loss entailed upon the country by the
influence of foreigners over the king, which they made
use of to persuade him to war and other undertakings ,
against the advice of his council ; by their extravag
ance and the kings imprudent generosity to them;
and by the violations of feudal rights, especially in
the matter of wards and widows, which were per
petrated for their advantage. It was chiefly to en
sure against these that the Statute of Merton was
passed. The breaches of trust committed by the
king as guardian form a most important item in the
baronial indictment, and the ground on which it was
easiest to bring home to him direct violation of the
law.1 Another grave point in which the king in-
1 A notable instance of this kind of injustice is the story of the
widowed Countess of Arundel, who, appealing to the king for recogni
tion of her right to a certain wardship, which the king unjustly kept in
his own hands, was received by Henry with sneers and banter ; upon
which, woman though she was, she delivered her testimony in the kings
face in so masculine a manner, that Henry, utterly abashed, and
acknowledging the truth of her statement, was forced to give way for
the time ; yet she did not gain her plea, but returned, after great
trouble and expense, without success. — Matt. Par. 853, s.a. I252'

The Position of Parties in 1258. 157
fringed the charters was in the matter of the Forest
Laws. Lands already disafforested were alleged to
have been planted again, and rights on lands not
within the forest bounds sold as if they belonged to
the king. But the chief grievances of the barons, the
hardest to formulate or to bring under any distinct
law, were the amount and the frequency of taxation, taxation,
the scandalous misuse to which the taxes were put,
the unjust action of sheriffs and bailiffs, as well as of
the itinerant justices, and the general misgovernment
and confusion of the country. From these grievances
are distinctly traceable the constitutional advances
made during this period. s
The first grievance, that of taxation, did not Taxation;
directly injure the great barons to any great extent ; f0rStheavy
indirectly it did, by sapping the wealth of the f^*1^ '
country, and diminishing in the case of their Church smaller
patronage the value of their property. Direct taxa
tion they were able to resist, and this the king knew
well, or he would not so often have requested their
assent. For a long time they did not take active
measures to prevent scutage and other taxes, to
which they refused to consent, from falling heavily on
the weaker barons and the great body of freeholders.
Aid was unconditionally refused by the barons several
times ; and from them the king could get nothing :
but often, when scutage was denied in Parliament, we
hear nevertheless that the king extorted it, and we
cannot doubt on whom the burden mainly fell. Thus
in the matter of taxation it was gradually seen that
though the king had a legal right, as the revised
charter allowed him, this right was rendered in a
great measure nugatory by the power of resistance

i58

Theory of
assent to
taxation ;

in a transi
tional
stage :

Simon de Montfort.
possessed by the principal taxpayers. The smaller,
being unable to resist, were urged by force of ex
ample to win the same position by combination and
an appeal to constitutional justice ; constitutional
principles were evidently still more important to
them than to their superiors. On the other hand,
the right which the greater vassals claimed and won,
they won not only for themselves but also for the
lower class. The latter were useful to their superiors,
and while supporting them, gained strength and con
fidence in themselves, until, having at last got a
leader, they were able to stand alone when the jeal
ousy of the greater barons forced that leader to rest
almost entirely upon them.
The right of withholding assent to taxation was
constantly put into practice, but never distinctly
formulated as it had been in Magna Carta. The
feeling grew rapidly that what had once been granted
could not be taken away by royal edicts or papal
condemnations. The Great Charter in its first form
became more and more the rallying-point, though in
many respects an advance was made on it: for instance,
in 1244 the right of assent was claimed, as we have
seen, not only in the case of extraordinary aids, but
also in that of the regular feudal contributions. The
theory of self-taxation was passing through the inters
mediate stage of a supposed bargain between the
king and his subjects, confirmation of the charters
being the price paid ; but this very arrangement
shows that the older theory, that the tax was a charge
made by the king on property in reality belonging to
him, and levied for his own good and not that of the
country, was still believed. The feudal notion still

The Position of Parties in 1258. 159
possessed too strong a hold on the popular mind : the chap.
remonstrances took the form of a protest against the —  ,J  -
abuse of an acknowledged right rather than that of a . I2s8
tliis lends
claim for legal justice. Still this very abuse was to other
rapidly undermining the older theory, and with the claims-
claim for assent grew the secondary claim for a voice \/
in the employment of the money. This led very soon
to a demand for a share, if not in the legislation, at
least in the government, especially in its relations with
foreign countries. I have in passing remarked the
occasions on which different constitutional principles
first appeared ; it will be needless therefore to do
more than to sum them up here. We find the above- Expression
mentioned ideas on several occasions strongly though fnes" ideas.
informally expressed. The clergy as well as the
barons declare that the object for which a certain tax
was granted has not been followed ; the king recog
nises the right to know what is to be done with the
tax, by telling them it is for a crusade, or a Welch \
war, or an expedition to Gascony. Not only this,
but the barons ask the very pertinent question, what
has become of the money ? they enquire into the rea
sons of its disappearance, upbraid the king with his
private extravagance, his expenses in wine, robes, and
the like,1 and display an inquisitiveness and a regard
for their own interests which must have been very
irksome to a spendthrift like Henry. To prevent Proposal of
such misuse of public money it was proposed, as early comm'i'ttee.
as 1237, that it should be paid into the hands of a
committee, and spent only by their consent — one of
the most advanced financial ideas that we meet with

1 Matt. Par. 743.

160 Simon de Montfort.
during the whole of this period. But, since it was
necessary to strike at the root of the matter, the
I2s8 barons were led further to claim a general control
claim on over the kings actions, which would, if carried out,
control1 have amounted to a practical abolition of monarchical
power. We find the aid for Sicily refused because
the king had acted without the advice of his council j1
a decided objection was shown to the war with France
in 1 242, and aid refused by the barons because the
war was entered upon, against their will ;a ten years
afterwards, the council insisted on the acquittal of
Simon de Montfort, in direct opposition to the royal
inclinations.
Claim on a -A-s the abuse of taxation led to a demand for a
share m the share in the guidance of the kingdom as a whole, so
admimstra- ° &
tion. jhe decay of the bureaucracy established by Henry II
brought about the claim on a share in the internal
government and the administration of justice. We
saw that the right of election to the high offices of
State was not recognised either by the compilers or
the revisers of Magna Carta ; even the one limitation
on the freedom left to royal choice, namely, that the
objects of that choice should be fitting persons, vague
as this was, was dropped in the subsequent confirma
tions. The power thus given to the executive, espec
ially in the matter of law, was immense. The
system elaborated by the Court-lawyers had a level
ling tendency, by which the old rights of jurisdiction
exercised by the feudal lord over his tenants were
1 Matt. Par. 913. Here Richard of Cornwall was the speaker.
2 ' Responderunt Magnates . . . quod talia conceperat inconsultus ;'
and 'admirantur Magnates quod sine eorum consilio et assensu tam
arduum negotium est aggressus.' — Id. 580. So the clergy protested
against paying the Sicilian debt as contracted without their knowledge.
— Ann. Burt. 391.

The Position of Parties in 1258. 161
gradually superseded. It brought the king and the chap.
lower classes together, to the detriment of baronial , " .
power. To get this machinery into their hands was I2s8
therefore the object of the barons in claiming the right memof"
of appointment. The demand they put forward in 0'f|^ers
12 1 5, though for a time allowed to rest, was not forgot
ten, As early as 1 236 we find the Bishop of Chichester
resisting the kings wish to deprive him of the great ¦
seal, on the ground that it was given with the assent
of the common council, and not by the king alone.1
In 1244 the joint committee of clergy and laity com
plained that justice was not done, and demanded that
only such persons should be chosen to high office as
should be willing and able to guard the interests of
the nation.2 It was seen however that the king was
no fit judge of these interests ; accordingly, four years
afterwards, the demand was directly made that the high
officers should be appointed by, or at least through
the co-operation of, the council of the realm, ' as was
the custom under the kings predecessors.' 3 This
demand was repeated in 1255, and again refused.
In the long interval, when there was neither Chief Govem-
Justiciar nor Chancellor in England, the king was without
able, by means of his underlings, to inflict endless
annoyance and damage upon his subjects, as well as
in various ways to extort large sums of money. So
lucrative a source of wealth was the so-called admin
istration of justice, that he never really gave way on
1 Matt. Par. 430. The bishop had been appointed in 1226, and
held his post till 1244: see above, p. 64.
2 ' Justiciarius et cancellarius fierent per quos regni status solidaretur,
ut solebat. '— Malt. Par. 539: see above, p. 70.
s 'Per concilium regni ' is the phrase used. — Matt. Par. 744 : cf.
above, p. 83. M

ministers.

l62

Simon de Montfort.

CHAP. VI.
I2S8
Abuses of
the judicial
system.

Exactions
of the
sheriffs :

this point till 1258, and appears only once even to have
held out the hope that he would do so.1 The barons,
in their petition of 1258, stated some of the ways in
which the king got money, and the evils thence
ensuing. The visits of the justices, according to the
petitioners, were so arranged that persons having pro
perty in different counties were summoned to several
places at once, and were fined for non-attendance.
Further, so many exemptions from service as jurors
were granted, that is to say, doubtless bought, that in
many counties it was impossible to hold the grand
assize. The facilities which this would give for all
sorts of injustice, the practical destruction of the jury
system, and the consequent violation of the spirit of
the Great Charter, need not to be enlarged upon. It
was equally fatal when advantage was taken of the
-absence of a Chancellor to issue writs which thwarted
the course of justice,2 when persons living in different
counties were prevented from impleading one an
other, when the laws on debt were abused by col
lusion between the justices and the Jews. Closely
connected with the question of jurisdiction was that
of the appointment of sheriffs. The office, it ap
pears, was generally farmed from the king, the con
sequence being that the sheriffs looked on their power
as a means of making money. They levied exces
sive fines, and often on trivial pretexts : for instance,
the holding of two acres of land in a county was
considered sufficient ground for summoning the
holder to the county court, and fining him for non-
attendance. They took fines for the receiving of
malefactors, and mulcted the neighbouring villagers

1 Tn 1248. — Matt. Par. ,765.

2 Id. 639.

The Position of Parties in 1258. 163
if they could not account for a traveller who had hap- chap,
pened to die on the road. That the condition of law . VL .
and justice in the country was very low, is shown by I2S8
the fact that in 1236 all the sheriffs had to be re
moved from office on account of their venality,1 by
the disclosures at Winchester in 1249,2 and by,
stories3 which illustrate the shameless use the sheriffs
could make of their power and the want of protection
from their toils. Such being the evils from which the importance
people had to suffer at the hands of the royal officers, ° ~ep
it is remarkable that the power of appointing sheriffs
does not seem to have been distinctly claimed
(though it may have been included in the general
demand for the right of appointing to the high
offices), till the Mad Parliament. As soon as the
idea of summoning the middle classes to the franch
ise began to gain ground, the political power pos
sessed by the sheriffs, and their influence over the
county courts in the election of the four knights, in
sending out the summons to Parliament, and the like,
' ' Corrupti muneribus exorbitarunt, ' &c. — Matt. Par. 439.
2 See above, p. 81.
' E.g. the story told (Matt. Par. 931) of the sheriff of Northants,
who, coveting some oxen belonging to a respectable farmer, seized the
cowherd, accused him of having stolen the oxen for his master, and
carried him off, vowing ' he would make him sing, ' i.e. accuse his
master and himself. By dint of torture he forced the man to plead guilty,
and put him in prison till the arrival of the justices. The man was
then brought forward to accuse his master, instead of which he related
the whole story. The justices being puzzled, a commission was sent
down, one of the members being Simon de Montfort. The result of .
their enquiry was that worse things still were discovered, and the
sheriff would have been hung but for the intercession of the King 'of
Scotland (on part of whose earldom the offence was probably com
mitted). The injured man and his servant were known, it is said, to
have been of excellent character, while ' the whole county and certain
of the justices were well aware that the sheriff was a rascal (cavillosus
avaras et conducticius) ;' yet the latter would have reaped the fruits df
his villainy but for the boldness of a farm-labourer.
M 2

164

Simon de Montfort.

CHAP. VI.
1258
Regularity
of sum
mons to
Parliament
insisted on:

place of
meeting :

made it very necessary that the national party should
insist on their appointment by Parliament.1
Lastly, we find the provision that the Parliament
should be regularly summoned, which was allowed to
drop in the revised charter, insisted on certainly in
one instance. In 1255 the barons based their refusal
to act on the ground that they had not all been sum
moned ; and closely connected with this was the
reason given, according to some authorities, for the
interruption of business in the Parliament of 1249,
namely, the absence of the Earl of Cornwall, just as
in 1253 the clergy declared they could do nothing in
the absence of the archbishops. It was felt that no
decree or concession made by Parliament or council
could be binding unless all members took part in it,
or were at least invited to do so. With regard to
another provision of the charter, that Parliament
must be summoned to meet at a certain spot, we find
the notion gaining ground that not only must it be
summoned to a certain spot, but always to the same.
This principle was however urged only when occa
sion seemed to require it. In 1236 the barons would
not meet in the Tower, but insisted on assembling at
Westminster, though they do not seem to have ob
jected to being summoned to Merton just before.2
For many years after that the principle seems to have
been lost sight of. The national council met at
various places, London, Oxford, Portsmouth, Win
chester ; in fact wherever the king happened to be.
1 The petition presented by the barons at the Parliament of Oxford
in 1258 contains a long list of grievances, and demands for redress,
including those above-mentioned, and others hardly less important.
2 Pauli, Gesch. von Eng. iii. 624. The refusal to appear at Oxford
in 1233 does not annear to have been made on the same ground.

The Position of Parties in 1258. 165
But the principle was necessary to the separate and chap,
independent existence of a Parliament, if it was to be . VL _.
considered more than a mere offshoot of the Court ;! I2S8
and we shall find it in after-years insisted on with;
great earnestness. The provision, which was perhaps times of
most important of all, that Parliament should meet meetmS-
at regular intervals, though not distinctly laid down
during this period, was nevertheless usually observed.
It met generally three times a year, about the begin
ning of Lent, shortly after Easter, and in the autumn.
The exact time of meeting varied a good deal, but
we find these dates fairly well kept. It seems im
possible to determine whether sufficient notice was
always given, and the Parliaments were, of course,
interrupted when the king was at war, unless they
were summoned by the regency ; but there was no
lack of frequency in them. Under the. existing Frequency
system of government, the mere fact of the barons mentY'121"
assembling in Parliament did not impose any con
siderable check on the king, and the refusal to sum
mon them at all would have been a very extreme
measure. It had become customary, when the king
wanted a general grant of money, to announce the
fact in a great council : if the barons conceded it, well
and good ; if not, the king was not prevented by
their refusal from levying taxes on the weaker barons,
and on others who were still more in his power. An
unconditional refusal was, as we have seen, very rare ;
and, in spite of difficulties, the king always seemed to
hope that he would be able to persuade or terrify into
submission. There was therefore no great tempta
tion to desist from summoning Parliaments, though
Henry would probably have tried the experiment

{

i66

Simon de Montfort.

chap, had he seen how, through their regular assembling
 A — - and their almost continuous resistance, there was
„ I2.s "built up a power which was to shatter that of the
Growing i x-
importance monarchy. The" statutes of Merton mark a great
ment"13'" advance in the history of parliamentary legislation;
but though the summons ' to consult on important
business ' seems to become more frequent, and thus
the general right of Parliament to assist in the
government of the country was more and more clearly
recognised, this was confined to questions of ex
ternal policy, or such as demanded immediate action.
The reign is very barren in legislation properly so
called, in administrative organisation such as that
which distinguished the reign of Henry II ; but what
there was was generally carried out in the old way, and
the common council of the realm had very little to do
with it.1 Still, all the advance that was made tended
inevitably in this direction ; the initiative in legislation
is the last and culminating triumph of parliamentary
government. One fact, though of small importance
in itself, yet deserves to be noticed : the name Par
liament had already begun to be used, as it had in
France a century before.2 Already, as, we have seen,
most of its privileges had won or were winning recog
nition, either in fact or in theory ; it Was no long step,
though it was a very difficult one, to formulate or
systematise those privileges, and to perfect its con
stitution. 1 Except perhaps the statute of Merton.
2 ' Parliamentum Runemede, quod fuit inter dominum Johannem
regem patrem nostrum et Barones suos Anglian' (Rot. Lit. Claus.
28 Hen. Ill) is the first documentary use of the word. It is used in
Ann. Punst. sub anno 1244, and by Matt. Paris, sub anno 1246, for
the first time, but does not for many years come into regular use (see
Gneist. Verw. i. 293).

of repre
sentation.

The Position of Parties in 1258. 167
Of the particular evils suffered by that ill-defined chap.
class, the smaller barons and the freeholders, which . VI- 
formed the greater part of de Montforts own sup- I258
porters, as distinct from the large and loosely-con- "mailer
nected reform party of 1258, it is very hard to form' barons, the
~, , . , freeholders.
an idea, lhey were the same, to a great extent, with &c : their
those of which the great vassals had to complain, snerances;
only in an exaggerated form. Taxation pressed
much more heavily upon them ; they were less able
to combine, and quite unable to resist singly the
oppression of the kings tax-gatherers, his justices, and
his sheriffs : wards and widows from the class of
small tenants-in-chief were completely in, his hands.
But the greatest grievance of the smaller barons, as their want
well as that of the greater subtenants, the towns, and
probably the more important freeholders, the evil the
redress of which, had they had a voice, they would
doubtless have demanded most loudly, was the want
'of representation. The possession of this privilege
would have gone far to remedy all their other wrongs.
The common council, though in a sense a representa
tive body, failed entirely to represent the wishes and
interests of the middle and lower classes ; just as the
prelates, as a body, seem often to have acted in a way
contrary to the wishes of the mass of clergy. But
the latter had a means of making their wishes known
through their own assemblies ; the chapters and mon
asteries were bodies which could easily send repre
sentatives. The like assembly for the smaller barons
did not exist, for the county courts were not in a
position to give force and expression to public opinion.
The distinction between the special and collective
summons shows the difference which had long ago

168

CHAP. VI.
1258
Want of
representa tion for the
smallerbarons, &c.

iv. London
and the
sea-ports :
importance of London.

Simon de Montfort.
crept In ; the power of the greater barons had grown,
while that of the others had sunk. Their attendance
had become for many reasons next to impossible, and
political representation did not exist.1 The example
'of the clergy could not fail to arouse in them a long
ing for at least an equal share in the government.
And if this class felt the want, what must have been
the political unrest of the large and important body
of subtenants, who had not even the consolation,
which the smaller tenants-in-chief had, of feeling
themselves on a nominal equality with the great
barons, nor the vantage-ground which this position
presented for further political action ? But they had
no means of making their wishes known at the time,
or of revealing to us their feelings, for they had no
chroniclers ;2 the way in which they and the Lon
doners followed Earl Simon is almost the only proof
we have — though it is a sufficient one — that he under
took to supply a real want.
Of the other two constituents of Earl Simons follow
ing, London and the sea-port towns, it is easy enough
to see why the first was so staunch a partisan. The
superiority of London to other towns was if possible
more remarkable in those days than it is now.3 It
had a long municipal history to look back on already.
lit had long been connected with the cause of liberty,
and had held a high place in the country. London
was the first to recognise Stephen as king. The com-
.rnune of London supported John, during his brothers
1 See below, s. a. 1264, for a few remarks on the growth of repre
sentation. 2 They never even petitioned, except in conjunction with the greater
barons, till 1259.
3 But see Stubbs, Const. Hist. ii. 218 on this point.

The Position of Parties in 1258. 169
reign, in the revolt against Longchamp ; its adhesion chap.
to the baronial cause was most important in 12 15, . VL . .
and it was rewarded by special mention in Magna I2s8
Carta. The population was more mixed than in 0fTondon.
other towns, more mercantile and habituated to travel,
and consequently more open to new ideas. But the
city was by no means undivided. The monopolies
possessed by the guilds were doubtless very oppressive
to the poorer part of the population. Already we
find two distinct parties among the citizens ; the poor
are very democratical, they have great weight in the
municipal government, and elect a popular mayor ;
the richer citizens are on the side of the king, the |
poor are for the barons. The city had already ob- j
tained important privileges, and if the remark is true
that English liberties have all been bought and paid
for, of no class is it so true as of the civic class. John
had granted the right of annually electing a mayor ;
the royal sheriffs had no authority within the town ;
the citizens even farmed the revenues of the whole
county of Middlesex.
But these privileges were of little avail against the Grievances
royal power. The history of London during this °fLondon-
period is a history of unparalleled exactions and
tyranny.1 The right of apportioning and collecting
their own taxes did not lessen the total amount of
taxation to be borne. The city being looked on as
royal demesne, the king, whenever he was unable to
get money from Parliament, and often at other times,
extorted it from London, availing himself unsparingly
of the omission oL the clause in Magna Carta which
1 See the Liber de Antiquis Legibus, passim.

1 70 Simon de Montfort.
chap, had provided that the aids demanded of the city were
to be such as were reasonable. It may probably be

1258 said with truth that the Londoners and the Jews
from10ny together contributed more to pay the kings private
London; expenses than all the rest of the kingdom together.
Large sums were exacted almost every other year for
the fifteen years before 1258, amounting in one case,
in 1252, to 20,000 marks. These exactions were made
by way of tallage, and without reason given, ' as if
the citizens had been slaves of the lowest condition,'
says a sympathising chronicler.1 A source equally
large was that of fines, which were imposed on every
available pretext, for readmitting an outlaw — the
permission for which was granted when the king was
young and therefore was alleged to be null and void —
for letting a prisoner escape from Newgate, for not
keeping the assize of bread and beer, and so forth.
We have seen into what trouble a quarrel with the
Abbot of Westminster brought the citizens ; in like
manner a disturbance between the Londoners and
some young courtiers whilst playing at the quintain
caused the former to be fined in a large sum of money.2
The royal wish that they should exchange certain
liberties they possessed for others belonging to the
Abbot of Westminster caused them endless trouble :
the authorities stood firm, but the king often renewed
violation of the demand. It being found that the mayor and the
municipal , . . . . ° f ,
privileges; chiet citizens were emboldened by the outcry of the
masses, who clamoured for a voice in the decision,
they were summoned to Windsor, in direct violation
1 ' Velut a servis ultima; conditionis.' — Matt. Par. 852. ' Secundum
voluntatem et aestimationem extortorum, pecuniam civium mutilarunt.
— Id. 600.
2 Matt. West. 852.

The Position of Parties in 1258. [71
of their charters. They had to pay to get their sheriffs chap.
appointed and their charters confirmed. A fair, last- - — A —
ing a fortnight, was decreed by the king to be held at I2j8
° other
Westminster, for the advantage of the abbey, and the grievances,
citizens of London had to shut up their shops and carryf
their goods to the fair. The king frequently removed!
the mayor, for declaring that the royal command
to elect a certain person sheriff was an infringement
of their liberties, or for using indignant expressions
at the withdrawal of an ancient privilege. The
municipal authorities were sometimes deposed in the
most arbitrary manner, and the city put under govern
ors appointed by the king. New-years gifts were
constantly demanded, and presents turned into pre
cedents. Henry even added insult to injury. He was and insults.
annoyed that in spite of constant draining the wealth
of London increased. When he heard that the
Londoners had bought up the plate he had sold to
pay his private expenses, he exclaimed, ' They would
buy up the treasures of Octavian, these boors who
call themselves barons. London is an endless fount
of wealth.' ' Direct injuries such as these were
sufficient to justify any measures of redress ; it is
impossible to estimate the damage to trade, the
discouragement to manufacture, the loss of public
confidence, from which the greatest mercantile city
in England must have suffered.2
1 Matt. Par. 749. Octavian was perhaps Augustus, but more pro
bably the Cardinal Octavian, who led the papal forces against Manfred,
and to whom we find Henry writing on several occasions. The citizens
had a right to the title of 'barones:' see charter of John to London,
"sciatis nos concessisse . . . baronibus nostris de civitate nostra Lon-
donianvm:' and cf. Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 368.
2 The following story illustrates Henrys way of dealing with the
chief city of his kingdom. An anonymous letter was made use of

172

chap.
VI.
1258
The sea
ports :
illegal seizures by
the kings
officers.

Importance of the sea
ports.

Simon de Montfort.
These evils were probably also at the root of the
discontent felt by the Cinque Ports and the other sea- •
port towns. The barons in 1248 complained that the
king seized merchandise, in point of fact committed
highway robbery by means of his officials, that he
confiscated wine, wax, silk, and other goods, without
thinking of paying for them. It was even alleged
that his officials seized fish, and compelled the fisher
men to transport it far inland.1 The barons in 1258
complained that the kings agents at fairs and markets
took twice or thrice as much as they were entitled to;
the general result of all this being, as they said, that
prices rose, that English merchants were ruined,
and foreign trade ceased to flow into the country.
A striking example of the kings arbitrary procedure
in these matters is the prohibition of the export of
wool, which he is said to have issued in 1244, in order
to annoy the French.2 It may be doubted if such an
edict could have ever been fully executed, but the
mere fact of its having been issued shows how little
regard was paid to commercial interests. All these
things would be the more resented by the sea-ports,
owing to the importance which they felt themselves
to possess ; for on them fell the whole duty of sup-
as the basis of grievous accusations against the highest municipal
authorities ; the king, under the pretext of sheltering the poor,
summoned these officers, refused to let them be tried by jury, as they
demanded, and as their charters decreed, and threw them into prison. It
was afterwards found that they were innocent, but they were not restored
to office, not was any reparation made. — Lib. de Ant. Leg. 30.
1 Matt. Par. 743. This is supported by the accusation brought by
Prince Edward against the king, of oppressing the Gascon merchants,
and by the story (Id. 832) that the Friars Minors refused to accept
certain fine robes offered by the king, knowing that he had come by
them dishonestly.
2 Ann. Dunst. 163. This was however repeated by Earl Simon,
and, partially at least, by Edward I.

The Position of Parties in 1258. 173
plying the navy, and of defending the coast in time chap.
of war. This duty was common of course to London -_ — - — •
with the Cinque Ports ; the latter however had also 125
an importance of their own. Instructions were issued
to Dover and other towns, to prevent the entry of
foreign emissaries without the royal leave ; the pos
session of Dover Castle was most important in the
barons' war, and it was entrusted by Simon de Mont
fort to his eldest son Henry, as the key of England
by which the invasion of foreign mercenaries was
to be prevented.
But while London was so far advanced in material other
prosperity and ih political ideas, and while the other x°^x "£'
sea-ports followed her example, the majority of the vanced:
towns were in a more backward condition.1 Barons
of London and barons of the Cinque Ports we hear
of, but in hardly any other cities. The castles of
the great lords, the magnificent abbeys and episcopal
palaces, the homes of the smaller barons and other
landed proprietors, gave the country an air of wealth
and splendour which was totally absent from the
towns. They were still in many cases mere collections
of the poorest and weakest part of the community.
They had hardly any independent existence ; they their de-
were generally royal demesne, subject to tallage and onfteWng.
other exactions at the kings pleasure, or they were
equally at the mercy of some great noble. Many had
indeed got considerable municipal privileges, such as
York, Lincoln, Oxford, Winchester, but for these
they looked to the king and to the king only. Their
traditions, so far as they went, generally led them in
1 See Prof. Brewers preface to Monumenta Franciscana.

174

Simon de Montfort.

chap. VI

and other
towns,

the same direction ;l Northampton and Leicester had1
— supported Henry II against his sons; Northampton
1258 had helped Tohn against the barons. Their budding
Contrast ,., ,, , , , t, 1 r .
between the life naturally looked to the monarchy for protection
against the tyranny of feudalism, and Henry III, like
his father and grandfather, had shown them great
favour. The evils from which London and the other
mercantile ports suffered did not press so heavily on
the inland towns ; their trade was but small, and
the spirit of liberty was not so strong in them as in
the sea-faring population.2 Not many towns had
got beyond the wish for mere passive liberty, or
at most for municipal authority. The municipal
freedom of London had been completed by the
liberty of electing its own mayor. The citizens were
strong enough to protect themselves, and had nothing
more to gain by connexion with the Crown, while
they had everything to lose by its rapacity. They
began to covet a share in the government of the
country, from which they were, in their corporate
existence, as completely excluded as the uncultured
peasants outside their walls. The same idea was
much later in presenting itself to the minds of the
generality of townsfolk, and yet they had to be in
cluded when the franchise was extended to the sea
ports, however little gratitude they felt for the gift.
From these reasons we find London and the Cinque
Ports among the most active if not the most efficient
supporters of Simon de Montfort ; while the other
1 In 1258-65 Nottingham and Northampton seem to have been
on the Baronial side, while Bristol, Worcester, Oxford, Winchester, &c
were decidedly royalist.
2 Cf. the spirited reply made by the men of the Cinque Ports to
Edward I in 1293.

The Position of Parties in 1258. 175
towns were mostly neutral, if not actively on the side chap.
of the king.  — •
The only remaining element of the reform party, I2S
• ¦ , • , , , , , . , v. The Uni-
the Universities, did not perhaps add much practical versities.
weight, in a struggle which had to be decided by the
sword, but their moral influence was great, and thatj
was almost entirely with Simon de Montfort. Th
importance of Oxford had risen in this century to! importance
an unprecedented height, and the number of stud
ents is said to have reached 15,00c1 The dis
tinct existence of the University, with a Chancellor
and a jurisdiction of its own, was recognised by royal
edicts. Its fame was in all lands : many teachers at
Paris were Oxford men.2 The study of logic and
the appeal to the understanding, so actively favoured
by the Franciscans, had introduced a freedom of dis
cussion which was applied to politics. The hatred of its national
foreigners, which was so strong throughout England, tendencies.
found vivid expression at Oxford in the attack on the
servants of the legate Otho in 1238 ; an anti-royalist
feeling was probably at the bottom of the frequent
collisions with the townsfolk which occurred at both
Universities. The reforming tendencies of the younger
portion of Oxford were sufficiently shown by the fact
that in 1264 the students turned out en masse to join
the national party ; and this event fully justified the
kings suspicions if not his policy, when he issued
orders for the temporary suppression of the Univers
ity. Lastly, Bishop Grosseteste never relinquished
his early connexion with Oxford, and stood forth as its
protector on every possible occasion. Adam Marsh, its
1 Rishanger, Chron. 22.
2 E.g. Edmund Rich, afterwards Archbishop.

176

chap.
VI.
1258
Universal
alienation
from the
king.

Disunion
in the
nationalparty.

Thecountryripe for
change.

Simon de Montfort.
Doctor Illustris, was a popular lecturer there, and at the
same time an active politician. Which side these men
favoured in the struggle we have clearly seen.
Thus it appears that almost all classes of society
were alienated from the king, but they were not yet
united against him, The two classes that were able
to take the initiative had not acted in real unison
since the time of John ; their interests were not so far
interwoven nor mutually dependent enough to force
them into alliance, till the grievances of each grew to
such an extent as to convince them that they were
necessary to each other. They had made attempts,
as in 1244, to combine, but the combination failed to
produce any effect ; we are told they were disunited
and undecided. The disunion was kept up by the
king, who often sought to win the great barons by
favours, and, if we are to believe the historians, he was
not unsuccessful in bribing several who seemed to
have put their hands to the plough.1 As long as the
Pope confined himself to exactions from the Church
the barons' looked on comparatively unmoved, though
protesting now and then ; but when he began to sup
port the king, and to drag him into transactions which
affected the whole realm, they began to be seriously
alarmed. The result of this feeling was seen in 1256,
when the clergy were on the point of giving way to
Rustand, but were encouraged by lay support to
resist. But both parties might have waited long for
each other, had not the man who by his character
and connexions was best fitted to be the link be-

1 See above, note 1, p. 116,

The Position of Parties in 1258. 177
tween them seen the necessity of mutual support,! chap.
and formed the central point of contact for layman ;  — -
and ecclesiastic, merchant and baron, rich and poor. ' I25S
The temper of the country was by this time ready, !
The ' divinity that doth hedge a king ' had long ago Feeling
faded away from Henry. More than twenty years taking.
before this the barons had threatened to choose another
king, if he did not free himself and the country from
the hated Peter des Roches. Men had begun to laugh
at his authority ; they had seen through his ruses, his
pretext of a crusade, or a war with France ; the in
capacity he showed in the conduct of the Gascon wars
and in his expeditions against the Welch convinced
them that royalty and generalship did not always go
together. He was the first English king since the
Conquest who had decidedly failed in the art of war.
Ill-omened comparisons between him and his father
became frequent. 'He takes the cross as John did,' it
was remarked.1 When he met with opposition from
the Master of the Hospitallers, he asked, ' Will ye
expel me like my father John ? ' 2 His ungovernable
temper had given bitter offence to many of the nobles,
and degraded him in the eyes of all. In 1255 he
attacked the Earl Marshal, who was defending his
friend Robert de Ros, with violent language, and called
him a traitor before the assembled peers. 'Thou
liest,' replied the earl, 'and what couldst thou do if thou
wert in the right ? ' 'I would seize thy corn,' said
Henry, ' and thresh it out and sell it.' ' And I,' retorted
Bigod, 'would send thee the heads of thy threshers.'3
When such a scene was possible, Henry must have
1 Matt. Par. 849. 2 Id. 854. 8 Id. 917.
N

i78

Simon de Montfort.

chap.
VI.
1258
Political
ideas on the
monarchy.

Political
poem on
the battle
of Lewes,

which ex
presses the
ideas of
EarlSimon.

sunk very low in popular estimation ; but there were
still more dangerous indications of political ideas
which might be fatal to an arbitrary system of govern
ment. On an occasion already alluded to the Master
j of the Hospitallers, when Henry wished to cancel his
/ charter, said to him, ' As long as thou keepest justice
thou canst be king ; as soon as thou breakest it, thou
ceasest to be a king.' And in the same spirit the
clergy, answering Rustand, had compared the Popes
rights to those of the king, declaring the duty of both
to be to defend and not to waste the goods of their
subjects.1 The political opinions of the day received their
highest development in the great poem, written a few
years later than the point we have reached, on the
occasion of the battle of Lewes.2 We find here put
forward a noble ideal of political duty, as incumbent
on king and subjects, and a thoughtful conception of
liberty in its relation to law, combined with a breadth
of rational feeling and a depth of political insight
which would alone be sufficient to raise the movement
we are examining far above the rank of a mere feudal
revolt. That the poem embodies the ideas which
animated Simon de Montfort there can be no doubt,
though it is possible he would have been unable, if
called upon, to formulate them so clearly ; for the

1 ' Secundum quod dicimus, omnia esse principis, ac si diceretur
defensione non dispersione.'- —Matt. Par. 920.
2 Polit. Songs, ed. Wright, p. 72. This poem is written in the usual
trochaic rhythm, of even and elegant flow, and in generally correct
Latin. It consists of 968 lines, and is divided into two exactly equal
parts, of which the first is a defence of Simon de Montfort and a
summing up of the case against his enemies ; the second is a general
statement of principles and their application. For the first half see
below, s.a. 1264.

The Position of Parties in 1258. 1 79
first half consists of a minute and careful defence of chap.
his policy and actions, in a tone of so warm approba- — — 1 — -
tion that it could only have been written by one of I2s3
the staunchest of his partisans. It seems likely on
many grounds that it emanated from the pen of a
Franciscan, but the authorship cannot be determined
with any certainty.
The whole root of the quarrel is said to lie in this^\ Arguments
that the king wishes to be free to rule exactly as he i^amst an
pleases. This, say his friends, is the only real king- (absolute
. . rr., 1 • -ii-, tt i [monarchy.
ship. I he kings will is law. He merely acts as\ ?
every great lord is entitled to do, dealing as he pleases
with his own j1 if he mismanages his property, on
him falls the loss, but no one interferes with him ;
the king merely claims the same liberty, and more
over only that which his predecessors had before
him. Therefore the barons have no right to interfere
with the appointment of high officers, or the custody
of castles and the like, which things concern only the
king. The barons answer that, inasmuch as they are
bound to protect the kingdom from foreign invasion,
they are bound to protect it also from internal
treachery. They do not attack the king, but his
worst enemies, when they expel his evil counsellors.
Those who rule the king for their selfish interests, and
waste and impoverish the realm by introducing aliens
and ousting the native nobility, do as much harm to
the country as those who invade it with arms in their
1 This was actually argued by the king on one occasion (Matt. Par.
748) ; for a similar argument from the disobedience of his subjects, cf.
Matt. West. 272. It is worth while to remark that the same argument
was used in 1642 to support the kings claim to the town of Hull and
its magazines, and was rebutted by Pym on the ground that the kings
towns are his own no more than his people are his own.
N 2

i8o

Simon de Montfort.

CHAP. VI.
1258

Political
poem : the
supremacy
of law.

hands. It is all one whether the king acts of malice
prepense or is led away by ill advice ; the barons are
equally bound to assert their position as defenders of
their country.1
The king is not superior to the law.2 He asks,
' Why am I to be limited in the choice of the officers
by whom I rule ? ' The answer is that that is not
true liberty which is totally unlimited. On the con
trary, true liberty is not lost by wholesome restraint,
true power does not disappear under regulated com
pulsion.3 The law which limits royal power really
enfranchises it, because it prevents it from being hurt
by evil. Such a law is no slavery, but the saving
of honour. It is not reckoned as impotence in God
that He cannot sin. In like manner the king may do
all that is good, but may not do what is evil ; and this
is the gift of God. Moreover, his duty is, since his
people are Gods people, and are entrusted by God to
him, to love and help them. If he does so, he deserves

1 ' Bracton reckons as superior to the king " not only God and the
law, but his court of earls and barons, for the former (comites) are so
styled as associates of the king, and whoever has an associate has a
master ; so that if the king were without a bridle, that is, the law, they
ought to put a bridle upon him.".' — Hallam, Middle Ages ii. 331. In
the first count of the indictment made against the Despensers in 1321
(Statutes, i. 182), an almost identical argument is said to have been
used by the younger Hugh to get influence over Edward II.
- ' The king must not be subject to any man, but to God and the law ;
for the law makes him king.' — Bracton, i. 8 ; and again, 'The king can
¦do nothing on earth, being the minister of God, but what he can do by
law.' — Id. iii. 9.
8 The same idea is applied by Grosseteste to the Pope, who possesses
* potestatem in his quae ©perantur ad fedificationem, non in his qua; ad
ruinam.' — Matt. Par. 918 : cf. his sermon before the Council of Lyons,
quoted by Stubbs (Coast. Hist. ii. 301I, ' proesidentibus huic sedi
sacratissima; in quantum indutis Christum et in quantum vere prasid-
entibus in omnibus est obtemperandum : sin autem quis eorum, quod
absit, superinduat amictum cognationis et carnis .... .obtemperans ei
in hujusmodi manifeste se separat a Christo, &*c.'

The Position of Parties zVz 1258. 181
honour at their hands ; if not, he loses his authority, chap.
and must be recalled into the right way by the people. •  — ¦
Mutual dependence therefore is right ; let a prince so I2S
reign that he may never find it necessary to avoid
depending on his subjects. The prince that does so
will find it result in his own ruin.
But supposing such a foolish prince to exist, what Law ex-
is to be done ? He will go wrong if he chooses his the voice of
own counsellors. What authority then remains ? the PeoPle-
None but that of the community.1 It is in the col
lective memory of the nation alone that the truth con
cerning the laws and customs of the realm can be
discovered. Tradition is alive in the people, for they
daily use the laws of their fathers. Appeal must \
therefore be made to the community ; its opinion
must be ascertained. The community should choose
those persons as counsellors whose interests are most
wrapped up with those of their country : such men
will feel in their own persons the wrongs of their
country, as the limbs feel with the whole body.
Further, although it is pre-eminently necessary Duties of
that those who sit in office shall be just and wise, their power.
obligation does not stop short there. Subjects who
waste or abuse their property must be checked, for
the whole kingdom suffers if part be destroyed.
Thus the kings argument from the liberty allowed to
every subject falls to the ground.2 No one can do
1 The word used is communitas or universitas. Bracton writes, at the
close of this reign, ' Cum legis vigorem habeat quicquid de consilio et de
consensu magnatum et reipublicse communi sponsione, auctoritate regis
sive principis pracedente, juste fuerit definitum et praceptum.' —
Bracton, i. i, expanding the definition given by Justinian.
2 It is remarkable, as showing the obstinacy of the feudal idea of
property, that the kings argument is not met directly by the counter-*
statement, that what is subject to him is not his own.

182

Simon de Montfort.

chap. VI.
1258
Political
poem : the
king to be
ruled by
law ;

conclusion:

conception
of the ' vox
populi,'

quite as he will, but is under authority. The ulti
mate authority rests with the whole community. Law
is light to him who would guide his steps and those of
his subjects aright. The law of the universe is well
called a law of fire, for fire lights, warms, burns. Such
a fire is the law to a king. He cannot change the
law. It is often said, ' the kings will is law.' Truth
says otherwise, for law stands if the king fall. Law
is like fire, for it lights as truth, warms as charity,
burns as zeal : with these virtues as his guides the
king will rule well. He will then remember that he
holds office not for his own but for others' good. If he
so truly love his people, he will consult and inform his
counsellors, however wise he be, in order to make all
of one mind, even as the Lord told His disciples of
what He should do. Let the king seek the glory of
God, and learn to rule himself first : without that he
can never rule men.
From all this the conclusion is, first, that it is the
sacred duty of the barons, as representing the com
munity, to look to and protect the welfare of the
kingdom, and to interfere in the government with
that object ; secondly, that this object is best secured
by seeing that the king have round him native coun
sellors, not strangers or favourites, who upset all law
and the venerable custom of the land.
Such are the political principles put forward by
an unknown writer, six hundred years ago, as those
on which the leader of the reform party acted. It was
a pity that Simons most powerful supporters did not
understand them better. It is the great doctrine of a
General Council that is here laid down, the doctrine
that the voice of God finds its truest expression in

The Position of Parties in 1258. 183
the voice of the people ; not the people acting on
mere impulse, or with unguided judgment, but acting
on the traditional and collective experience of ages,
as embodied in law. In this case law is not looked
on as a mere compact, but as a living growth, added
to and kept alive by each succeeding generation. It
is therefore not a codified law nor a collection of royal
edicts that is here meant, but rather an active tend
ency or principle, the resultant of ages of order and
rule, which will on any special occasion lead the
people by instinct to a right decision, and will supply
a constant guide to the ruler, as a sort of political
conscience, by giving him insight into the truth, love
for his people, enthusiasm for the right. It is to be
observed that this verdict of the popular voice is not
claimed on all questions, but only on those into which
an insight is given by popular interest and experi
ence. Some little confusion is caused by the dif- interpreta-
ferent senses in which the word law is used : at one words
time it appears to be formulated and written law, the j^*'
clearly-defined boundary of royal power ; at another
it is tradition or custom, living in popular institutions ;
at another — and this is the most general sense — it is
the national or the individual conscience. It is also and 'com-
difficult to see exactly what is meant by the com- mumty-
munity of the realm. There can hardly have been
present in the authors mind any notion of universal
suffrage. The barons are looked on as_ the rightful
supporters of and sharers in the government ; the ex
isting theory of the constitution is kept in view ; it is
probable therefore that the word is used in its usual
sense, as implying not only the whole body of tenants-
in-chief, but also subtenants and freeholders and

184 Simon de Montfort.
chap, probably all freemen. The composition of Simon de
•  A — ' Montforts Parliament may throw some light on this.
„ I2S Limited as is the political liberty claimed, and
Contrast , , .
between the moderate as are the conclusions arrived at, nothing
poen^and can be imagined more antagonistic to the system of
thepohcyof government pursued by Henry III than the broad
and liberal principles on which the poem is based.
That system was essentially autocratic. The Eur
opean position to which Henrys grandfather had
raised the monarchy, his connexions with other sover
eigns, the example of the Emperor Frederick II, and,
most of all, the growth of royal power in France,
induced him with his imaginative and sanguine, but
weak and unstatesmanlike, nature to enter upon a
foreign policy, which demanded for any chance of
success the resolution of Henry II combined with the
subtletyof Innocent III. His expenses were necessarily
very large, and some excuse may be made for him in
the fact that the regular royal revenues were probably
far from sufficient for what he attempted. But it is
his wilful- obvious that he need never have attempted it — that he
imprudence ougnt never to have attempted it. His French wars
inexcus- were unnecessary ; nothing could be more absurd
than his Sicilian scheme. His grandfather had ab
stained from foreign interference as much as possible,
yet he was far more respected abroad than Henry III.
And even had he chosen to take up an active policy
abroad, it is probable that with care and good govern
ment he would have carried the baronage with him.
The aids which they granted him as it was would
have been indefinitely increased, had he acted by
their counsel, dropped his foreign favourites, and
ceased from waste and illegal exaction. All they

VI.
I2S8

The Position of Parties in 1258. 185
asked him, until driven beyond endurance, was that chap.
he should keep his word. It seems impossible to
find any good defence for Henry, even though we
should attribute nothing but selfish motives to the
barons ; and this, though true to a great extent of
many, cannot be said of their leader, or of the party,
however small, which embraced the principles just
stated. What could be expected of a struggle, in
which ideas of liberty were propounded with the clear
ness and power of the political poem, while Henry
had apparently nothing better to oppose to them than
the plea that he merely claimed a privilege allowed
to every one, that of acting as he pleased ; or the
argument that, as his subjects did not keep his laws,
he could not be expected to observe his charters ? !
1 See note i, p. 179.

1 86

CHAPTER VII.

THE REVOLUTION OF 1258.

chap. The wet summer of 1257 had caused a very bad
*  A- — - harvest ; it was followed by a hard winter, and a late,
,,.I2S, , cold spring. A terrible famine was the result. In the
Miserab'e r °
state of the early part of the year 1258 so many persons died of
ntry' hunger that their bodies were left lying on the road
side, and in London alone 15,000 — probably an ex
aggerated reckoning — are said to have perished.1 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,2 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 threaten
ing to excommunicate the English Church if they

Freshpapal exac
tions. /

1 Matt. Par. 969. In Ann. Tewk. 166 the number is given as
20,000. 2 The treaty, made by the barons of Scotland, not the king, with
Llewelyn and the Welch chiefs, is given in Feed. i. 370.

The Revolu Hon of 1 2 5 8 . 187
refused assistance to Pope and king.1 On his arrival chap. VII
a convocation was summoned by the Archbishop of ¦  ,- —
Canterbury, which passed resolutions far stronger I2S
• , it ,1,1 Opposition
than any hitherto made, ft was resolved that the to papal
penalty of excommunication should be inflicted on exact,ons-
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.2 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 Parlia-
, ment that followed ' out of caution.' 3
At this Parliament, which met at Westminster on Parliament
April 10, to discuss Welch affairs and the Papal claims, minster:
the king demanded ' untold money,'4 for the expenses d°yalnd
incurred in Apulia. The unprecedented magnitude of
the demand produced general consternation, and Wil
liam of Valence began to lay the blame of all these
evils on English traitors. The fear of provoking insolence
universal wrath caused him to specify the Earls of °f valence.
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
kings intervention.5 The discussion in Parliament
1 The Papal commission to Arlot is dated 30 Dec, 1257.
2 Ann. Burt. 412 seq.
3 'Forte aliqua cautela mediante.' — Ann. Tewk. 163 ; this must refer
to the Parliament of Westminster, though referred there to the Parlia
ment of Oxford.
4 ' Infinitam pecuniam.' — Matt. Par. 963.
5 Matt. Par. 963 calls Simons opponent here ' Episcopus Willelmus,

i88

Simon de Montfort.

The barons
begin to
act:

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.1 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.' 2 The king attempted to cut short the
altercation by issuing, on April 28, an edict de
manding 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 Coun
cil-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
but Aylmer was the bishop, not William. The whole story is perhaps
a mere repetition of the similar scene last year, related on p. 123 ; but
this is hardly probable, for there are great differences between the two,
especially in the cause given for the quarrel. Hugh of la Marche was
father to William of Valence, and had deserted the English cause in 1 242.
1 ' Comes praecipue Legrecestria; non tamen regi sed universitati
prgecordialiter est conquestus,' &c. — Matt. Par. 968. ' Sicut Simon
Machabeeus surrexit pro fratre suo Juda, . . sic Simon de Monte-forti
pro Anglia erexit se, ut pro legibus et libertatibus ejus usque ad mortis
perniciem dimicaret. ' — W. de Hemingb. i. 304.
2 ' Hominum quisquilise.' — Id. 968.

The Revolution of 1 258. 1 89
answered, 'Nay, my Lord King, but we ask that the chap.
Poitevins and all other aliens may be expelled from - — ,-' — •
the country, for this is necessary for the honour and I25
welfare of thy realm.' The king then inquiring how demands,
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.1 So firm a front did they the kmg'
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 Promise
before the end of the year, the barons declared they ° ai '
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,2 they made matters safer by thfttcomf
insisting on the immediate election of the committee,3 twenty-
b ' four.
1 This account, apparently by an eye-witness, is taken from Ann.
Teiok. 163 ; an examination of the context shows that it must belong to
this Parliament, though the history, as given in these annals, is very
confused. W. de Hemingb. i. 305, amplifies the address of the Barons.
2 ' Nesciebant quomodo suum Protea tenere voluissent. ' — Matt.
Par. 965.
3 ' Per xii fideles de concilio nostro jam electos,' &c. — Fad. i. 371,
writ dated May 2, in which the kings consent to the scheme is given.
The words in Ann. Burt. 445, seem to show that the twenty-four were
elected at this time, not at Oxford ; ' Fuerunt etiam in eodem
parliamento apud Oxoniam xxi v electi, &c. : ' i.e.' the chosen were
present at Oxford.' The embassy to France consisted of 'Nuncii ex
electis Anglia; comitibus et baronibus,' which must refer to the commit
tee. — Matt. Par. 968. The manner of their election is not stated, but the
two bodies of twelve were doubtless elected separately by the two parties,
and either at or immediately after this Parliament of Westminster.

190 CHAP.
VII.
1258
The com
mittee to meet at
Oxford.

Embassy
to France :

its object.

Simon de Montfort.
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 there
fore 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.1 The promises of the
king and Edward, to reform the realm and to acqui
esce in the provisions to be made by the twenty-four,
having been published,2 Parliament broke up.
The committee seem to have taken the govern
ment in hand at once, and on which side the power
lay was evident from the first. An embassy, consist
ing of Simon de Montfort and Peter of Savoy, the
ambassadors of former years, Geoffrey and Guy of
Lusignan, the kings 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.' 3 Meanwhile the ports were
1 Dr. Pauli suggests that it was because Oxford was a neutral spot, but
that epithet is more fairly applied to a place in which neither party is
represented, than to one like Oxford, in which both parties were so
strongly represented as to lead to constant breaches of internal
neutrality. 2 Writs dated 2 May, Fad. i. 370, 371. They are tested only by
friends of the king.
3 So Matt. Par. 968 declares ; the writ (dated 8 Mayl in Feed. i.
37 1 mentions nothing but the prolongation of the truce. It is possible
that Geoffrey of Lusignan was one of the kings twelve : see note 1, p. 193-

The Revolution of 1 2 5 8 . 191
occupied, for bitter experience had shown the power chap.
of foreign mercenaries. .  r„"  .
The famous assembly which was to earn, with a\ I258
r . .... . - , 1 Parliament
strange mixture of justice and injustice, the title 0f Oxford.
of the Mad Parliament, met at Oxford on the ap
pointed 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, List of
and a petition for their redress.1 The grievances, like ^ees™eCj!
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 divi
sion, affecting especially the barons, had the preced
ence, 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 mostm>
most important point, the most crying need, was thfe points.
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 jus
tice to rich and poor.
The king seems either from fear or from a recogf- , Resistance
. . - . . (cf the kings
nition of the justice of these claims to have been I brothers.
inclined to yield, but his half-brothers, supported by \ i
1 Given in Ann. Burt. 439. The most important details have been f
already given in ch. vi.

192 CHAP. VII.1258
Parliamentof Oxford :
oath of
the barons.

Earl Simon
gives up his
castles.

Flight of
the kings
brothers.

Simon de Montfort.
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 meet
ing 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,' 2 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
1 This is probably the oath of the commonalty given in the Provi
sions of Oxford, though there it does not take exactly this form. The
words in the text are taken from Matt. Par. 971.
2 Ibid.

77*i? Revolution of 1 2 5 8. 193,
twenty-four is somewhat uncertain, owing perhaps to chap.
the doubtful attitude of the Earl of Gloucester. Only  ,1 — •
twentv-three names are given, probably because he I25
. ... . The com-
was claimed by both parties.1 On the kings side mitteeof
appear first and foremost his own relations : his fou":tythe
half-brothers, Aylmer, Bishop-Elect of Winchester, kings
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 Henrys
staunchest adherents. These were the kernel of the
party. Henry of Almaine, the kings 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 party"*
follower of Grosseteste. He and Simon de Montfort,
with the barons John Fitz-Geoffrey, Richard de Gray,
1 In the report of the Oxford Provisions in Ann. Burt. 447, Gloucester
appears among the barons ; in a writ dated 22 June, 1258 (Rot. Lit.
Pat. 42 Hen. Ill, m. 6), quoted in the Lords' Report, he is mentioned
on the kings side. He undoubtedly acted on the side of the barons at
this time. Perhaps Geoffrey of Lusignan was the kings twelfth man, or
the Archbishop of Canterbury : see Stubbs, Const. Hist., ii. 82, and
Appendix iii. O

194 CHAP.
VII. 1258
Committee
of twenty-
four : the
baronial
party.

Measures
of the
twenty-
four:

appointment of a
council of
fifteen.

Simon de Montfort.
William Bardulf, Hugh Despenser, and Peter de
Montfort, Simons cousin, represented the extremes.
Fitz-Geoffrey was said by some to come next in im
portance 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 re
newed outbreak, but the rest had all taken the kings
side in 1 264. 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 pro
ceeded 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 aristo
cratic re'gime 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

The Revolution of 1 2 5 8 . 195
members of the kings twelve who were elected into the chap.
council. Other members, more or less royalist, were the >  ^ 
Archbishop of Canterbury, Peter of Savoy, and John I258
Audley, the last being a very firm adherent to the king, council of
On the other hand nine of the baronial committee were fifteen :
chosen on the council, as well as the Earl of Albemarle,
so that they had a majority of two-thirds.1 The duties theirdmies
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 Parlia
ments, 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 Represen-
1111 1 tatives of
were elected by the ' community, who were to attend the mm-
the Parliaments and act in conjunction with the fif- munit>'-
teen, 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
1 According to the list in Ann. Burt, the nine barons were the
Bishop of Worcester, the Earls of Gloucester, Leicester, Norfolk and
Hereford, R. Mortimer, J. Fitz-Geoffrey, R. deGray, and P. de Montfort.
The writ of 18 Oct. , 1258, proclaiming in French the kings adhesion to
the Provisions, omits from the list given in the text J. Mansel, but adds
the Earl of Winchester and Hugh Despenser, thus making sixteen in
all. The corresponding writ in English omits the Earls of Hereford
and Winchester, and H. Despenser, but possibly means to include them
when it states that others not named were present. The Lib. de Ant.
£<?¦ P- 37, omits J. Fitz-Geoffrey, who was probably dead before the list
there given was made. It is possible that the Earl of Winchester
appeared in the place of J. Mansel, who was especially odious to the
barons, or that some members of the twelve representatives of the
community were present. Only one new member, called P. de Ballech,
(? P. Basset) appears in October 1259. See Appendix lii.

thereby.

1 96 Simon de Montfort.
was an advance upon the corresponding clause of
Magna Carta, by which it was stipulated that a
1258 general summons should be sent to all the smaller
iepresenta- barons ; inasmuch as that clause did not cut at the
reaiiy^e-01 root of the difficulty, the unwillingness or inability of
present this class to attend. On the other hand, the names
the com- . .
munity: 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.1
They were in no sense representatives of the whole
t"any , body entitled to a share in government, as those
barons lose J °
power elected in 1265 were. Further, many of the greater
barons lost individually by the arrangement ; for
although their class as a whole gained complete com
mand 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 contemp
lated appears from the very fact of the appointment
1 The twelve representatives of the community are the Bishop of
London, the Earls of Hereford and Winchester, H. Despenser, J. de
Gray, J. de Balliol, R. de Monthaut, R. de Sumery, T. de Gresley,
Giles de Argentine, P. Basset, J. de Verdun. Of these just half
appear on the royal side in 1264 ; one only was certainly on that of the
barons. It is remarkable that the Earl of Hereford appears as a member
both of the fifteen and the twelve. It is possible, and on other grounds
probable, that H. Bohun, the younger, a staunch adherent of , de
Montfort, was one of the twelve, and not his father ; but this is not
supported by documents. W. Bardulf is the only one of the original
baronial committee who is not a member of the new Parliament, for
H. Bigod, though not of the fifteen or the twelve, would surely have
attended as Chief Justiciar.

The Revolution of 1 258. 197
of the twelve, and the special provision that the chap.
fifteen should attend. But it is not actually stated

that no others shall attend, and on this point, as I2s8
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
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 victory of
royal party were completely worsted, and the barons unesatisfacS-
took the management of affairs into their own hands. tory result-
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
... r r . , position of
original committee of twenty-four was entirely anom- the twenty-
alous. Their work ought to have ceased with the our'
establishment of the new form of government ; but the
power remained with them, or rather, after the expul
sion of the aliens, with the old baronial committee
ier 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

198

CHAP. VII.1258
Anomalous position of
the twenty-
four,

and of the
fifteen.

The scheme of
govern ment a
hopeless one:

abolition of
monarchy ;

the com
munityunrepresented.

Simon de Montfort.
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 cer
tainty 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 kings
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

The Revolution of 1 258. 199
those who were actually named, as well as the free- chap.
holders and the townsfolk, were entirely neglected. - . .1  ¦
No class could have been honestly satisfied with the 12s8
form of government ; the clergy must have been scheme
especially offended by their almost complete exclu- ^^^p.
sion 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 assump
tion 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 it intro-
oligarchy, though with none of the prestige of ancient oligarchy.
republican growth. It was a feudal triumph, with a
merely nominal concession to constitutional principles.
The kings 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 constitu
tion of 1264 to make a very great advance upon the
first effort. If we are to believe a most competent
The name was apparently first used in Lib. de Ant. Leg. p. 37,
'Insane parlamentum apud Oxoniam,' written temp. Edward I.

20O CHAP. VII.
1258
Hesitation of Earl
¦Simon.

The Pro
visions :
¦elective knights,

the Church,
London,

high
officTS,

sheriffs,

Simon de Montfort.
witness,1 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 regul
ations 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 necess
ary 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,2
treasurer were
office only for
the end of each year to king and council. It is not
stated by whom these high officers or the sheriffs
1 Chron. Lanercost, s.a. 1259, but it must refer to this year. This
chronicler has information from one who fought for Simon at Lewes,
though the chronicle itself is of a later date.
2 Two justices had held office together before, e.g. the Earl of
Leicester and R. de Lucy under Henry II. Hugh Bigod was ap
pointed Justiciar at Oxford ; no Chancellor was appointed for three
years ; but certain persons, called sometimes by the title of Chancellor,
acted as custodes sigilli.— See p. 61. note 2.

a chancellor, and a
to be appointed, the first to hold
a year, and all to be responsible at

The Revohition of 1 258. 20 r
were to be appointed, but we cannot doubt in whose chap.
hands the appointment would be. The original — — ,1  -
committee of twenty-four were to appoint good men I2S8
in the Exchequer. Several names of the baronial casries,
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 sheriffs' &c-
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 care
fully regulated, and bribery and extortion expressly
forbidden. The whole was clenched by a confirma- Confirma-
J tion of
tion of the Charter of Liberties. To these enact- Magna
ments, and others to be made by the Parliament, consent of
called collectively the Provisions of Oxford, the king g^"^dand
and Prince Edward in October gave their formal con
sent.1 The writ containing the royal consent was pub-
1 The date of this writ (18 Oct., 1258) shows that the Provisions
were not all made at Oxford, but were completed in London after the
interruption caused by the flight of the kings brothers. The copy given
in Ann. Burt, is clearly not a final one, still less is it a formal docu
ment. Its order is irregular, part is in Latin, part in French. Its in
completeness is evident, e.g. in the omission of the Provision, un
doubtedly passed, that no castles should be in the hands of aliens. It
bears rather the appearance of a report of proceedings, resolutions
passed, persons appointed, and the like. That the work was still in
complete in October is shown by the words of the kings oath. It is
impossible to say with certainty what was done at Oxford, beyond the
appointment of the Justiciar, the decrees as to the wardenship of castles,
and as to the election of the four knights (cf. Ann. Burt., Ann. Osney,
Fad. i. 375, &c., for these points). It is observable that the Provision
as to the four knights is the only one in Latin, except the names of the
twenty-four, and therefore probably the only statute regularly passed at
Oxford. It is very doubtful whether a formal copy of the whole, in the
shape of a statute, was ever made ; none such exists. Dr. Pauli, (Simon
deMont., 90), referring to T. Wvkes, p. 52, to show that a formal document

202

Simon de Montfort.

CHAP. VII.1258
Pursuit of
the kings
brothers :

who are
forced to
leave the
country.

lished 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 kings
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 hope
less, 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

embodying the Provisions existed, seems to have misunderstood the words .
They merely refer to the fifth article or sentence of the oath taken by
Henry, which runs thus, ' And if any man or woman come there against
(sc. against the decrees) we will and command that all our faithful hold
them as deadly foes. ' There are five such articles or sentences in the oath
as given in Fad. i. 378. The words of T. Wykes are ' Et ne posteris
lateat forma jusjurandi quod subditi regem emittere compulerunt, quin-
que tantum articulos continebat. Jurabant quod provisiones Oxoniae
factas . . . observarent . . . Isti quatuor articuli si observati fuissent,
liciti plurimum et tolerandi fuerunt. Quintus articulus omnino illicitus
fuit, et detestandus praecipue, viz. quod si quis dictis provisionibus con-
traire praesumeret . . . hostis publicus censeretur . . . Articulus iste
totum confudit negotium.' The words refer not to the Provisions but to
the kings oath. Had a complete copy of the former ever been issued, it
could hardly have failed to be either in Ann. Burt, or Matt. Par. The
split in the baronial party was enough to prevent completion, but it is
important in judging the character of the revolution to recognise the
fact that its authors did not fancy they had completed their work. It is
probable that some of the Provisions were made at Winchester, after the
expulsion of the aliens, for ' Ibi (sc. Wintoniae) secundum parliamentum
celebraverunt.' — Ann. Tewk. 165. W. de Hemingburgh (i. 306) assures
us that several statutes were passed there, of a spirit antagonistic to the
aliens, but his account is somewhat confused and untrustworthy.

The Revolution of 1258. 203
William, as Earl of Pembroke, and Aylmer, as Bishop- / chap.
Elect of Winchester, were to be allowed to stay in/  ,-J 
England, but they preferred to go with their brothers.! I2s8
Their property, including a large sum deposited in the I brothers^
Temple, was seized ; and the Warden of Dover sue- lbanished:
ceeded later in stopping another treasure which was 1
being sent over to them. On their arrival in France I
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.1 They landed at Boul- they land
ogne, and were followed at once by Henry, Simons m France-
son, who had crossed without his fathers knowledge, or
possibly with his secret connivance, and did his best to
stir up the French against them.2 The feeling against
them in England was increased by the report that be
fore their expulsion they had poisoned the Earl of
Gloucester and others at a feast at Southwark. It is cer
tain 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 Work of
the session of their Parliament, they removed to continued.
London, where the king again confirmed the power
of the twenty-four,3 and they, or at least the coun
cil, resumed their work of reform. But in order
1 ' Mirabantur ultramarini quod virum tam nobilem et . . . prse-
commendatum audebant viri multo minus nobiles . . . corde dicto seu
facto improperando deturbare. ' — Matt. Par. 973.
2 Matt, Par, ib,, says that it was against his fathers will, others that
his father sent him .
3 Roy, Letters ii, 129 ; promise in French, dated 4 Aug., 1258.

204 CHAP. VII.1258
Foreign affairs :
Wales,

Castile,

Scotland,

Sicily,

France.

Four
knights to
hear
grievances.

Simon de Montfort.
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
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 Richards
candidature for the empire. Shortly after the return
to London, an embassy, consisting of Simon de Mont
fort, Peter of Savoy, and John Mansel, was appointed
to make peace between the discordant parties in Scot
land, which would have resulted in a cessation of hos
tilities on the part of the Scotch barons, who had
allied with the Welch against their own king and
against the English.1 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.2
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 sum
mons to elect four knights to examine into grievances
was sent round to the counties immediately on the
kings return to London. It was however nearly three
months before the kings oath to abide by the Provi-
' It is hardly probable that this embassy went to Scotland. In Sept.
1258 three ambassadors, the Earls of Albemarle and Hereford, and
John Baliol, met the King of Scotland at Melrose, and settled terms of
peace — Chron. Mailros, 183.
2 Fad. i. 372 seq.

The Revolution of 1258.
sions 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 poss
ible. All men were invited to make their complaints
to the four knights, and were encouraged by the regul
ations which had been already made as to the conduct
of sheriffs and other royal officers.1 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.2 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.2
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,3 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 kings brothers had inflicted on
the country, declaring that the Bishop-Elect of Win-

205

Resistanceof Edward.

Repudia
tion of the
Sicilianscheme.

1 Fad. i. 375, 377 ; cf. Ann. Burt. 453.
2 Lib. de Ant. Leg. 39.
3 Fad. i. 373.

206

Simon de Montfort.

CHAP. VII.
1258
Letter to
the Pope ;

his answer,

Difficulties
in the way
of reform.

chester 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 mer
chants, 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 Ayl
mer, 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 sys
tem 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.1
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

1 Lib. de Ant. Leg. 39.

The Revolution of 1258. 207
with the sheriffs, the expulsion of the aliens, and the chap,
like, which met with popular approval. The form of -  A  -
government was popular, or at least tolerated, only so I253_59
° 11' j Popularity
long as it appeared to be successful. The joy of the of the
country was great, but it was premature. The city of ieforms-
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 ex
pulsion of the aliens made men hope that a similar
end would be put to all papal and legal exactions.1
The relief was sudden, ' like the waking out of sleep ;' 2
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.'3 It might have been apprehended that
King Richard would make some opposition to the
movement ; but it was not in his nature to be irrecon-
cileable. His return to England in January 1259 re- Return of
moved all fears on this head. He was not allowed to Richard •
land till he had taken the oath to the Provisions, which,
after some show of reluctance, removed by a letter
from the king,4 he consented to do. After this he consents
concession his arrival in London was a matter of visions.
great joy to the citizens,6 and it was doubtless hoped
''Bonse leges constitutae sunt.' — Ann. Wigorn. 445. ' Statuta
facta ad utilitatem totius regni.' — Lib. de Ant. Leg. 54.
''¦Ann. Wav. 350.
3 Ann. Burt. 445. This letter describes the immediate intentions
of the barons, and incidentally shows that the words ' de hospitio regis '
in the Provisions refer to the household, not the hostelry, of the king.
See Mr. Luards translation, Ann. Burt. 504.
4 Fad. i. 380, dated 23 Jan. ,1259. A letter had been sent him as
early as 4 Nov., 1258, bidding him take the oath.— Roy. Letters ii. 132.
' Lib. de Ant. Leg. 39.

208

Simon de Montfort.

violence of
the barons,

proceedings of the
justices,

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 fol
lowed 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.1 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. Pauls, was
murdered in broad daylight in the streets of London,
and not a hand was raised to stop the murderers.2
More annoying than the ignorance of political eco
nomy 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 sent
ences.3 He seems to have shown too little regard
for privileges, probably as having been conferred by

1 W. de Heming. 306. - Ann. Dunst. 214.
3 Lib. de Ant. Leg. 40.

The Revolution of 1258. 209
the king. Complaints of him in this respect were chap.
made both by St. Albans and Dunstaple ; in the --

latter place he enforced a fine by seizing all the pro- I2s8"59
perty of the monastery till the fine was paid.1 On the re-
the other hand, his activity was commendable ; he codings™"
journeyed with two associates through every county, ?f *e
and, according to some authorities, did justice well,
hearing the complaints made through the four
knights, and redressing many old wrongs.2 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 natur
ally have avoided employing the officials of the
former regime, 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 continued
unusually fine crop gave hope of some compensation ; famme'
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 and ti_
carried off the Bishop of London and many less lence.
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 dis- Disunion
union which was already creeping in among the ^aronf.
leaders, and the inclination already shown by the
1 Ann. Dunst. 212.
1Matt. West. 283; Matt. Par. 977 says that the sheriff of
Northants, who had followed in the steps of his predecessor, was de
posed and 'duro ac diro carceri mancipatus.' See p. 163, note 3.

210 Simon de Montfort.
chap, king to break loose from the Provisions. Soon after
VII
-. — ,— the Parliament of Oxford, some of the barons, yield-
1258-59 ing, according to one chronicler, to their own wicked
impulses and the promises of the king, deserted their
Hostility of Party-' The inveterate hostility of Henry towards
Henry to de Montfort, a feeling certainly not very unnatural,
de Mont- ' . . , , • , , , ,
fort. was shown by an incident which took place in the
summer of 1258.2 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 op
posed the Provisions as a public enemy, must indeed
(as Wykes says) have been grievous to many be
sides himself.3 The general conviction, that the
despotic power of the barons was an usurpation, was
1 Ann. Tewk. 175. 2 Matt. Par. 974
3 See latter part of note I, p. 201.

The Revolution of 1258.

21 1

increased in the case of Simon de Montfort by a chap.
glaring anomaly in his position. He, an alien by . . /n' 
birth, however true an Englishman at heart, had been IZ58-S9
foremost in expelling aliens ; he who had threatened p™ition°U
William of Valence with death if he did not give up S^^1
his castles, had only given up his own to receive the
custody of the fortress of Winchester.1 It was noticed,
with the suspicion which springs out of mere uncer
tainty, 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.2 He had never been on very good terms
with his English peers ; his ability and foreign influ
ence made them envious ; his undeniable ambition
provoked the old cry of upstart ; his broad constitu
tional principles made him in their eyes a traitor to
his order. These feelings were only temporarily
smothered by common effort, and Simons own un
selfish 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 ^°rteri
their country, but the union of these two leading nobles, power.
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
' See Pauli, Simon van Mont., 90.
2 The ambassadors sent on this occasion to a great council, to be
held at Cambray, were the Bishops of Worcester and Lincoln, and the
Earls of Leicester and Norfolk. Matt. Par. 979 says they were un
successful.

212

Simon de Montfort.

CHAP. VII.
1258-59
Earl
Simons in
fluence on
the wane.

Parliament
of Lent,
1259-

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 short
comings of his allies, and his influence was decidedly
on the wane.1 He was credited with the disappoint
ment of their hopes by those whom he had encour
aged 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. Mean
while 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

1 That this however was not yet the case in 1259 is evident from the
words of Matt. Par. 984, ' Comes Legrioe, de cujus absentia diuturna
tota condoluerat Anglia ;' and from the attitude taken up by the rest
of the baronage in his quarrel withGloucester.

The Revolution of 1258. 213
after the Parliament Simon returned to France, and chap.
with his colleagues determined the preliminaries of a •—,__-
durable peace.1 I259
The year seems to have passed in profound Protest of
quiet. But towards the end a remarkable proof of hood. 'g
the discontent that was already pervading the
country was given. The knighthood were so disap
pointed 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 engage
ment ; whereas they had done nothing but seek their
own advantage, to the detriment of king and country.2
To this Prince Edward replied that he had sworn to
the Provisions, and would keep his oath ; and accord
ingly he warned the barons that, if they did not

1 On 10 March, 1259, the Earls of Leicester and Gloucester, P. of
Savoy, J. Mansel, and R. Walerand were appointed to treat of peace ;
and J. Baliol was afterwards added to their number. A preliminary
writ was signed by Simon and two others early in May. On 20 May
the first form of peace was published. The embassy then returned to
England ; and on 28 July Simon and his cousin Peter and another
were sent out to settle the final peace, which, with its ratification by the
council, bears date October 1259. — Fad. i. 384-390; Roy. Letters i.
138- 2 The ' Communitas bacheleriae Anglise ' (Ann. Burt. 47) sent the pro
test. Dr. Pauli, following Gneist, Veiw. i. 305, would place this event in
Oct. 1258 ; but there does not appear sufficient ground for upsetting the
order in which it comes iixAnn. Burton, loose as the reckoning generally
is. It is hardly possible that the knighthood should have sent in such a
complaint within four months of the Parliament of Oxford, and at a time
when the barons were hard at work at their measures of reform. More
over Prince Edwards oath to the Provisions, alluded to in his answer
to the protest, was not published till several days after the protest was
on this hypothesis handed in. Stubbs, Const. Hist. ii. 81, gives the
later of the two dates. Pearson, Engl. Hist. ii. 225, would refer it to
February, 1259.

214 Simon de Montfort.
speedily fulfil their promises, he should, in conjunc
tion with the community, compel them to do so. The
barons thereupon published a new set of Provisions,1
called, to distinguish them from those of 1258, the
Provisions of Westminster. These enactments regul
ated 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 juris
diction of any but duly qualified persons, and any in
justice on the part of the itinerant judges, bailiffs, and
others. Besides these regulations, which were meant
and consti- *° De permanent, there were a number of enactments
tutionai 0f a more temporary nature, as to enquiry to be
ments, 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 Parlia
ments ; 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 offic
ials were made ; ecclesiastical property was to be

1 Two records of these Provisions are given (Ann. Burt. 476, 480),
in French and Latin ; that in French appears to be a record of the pro
ceedings in Parliament, of resolutions, votes and appointments, much
the same as the report of the Provisions of Oxford ; that in Latin seems
to be the copy intended to be published, containing what was to be em
bodied in the law of the land. The copy in the statutes of the realm
(i. 8) is nearly the same as the Latin copy in Ann. Burt., but on the
whole is less distinct and definite. These Provisions were confirmed in
1262 and 1264, and embodied in the statute of Marlborough. The
account in Stubbs, Const. Hist. ii. 81, substantially agrees with
this.

The Revolution of 1258.
enquired into, and placed under special protection.
Lastly, all who had suffered wrong during the last
seven years were to make complaint before justices
appointed to hear them, and the sheriff was to cause
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.1 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
... . _, 111 spirit of
we consider that a great portion of them would have the Pro
file effect of limiting feudal power, and that the Par- vlsl0ns-
liament that passed them consisted of great feudal
lords. On the other hand, no step was taken to im
prove 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 Foreign
policy :
made to settle the second great question of foreign relations
policy had ended with success. The relations be- j-rance,
tween England and France, a matter only less im
portant than the negotiations with the Pope, were
finally determined. The Sicilian scheme had been
sternly and promptly cut short by the barons ; peace
1 This last order appears in a writ tested by Hugh Bigod as justiciar,
dated 28 Nov., 1259.— Roy. Letters ii. 141.

2 1 6 Simon de Montfort.
CviiP' w^^ France was a more delicate and lengthy affair.
 ¦  ' It was however urgently needed, for the perpetual
Necessity state of war, which had lasted since the days of John,
of peace and in which hostilities were only staved off by
with ,
France. frequent truces, prevented the external quiet which
was indispensable for the completion of internal re
form. 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.
Negotia- *rhe negotiations for peace and the quiet of the
tions inter- ° L L
rupted by a realm were near coming to a violent end, through a
between quarrel between the two leaders, the outcome of long-
andGiou- standing jealousy. It was during the deliberations
cester. 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 Revolution of 1 2 5 8 . 217

the anxiety of all by proclaiming his readiness to chap.
carry out the necessary measures of reform.1  ^ — -
The reconciliation was only a pretence, and the „, I259
J r Claims
quarrel was renewed in France ; for the Countess of of the
Leicester insisted on the recognition of her rights as Leicester0
potential heiress to the English crown. Her claim on Ens!isn
r ° possessions
rested on her descent from Eleanor of Poitou, part of in France,
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 respons
ibility on himself, and guarantee that Eleanors resist
ance 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 satis
fied. Besides these claims she had others too, concerning and on the
her right to a share in the property of her former hus- fset™tes°ke
band, the Earl of Pembroke. From the great pos
sessions of the family of Marshall Henry had been
accustomed to pay her a small pittance : the earldom
was about this time3 conferred on William of Valence,
1 Matt. Par. 987.
2 In 1264, says Sir H. Nicolas. Perhaps it was informally conferred
upon him before this, which, if true, will account for his permission to

2 1 8 Simon de Montfort.
chap, which may be one reason for the hostility between
— — A — - him and Leicester.
1259 , A It is probable that Henry was not answerable for
Conduct of / . r i .
Henry, /the mismanagement of Eleanors inheritance, the
original arrangement having been made between her
and her husbands 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 Simons pride
Eari was naturally piqued by this treatment of his wife.
mThe1' Possibly too the idea of securing a possession for the
matter. 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 j1 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 test
imony 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
stay in England with his brother, the Bishop of Winchester, when the
other aliens were expelled in 1258 ; see Pearson, Hist, of Eng. ii. 223.
1 T. Wykes, 123. The animus with which this was written appears
from the fact that he attributes the lengthy and expensive sojourn of the
court till Easter 1 260 in Paris to the opposition of de Montfort ; while
the documents show that peace was finally concluded before the pre
ceding Christmas.

The Revolution of 1258. 219
the national cause. It was on the subject of his wifes chap.
. VII
claims that the Earl of Gloucester, while in France,  A- —
attacked Simon with remarks which we can imagine 1259
, Quarrel
were the reverse of a compliment to his supposed between
uxoriousness. De Montfort was not slow to reply, and°ester
and the two were with difficulty separated by their GI°ucester
friends amid the laughter of the French spectators.1
The negotiations were temporarily broken off, but
Simon on his return to England seems to have been
persuaded to yield.2 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 Henrys acceptance, the earl
remained behind in France.
The peace was ratified by the royal council about Fin^ Peace
the middle of October 1259, and is the last act in France:
which the baronial government appears in that shape.3 aneci d"g
The presence of Henry, as well as that of the earl and Montfort
L J 7 cross over
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 Decem
ber following Simon and his wife set their seals to a

cross over.

1 Matt. Par. 987. This is the last event of importance noted by
that great historian, whose loss in the confusion of the following period
we cannot sufficiently deplore. It seems doubtful whether his work ex
tends beyond 1253, where his history, as we have it in his own MS.,
ends. He died in 1259, but the last six years may possibly be by him.
2 The points in dispute were submitted to arbitration ; and eventu
ally the Countess allowed herself to be bought off by the promise that
part of the money paid by the French king should be paid to her. At
the same time Simon resigned to Henry the earldom of Bigorre in
Gascony, which he had held as security for his own debt, for a certain
sum, and made a formal renunciation of all claims he might have in the
south of France. This settlement between the brothers-in-law was only
temporary. For a full account of all these negotiations, see Greens
Princesses ii. 1 14 seq.
s It was possibly to some extent superseded by the council of regency
in the kings absence.

220 CHAP. VII.
1259 -
Terms of
the peace
with France.

Results of
the baron
ial govern
ment.

Simon de Montfort.
solemn confirmation made before both kings.1 By
this peace, besides the settlement of feudal difficulties
\ in Gascony, the provinces of Normandy, Anjou, Maine,
j Touraine and Poitou were ceded to France ; the titles
i 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 im
portant part, had since the beginning of the thirteenth
century reduced those princes to the position of Eng
lish 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 want
ing those who thought it a disgrace to the country.2
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 up
start and ambitious foreigner.
1 Fad. i. 392. s 'Facta pudenda concordia.' — Ann. Mels. 129.

221

CHAPTER VIII.
THE REACTION.
Of the reactionary period that followed the peace of chap.
1259 it is very hard to get a clear idea. ' For nearly  r-i— -
three years from this time,' says Dr. Shirley, ' the his- I2S9-62
tory of de Montfort is worse than a blank : it is a of the '
riddle.' ¦ Perhaps a key to this riddle may be found Penod-
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 sympath
ise with his revolutionary ideas, however much he
may have been disgusted by the duplicity and incap
acity of Henry. His monarchical principles event
ually 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 g^66"
aspect of it, private hostility and private disputes £™°n and
about money matters and the like are strangely mixed
up. Each of the combatants strives to win the favour j
1 Quart. Rev. vol. cxix. 50.

222 CHAP. VIII. 1259
StrugglebetweenEarl Simon
and the
king.

A council
of regency
in the
kings
absence.

Simon de Montfort.
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 sub
ject, 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.1 The last three were
however already wavering, and their nomination shows
that the tide had turned.2 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.

Lib. de Ant. Leg. sub anno.
2 They are found on the kings side in 1264.
justiciar in 1261.

P. Basset was the kings

The Reaction. 223
But no sooner did he feel himself somewhat secure, chap.
thinking probably he had made sure of Louis, than he - — ,— -
wrote to the Pope from Paris to say that he hoped I2 ' '
now to renew the negotiations about Apulia ; while on renews
the same day, 16 January 1260, he sent a studiously Sons'wlth
.polite letter to the justiciar, explaining the reason of the p°Pe'
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.1 Thus did he on the first opport
unity return to his old schemes, and break one of the
most important of the Oxford Provisions, by forbid
ding the assembly of Parliament at the stated time.
A sign of his reviving power, and a more defensible and re-
exercise of it, was an edict he issued at the same time, power in
bidding the sheriffs look to their duties as guardians Ensland-
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, Return of
Earl Simon, whose absence had been as usual much re- simon.
gretted,2 had returned with his wife and a large suite
to England.3 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
1 See throughout this period Royal Letters ii. 147 seq.
1 ' Anglia illius prasentia diutius viduata.' — Matt. West. 292.
3 On 10 Feb., 1260, he was at St. Albans, and presented a. costly
baldekin to the shrine. — Ibid.

224

Simon de Montfort.

CHAP. VIII. 1260
Letter from
the Pope.

The
baronssummon a
Parlia
ment.

Return of
the king.

still more distinct command not to do so till he re
turned. 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 Henrys
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.1 In it the Pope lays
down the principle that no layman has a right to dis
pose of ecclesiastical things, although his predecessor
had fifteen years before confirmed the right of presenta
tion ;2 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!3
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 re-

1 Ann. Burt. 487.

' Fad. i. 262.

1 Ann. Dunst. 315.

The Reaction.

225

CHAP. VIII.

1260

appeared in London a few days after Parliament had
met.1 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 foll-
owings, 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 2 had come to a good under
standing with him ; Edward and de Montfort re
mained outside with their partisans.3 It seems very
probable, from Edwards character and general atti
tude at this time, that he preferred Leicester to Glou
cester ; 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,4 he
was at the end of that interval reconciled to his
father. Henry, having secured his son^ave vent to Hemy
his long-concealed displeasure in an open attack on Montfort6
Simon, using, according to one account, false wit
nesses 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 occa-

PrinceEdward.

1 Parliament met on 19 April ; Henry returned tm 23 April.
2 He was still with the king on 19 Feb. — Roy. Letters ii. 155.
3 Lib. de Ant. Leg. sub anno.
1 Ann. Dunst. 214.

226 Simon de Montfort.
sion, 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,
as the most able and prudent general in England,1 to
conduct the war against the Welch. His skill was
not however called into requisition, for a truce was
made shortly afterwards.
Connexion Perhaps it was owing to this that he was not pre-
between sent as ^ah steward at the marriage of the Princess
Larl bimon ° . ~r .
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 Montforts 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
;t 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
'characterof mind of de Montfort. The nobility of character and
thePrince.i 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 re
quiring patience and forethought, and a fickleness of
temper which caused him with reason to be compared
1 ' Bel ator prudentior et validior Anglise. ' — Matt. West, 299.

The Reaction. 227
to the leopard. He had as yet but little of that bitter chap.
experience which made him afterwards so great a king, — , '¦-
and de Montfort, if he ever cherished the idea of
raising him into his fathers 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 Henry
in strengthening the Tower of London, whence he po^on. 1S
expected to command the city. He had already
colnpejleciyall 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.1 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.2 Hugh Bigod, the justiciar ap- ^Change of
pointed by the barons in 1258, had resigned early PUSICiars-
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

1 T. Wykes 125.
2 On what occasion this was does not appear, but it seems to have
been in the spring of 1261, after Henry had fortified the Tower (Ann.
Dunst, 217). Dr. Pauli thinks it was at the autumn Parliament of 1260.
Q2

228 Simon de Monfort.
chap, 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 re
fused 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
1259.1 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.
Henry All this confusion produced a feeling of hostility
takes ad- .j-0 me baronial rdgime. Meanwhile, like a great
wantage of ° .
this feeling, 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 worth while 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.2 It
was certainly to his interest to remove all causes of
complaint that might strengthen Simons position. In
1 E.g. Hereford. — Nic. Trivet 248 : Worcester. — Ann. Wig. 446.
2 Roy. Letters ii. 168-175 ; Fad. i. 407.

The Reaction. 229
March 1261 it was agreed between the king and the chap.
earl and countess to submit them to the arbitration ¦— — r—
of the King of France. Louis was besought to un- ,
0 ° Arrange-
dertake the office ; the Queen of France, Henrys ment of
sister-in-law, strove to bring about a peaceable solu- deferences
tion ; King Richard wrote to his brother, bidding between
' o ' ° Henry and
him abide by the decision, whatever it might be. Earl Simon
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 engage
ment. But a little later, apparently in case the
queen too, after nearer examination, should find the
claims of the opposing parties irreconcileable, a court
of arbitration was appointed, to consist of four mem
bers, two chosen by each disputant, with two media
tors in addition. Their verdict was to be given by
the end of September 1261.1 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 super
vision. So for a time the question remained unde
cided, in itself unimportant, but, taken in connexion
with existing circumstances, a- constant source of
irritation. All this while however Henry had been preparing Henry and
in secret for a great blow. A second time, as five- theP°Pe-
and-forty years before, the power of the papacy was I
called in to absolve the king from his most solemn
promises, and by an unwarrantable interference,
1 The arbitrators were, for the king, P. Basset and J. Mansel— for
the earl, the Bishop of Worcester and P. de Montfort ; the mediators
were Hugh, Duke of Burgundy, and P. Chamberlain.

230 CHAP. VIII. 1261
The papal
absolution
granted,

and pub
lished.

Effect of
the absolu
tion.

Simon de Montfort.
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'e'tat by occupying Windsor,1 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, doubt
less 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 mag
nates. 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 Parlia
ment 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
1 He was there during the latter part of March, having been in the
Tower till March 14. — Fad. i. 405 seq.

The Reaction. 2 3 1
give up Scarborough and other places except by chap,
command of Parliament, although he had already - — ^ — -
given up Dover and the Tower. His refusal is a good jjg-e" °f
instance of the vacillating position taken up by so *e pluPjaln
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.1 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 Resistance
efforts were however made against this last and
most important measure. The baronial party, though
scattered and disunited, resisted everywhere the in
trusion of the new officials, and appointed sheriffs of
their own, whom they called Wardens of the Counties.
To mitigate this opposition the king issued concilia- and
tory proclamations, declaring that he was doing no- attempts at
thing nor would do anything against the law of the tion.
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.2 Still, in spite of success of
the outspoken opposition of a few scattered individ- the kirg-
uals, and doubtless the secret anxiety of maiH
more, the kings 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
1 Fad. i. 409. H. Bigod gave up the castles in the autumn of this
year. — Roy. Letters ii. 222, note.
1 Fad. i. 408.

232 CHAP. VIII. 1261
Impolicy
of the king.

Earl
Simons em
ploymentduring this
period.

Connexionof his pri
vate dis
pute with
publicquestions.

Simon de Montfort.
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 cert
ainty. 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 Henrys general way of dealing
with his subjects, and with the settlement of this part-

The Reaction. 233
icular question was involved the settlement of many chap.
others, the sum of which went far to produce the •  r^-—
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.'1
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 Momen-
the leaders, though the reunion was soon seen to be Jjjj? * e~f
but momentary. The Earls of Gloucester and Lei- the baron
ial
cester and the Bishop of Worcester took the remark- leaders :
able step of summoning to the autumn Parliament of of'kmghts
1261 three knights from each county south of the to Parlia-
0 g J ment,
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 outbid- repeated by
j j • , ¦ ,.,,., 'he king.
den, and issued counter-writs commanding the knights
to meet him on that day in Parliament at Windsor,
where, if we are to believe Henrys words, a meeting
had been arranged between him and the opposite
party to discuss terms of peace.2 But a discussion of
this sort before the papal absolution was a very dif-
1 Fad. i. 407. 2 Sel. Chart. 396 : Roy. Letters ii. 179,

CHAP. VIII. 1261
Summons to the
knights.

An arbitra
tion on the
Provisions
determined

234 Simon de Montfort.
ferent 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.1 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 dis
cussion 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,
Earl Simon that, apparently foreseeing the failure of his last
goes to attempt to win back power, he crossed to France
France : L L
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

1 The arbitrators were— few the king, the Bishops of Salisbury and
Hereford and John Mansel ; for the barons, the Earl of Norfolk, P. de
Montfort, and R. Marsh, Dean of Lincoln, Judgment was to be given
before next Whitsuntide.

The Reaction. 235
Gloucester ; by others it was put down to his resolu
tion not to submit the Provisions to arbitration. He
left the country, it is said, declaring ' he would rather I2 r
die without a foot of land than live in perjury and
falsehood.'1 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
Simons departure, Henry wrote to the King of France
to anticipate his efforts ;2 he was still more alarmed to
find that the national party, that is, at the moment,
Simon de Montfort, had like himself a regular repre
sentative at the Court of Rome, who seems for a short ms mflu_
time to have had the ear of the new Pope, Urban IV.3 ™ce at
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.4 But the alienation,
such as it was, was of very brief duration, and had no is soon
effect, since the absolution had been already published.
Simons 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.5
Meanwhile the desultory resistance which had
1 ' Dicens se sine terra malle mori quam perjurus a veritate rece-
dere.' — Ann. Dunst. 21J. 'Dicens se velle adire Terram Sanctam.'
— Ann. Osn. 129.
2 Fad. i. 409. He declares the earl to have gone without his con
sent, and for unknown reasons, though he evidently guessed them.
3 Roy. Letters ii. 190, 210 ; and see note 2 on p. 239.
'Fad. i. 411.
5 Bull dated 2 Feb., 1262, in Roy. Letters ii. 206, dated 26 April in
the Fadera.

overcome.

236

CHAP. VIII. 1261
Henry re
covers his
power,

and nego
tiates with
the opposi
tion.

A com
promise effected.

Invitation
to certain
barons.

Simon de Montfort.
been made in the counties to the arbitrary appoint ^
ment of sheriffs, though it appears to have continued
late into the autumn of 1261, was gradually appeased.
The introduction of foreign soldiers on the kings side,
in spite of the opposition of the Cinque Ports, con
tinued. The tenth was collected again, but with some
difficulty, and deposited in the royal castles.1 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 Kings
ton, to discuss terms of peace. It was at this Parlia
ment 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.2 That some form of
peace was determined is evident from the fact that the
king wrote in December 1261 to several barons, in
cluding 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.3 The
absence of so many great nobles was alone sufficient
1 Roy. Letters ii. 193, 195.
2 'Juxta promissionem nuper factam, prout in compositionis forma
continetur,' &c. — Id. ii. 198.
3 First writ dated 7 Dec, 1 26 1, in the Fadera ; second dated 1 6 Dec,
1261, not mentioning the pardon, Roy. Letters ii. 196. It is remark
able that the Earl of Gloucester, the Bishop of Worcester, and H. Bigod
do not appear on the pardon list, while the Earl of Norfolk, who was
one of the arbitrators appointed at this very peace, appears. ,

The Reaction . 237
to deprive the decrees of this Parliament of any force ; ^if"
and the question seems not to have been settled even ' 26±_6„ '
so, for in the early part of next year the sheriffs were settlement
still under discussion. Finally King Richard cut the ofu^m of
matter short by ruling, when the question was referred sheriffs.
to him, that the right of appointment and dismissal
belonged to the king alone.1 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 Earl Sim0n
silence abroad, occupied partly in negotiations with remains
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 pro- Henry
clamation, declaring that since the barons had not kept
their side of the engagement, and since the Pope had from the
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.2 At the same time the form of peace lately
made seems to have been published throughout Eng
land, with a kind of promise that certain difficulties
should be settled by means of peaceable discussion with
1 T. Wvkes 130, and Ann. Osney 130 seq. are a good deal confused
as to the events of this winter, but they are on the whole corrected and
explained by the writs, &c. , in the Fadera and in the Royal Letters.
Rishanger (de Bellis, &c.) is altogether wrong in his chronology.
2 Fad. i. 419.

declares
himself free

Exhorta
tion to the
barons.

238/ Simon de Montfort.
chap, the chiefs of the baronial party.1 Preparations were
•  ,— - even made for taking up anew the mad scheme of con-
12 I_62 quest in Africa in conjunction with the King of Cast-
Reversal of ., . _, n ,
the baron-Ai lie. The work of 1258 was completely upset, with
ia policy.^; L^g exception of the peace with France : the baronial
ij'party was dissolved, the king to all appearance more
j | firmly seated than ever. The despair felt by those
1 ' whose hopes, three or four years ago, had been so high
is expressed in the song which calls on the barons col
lectively to ' observe that which they had sworn,' and
bids several by name to keep their word.3 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 ;'4 his personal
1 This seems to be the meaning of the notices in T. Wykes 130, Lib.
de Ant. Leg. 52, and Matt. West 313, though it is hard to combine
with much certainty the varying accounts.
''¦Fad. i. 420. This project dates from 1254.
3 Polit. Songs, ed. Wright, 121. Mr. Wright places this song in
1264-65 ; but this is hardly possible, since the Earls of Gloucester and
Norfolk have not yet finally deserted the baronial side, and it seems to
be the old Earl of Gloucester who is alluded to ; de Montfort is not yet
fully recognised as the only leader, and his position in the song is not
like that he assumed after the battle, of Lewes. Stubbs, Const. Hist.
ii. 80, places this song at about the same period. Rishanger, de Bellis,
&c, 18, introduces it after the Mise of Amiens, but his account of
the events before the outbreak of the war is very confused and untrust
worthy. * Rishanger, de Bellis, &c, 10.

Popular
estimate of
de Mont
fort:

The Reaction. 239
character, his qualities as a leader of men, moulded chap.
others to his will ; the younger men, we find, espec- - VI11, ,
ially followed him, though the older stood aloof.1 At 12<51-62
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 his waiting
have said that he never knew fear, but there were P°licy ;
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 vve his ci,arac.
have seen, was sharp ; for he knew himself to be true, ter so™e"
1 times in
and did not spare words to express his contempt and his way :
hatred of a breach of faith. Add to this a strong
individuality, which had in it no small element of per
sonal 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 his own
only safeguard, and it was this class which on the Party-
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 Eng
land in the autumn of 1262,2 he returned to England
1 ' Quia omnis caro prona ad malum, cum junioribus Anglis pueris,
scilicet Angliae nobilibus . . . quos vere et autonomatice pueros
nominare possumus, quitamquam cera liquescens ductiles ad quamlibet
forrham . . . convenerunt, ' &c. , says the Royalist, T. Wykes, p. 133.
2 It may be inferred from the letter of the king to P. Basset, in
Oct. 1 262, in which he warns his justiciar to be on his guard against
the machinations of the Earl of Leicester, that de Montfort was in
England at the time ; and this is supported by a passage in the Chron.

240 Simon de Montfort.
chap, in the spring of 1263. Thenceforward, since for the
— — ,— present Gilbert de Clare, the young Earl of Gloucester,
1261-62 f0nowecj him with heart and soul, he appeared as the
summoned undisputed head of the baronial party, knowing whom
England, he had to trust and with whom he had to deal.1 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.
Henry But we must return for a moment to the king. If
wmover he hoped at once to win over Louis, when he determ-
Loms, jne(j on j^ 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.2 But this only had the effect
of making him more eager for the journey, in order
personally to direct the negotiations. He left Eng-
andgoesto land in July 1262, and probably met Prince Edward,
France. vfao had been in Gascony, in Paris. There he fell very
ill of a fever, which threw back for some time the pro
gress 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
of St. Augustine, Cant, (quoted by Nichols), in which it is said that the
earl came privately to England, and in the October Parliament pro
duced a letter from the Pope, confirming the Provisions, and cancel
ling the kings absolution. This is hardly possible, though Simon had a
proctor at Rome ; see above, p. 234.
' ' Symon Leicestrise comes, capitaneus baronum contra regem in-
surgentium factus, &c.' — Hie Trivet, 250.
2 Lettres de Rois, i. 135.

The Reaction . 241
earl, and that he did not intend to make any more cviInP-
attempts in that direction. At the same time he "  ¦  '
warned him to be on his guard against the machina- H in
tions of Simon, without however saying what these France;
machinations were. It is uncertain whether he ever
met the earl in France. If, as seems probable,
the latter seized the opportunity of Henrys absence
to pay a short visit to England this autumn, this will
perhaps account for the fact that Henry hastened his hisratum.
return, and arrived at Dover just before Christmas
1262. He found troubles in abundance. The dis- Troubles
turbances with Wales had broken out again, and Welch
the barons of the Marches were at open war with border-
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 Negotia-
the centre of interest. Henry wrote to him shortly p°^Zith
after his return to England, begging him to settle the continue,
question speedily in his favour, ' since the realm had
long been disturbed and damaged by the earl.' l He
sent fresh envoys over, and besought the queen, his
sister-in-law, to use her influence in his behalf. It but receive
must have been a sore disappointment when his am- a ^
bassadors announced to him, in February 1263, that
Louis was unwilling to enter further into the matter ;
1 Royal Letters ii. 234.
R

242

Simon de Montfort.

Earl Simon
returns to
England.

for the Earl of Leicester had told him that the king
meant well enough, but was misled by evil coun
sellors, special enemies of the earl ; that the latter
therefore had declared he could not in honour agree
to the arbitration, and had begged the King of
France to give himself no further trouble.1 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 sub
mitting the question to arbitration, practically recog
nised Simons 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 immed
iately 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.

Royal Letters ii. 242.

24;-

CHAPTER IX.
THE BARONS' WAR.
THE year 1263 saw a great change. The confusion ^ chap.
in justice and administration which had so under- j-  A —
mined the popularity of the baronial party a few L ,12 3
years before was perhaps lessened to some extent by i»f the
the restoration of monarchical unity, but from the if0™ ry'
popular point of view the state of things was prob
ably little improved, for the inveterate abuses soon
reappeared. The king had already given indications
of a return to the old foreign policy, with all its con- ;
sequent oppression ; the Roman Curia was returning
to its former trade, and had demanded a subsidy for
the banished Emperor of Constantinople. This the
Church refused ; England had other things to do
than to restore emperors who could not stand alone.1
The troubles with the Welch which had begun in the
previous October still continued, with the usual ac
companiment of frequent and resultless forays, burn
ings of castles, and the like. Peter de Montfort was
on the frontier, and at first had held the position of
commander on the English side ; he had been in
great need of men and money, and the dissensions
among the barons of the Marches, which had not
1 Matt. West. 313.
R 2

244 CHAP. IX.
1263

Return of
Prince
Edward,

and of
Earl
Simon.

Com
mencement
of hostili
ties.

Simon de Montfort.
been allayed by royal intervention, still further em
boldened the enemy. The restless and lawless spirits
of that district were a mine ever ready to explode ;
but little was needed to fire it, and that little was
at hand. Prince Edward, who had remained behind
after his fathers departure from Paris,1 had returned
to England early in February 1263, accompanied by
a body of foreign soldiers, and had marched straight
to the border.2 A little later Simon de Montfort
also returned from France, according to the royalist
chronicler, in secret.3 The jealousy of the English
barons was aroused by Edwards use of foreign troops
against the Welch, and many refused to help him,
He therefore failed to accomplish anything, and the
Welch continued to press the border hard.4 But not
being able to beat the Welch, he seems, in his annoy
ance at the refusal of aid, and possibly acting under
orders from the king, to have turned his arms against
the recalcitrant barons, and to have threatened if not
actually commenced an attack upon them. Hostili
ties had apparently broken out between the Marchers
and the hated Bishop of Hereford ; that town had
been entered, and the Jews plundered. In this affair
the young Henry de Montfort had distinguished him
self, showing already that rashness which was to be
such an obstacle to his fathers success.5 At this
1 He was still at Paris on 3 Feb., 1263. — Royal Letters ii. 242.
Simon de Montfort was there till ten days or so later (ibid. ), and must
have returned before the end of the month (id. ii. 244), though Ann.
Dunst. 221 give the date of his return as April 25.
'Matt. West. 313. 3< Clanculo rediit. — T. Wykes 133.
4 Ann. Burt. 499.
s This took place on 28 Feb. — Ann. Wore. 448. According to
Robert of Glouc, p. 535, the barons had set up a sheriff of their own,
Sir W. Tracy, who was seized and shamefully beaten by the kings
sheriff, Sir M. de Besile, a Frenchman.

The Barons War. 245
crisis Simon de Montfort appeared 6n the field, and chap. -
IX
at once took up the position of an almost inde- -  1  .
pendent prince. I263
His first step was to bring about a truce with Earl Simon
Edward, whose hot blood was likely still further to n?got'a^es
J with Prince
complicate matters. In . this he was partially sue- Edward,
cessful, for though the prince remained to the end of
March at Bristol, in spite of his fathers summons to
return, no further hostilities took place. Perhaps,
relying on his former influence, Simon was willing to
negotiate more fully with the prince. His proposals
were supported by the Bishop of Worcester, a man
who left no means untried to bring about a peaceable
solution, but when that failed recognised as clearly as
Simon the necessity of war.1 But nothing satisfact- but in vain.
ory could be done. A royal edict ordering an oath
of submission to the king and Prince Edward, to be
administered by the sheriffs throughout England, was
the only answer vouchsafed by Henry to these pacific
advances. The king indeed professed himself willing
to submit to a committee, but Simon had had enough
of committees. Despairing of success except by
force, he now introduced foreign aid, the barons of
Dover giving his troops free entrance1,2 which they
had refused to the kings men two years before.
About Whitsuntide the barons under Simons guid- Meetin^ of
ance met at Oxford, without the kings knowledge or the Barons
„,,„,' & „ , at Oxford.
consent, lhe Earl of Warenne, the young Earl of
Gloucester, even Henry of Almaine were there. King
Richard appears to have attended in order to prevent
the outbreak of hostilities. Thence Simon sent -his
1 Letter dated 4 March, 1263. — Royal Letters, ii. 244.
2 Royal Letters ii. 245.

246

Simon de Montfort.

he takes
up arms.

Successesof the
Barons in
the west ;

ultimatum — a recognition of the Provisions of Oxford,
and the outlawry of any one who opposed them.1
This was modified, according to some authorities, by
the proposal that such portions as were really pre
judicial to the country should be omitted, so long as
the Provisions relative to the expulsion of aliens were
kept intact, since these involved 'nothing but what
was the rule in all countries of the world.' 2 Nothing
was said as to the authority by which the alterations
were to be made ; but it can hardly be doubted, since
the French arbitration had for the time been dropped,
that Simon contemplated free discussion in Parlia
ment on the matter, as the only possible way of solu
tion. But the dictatorial tone roused Henry out of his
usual bland hypocrisy ; he refused to admit the basis
proposed, and Simon took the law into his own hands,
This decided step produced an enthusiastic re
sponse. The noble youth of England streamed to
gether in great numbers.3 Simon led them first of all
westward, to the border country where Gloucesters
strength lay, and where the Welch might form a
support in case of need. In the long June days they
marched from one stronghold to another, seized and
chastised the Savoyard Bishop of Hereford, the most
obnoxious of the aliens, expelled the royal sheriffs
and castellans, and confiscated the goods of their
opponents.4 Without doubt much needless violence
1 Ann. Dunst. 221.
2 Lib. de Ant. Leg. 58, speaking of the 'petition' sent to the king
at the opening of the campaign, which seems to refer to this proposal.
3 ' Cum junioribus Anglise pueris.' — T. Wykes 133 ; 'exercitum in-
numerabilem. ' — Ann. Dunst. 221.
4 Sir M. de Besile was taken at Gloucester, and, with the Bishop of
Hereford, confined at Erdsley. J. Giffard and R. de Clifford were
most active in these affairs. — Rob. ofGlouc. 536. Gloucester, Worces
ter, Hereford, and Bridgnorth fell into the hands of the barons.— Nic.
Trivet, 251.

1263 ¦ vio-

The Barons' War. 247
was done, though Simon issued orders, under penalty C^P'
of death, to spare all sacred buildings, which however
availed little to stop the wholesale destruction.1 Here, |their ,
as often elsewhere, the intemperance of his supporters lence does
r- • r. . pamage to
brought de Montfort into trouble. Even his partisans their cause.
foresaw that the lawlessness of these proceedings j
would alienate the friends of law.2 Still even the
royalists were forced to own that the Bishop of Here
ford deserved his fate, though his holy office rendered
the treatment of him unjustifiable. From the border-
counties Simon led his forces eastward. King Richard EarlSimon
attempted to meet him at Wallingford, but the earl marches on
refused to see him, and pressed on towards Dover.
He moved with great rapidity ; on June 29 he
reached Reading ; on the 30th, Guildford ; the next
day he was to be at Reigate.3 Soon after he reached
Dover, the castle of which however held out against him.
Meanwhile the king had tried to concentrate his Conduct of
forces. Prince Edward held Windsor,4 and Henry aned mg
withdrew to the Tower. The temper of the city was Edward.
so hostile that he failed to obtain a loan of money
from the citizens. Edward therefore seized the trea
sures in the Temple, the money deposited there, as in
a bank, being the property of private individuals.
The indignation of the Londoners burst forth in open
revolt against this high-handed robbery, which af
fected not the princes enemies, but those who had as
yet done him no injury.5 Richard, expecting a
general collision, wrote to his brother, telling of the
1 Rishanger, Chron. 29.
2 The treatment of the Bishop of Hereford was 'contra jus, nee stare
potuit.' — Ann. Dunst. 222; cf. T. Wykes 134.
3 Royal Letters ii. 247, 248.
' He was still at Shrewsbury on April 15.
5 Ann. Dunst. 222. It was possibly the store for the crusade.

248

CHAP. IX.
1263
Earl Simon
negotiates with the
kin?.

Terms of
peace offered.

The king
consents to
treat.

Simon de Montfort.
failure of his attempt at conciliation, and bidding him
prevent Edward from attacking the barons. But
Simon, having secured the sea-ports, opened negotia
tions while lying at Dover with his victorious army.
The Bishops of Lincoln, London, and Lichfield
brought the message of peace, for which they had, as
it appears, been commissioned during Simons march.
The Bishop of Worcester had already written to the
chancellor, begging him to use his influence in per
suading the king to accept the conditions which the
envoys would propose.1
The first stipulation was, that Henry of Almaine,
who appears to have been seized by the royalists
abroad on account of his inclination toward de
Montfort, should be set at liberty.2 The barons also
demanded that Dover should be given up to them,
and that the Provisions should be observed, especially.
that portion which decreed the expulsion of aliens.3
In answer to these demands, which it will be observed
go further than those made a month or two before,
the king sent ambassadors, among whom were some
citizens of London, to treat with the barons at Dover.
This was a great concession, but his situation was
in fact almost desperate at this moment. He was
blockaded in the Tower by the populace of the city,
which in a public assembly declared its assent to
Simons proposals of alliance on the basis of the Pro
visions. John Mansel, the most obnoxious of the.

1 Letter dated 29 June. — Fad. i. 427.
2 The position taken by this prince was always vacillating and un
certain. On this occasion he is said to have pursued J. Mansel in his
flight to France, and to have been arrested by order of the latter there ;
Nic. Trivet, 252, says it was owing to his adhesion to the barons.
3 Ann. Dunst. 223.

The Barons' War. 249

kings creatures, by common report the richest man in chap.
England, fled for his life to France. The queen, in

trying to make her way up the river to Windsor to I26s
join her son, was attacked by the populace with vile London.
abuse and showers of stones while passing under
London Bridge, and driven back to the Tower. King
Richard, anxious for the release of his son, pressed
the king to yield, and Flenry, ' being in a strait,' gave
way at last. It meant little enough that he renewed The king
his promise to observe the Provisions ; but, upon his yieIds-
so doing, a truce was made, and the king, in accord
ance with it, called on his wardens to give up Dover
Castle and other strongholds to the barons.1 It was
agreed that certain portions of the Provisions should
be remodelled by a council, ' according as the welfare
of the king and the realm demanded.' 2
Simon thereupon marched to London. He en- Earl Simon
m London.
tered the town at once, and was received with all
signs of joy by the citizens.3 But resistance was not
yet at an end. Prince Edward, having made a rapid
march on the western border, and having failed in an
attempt to seize Bristol, had returned to Windsor, and
seemed inclined to bid defiance to the barons. Simon
marched against him, and, by the advice of the Bishop
of Worcester, whose confidence Edward appears to
have abused, laid hands on him at Kingston, whither
he had come to treat.4 He was then compelled to 0" Edward!
1 ' Quia pax inter nos et barones nostras reformata est et firmata.' —
Fad. i. 427 ; cf. Ann. Dunst. 224.
2 'Per quosdam electos ad hoc' — Ibid.
* ' Cum jocunditate et honorifice a civibus receptus.' — Ibid.
'Risk. Chron. 19; Matt. West. 316. According to Nic. Trivet,
252, Edward had induced the Bishop of Worcester to protect him on
his wav back to London, and on passing Windsor had suddenly left him
and entered the castle.

250

CHAP. IX.
1263
Baronial
govern ment
restored.

Parliament
of Sep
tember :

arbitrationof Louis
discussed.

Simon de Montfort.
take a fresh oath to observe the Provisions. The
Castle of Windsor was delivered up, and the foreign
troops in it sent out of the country.1 For the mo
ment the baronial party was supreme. Hugh Des
penser was reinstated as justiciar instead of Philip
Basset ; Nicholas of Ely was appointed chancellor in
the room of Walter de Merton. Powers were given
to eleven commissioners, of whom de Montfort was
one, to treat of peace with Llewelyn.2 Meanwhile
the earl lay at Isleworth, probably in King Richards
palace there, through July and August, while Henry
resided at Westminster, and submitted for a time to
his rivals undisputed supremacy.
The autumn Parliament was summoned nearly a
month earlier than usual, at the beginning of Sep
tember. In the discussions, which doubtless turned
on the supreme question of the Provisions, Simon
took the lead, and spoke of wide and lofty plans of
government, which he appeared to wish to carry into
execution.3 According to one authority it was re
solved in this Parliament to submit the question of
the day to the arbitration of the King of France.4
Until now, there had been no formal submission of
the baronial party to this tribunal : the private diffic
ulties of the king and the Earl of Leicester had been
the chief subject of discussion, to the partial exclusion
of matters of more general interest. We do not know
that Louis had ever yet been asked to decide dis
tinctly on the subject of the Provisions. The subject
of the arbitration was probably, at any rate, mooted
1 Risk. Chron. 19; Matt. West. 316.
2 Writ dated 22 Aug. in Fadera.
3 ' Erigit cornua superbia?, moliendo grandia, cogitando sublimia.
T. Wykes 136. * Ann. Tewk. 179.

— )

The Barons' War. 251 )
at this Parliament, but was not settled till some chap.
months later. - — ^ — •
In the interval the Earl of Leicester was to suffer I2 3
1 Earl Simon
from another turn of fortunes wheel. His haughtyJagain loses
attitude and domineering spirit again offended many./l210™ '
He was too sure of victory, though he was far from] \
power yet. The north was, and had been through-! »
out, against him ; and now the fickle Marchers, and
certain other barons, were induced by Edward, who
was rapidly becoming the centre of the royalists, to
desert their side.1 Henry of Almaine told Leicester
he could not fight against his father and uncle, but he
would not draw his sword against the earl ; whereupon
the latter declared it was not Henrys sword that he
dreaded, but his fickleness, and bade him go and do
as he pleased, for he feared him not. ' But I and my
four sons,' he continued, ' though all should desert me,
will stand fast for the cause I have sworn to defend,
for the honour of the Church and the welfare of the
realm.'2 At this same Parliament many, who had Complaintsof the vio-
suffered from the random pillage and violence of the lenceofhis
spring campaign, complained of the injustice with Partlsans-
which they had been treated, since they had not op
posed the Provisions. Even Prince Edward seems to
have found it impossible to recover three castles which
the Earl of Derby, the worst freebooter of all, had
seized.3 In London the mayor, a strong partisan of
Leicester, had alienated many of the upper classes by
giving great freedom of action to the city officials, and
1 ' Omnes Marchienses,' with Roger Bigod and others. — T. Wykes,
137; R- de Clifford gave up Gloucester Castle to him. — Robert of
Gloucester, 538. ' 2 Risk, de Bellis, &c. 17.
3 R. de Ferrars, Earl of Derby, is especially mentioned as ' fidus
necregi nee baronibus.'— Risk. Chfon. 13.

252, Simon de Montfort.
chap, thereby causing much confusion.1 It was more than
Leicester could do to rule at once his open foes and

1263 his intractable allies. His power began to ebb. The
again loses monarchical predilections of the great barons, though
ground. they contained but a small element of loyalty, and did
not prevent them from resisting their sovereign when
ever it suited them to do so, were called into life by
jealousy of their leader. It was but natural that they
would not brook from a fellow-subject what they sub
mitted to from their king. With de Montfort now,
as it had been before and was to be again, the moment
of victory was the commencement of defeat. How
far this was inevitable, for how much his own char
acter, for how much his followers, were to blame, it is
impossible now to say.
Thstc!ng Hs.d Simon been still in a position to prevent it,
France, it is hardly likely that he would have allowed the king
to go again to France. The proposal that Henry should
visit Louis had already been made in August, and the
barons, knowing the danger, insisted on his making
a very short stay abroad. He promised therefore to
return before Michaelmas, and, as soon as Parliament
was over, set off, having first summoned Simon de
Montfort and his cousin Peter, with certain others, to
and is foi- meet him and Louis at Boulogne.2 Simon, much as
e^i 7 his presence was required in England, answered the
Simon. cau; having possibly obliged the king to summon him,
in order to get an excuse for watching his move
ments. While at Boulogne he was attacked by the
king in the presence of Louis, and accused of wrongful
1 Lib. de Ant. Leg. 58.
2 Writs dated 15 and 16 Sept. 1263.— Fad. i. 432, and Royal Letters
ii. 249.

The Barons' War. 253
imprisonment, sacrilege, injustice of all sorts. He chap.
refuted all the charges, to the apparent satisfaction  ^ —
of the French king,1 but his vigilance was unable T263
. The earl
to prevent an arrangement being made between the refutes the
two monarchs which well-nigh ruined his cause. It m^fes
is hardly possible not to connect, in some way, the against
sudden change in the policy of Louis with this
meeting at Boulogne. The Mise of Amiens was the
immediate result.
Henry returned to England at the end of the The king
month, while the queen remained in France. He Engiand°
shut himself up in his stronghold of Windsor, with
Prince Edward, and waited for an opportunity of
gaining, by a sudden blow, a position which would
enable him to reap to the full the advantage of the
favourable verdict he expected to get from Louis.
All the circumstances of the crisis seem to show that
he had settled matters with the French king, and had
secured his aid, but that he expected to have to fight.
For this reason probably he left the queen abroad.
As yet a hollow truce existed ; and, though both „
- ' ° General
parties were armed and only awaited the signal, un- tranquillity.
usual tranquillity, the ominous calm before the hur
ricane, prevailed for two months throughout the
country. It seems probable that it was during this
period that the negotiations took place, which ended
in the unanimous agreement to abide by the arbitra
tion of Louis. It can hardly have been settled later
1 Ann. Dunst. 225. According to the Chron. of St. August. Cant.
(quoted by Nichols), J. Mansel and other refugees joined in accusing de
Montfort, but the latter declared he was not bound to answer such
charges in the Court of the King of France, but only before his own
king, and by judgment of his peers.

254 Simon de Montfort.
chap, than the end of November.1 A council of some kind
IX
 — • was held at Reading towards the end of October, at
1263 which envoys from Llewelyn were present. The
Reading. Earl of Leicester, for unknown reasons, did not ap
pear. It was probably only a council of the royalists,
and the arbitration and the kings immediate policy
may have been discussed. It was important to
Henry to settle with the Welch in the event of an
outbreak of the civil war ; but the absence of Lei
cester is sufficient to show that the question of arbitra
tion cannot have been decided finally at this council.
Earl Simon Meanwhile Simon de Montfort, who seems to
England'0 have returned from France with the king, had first
secured London, and had found means quietly to get
rid of the kings partisans, Hugh Bigod and others,
who retired from the city. He then withdrew to
Kenilworth, his own stronghold, and waited for the
reopening of hostilities. They were not long delayed.
The king The king and Prince Edward, with many of the lead-
makes an jnp- nobles, suddenly marched on Dover ( December 4),
attempt on & ' J v ^"
Dover, but Simons partisans there, under Richard de Gray,
held firm and refused to admit them. The disap
pointed royalists turned to London, which some of
the leading citizens had offered to give up to them,
and on hoping by a rapid march to surprise the town. Simon
moved quickly from Kenilworth to its rescue, and a
trap was laid for him, which nearly proved successful.
1 The agreements to submit to arbitration are dated 13 and 16 Dec.
For the first week or more of December the two parties were almost in
open hostility ; the arrangement could hardly have been completed in
the interval. The necessary discussions and formalities must have taken
some time, and the assent of both parties must therefore have been
secured before the kings attempt on Dover. It was about this time that
J. Giffard and others took the town of Gloucester by a stratagem, but
failed to take the castle. — Robert of Gloucester, 539.

The Barons' War. ' 255
He was lying in Southwark when the kings forces chap.
came up, and, not being strong enough to meet them, ! '

he tried to escape into the city. The gates were shut I263
against him by some royalists inside, and, hemmed in nearly™011
between the river and the kings army, he would prob- tal?en
. L prisoner.
ably have been taken prisoner, had not his partisans
among the citizens, hearing the disturbance outside,
overpowered all opposition and opened the gates to
their protector. Foiled a second time, the king re
treated to Croydon, and thence issued an order to the
citizens of London to expel Simon and his partisans.
This was naturally useless : Simon kept the city and
refused the king admittance. The state of things Fruitless-
appeared worse than ever. Simon had gained nothing n|?s of his
by the years campaign. At one moment he appeared
to be successful; then with bewildering rapidity we find
him deserted, and only just able to hold his own.
The state of the kingdom during this period can
better be imagined than described. From such a
position any means of relief were acceptable ; and we
can well believe that the whole people consented with
joy to the appeal to Louis.1
In the middle of December, less than a week Formal
after the attempt on London, the letters were issued, toMbmit'
in which it was formally arranged to submit to the !° arbitra-
arbitration. The two documents, one giving the sign
atures of the royalists, the other those of the national
party, to the agreement, show clearly enough, if need
were to prove it, the marvellous fickleness of the men
with whom Simon de Montfort had to deal. They also
show why it was that the lower classes of society, and
''Clerus et populus unanimi assensu compromittebant.' — T.
Wykes.

256

CHAP. IX.
1263
The two
parties at
this time :

Simonsparty,

the kings
party.

Simon de Montfort.
the men who had most memory, the clergy, looked
upon him with an ' ever-increasing devotion. Of all
the men who had been chosen on that committee to
represent the Parliament against the king in 1244, he
and the Bishop of Worcester were the only two who
were still on the same side.1 Ever since that time he
had been before the people, never once swerving from
the course he had taken at the first. He had bred
up his sons to follow in his steps. Three others of
his family signed their names on his side, but besides
him not one earl of note appeared. Younger men
there were, staunch adherents to the popular party,
Hugh Despenser, young Humphry Bohun, Ralph
Basset, Richard de Gray, William Bardulph, and
others, men who had made their first appearance in
politics seven years before ; but Simon de Montfort
was the man who, by his long experience and by his
friendship with the great Bishop of Lincoln, formed
the connecting link with the men who had won the
great charter. On the other side were the two Bigods,
the Earl of Hereford, and Roger Mortimer, all of
whom had stood up for the barons seven years before.
Fitz-Geoffrey and Richard Earl of Gloucester were
dead, so that but half of the baronial twelve of 1258
remained true. Of the twelve representatives of the
community not one appears now for the barons, while
four or five, together with James Audley, a royalist
member of the Fifteen, are for the king. Richard of
Cornwall had gradually dropped out of the contest,
but his son Henry, and the kings hated brother, Will-

1 Several were dead of course ; the events of 1244 are mentioned to
show the length of time -twenty years -during which the earl bad been
associated with the popular cause : see names in Appendix iii.

The Barons' War. 257
iam of Valence, reappear among the royalists ; the chap.
wild barons of the Scotch and Welch Marches, with •  — -
several others, make up the number of the kings part- I26s
isans. It is remarkable that the young Earl of Glou- the two
cester appears on neither side.1 No less than four of Parties-
those who had resisted the papal absolution of 1261,
and appeared as late as that time on the list of the
kings nominal foes, had since then accepted the
offered pardon and changed sides. Such was the
vacillation, such the want of purpose and principle
which made Simons work so hard. Well might he
exclaim, 'I have been in many lands and among
many nations, pagan and Christian, but in no race
have I ever found such faithlessness and deceit as I
have met in England.' 2
It is hard at first to see what can have induced Reasons
the earl to submit so unconditionally to Louis' arbi- simon"
tration. Despair of finding any other solution of the submitted
, . to the arbi-
difficulties seems to have driven him to it. He thought tration.
perhaps, owing to his recent successful defence at Bou
logne, and the good-will Louis had always shown
him, that the verdict would turn out to be in his
favour. Such a verdict would have rendered Henry
defenceless, and even if so good fortune were not to
be expected, a one-sided decision in favour of the
king would be almost equally damaging to him.
There were many who already suspected his eager
ness for arbitration to be occasioned by a wish to in
troduce active assistance from abroad against his own
subjects. He would at once forfeit the good-will of
_ ' Perhaps this was because he had not yet been knighted ; he was
knighted with others by Simon on the morning of Lewes.
'Risk., de Bellis, &c, 17.

258 CHAP. IX.
1263
The arbi
tration ;

Papal
interfer-

Possible
motive of
Louis :

resignation of
Sicilian claims by
Henry

Simon de Montfort.
such persons, since his success would be certain to
prompt him to more arbitrary measures than before.
A threat of foreign interference would reunite Simons
party and confirm many of the waverers. In the
latter expectation he was not disappointed. Although
however he must have taken both possibilities into
account, he does not seem at all to have expected a
decision so completely adverse. Henry was probably
better informed as to the truth. John Mansel had
obtained letters from the Pope bidding Louis decide
for the king.1 Urban had even ordered a crusade to
be preached against the English rebels, and had
written a letter to the Earl of Leicester, threatening
him with excommunication, and contrasting his oppo
sition to the papal see with the enthusiastic devotion
of his father.2 But something more weighty even
than the papal command must have occurred to
change Louis' opinion.
To gain his favour it is possible that Henry had
made a great sacrifice — a sacrifice, that is, from his
point of view. Nearly six months before this the Pope
had written finally to break off the engagement with
respect to Sicily.3 At the same time he had offered
the crown to Louis' brother, Charles of Anjou. A
resignation of all claims by Henry may possibly have
influenced the pious, but not altogether unworldly,
king, and have turned the scale, already heavily
weighted by monarchical feeling. Feudal law, in ac
cordance with which the King of England was the
Popes vassal since the pact with John, lent its in-

1 Ann. Tewk. 179.
* Urbani IV Epist. iii. 188, 199, quoted by Pauli.
8 Fad. i. 428, dated 29 July, 1263.

The Barons' War. 259
fluence to Urbans command. This supposition is chap.
urged with much force by Dr. Pauli,1 and appears ._ **• .,-
highly probable, but is perhaps hardly sufficient to I26.3
account for the extraordinary and sudden change in t0 this'™
Louis' policy. The French king might have under- view :
taken the conquest of Sicily without any fear of
serious opposition from England. Henrys resigna
tion of hopes he had no chance of realising, if he ever
made it, was worth little to Louis. On the other
hand the king, in his anxiety to settle once for all other pos-
with the barons, may have made Louis some great sonsfbr1"
concession, perhaps of land in the south of France, as Lrouis -
payment for active aid he hoped to receive, and to policy.
which the decision at Amiens would have been only
the first step.2 The sudden attack made upon Dover
seems to show that he expected shortly to be able to
introduce soldiers from France. However this may
be, Louis now completely abandoned the attitude of
impartiality which he had hitherto maintained, at
all events in the private quarrel. There was no
longer any hesitation, no hint of the impossibility
of bringing about a satisfactory compromise ; the
matter was no sooner laid before the judge than he
decided, without any reservation, in favour of one of
the parties.3
Shortly after Christmas, 1263, Henry, after first Henrygoes
publishing a manifesto to allay suspicion,4 in which
he declared his willingness to observe the Provisions
1 Simon de Montfort 128.
2 It must be said that there is no documentary evidence either for
this supposition or for that of a resignation of the Sicilian claims.
3 Mr. Pearson (Hist, of Eng. ii. 239) thinks that no further reason
need be given than Louis' monarchical predilections, and the tendency
to autocracy in France, and this interpretation is probably right.
4 Writ dated 20 Dec. in Fadera.

260 CHAP. IX.
1264
Henry and
the barons
at Amiens.

The Mise
of Amiens :

complete
restoraticnof royal
power ;

Simon de Montfort.
of Oxford, and stated that he never had introduced
nor intended to introduce foreign troops into the
country, left for Amiens. Simon de Montfort was
detained at home by a fracture of the thigh, caused
by a fall from his horse ; but his party was repre
sented by a deputation, consisting of Humphry Bohun
the younger, Peter and Henry de Montfort, and three
other barons, attended by their secretaries.1 The
formal statement of the case on both sides occupied
apparently some days, and on January 23, 1264, Louis
gave his verdict, called, from the place of assembly,
the Mise of Amiens. He cancelled, in accordance
with the papal absolution, the Provisions and the con
stitution dependent on them, on the ground that they
had done nothing but injury to the Crown, the Church,
and the whole kingdom. All castles were to be re
stored to the king ; he was to have the sole right 'of
appointing to all offices of State, from justiciar to
bailiff, whomsoever he would, and of removing them
at pleasure. A special clause abolished the statute
providing for the government of the country by natives
only, and empowered the king to call aliens to his
council. Only the charters granted before 1258 were
to be observed. Finally, a general amnesty was to be
proclaimed. The royal power was therefore restored
in all its former supremacy, and the whole labour of
the last six years thrown away. And not only this,
but since the Provisions, with the exception of those
enactments which placed the government in the hands
of an oligarchy, were, as is evident from an examina-

'.' T. Wykes, 139, gives the names of Adam of Newmarket, Walter
Blount, ' et pauci alii,' as the baronial deputies.

The Barons' War. 26 1
tion of their contents,1 only the logical outcome and con- chap.
sequence of Magna Carta, the latter, though retained, •  A — ¦
was endangered by the entire removal of its super- I2 4
rr^, 1 i-ii approved
structure. The ecclesiastical power, which three years by the
before had absolved Henry from his oath, could not ope'
but rejoice at so hearty an approval of its policy ; the
Mise, as soon as it was announced at Rome, received
the papal confirmation, and a legate was to be sent to
England to ensure complete success.2 Thus were the
three greatest powers of Europe, the Pope and the
kings of France and England, leagued together against
Simon de Montfort and the national party.
We need not ask what was the result of the deci- General

sion in England. London and the Cinque Ports, we pr 

recogni tion.

refusal to
recognise
are told, with almost the whole community of the the Mise-
middle classes, utterly refused to recognise the ver
dict.3 Even the royalist chronicler condemns it as
hasty and imprudent.4 The people put it down to
bribery, or traced it to the influence of the two Pro
vencal queens.5 The outbreak which followed can The barons
hardly be condemned on the ground that it involved j^f^ m
a distinct breach of faith. It is true that the barons
had sworn in the most sacred manner to submit
themselves unconditionally to Louis' arbitration on
the whole question of the Oxford Provisions. But it
¦cannot be doubted that such a proceeding as the I
1 See above, pp. 200, 213.
2 Confirmation dated 16 March, and again 23 March, in Fadera.
3 Lib. de Ant. Leg. 61.
4 T. Wykes 139, ' Rex Francorum . . . forte minus sapienter
et utiliter quam deceret, eructatione siquidem improvisa suum praecipit-
avit arbitrium.'
5 Popular opinion is expressed in the song, ' O rex Francorum,
multorum causa dolorum, Judex non rectus, ideo fis jure rejectus,'
quoted by Blaauw. In Ann. Tewk. 1 76 it is attributed to the queens
influence ; in Ann. Wigorn. 448, to the queen and Prince Edward.

262

Simon de Montfort.

CHAP. IX.
1264
The Mise
pt Amiens :
completeabrogation
of the Pro
visions not
contem plated by
the barons ;

their de
claration.

complete abrogation of those Provisions was never
contemplated by the baronial party. Only a few
months before the king had sworn to keep the Pro
visions ; the frequent proposals of submission to arbi
tration by elected commissioners or otherwise had
pointed to a reform or modification of the Provisions,.
never to their entire removal. Some portions had
been almost universally condemned ; the scheme of
government had perished as it deserved. A practic
able compromise on' the subject of sheriffs had been
suggested ; a similar arrangement might have been
made for the appointment of the high officers of
State. On the other hand, some notice might have
been taken of the subject of taxation, so strangely
omitted from the Provisions. But the safeguards
against the abuse of power by the royal officers, and
the statutes concerning the government of the land by
Englishmen, were points which touched the root of
the whole quarrel. It is as absurd to think that the
barons would have submitted to arbitration, had they
thought it possible that their decision on these points.
could be reversed, as to think that Henry would
have submitted, had he thought it possible that Louis-
would reinstate the government of the baronial olig
archy. There can be no doubt that Louis exceeded
his moral if not his legal right in giving so sweeping
a verdict. The barons declared at once that they
had never intended to submit the statutes against aliens.
to arbitration. It was doubtless a great mistake not
to have stated this beforehand ; but a fact which
tends to show the truth of their words is that in the
petition before the opening of the war, and in the
terms of peace proposed in the previous July, the

The Barons' War. 263
observance of the statutes against aliens was made a chap. TV
sine qua non, and these seem therefore to have been  , — --
exempted from the subjects under discussion. No I264
, , , , . r • • , , , ,• The barons
one can blame the king for resisting the total aboh- in the
tion of his power decreed by the constitutional enact- ng ''
ments at Oxford, in spite of his oath to abide by
what the twenty-four should decide ; it can hardly
be imputed as a crime to the barons that they re
belled against the complete annihilation of their work
in the Mise of Amiens, although they had sworn to
abide by the verdict of Louis.
The event was in itself decisive of the future Result of
course of the struggle. The king remained three Amiens: °
weeks longer in France, but hostilities broke out at
once. Only a fortnight had elapsed when an order
was sent from Court to destroy the bridges over the
Severn, except that at Gloucester, in order to cut off
the barons who had crossed the river, and to prevent
others from crossing to join Llewelyn in an attack
on Roger Mortimer.1 There was no need of declaring
war; both parties had been long prepared. The
northern barons began to move beyond the Trent,
and Robert Nevill wrote to offer his assistance to the
king in that quarter.2 The Welch invasion was all in
Simons favour, and he was doubtless, as the king sus
pected, in communication with Llewelyn.3 The first I outbreak

collision seems to have taken place between some of the j°ies on'the
Marchers and the sons of de Montfort. Roger Mor- !We'ch
0 'border.
timer had ravaged Simons lands, whereupon, being
1 Writ dated 4 Feb. 1264. — Royal Letters ii. 2$%. Mortimer began
the attack, according to Hie. Trivet 254.
2 This letter is assigned with great probability to this date by Dr.
Shirley. — Royal Letters ii. 255.
3 ' Adjuncto sibi principe Wallia;. — Nic. Trivet 254.

264

Simon de Montfort.

chap. IX.
1264
Hostilities
on the
Welch
border,

and else
where.

as yet unable to move, owing to his accident, the earl
sent his sons to the border. They besieged and took
Radnor Castle, and then entered Gloucester. Prince
Edward, in hot pursuit, attacked them there, on Ash
Wednesday, but failed to force his way into the town,
though aided by the royalists in the castle. Foiled on
this side, he nevertheless made his way into the
castle by means of a boat, and repelled all the attacks
of the barons until the arrival of the Earl of Derby
with reinforcements obliged him to negotiate. An
arrangement was made, through the mediation of the
Bishop of Worcester, in accordance with which the
barons left the city. Edward then seized many of
the citizens, and punished them by fines and im
prisonment, after which he made good his escape.
Earl Simon was much annoyed at this mistake, and
with good cause, for had he captured Edward — as he
might have done by blockade — he would have had
the king at his mercy. The incompetence shown by
de Montforts sons, in military no less than in other
matters, is very remarkable, and finally cost their
father his life.1 From Gloucester Edward proceeded
northwards, attacking on his way the earls borough
of Northampton, and Robert Ferrars' lands in Derby
shire ; but Kenilworth, which Simons inventive
genius had lately fortified with all sorts of engines,
previously unknown in England, was not to be taken.
Thence he went to join his father at Oxford, in the

1 These events (Risk. , de Bellis, &c. , 20 ; Nic. Trivet 254, &c, ),
ought doubtless to be referred to this point, and are not to be confused
with the somewhat similar occurrences last year at Bristol. They
explain the reputation for ' vulpecularis astutia,' attributed to Edward.
— Matt. West. 318. I have mainly followed the account of Rob. ofGlouc.
542 seq.

The Barons' War. 265
early part of March, after burning and pillaging wher- chap.
ever he came.1 The campaign was carried on with all  — -
the horrors of civil war, for passions were much embit- „ I2 4
tered by this time ; the men of Simons rearguard of the
at Rochester were killed and cruelly mutilated a little strugg Ci
later, and the Welch archers, taken in Sussex by the
kings forces, were beheaded.2 The wilder elements
of Simons party were doubtless not far behind their
enemies in ferocity.
Henry had probably chosen Oxford for his ren- The king"
dezvous, for the same reason as the barons in 1258 at °xford-
and Simon the previous spring, as being an excellent
military centre. The meeting there was in strong
contrast with that of six years before. The spirit of
the University did not look with so much favour on
the object the king now had in view, as on the Pro
visions which took their name from the town. The
students had given vent to their feelings in a fierce
quarrel with the townsfolk shortly before the kings arri
val, and Henry accordingly dismissed the University, Dismissal
alleging as a pretext the danger to the students of °4*fUni"
rough treatment from his soldiery. The students
marched out in a body, it is said, 1 5,000 strong, and
joined the barons.3 What became of the senior part
of the University we are not told. Roger Bacon
perhaps worked on in his cell, and paid little attent
ion to the clang of arms in the street below.4
Meanwhile Simon de Montfort had sufficiently Earl Simon
recovered from his hurt to take the field. He col- iey.
1 'Tressocii, proedatio, combustio, occisio.' — Matt. West. 320.
2 T. Wykes 148.
3 Risk. , de Bellis, &c. 22.
4 See a long and amusing account of the quarrel in Rob. of Glouc. 540
seq.

266 CHAP. IX.
1264
Negotia
tions betweenEarl Simon
and the
king,

broken off.

Simon de Montfort.
lected his forces, and encamped at Brackley, a few
miles north of Oxford. There one more attempt for
peace was made. Negotiations were opened through
the medium of several bishops on the barons' side,
with the French ambassador, then attendant on the
king. It did not however promise well for peace
that Henry at the same time issued a summons to all
the magnates of the country, bidding them meet him
in arms within a fortnight. Simon, on the other
hand, as was shown by his repeating the attempt on
the eve of Lewes, was earnest in his endeavours to
maintain the peace. He declared his willingness to
recognise the Mise of Amiens, if the king would
give up the article admitting foreigners to power in
England,1 and stated that the barons had never
meant to submit this article to arbitration. Some
advance had been made, and a draught at least of the
agreement for the return of the Archbishop of Can
terbury made out ;2 but William of Valence was with
1 The constant recurrence to this point justifies the statement in
Chron. Mailros, s. a. 1264, ' Dissensio . . . habuit initium et finem
a retentione alienigenarum.' The popular hatred of these persons may
be judged from a story told by Rishanger (de Bellis, &c. 4). A young
man passing through the village of Trumpeton (? Trumpington) threw a
stone at a dog that barked at him, but missed the dog and killed a hen
belonging to a woman in the village. The lad swore it was done by
accident, and offered double the value of the hen, but the woman refused
the money and cried out for vengeance. Thereupon a bailiff of Will, of
Valence seized the lad and chained him in prison so cruelly that he
shortly died. His body was thrown out on a dungheap and then buried.
But a steward of W. of Valence passing by some days after, and hear
ing the story, ordered the body to be exhumed and suspended on the
gallows. The story, true or false, shows what the state of feeling must
have been. The same steward is said to have answered petitions with
the reply, ' If I do you a wrong, who is to grant you justice ? The king
wills all that my lord wills, but my lord wills not all that the king wills.'
John of Oxenedes (p. 175) relates the still more atrocious murder of
one of the kings cooks by Geoffrey of Lusignan, and adds that those
who brought the matter before the king were jeered at for their pains.
2 MS. quoted by Blaauw, Barons' War, 122 . cf. Fad. i. 436 seq.

The Barons' War. 267
the king, and he was certain to uproot any lurking
wish for peace which Henry may still have cherished.
The negotiations were broken off, and the bishops ' ;
bidden by the king to go about their business.
War was now as good as declared, and de Mont- The king
fort, anticipating an attack upon London, marched off Northamp-
to secure the city, leaving a strong force, under com- ton'
mand of his son Simon, to hold Northampton. No
sooner were the royal troops assembled than an
attack was made upon that town by the king in per
son, accompanied by his eldest son and King Richard.
The attempt would probably have failed but for the
stratagem of the Prior of St. Andrews, a Cluniac
monastery, the garden of which abutted on the walls
of the town. The monks, many of whom were
French, and had strong royalist proclivities, were in
communication with the king, and had undermined
the walls, putting in wooden props as a temporary
support.1 A feigned assault was made on the other
side of the town, under cover of which the royalists
made an easy entrance by the breach so caused. The
baronial force made a gallant resistance, but their
leader, the young de Montfort, having been taken
prisoner, the remainder, who had taken refuge in
the castle, surrendered next day, to the number of
rifteen bannerets and sixty knights, with many of
lower rank. The Oxford students, who had fought
well on the baronial side, were dispersed. The town
was given over to pillage.
1 Risk., de Bellis, &c. 23 ; Ann. Dunst. 229, ' Muri villoe . . .
qui circumdant gardinum prioris Scti. Andrea;, quos idem prior, ut dice-
batur, malitiose quodammodn debilitaverat. ' IV. de Hemingb. 319, lays
it to the charge of ' monachi alienigena;.'

268

CHAP. IX.
1264
Londondeclares for
the barons.

Rising of
London in
favour of
the barons :
attack on
the Jews ;

Simon de Montfort.
It was a serious blow, but London had meanwhile
declared energetically for Simon. An alliance for
twelve years was made between the barons and the
city.1 On March 31 the citizens, under command of
Hugh Despenser, and other captains chosen from them
selves, sallied out and destroyed the house and pro
perty of King Richard at Isle worth, as well as those
of William of Valence and other obnoxious persons.
The deposits in the Temple, or what was left of them
after Edwards raid upon them last year, were taken,
and thus a pernicious example was only too well fol
lowed. A fortnight later, on Palm-Sunday, April 12,
the Jews, who were plundered by both parties indis
criminately whenever any disturbance gave the ex
cuse, were attacked, and many of them murdered.
Much gold was taken from them ; 2 and Simons
enemies declared he had excited the massacre and
shared the spoil. That he had no great liking for the
Jews, his own charter to Leicester proves ; but there
appears to be no reason for connecting him with so
wantonly cruel an act, while the fact that after the
war he issued special edicts for their protection tends
to prove his innocence on this occasion. On the
other hand, the report that the Jews were going to
, burn the city with Greek fire, and hand it over to the
royalists, which seems to have occasioned the attack
upon them, is utterly absurd and incredible.3 They
could have had no wish to fall into the clutches of a
king who throughout his reign used them as mere

1 Lib. de Ant. Leg. 6 1.
* The citizens are quaintly likened in Chron. Mailros, to fish ' who
snatch all they can.'
3 Ann. Dunst. 230.

The Barons' War. 269
money-bags, and oppressed them mercilessly on the chap. IX..

paltriest excuses. Probably the affair was a mere
outburst of popular suspicion and frenzy ; its objects I264
were doubtless more obnoxious to the popular party,
which was composed mainly of the lower classes in
London, and therefore suffered more at the hands of
the usurers, than to the other side. The political
struggle was degraded by the admixture of class
hatred, which was intense in the city, and prompted
the riotous mob to the seizure of the Temple trea
sures, which probably belonged to their wealthier
fellow-citizens. It was but natural to attribute to the violence of
leader, as the royalist chroniclers did, the wild deeds breakUiaid
of his partisans ; no doubt he must bear the blame t° Simons
r ' charge.
of having been the primary cause. The movement
doubtless had in it as large an element of violence,
brutality, and selfishness as popular movements in all
times have been cursed with ; the question is whether
the gain justifies the price. At this particular time it
was quite impossible to check the outbreak of the
evil elements, for fear of losing the whole. Simon
was probably at St. Albans,1 whither he had gone, on
his way to relieve Northampton, when this outbreak
took place. Had he been in London, it might not
have happened.
On hearing of the mishap at Northampton the Constancy
earl was much moved, but showed no signs of de- Simon.
spondency ; he was roused into fury by the loss of
his son and cousin, and, ' raging like a lion robbed
of his whelps,' vowed that before the end of May
1 About this time so fine and well fortified a town that it was called
'little London.'

270 Simon de Montfort.
chap, the fortune of war should be reversed.1 Returning
IX
¦  1 — • through London, he first made an attempt on Ro-
1264 Chester, the capture of which would have been of
attacks great advantage for the defence of London. He
Rochester, took. tne town and part of the castle, having de
stroyed the water-gate by means of a fire-ship ; but
the attack on the strong Norman keep failed, in spite
of all the machines which he brought against it. He
was however on the point of forcing this last strong
hold, so great was his skill in the arts of siege,2 when
he was forced to hasten back to London to ward off
an attack on the city, threatened by Prince Edward,
which was to have been aided by the royalists with
in.3 The king, after the capture of Northampton,
had also occupied Leicester and Nottingham, and,
having been joined by the northern barons, had sent
his son northwards to ravage the lands of the Earl of
Derby. The news that Rochester was in imminent
peril caused father and son to move hastily to its
but has to rescue, and Simon was forced to raise the siege at the
raise the , , , . T ,
siege. moment when success appeared certain. London
was too strong for attack : Henry therefore, taking
Kingston on his way, marched on Rochester, and dis
persed the remainder of Simons forces there. Thence
he moved southwards and took Tunbridge, where
he showed magnanimity or policy by releasing the
Countess of Gloucester, who was in the castle. The
Henry . '
marches Cinque Ports, his next object, contained a small
Cinque party of royalists ;4 but the other side were the
1 ' Infremuit nee tamen concidit vultus ejus.' — W. de Hemingb. 313 :
' Non praeteribit mensis Maii, quin adeo confusi erunt, &c. — Risk., de
Bellis, &c. , 24.
2 Rishanger (de Bellis, &c. 25) says he set an example to all English
men how a siege should be carried on, a matter of which they were
totally ignorant.
3 Ann. Dunst. 231. s W. de Hemingb. 314.

Ports,

The Barons' War. 271
.stronger, and on the kings approach they manned chap.
their ships and put to sea, in order to prevent their

being used against London. The population of I2 4
Kent and Sussex is said also to have been hostile.
The densely-wooded district through which the kings
army passed supplied no food, and the troops suffered
much privation. The fleet having been the chief thence to
object in the attack on the Cinque Ports, Henry, after Lewes-
the failure of his attempt, and being unable to seize
Dover,1 left the coast and marched to Lewes, in the
hope perhaps of receiving foreign reinforcements
through Pevensey or Newhaven.
The Earl of Leicester, after consultations held in Earl Simon
London with the leaders of his party, had resolved ™urthh.es
again to offer peace to the king, on condition of the wards,
observance of the Oxford Provisions, and with the
promise of indemnity to be made for the damage
done to royal and other property. Then with a large
force of Londoners he set off on his journey south
ward, with the intention, if peace were again refused,
of dealing a decisive blow before foreign assistance
arrived. The barons, after a march as rapid as the andreaches
number of their foot-soldiers allowed, encamped at
Fletching, about ten miles north of Lewes, in the
Weald of Sussex, the dense forests of which served to
conceal their movements. The letter with offers of o;:ferofpeace.
peace, a letter worded in submissive and respectful
style, not accusing the king but his evil counsellors,
was signed by the Earl of Leicester, and young
Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester, for the whole
1 Blaauw (Barons' War, 117) says that Dover was surrendered to
the king after the Mise of Amiens, but he gives no authority for this
statement.

272 Simon de Montfort.
chap. army. It was conveyed by those whose holy office
>- — L — . made them the rightful peacemakers, but whom a
*2 4 traditional policy and a long alliance bound to their
Offer of .
peace, leader. Walter de Cantilupe, Bishop of Worcester,
was Simons oldest living friend, and Henry of Sand
wich, Bishop of London, was no unworthy follower of
th^krrf by ^1S hnmediate predecessor in that see. But the offer
was indignantly and contemptuously rejected, and
the idea of submitting to an arbitration of prelates
laughed to scorn, as unworthy of those who held their
titles by the sword. The king in his answer, and
The king 1 Richard and Edward in their letter of defiance, did
and others . .-,..,
defyEari | not even deign to give the hostile earls their titles;
imon. j ^gy were saluted as lying traitors, and challenged to-
! do their worst. Richard had put off his old character
of mediator, for the destruction of his property had
touched him in his tenderest part.1 Edward was not
likely to forget or forgive the insult put upon his-
mother by the Londoners, and burned with the desire-
for revenge, which he was enabled to gratify to his
own hurt. The negotiation occupied Monday and
Tuesday, May 12 and 13. After the royal answer-
nothing more was to be done, and the earl resolved
on losing no time. Next day, Wednesday, May 14,
the fate of the country was decided on the battle
field of Lewes.
The Battle The soldiers of de Montfort were marked with a.
mebaro-' white cross on back and front, as a distinguishing
maipre-i sjp.n an(j m token that they called themselves, like
parations ; b J
their ancestors in 12 15, the army of God. There was.
in them a nascent spark of the religious fervour which
' He is said at first to have offered to mediate on promise of a large
indemni'y. — Polit. Songs, ed. Wright, 69.

to thav page 272.

London.: Longmans & Co.

~Zdwf W~eILer

The Barons' War.

273

animated the armies of Cromwell. Simon himself chap.
passed the night in prayer and in anxious prepara- > IX' -
tion for the morrow, encouraging all around him, I264
and infusing into them some portion of his own en
thusiasm. His troops were shriven by the Bishop of
Worcester, while the royalist army indulged in wine behaviour
and pleasure, not scrupling to carry on their orgies royalists.
even on holy ground. The account of the different
preparations of the two armies recalls that given of the
night before another battle, fought not very far from
the same place two hundred years before, and must
be received with equal caution.1 De Montforts plans
were laid with a care and foresight, and executed with a
combination of resource and decision, which would be
sufficient, even if we knew nothing more of his milit
ary prowess,' to support his reputation as the first
general of his day. He determined to surprise his
foes ; as soon therefore as it was light enough to
move, the march began. But, before we enter upon
the details of the march and the battle itself, a brief
description of the locality will be necessary.
The undulating ridges of the South Downs, which Descrip-
form the natural bulwark of the coast of Sussex, battlefield?
consist, in the neighbourhood of Lewes, of two main
ridges running east and west, both of which are cut
by the river Ouse in its course towards the sea at
Newhaven. The northern of these ends abruptly, a
short way to the east of the town, in the height called
Mount Caeburn ; the southern runs on eastward till
1 It must however be allowed that the account of the debauchery of
the royal army on this occasion is supported by several independent
witnesses, one of whom, the informant of the Melrose Chronicler, declares
he saw it with his own eyes. The same story is told about the night
before Bannockburn, as well as of that before Hastings.
T

274 Simon de Montfort.
chap, it ends in the cliffs of Beachy Head. In the gap
-_  , '_. - between the two portions of the northern ridge lies the
1264 town of Lewes. On the eastern or left bank of the
of Lewes : Ouse the hill rises precipitously from the bed of the
of thePt'0n stream, leaving but scant space for houses on this
battie-fieid. side. On the other side of the river this ridge, at a point
two miles north-west of the town, just above the hamlet
of Offham, makes a sudden curve, and is continued
in two or three minor ridges, like the fingers of an
outstretched hand, of constantly decreasing elevation
which tend in a south-easterly direction, till they
merge in a broad undulating shelf. On this shelf the
chief portion of the town is built ; a picturesque old
town, consisting mainly of one long street, which runs
nearly due east and west, and ends in the open down.
In former days the castle, with its double keep, formed
its boundary in this direction. Similarly the western
portion of the southern ridge sends off one long off
shoot towards the north-east, which nearly meets
those from the northern ridge. At the end of this
offshoot lies the suburb of Southover, at a lower elev
ation than the part about the castle ; and at the
point where it sinks southward into the marshy flat,
which at no very distant period was covered by the
sea, are still to be seen the ruins of the Cluniac Priory
of St. Pancras. A line drawn from the castle to the
priory would cross the intervening depression in a
direction almost due north and south.
The march The direct road from Fletching to Lewes passes
Lewes. through Offham, and skirts round the bend in the
ridge above mentioned, entering the town near
the castle. Had Simon followed this route, he
would have been seen from the castle at least two

The Barons' War.

275

miles off, and he would have had to fight on the level, chap. IX
without anything to compensate for his inferiority of  —
numbers.1 On arriving therefore at Offham, he turned I264
sharp off to the right and ascended the great northern
ridge of the downs by one of several tracks which lead
slantwise up the steep hill-side, probably at a depres
sion which marks the top of what is called the Combe,
just to the east of Lewes Beacon.2 Thence he followed
.along what may be called the middle finger of the
hand above spoken of, passing close by the present
racecourse, and always keeping a little way down
the western side of the ridge so as to avoid being seen
from the town. But already fortune had begun to First
favour his bold attempt. The royalists had posted a
vedette somewhere on the ridge, probably on the

1 Ann. Waverley, p. 356, make the barons 50,000, the royalists
¦60,000 ; others make the proportion in favour of the king much larger.
Simons army included 15,000 Londoners, very poor troops.
2 There are three points on this ridge, one without a name immed
iately above Offham, at the bend of the ridge, then, westward of this,
Lewes Beacon, which is higher, and lastly Mount Harry, supposed to
be named from Henry III, which is higher still. Mr. Blaauw sup
poses the barons to have mounted by the Combe, and this is most
probable, as there was no reason for them to go further west. I may
take this opportunity of saying that I visited Lewes purposely without any
knowledge of Mr. Blaauws account, and came to a perfectly independent
decision about the battle, which I was glad to find agreed in the main
with his. The chief authorities from which my account is compiled, are
the Chronicles of Melrose, Lanercost, John of Oxenedes, Walter of
Hemingburgh and the two Chronicles attributed to Rishanger, the
Chronicon edited by Mr. Riley for the Rolls Series, and the Narratio de
Bellis apud Lewes et Evesham, edited by Mr. Halliwell for the Camden
Society, which are however too contradictory to have been written by
the same person ; all these appear to have come from independent
witnesses, and are more often explanatory of one another than incon
sistent. In the second rank come the Chronicles of T. Wykes,
Nicolas Trivet. Waverley, and others. Unfortunately the chronicler
of Osney was prevented from telling all he knew, because, as he says,
' forte quod placeret regalibus displiceret baronum fautoribus.' — Ann.
Osn. 149.

276

1264
The battle
of Lewes :
march of
the barons ;

address of
Earl Simon :

order of the
bironialarmy.

Simon de Montfort.
height above Offham, whence the whole country as
far as Fletching could be commanded. These men
however had got weary of waiting, and in the course
of the night had returned to the town, leaving one
solitary watcher behind them. He had naturally
fallen asleep, and was roused from his slumbers by
Simons men. From him they doubtless gained useful
information about the enemy, and after this piece of
good fortune proceeded, we are told, with great joy.
When they reached the point where the Spital Mill
now stands, and the ground sinks gently towards the
south and east, they mounted the ridge, and from its
flat top caught sight of the castle to the eastward,
and the bell-tower of the priory below, just tinged by
the rays of the rising sun.
Then Simon, knowing that the struggle would not
be long delayed, dismounted from his horse, the rest
following his example, and addressed his troops as'
follows : ' My brethren well-beloved, both peers and
vassals, the battle we fight to-day we fight for the
sake of the realm of England, to the honour of God
and of the blessed Virgin, and to maintain our oath.
Let us pray the King of all men that, if that is pleasing
to Him which we have undertaken, He may grant us
strength and aid, that we may do Him good service by
our knightly prowess, and overcome the malice of all
our foes. And since we are His, to Him we commend
our souls and bodies.' Then they all knelt down
upon the ground, and, stretching out their arms, prayed
aloud to God for victory that day. After that the
earl knighted young Gilbert de Clare and others, and
so arranged in three bodies they marched down the hill
upon the enemy. The left consisted of the Londoners,

The Barons' War. 277
under the command of Nicholas de Segrave, Henry of chap. IX
Hastings, and others. Simon appears to have sent •  , ' _-
them, knowing they could hardly stand in the open I264
field against the mounted and well-armed foe, to enter
the town by another way and attack the enemy in
the rear.1 The centre, probably directed against the
castle, was commanded by the young Earl of Glou
cester, eager to show himself worthy of his spurs. The
right was led by Henry and Guy, two of Simons sons,
the eldest, Simon, having been taken prisoner at
Northampton ; it was meant to surprise that portion of
the royal army which was encamped round the priory.
This was the important point, for in the prioiy lay
the prize of victory, the king. The earl himself seems
to have remained with a fourth body in reserve, to go
wherever the course of the struggle should demand his
presence. Even yet the advancing army does not seem to The
have been perceived, until it came into collision with arous'ed:
a party which had come out in the early morning to
forage, some of whom, rushing back into the town, gave
the alarm. , From the point where the barons halted
to the castle is about a mile, to the priory about a
mile and a half, so that the royalists had no time to
lose. Prince Edward, who was in the castle, was
naturally the first to appear, and sallying forth fell
1 J. of Oxenedes, p. 221, says that Simon sent 'quosdam ex nobili-
¦oribus' to fire the town in the rear of the enemy ; these I suppose to
have been the nobles who led the Londoners. This is the only way I
¦can account for the Londoners being near the castle, so as to meet
Edwards attack, for it seems to me absurd to think, with Mr. Blaauw,
that they had the place of honour, and were sent directly against the
castle, the strongest point. They were, as we know, on the left, and
would naturally have been employed on this sort of service. Edward
must have sallied forth before Gloucester with the centre reached the gates.

278

Simon de Montfort.

attack on
the carroc
cio.

vigorously upon the first portion of the enemy that
he came aoross. These happened to be the Londoners,
whom he probably took in flank as they were hurry
ing past the castle to enter the town, and were doubt
less in very poor order. They were immediately put
to flight, and pursued by the relentless victor for some
miles. They appear to have fled along the road to
Offham, and their bones have been discovered in pits
along the steep hill-side, up which they hoped that
the horses of their pursuers could not follow them.1
When he had sufficiently glutted his sword with the
blood of these unwarlike townsmen, and bitterly
avenged the insult they had put upon his mother, the
prince was returning towards the battle-field, when he-
descried upon the hill where Simons army had halted
a large vehicle, on the top of which the earls standard'
was flying. This was the carroccio, or waggon, oni
which it was the custom of the time to carry the
standard of a town to battle.2 On this occasion how
ever it had been made use of by the earl as a place
of confinement for four3 citizens of the royalist
party, whom he had taken with him as hostages on
leaving the city. The waggon was very strong and
barred with iron. Round it was piled what baggage
the army had brought with it. The royalists, seeing
the earls standard, and fancying that he was within,
as being not yet sufficiently recovered from his fall to
be able to mount on horseback, attacked the waggon

1 Blaauw, Barons' War, pp. 354, 356.
2 As for instance in the Battle of the Standard, where the flags ofYork,.
&c, and in the Battle of Legnano, where that of Milan was carried.
3 This number is given in Risk., de Bellis, &c, and Matt. West. -r
others give three or two. Some say they were the citizens who had
barred the gates of London against Simon in the previous autumn.

The Barons' War. 2 79
with great yehemence. They lost some time in driv- chap.
ing off those who guarded the vehicle, and more in / .
breaking it open, for its strength defied for a long I264
while all their efforts. In vain they shouted, ' Come
out, come out, thou devil Simon ! come out, thou
basest of traitors ! ' In vain did those within declare
that not Simon but friends and allies were there. The
royalists, finding all their efforts to burst open the
waggon unavailing, at length set fire to it and burnt
it with its unfortunate inmates.1 By this time the
day was far advanced, and Prince Edward, the Rupert
of his day, returned to Lewes, exhausted with his
easy but fruitless victory, to find the main battle lost
and won.2
For de Montfort no sooner saw the best troops of Defeat of
the enemy engaged in pursuing the least valuable main body,
portion of his own force, than he hurled the rest of
his army upon that body of the royalists which was
led by the two kings in person.3 The latter were
taken completely by surprise, but speedily ranged
themselves in the best order they could, and issued
from the priory enclosure with the royal standard, the
1 Chron. Mailr. p. 194, says that some of the Londoners, in order to
deceive the enemy, told them that Simon had pretended he could not
ride, and had not wished to come with them ; that they had therefore
confined him in the waggon, in fear that if they left him behind he
would play them false. But Edward can hardly have been fool enough
to believe this story, which sounds as if it had been made up by the
Londoners after the event. A good deal of guile has been imported
into this affair, which was probably, after all, merely a lucky
accident, 2 Blaauw, Barons' War, p. 204, says he returned about 8 o'clock ; but
surely 'usque ad octavam horam ' (Chron. Mailr. 195) means 2 o'clock :
even this is hardly possible.
8 Ann. Wav. p. 357, say that the barons paused on the hill, and did
not attack at once, so as to give the royalists time to wake ; so too
Rob. of Glouc. 547 : but this is almost too Quixotic to attribute to them.

28o CHAP. IX. 1264
The Battle
of Lewes :
Defeat of
the king ;

return of
Prince
Edward :

Simon de Montfort.
dragon of England, flying in their van. The struggle
here was long and stubbornly contested, but eventu
ally the baronial forces, having the advantage of the
position, routed their adversaries at all points. King
Henry, who fought bravely and had his horse killed
under him, was driven back into the priory, round the
walls of which for some time the battle was continued.
Many of the vanquished were left on the field, or
were driven into the marshes, where they were
smothered.1 But few -of this body can have made
their escape. King Richard, who seems to have
fought his way some distance up the hill-side, was
surrounded and compelled to take refuge in a wind
mill.2 Here he was assailed with shouts of 'Come
down, come down, thou wretched miller ! thou who
didst so lately defy us poor barons, with thy titles
of King of the Romans and " Semper Augustus,"
come down ! ' It was no place in which to stand a
long siege, and he therefore soon surrendered. Prince
Edward came back to find his uncle a prisoner, his
father surrounded, without a chance of escape, and
the greater part of the royalist forces routed or slain.3
He was however about to renew the conflict, when his

1 Chron. Lanercost 74, says that many were found afterwards sitting
upright in their saddles, with their arms stretched out. and their swords
in their hands, as if they had been alive.
2 This windmill was for a long time afterwards pointed out as King
Harrys mill, but has long ceased to exist. The spot in which tradition
fixes it is where a public-house now stands, on the right-hand side of
the street, just below the gaol. — Blaauw, Barons' War, p. 202.
3 The accounts of what happened to the prince after his return are
very confused and inconsistent. I have taken what seems to be on the
whole the most probable view, which is mainly that of Rishanger (de
Bellis, &c). Some say he entered the castle, which he could hardly
have done, seeing that if he had he would not have surrendered so easily,
and that the castle was probably taken by this time : others that he

The Barons' War.

281

CHAP. IX.

1264

Surrender
of the king
and others.

own followers, seeing it was all over, took to flight.
Among them were the Earl of Warenne and William \-
of Valence, the latter of whom probably expected! fli„„^of hi
small mercy from de Montfort. They succeeded in troops :
cutting their way through the town, and escaping
across the bridge to Pevensey, whence they took ship
for France.1 The prince, thus deserted, took sanctuary
with the few who were left to him in the church of
the Franciscans, or as others say in the priory itself.
The victory of the barons was now complete, and the
priory, the last stronghold of the royalists, would prob
ably have soon been taken by storm had not wiser
counsels prevailed, or darkness put an end to the
conflict.2 About nightfall a. truce was made. Prince
Edward surrendered himself as hostage for his father,
while Prince Henry of Almaine did the same for
the King of the Romans. Simon de Montfort was
undisputed lord of England. 
fought his way into the priory, which is more likely. Some say he
surrendered at once ; others that he did so next day to save his father.
Some say that the king surrendered to Simon ; others that he would only
yield to Gloucester, from hatred of the other.
1 Risk. Chron. is here inconsistent. It first says these nobles were
with Edward, then that they deserted the king. A combination with
Risk, de Bellis, &c. gives what I believe to be the truth : cf. Walt, de
Hemingb. 317. There is also an uncertainty about their subsequent fate.
Six months later the sheriffs were summoned to bring several of them
to London, so that they appear not to have escaped to France, but to
have been taken. The next we hear of them is their landing in Wales
in 1265. 2 Here again the authorities differ as to whether the trace was made
that evening or next day. There are great discrepancies too as to the
number of the slain. The most circumstantial accounts give between
two and three thousand, besides those of the Londoners who were killed
in the flight, perhaps as many more. No nobles of the first rank, and
only two on each side of less repute, lost their lives.

282

CHAP. X.
1264
The Mise
of Lewes :
arbitrators appointed :

points to
be decided;

CHAPTER X.
THE GOVERNMENT OF SIMON DE MONTFORT.
The first measure of the Earl of Leicester after the
battle of Lewes was to dictate a preliminary edict,
declaring the general principles on which the govern
ment was to be carried on, and sketching out a new
court of arbitration, to which the principal matters in
dispute were to be referred. This document was in
the form of a treaty, and is called the Mise or Com
promise of Lewes. The text is not preserved, but we
have a contemporary abstract,1 by which it is seen
that the composition of the court was to be of a
mixed nature, English and foreign, lay and clerical,
with the addition of the Cardinal-Legate Guido.4
These commissioners were to discuss everything but
the fate of the prisoners ; their decision needed not to
be unanimous, but whatever the majority should de
termine was to hold good. On some points however
it appears the court was not left to decide. The
king, it was declared, was to rule justly, and without
respect of persons ; none but Englishmen were to be
1 Risk, de Bellis, &c. 37.
2 The names are given in Rishanger : the Archbishop of Rouen, the
Bishop of London, Peter the Chamberlain, and Hugh Despenser. But
the authorities differ.

The Government of Simon de Montfort. 283
made councillors, high officers, or bailiffs of any sort. chap.
The charters were to be confirmed, and precautions - — V — •
to be taken against the abuse of judicial and minister- I264
ial power. The king was to be kept under a sort of arrange-
financial tutelage until his debts should be paid, and ments-
he should be able to live on his own revenue, without
oppression of any one. The Princes Edward and
Henry of Almaine were bound over as hostages for
the preservation of peace till the arbiters should give
their decision. Full indemnity was granted to the
Earls of Leicester and Gloucester and their followers.
Lastly, the discussion was to be carried on in Eng
land, and to be concluded by Easter 1265.
The spirit of the edict must be regarded as re- Fairness of
markably just and moderate, when we consider that except fa
the fate of war had compelled the royalist party to an *e °h°ice
unconditional surrender. The only point that has
any appearance of unfairness is that of the choice of
arbiters. We are not told how they were to be
chosen, but it is evident that the defeated side could
have had but little voice in their selection. That the
cardinal-legate was to join in the discussion is how
ever a proof that their interests were not neglected.
According to another account,1 the arbiters were to uncertainty
be selected by the King of France, from French and
English prelates and nobles ; but much uncertainty
on this point prevailed, and it is hardly likely that
Simon can so soon have been willing to submit again
to the influence of King Louis. The terms dictated
to the conquered were all but identical with those
proposed before the war ; nay, they are at first sight

Matt. West. 336.

on this
point.

284

Simon de Montfort.

CHAP. x.
1264
The Mise
of Lewes :
form of
government not
left to
arbitration,

but certain
other points :

the Mise a
proclama
tion of
peace.

even more moderate, for no part of the Oxford Pro
visions or the questions under dispute was exempted
from arbitration, except the statute as to the ex
pulsion of aliens from all offices of State. But this
extreme moderation is rather in appearance than
reality. It does not seem that the question of the
form of government was to be submitted to arbitra
tion ; it was impossible to wait, in the present state
of confusion, till the verdict should be given. Some
form of government was absolutely necessary, and the
nature of this could not be left to the decision of so
narrow a tribunal. It would of necessity remain with
de Montfort to decide what points should be arbi
trated on, and what these were we cannot with any
certainty say. They would possibly include the ex
act method of appointing sheriffs and other officers,
the general principles of which were laid down in the
Ordinance of London ; the kings household, a financ
ial committee, and other points not of primary
importance, would be touched on. Constitutional
questions are in fact omitted in the fragmentary
copy of the Mise which we possess ; but since the
Ordinance of London and the constitution therein
adopted were considered to be in accordance with the
Mise, we may conclude that the lost portions included
some general decrees on this most important point. The
document was probably intended to allay mens fears,
and to act as an announcement of peace. For this pur
pose its moderate and reassuring tone was well adapted,
and marks at once the statesmanlike wisdom and the
honesty of purpose which distinguished its author.
From Lewes the earl, after having deposited his
less noble prisoners in safe places, but taking Henry

The Government of Simon dc Montfort. 285
with him, moved to London. An universal suspension chap.
of hostilities was decreed, as well as mutual restora- -  ,-  -
tion of prisoners without ransom ; breaches of the . I264
First
peace and even the carrying of arms • were forbidden, decrees ;
under very severe penalties ; instead of the sheriffs,
provisional guardians of the peace, doubtless from
the number of Simons friends, were appointed,2 and
various other measures taken to restore a state of
quiet to the land.3 The most urgent necessities Parliament
having been provided for, a Parliament was sum- moned.
moned to meet in London, and the thorough nature of
Simons reforms was at once apparent. The guardians
of the peace were instructed to see that four knights
were elected for the purpose of attending Parliament
by and for each county. The exactness of the word
ing of this clause shows the importance which was
attributed to the measure.4
The Parliament met on June 23, and there is no Parliament
reason to doubt that the county members were pre- ° -*une'
sent.5 The transactions were most important. The
1 The Earl of Leicester was specially excepted.
2 That the Custodes Pacis did not altogether supersede the sheriffs
is shown by the proclamation (Fad. i. 455) addressed to ' R. Basset
custodi pacis, et vicecomitibus eorumdem comitatuum. ' So too in the
writ (Fad. i. 456) addressed to the Custos Pacis and the Sheriff of
Yorkshire. On the other hand, the Custodes Pacis alone were bidden
to see to the election of four knights in 1264 ; while the Sheriffs of Sussex
and Hertford alone were bidden to bring their prisoners to the Parlia
ment of 1265.
s Edicts as to damage done to property of the Church and the Jews ;
recall of the University of Oxford, &c.
4 ' Vobis mandamus quatenus quatuor de legalionbus et discretiori-
bus militibus dicti comitatus, per ejusdem comitatus assensum ad hoc
electos, ad nos pro tbto comitatu illo mittatis, ita quod sint . . . nobis-
cum tractaturi de negotiis pradictis,' sc. the 'negotia regni,' to be
treated by the king with the prelates, magnates, and other vassals (Fad.
i. 442). _
3 This seems to be conclusively proved by the words ' voluntate
. . . regis, praelatorum, baronum, ac etiam communitatis tunc ibidem

286 CHAP. X.
1264
Parliament
of June :
ecclesiasti cal legisla
tion;

redress of
injuries to
the Church.

Simon de Montfort.
difficult question of lay and clerical jurisdiction was
handled in a way which, though fragmentary, shows
de Montforts ecclesiastical tendencies, and the im
portance of the aid rendered by the Church to the
cause of liberty. At the same time it must be al
lowed that the regulations now issued tended to per
petuate the evils arising from the dominance and
isolation of the priestly class. On the other hand, it
may be argued that they placed a bulwark in the way
of the extension of royal power, formed out of that
body which had from the first been most closely con
nected with the defence of national rights. In cases
of robbery, where both an ecclesiastic and a layman
were concerned, the bishop of the diocese was to
judge the cause. In cases where there was suspicion
of the unlawful imprisonment of ecclesiastics, the
bishop was to decide. The distinctness of the clerical
profession was guarded by an enactment against the
bearing of arms by the clergy. A committee of three
bishops was appointed to enquire into the injuries
suffered by the Church within the last year, and their
decisions were to be supported, if need were, by the
strength of the secular arm. Finally, Archbishop
Boniface was commanded to return at once, and per
form the duties of his high office.1 Simon had to
repay the confidence and good faith of the Church ;
his gratitude found expression in these perhaps too
favourable provisions.2
prsesentis ' (relative to acts done in this Parliament) ; though it is
doubted in the Lords' Report i. 154 ; and Dr. Pauli (Simon de Mmit.
146) says their presence is not ' urkiindlich erwahnt. ' The 'comrmm-
itas ' can only mean the elected knights.
1 Lib. de Ant. Leg. 65, 70 ; Fad. i. 443.
' Pearson, Hist, of Eng, ii. 254, says ' They help to explain de
Montforts popularity with the clergy, his place among miracle-workers

Tlie Government of Simon de Montfort.
In the second place, the general principles enunc
iated in the Mise of Lewes were confirmed, with
more special regulations as to the free entry of foreign
merchants, if they came unarmed and in not excessive
numbers. But the most important point was the
formation of a scheme of the constitution. It is
most desirable to know if this constitution was in
tended to be permanent or not ; but from the ob
scurity of the preamble it is impossible to speak on
this point with certainty.1 It appears most probable
that it was to last during the rest of Henrys reign,
and for so long a period of that of Edward as the latter
should decide ; whether his decision was to be made
now or when he came to the throne does not appear.
That is to say, it was intended to be as permanent as
any constitution could be expected to be under the

287

CHAP. X.
1264
Scheme of
govern mentdrawn up :
question of
its perma
nence.

after death, and his failure in government. ' But they do not go very far
to explain these facts.
1 The preamble runs thus, ' Hoec est forma pacis a domino rege &c.
. . . communiter et concorditer approbata : videlicet quod qusedam ordin-
atio facta in parliamento Londoniis habito . . pro pace regni conserv-
anda quousque pax inter dictum dominum regem et barones apud Lewes
per formam cujusdam misas praslocuta compleretur duratura omnibus
diebus pradicti domini regis et etiam temporibus domini Edwardi post-
quam in regem merit assumptus usque ad terminum quern ex nunc duxerit
moderandum firma maneat stabilis et inconcussa ;' then follows the
' dicta ordinatio. ' It is uncertain whether the word ' duratura ' agrees
with ' ordinatio ' or with ' pax ;' if with the latter, then it is merely said
that the ' ordinatio ' is to remain firm and stable for an indefinite period.
At the end we read, ' omnia prasdicta faciat dominus rex ... in forma
prasdicta (sc. forma regiminis) . . . prasenti ordinatione duratura donee
misa apud Lewes facta . . . fuerit concorditer consummata vel alia
provisa quam partes concorditer duxerint approbandam. ' It seems
therefore that the constitution, at the time that it was made, was
announced to last until the terms of the Mise should be executed ; that
when that result took place, the constitution was confirmed and declared
to continue for at least the rest of Henrys reign, as stated in the pre
amble, which was drawn up in 1265. It is probable that Simon from
the first meant it to be permanent, but thought it premature positively
to announce so important a change in June 1264.

288

Simon de Montfort.

CHAP. x.
1264
The Ordi
nance of
London :
it was
meant to
be perman
ent.

The scheme of
government :
the electors
and coun
cillors.

circumstances. The Ordinance, as this form of gov-
• ernment was called, was confirmed the next spring ;
and in consequence of this the hostages were released.
Now the hostages had been given in order that the
arbitration might take its course, and that the peace
of the kingdom might be placed on a firm basis,
That this was considered to have been done in March
1265 is shown by the release of the hostages ; and it
was done by the acceptance of this constitution of
June 1264 and certain other subsequent arrange
ments. Thus it was on the existence of this con
stitution that the peace of the country was held to
depend ; and the constitution was not meant to last,
as might perhaps be inferred from the preamble, only
till the permanent arrangements for the preservation
of peace were complete. It was itself the most im
portant of these arrangements. That however it did
not complete them, but was in reality only the first
step, is shown by the fact that the hostages were not
released till after many additional arrangements had
been made and collectively confirmed in March 1265.
According to this scheme of government there are
to be ' chosen and nominated ' three persons, called
electors. These electors are to receive authority
from the king to elect or nominate, on his behalf,
nine councillors. By counsel of these nine, three of
whom by turn are to be always at Court, the king
is to transact all business of State. If any State
official, great or small, transgress, the king is at once,
by counsel of the nine, to depose him, and substitute
another in his place. If any councillor perform his
duty ill, or if there be any other reason for his
removal, the king shall, by counsel of the electors,

The Government of Simon de Montfort. 289
remove him and substitute another. If the councillors chap.
cannot agree on any question, the electors or two of ¦  *"_ _
them shall decide. If the electors disagree, that I264
which two of them decide shall hold good, provided
that in ecclesiastical questions one of the two shall be
a prelate of the Church. Finally, if it shall seem
good to the whole body of prelates and barons that
any one of the electors should be removed, the king
shall, by counsel of the aforesaid body, appoint
another in his place.
This scheme of government may fairly be regarded The con-
as the creation which more than any other marks the 1264 :
genius of Simon de Montfort. Other matters — his cha^cte?!
courage, constancy, sympathy with the oppressed —
may call forth more general admiration. His adapta
tion of the existing county machinery to parliament
ary representation marks his ingenuity and insight
into contemporary politics. But that which bears the
most unmistakeable stamp of political genius is this
constitution of 1264. So far as it goes it is perfect ;
elaborate, yet simple ; a constitution, in the true
sense of the word ; that is, a form of government
which will stand by itself, a building so composed as
to exist without any external assistance. It shows
an advance upon the crude ideas of six years before,
which would be inexplicable were we obliged to
believe that Simon had any but the smallest share in
the planning of the earlier scheme. The principles
on which it rests are almost precisely the same as
those of the constitution under which England has
been governed for the last century and a half.
First of all, it is a purely electoral system. The and princi-
electors are to be chosen, though it is not stated by p es
U

290 CHAP. X.
1264
The con
stitution of
1264 : its
principles :

the holders
of power ;

the king

the elec
tors; their
position that of a
prime- minister.

Simon de Montfort.
whom they were to be chosen in the first instance.
They were in fact at first self-elected, though nomin
ally chosen by the king ; but the theory was that
they were chosen by some one ; and, once appointed,
their position depended on the will of the ' com
munity,' who, in conjunction with the king, could
depose any or all of them if they saw fit. The basis
then of government, the ultimate holder of power, is
the ' community of prelates and barons,' including not
only the greater barons but the smaller too, who were
now enabled to attend through their representatives
from town and county ; that is therefore, at any rate, the
whole class of which the old Great Council was theor
etically composed. The king is the exponent and
executor of the will of all three bodies — the electors,
the council, the community ; the centre in which they
all meet, the representative by whom they act, the
embodiment of the State, through whom it touches
and becomes visible to the nation. The king has no
absolute will of his own, any more than any other
single officer or collection of officers ; he is but the
highest officer of the State ; the only absolute and
independent will is that of the community. The only
occasion in which it appears that the king is to have
the initiative is in the appointment of the councillors,
for here he, being the centre of the executive, may be
supposed to know best who is fitted for the post.
But even here he is not absolute ; he is to act by
counsel of the electors, the representatives of the
community. The. electors stand in the position of a
prime-minister, who is in fact chosen by the force of
public opinion, finding expression in the kings uttered
choice. The means of deposing the electors, as of

The Government of Simon de Montfort. 291
deposing the prime-minister, may vary ; it may be the chap.
adverse vote of the community, or some other way, but ¦_ ,'. _.
the electors and the prime-minister are in fact equally I26+
in the hands of the community. Again, the prime-
minister receives authority from the king to appoint
his fellow-ministers, and he submits the list for the
kings approval : similarly the electors are authorised
by the king to appoint the councillors. In neither
case is the king the absolute granter of the authority ;
that he shares that authority with the community is
shown by the fact that the latter have the power of
determining with him the person to whom he shall
transmit it.
There are, it is hardly necessary to say, differences Contrast
between our system and that of de Montfort : the power thVmodern
of the community to appoint their own chief ministers ^st™ and
is not yet even in our day fully recognised, the theory Earl
being that the authority is conferred absolutely by
the monarch, however little it may be so in reality.
The fact however is there, though it is not formally
recognised ; in this respect Simons constitution is
more advanced than ours, for he insisted on the co
operation of the king and the community in the
actual choice of the ministers, while we have only the
practical right of a veto on an appointment disagree
able to the nation. Simon recognised the impractic
ability of any other system than that which we have
gradually adopted, holding that, in any constitution
that is to stand, the real rulers must be those who, from
whatever cause or in whatever way, have most power.
The inevitable result of any other . system is an out
break of the confined forces ; in other words, a revol
ution. Other differences, such as that between the

the modern
system.

292 Simon de Montfort.
chap, triumvirate of electors and the single prime-minister,
•  . — - are only such in appearance, since in the former case
Contra f umty °f acti°n was secured by the vote of the maj-
theconsti- ority. Others again, such as the restriction of the
1264 with electors to the right of appointing and of acting as a
kind of high court of appeal, in cases where the coun
cillors could not agree, compared with the multi
farious powers exercised by a prime-minister, are
comparatively unimportant. The 'community' in
Simons constitution was not so wide as in ours ;
but in both cases it is limited, in both cases the
electoral right within the electorate is equal. The
ground-principle is the same ; that is, the mutual
dependence of all parts of the government, the divi
sion and distribution of power, testing finally on the
broadest basis possible, the whole of the electorate.
incom- One must not forget that the constitution of 1264
theconsti- was incomplete. What we have is a mere sketch,
tution. doubtless intended to be filled in by the teaching of
experience. We have for example no idea as to how
legislation was to be carried on, as to the right of
taxation, what voice Parliament was to have in
foreign affairs, or in the ordinary administration of
government ; there was no provision for the regular
summons, no definition of the class to be represented.
We have however what was of paramount necessity,
the ground-plan ; the rest could wait awhile. The
Reasons of constitution broke down before it had had time to
its failure: get mt0 Working order, because it was premature,
political and that in two ways : in the first place, the political
instinct necessary for working it was not yet in exist
ence ; in the second, the limits of the franchise were
too wide, and power was granted to those who were not

instinct ;

The Government of Simon de Montfort.
yet able to hold it. The point at which this constitu- CHAP
tion drew the line was far below that at which it had x.
been drawn at the Conquest ; and, while in the inter- 1264 ~
val the power of parliament had become real instead weakness
of nominal, the difference between the strongest and franchfsed
the weakest of the holders of power had enormously class'
increased. Thus, whereas two centuries ago the
baronage had been nearly on the same level of in
feriority to the monarch, the powerful few were now
almost his equals, and stood as high above the
weakest of their peers as the king had stood above
them in former years. This change in the relative
positions of the greater and smaller barons increased
the difficulty of enfranchising the weaker members of
the class. They had been unable to hold the power
conferred on them by Magna Carta : they were still
unable to hold what Simon gave them ; he took the
step of enabling them to use their right by means
of representation, in order to draw out their power and
support himself by it, but it gave way under the
strain. Still the gift taught the receiver to use his
strength, which grew with the desire to use it : in the
next generation the class was strong enough, and the and more
gift granted by Simon was renewed by Edward to a courseof™
worthier generation, and was not taken away again. time-
Since then, the breadth of the electorate has grown, as
each successive class has grown more powerful. Simon,
whether consciously or unconsciously, formed a perfect
constitution embodying this principle. His constitu
tion died with him ; but England, half consciously,
half unconsciously, has been following the same direc
tion ever since.1
1 Mr. Pearson (Hist, of Eng. ii. 252) seems to me to have mis
represented the nature of this constitution. He says of it, ' While the

294 chap. X.
1264-65
Earl Simon
and repre
sentation ;

his chief
object.

Simon de Montfort.
The step for which Simon de Montfort is gener
ally renowned, the summoning of four knights from
each county in 1264, and still more the summoning
of members from counties and boroughs in 1265, is
not so great a mark of his genius as this constitution,
though it is perhaps a more remarkable proof of his
statesmanship. He was in fact compelled by the-
jealousy of the upper classes to seek for support
elsewhere. The object with which he had grasped the
supremacy was, next to the preservation of England
from foreign influence, the enfranchising of the class
of smaller barons, the ' bachelorhood ' of England..
Nominally members of the Great Council since the
general plan of government adopted at Oxford six years before was re
newed in this scheme, its details were evidently more oligarchical. It
was no longer felt necessary to admit a royalist element. The result
was a strong government for the moment, but without the broad basis.
•which alone can withstand the shocks of a revolutionary epoch. ' How
a constitution which ensured elective and responsible ministers, with the
representation of a larger class than had yet been practically admitted
to the franchise — for the measures of 1264 and 1265 must of course he-
taken together — can be called more oligarchical than a system which
placed absolute power in the hands of fifteen or twenty nobles, self-
elected and irresponsible, with a sham representation and a dummy
king, I am at a loss to understand. The royalist element was not ad
mitted in 1264, it is true, because the victory of the reformers was much
more complete than in 1258 ; but it would have been admitted subseq
uently by the regular process of election and representation. The
royal power in 1258 was left apparently untouched, but really annihil
ated ; in 1264 it was utilised as at the present day. In 1264 the phrase
of M. Thiers might have been used, ' The king rules but does not
govern.' Finally the constitution was upset, not because its basis was
not broad enough — for in fact it was still too broad — but because in its.
young helplessness it depended on its founder, and with his fall it fell.
Since the account in the text was written, I am glad to find that I am
in general agreement with Prof. Stubbs, who says (Const. Hist. ii. 91),
' The provisions of 1 258 restricted, the constitution of 1264 extended, the-
limits of Parliament. . . . Either Simons views of a constitution had
rapidly developed, or the influences which had checked them in 1258
were removed. Anyhow he had genius to interpret the mind of the
nation, and to anticipate the line which was taken by later progress."
With the countenance of such an authority I am content to let my
words stand.

The Government of Simon de Montfort. 295
days of the Conquest, they had, from a variety of chap.
reasons, dropped out of power, and the rising influence  ,'
of Parliament made their exclusion from it the more I264-fiS
bitter. De Montfort was but redeeming a pledge which
and following the spirit of Magna Carta when he "at^sl~
secured their representation. Without them a victory poplar
. , , , , , . representa-
of the baronage resulted, as we have seen, in an tion:
oligarchy, just as a victory of the king without the the greater
aid of the greater barons must have ended in a barons ;
tyranny. On the other hand, had the greater barons
enlisted faithfully under de Montforts standard, it
would not have been necessary for him to appeal to
the next class in the social scale ; had he won by
their aid, they would have hampered him in his
endeavours to raise the lower order. Granting that
his sympathy with that class was deep and true, it is
still possible that, had he been in a position to do so,
he would have considered it sufficient to carry his
administrative reforms, his measures for the welfare
of the people, in an autocratic manner, without any
reference to the wish of those who were to gain by
those measures. He might, had he had the greater
barons to back him, have followed the maxim of
Frederick of Prussia, and done ' everything for the
people, but nothing through the people.' But this
was not so ; he had to call in their aid, and they thus
acquired the right to an independent position, the
right to make themselves heard in matters concern
ing their own welfare. Thus it was that the popular
cause, in its truest sense, actually gained through its
desertion by those who should have protected it.
But if the people gained by the selfishness of the weakness of
greater barons, they also profited by the weakness of e ing'

296

CHAP. X.
1264-65
Weakness
of the king
a cause of
the growth
of repre
sentation.

Work of
Earl Simon.

Simon de Montfort.
the king. Had Henry been able to rule alone, he
might have reduced the greater barons, and therefore
still more the lower vassals, to the level at which they
stood under his grandfather. Had he even known
how to use their divisions, had he understood the
support which an able king might have won from
what may be called the upper-middle classes of the
day, he might have played off one against the other,
and our political institutions might have passed by a
natural transition from feudalism into the condition
to which a despotic monarchy reduced them in
France. But the incapable attempt at despotism
which was made during the half century after Magna
Carta supplied a stimulus to the movement, while it
was unable to prevent it from gaining strength and
consistency at its most critical period, so that when a
strong king appeared the plant was too vigorous to
be rooted out. It is the undying honour of Simon
de Montfort, not that he sowed the seed, nor that
he garnered the crop, but that he fostered and
directed its growth in the hour of weakness. With
an eye far keener than any of his fellows he saw the
only possible cure of the evils which all felt, he per
ceived the principles which underlay the popular
movement, and the way in which they were to be
applied ; when others, in cowardly fear for their own
interests, shuddered at the spirit which they had
raised, and sought to retrace their steps, he went
boldly on, knowing that while there was one to lead
the spirit would follow, and would be a servant and
not a master.
How he applied the principle of self-government
to the supreme authority of the country we have seen

The Government of Simon de Montfort. 297
in the constitution of 1264. The Parliament of 1264 chap.
was the first step in the execution of that idea. The  i- — •
principle was then applied, though not for the first „12 4_ s
, • r , Popular re
time, to the election of members by the people.1 presenta-
What is most remarkable in Simons action in this matter of
matter is not however so much this step, as the fact p^n,cffle,
that what was before merely tentative was in him a Simon ;
principle and a conviction. The only real novelty in
the Parliament of 1265 was the recognition of a dis
tinction between county and borough, a great advance
indeed, but hardly to be called the introduction of a
new principle. The representative system has been its origin
traced back into the earliest periods of English hist- and early
r ° applica-
ory, and has its roots in the popular institutions of tion;
the Anglo-Saxon township.2 Applied by Henry II
to the jury system, extended from civil to criminal
cases, and thence to the assessment and valuation of
land for the purposes of taxation, it was first adapted
by John to purely political affairs. Thus even in
political matters the idea of representation was no
new one; it was acted on in 12 13 ; its unconscious
growth is traceable, though at first sight not ap
parent, in Magna Carta. In that document the pre- ^g™1" in
sence of a number of members in the Great Council, Carta.
much larger than usually attended, is looked upon as
legitimate ; their attendance is not insisted on, and
the possible results of their non-attendance are care
fully guarded against, by the provision that the pro
ceedings of the council are not to be considered null
1 It was probably the first time that we can be sure that these mem
bers actually joined in the discussions of Parliament ; see note 5 on p.
285. 2 Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 585, 608, 620 seq. ; and Sel. Charters 24,
36 seq.

298 Simon de Montfort.
chap, and void if all the members do not appear. So far
¦  ^ — - then there would seem to be no thought of repre-
12 | 5 sentation in the charter ; but in this very disregard
representa- for the personal attendance of the smaller barons the
apparent fa idea is visible ; for the latter do not choose their own
c^rfa13- representatives, because they are in fact considered
to be represented by the more powerful members of
their class. Those present speak for the whole body ;
the absent are bound by the vote of the few who
attend, just as if they had elected them. This fact,
though not observed at first, was gradually recognised
by the greater barons ; it was a necessary conseq
uence of the right possessed, or at least claimed, by
the whole body of tenants-in-chief to assent to taxa
tion. In some cases the whole body is said to have
consented to a tax when all could not have attended
uncertainty t0 crive their consent.1 Whether in such cases the
of its appli- ° .
cation: greater barons took upon themselves to authorise a
tax levied on the whole body, or whether they in
some way or other conferred with the smaller barons
and gained their consent, is uncertain. But that this
fully recog- fact of representation and the responsibilities de-
"his rime, pendent on it were acknowledged by this time is
shown by the action of the barons in 1258, when
they declined to vote an aid on behalf of the whole
body, until they had consulted the 'community/
whose representatives they regarded themselves. In
the constitution of 1258, the principle of representa-
1 In the charter of 1225, earls, barons, &c, with the ' libere tenentes
et omnes de regno nostro,' are said to have consented to the fifteenth.
In 1232 earls, barons, &c., with the ' libere tenentes et villani de regno,'
voted the fortieth, while in 1237 the ' liberi homines' &c. promised
'pro se et suis villanis, ' which explains the former writ. The remons
trance of 1246 is said to have emanated from 'the clergy, barons, &c,
and the whole people.'

The Government of Simon de Montfort. 299
tion, however maimed and imperfect its expression, was chap.
through the appointment of the twelve representatives •  ,1  -
of the community confirmed as a regular and constant I2fi4-6s
element in the supreme tribunal of the nation.
Thus the growth of the idea in general and its obscurity
gradual application to different parts of the machine "^jject
of government are plain enough ; but many important
details are very obscure. In the first place, what is
the 'community' which was represented by the
twelve members in the constitution of 1258 ? Who
were the persons who chose the four knights in 1264,
the borough and county members in 1265 ? From
what class were the knights representative taken ?
Was every elector also eligible ? These and other
questions it is very hard to answer with any con
fidence. It seems certain however that the word
1 • , r- • , , , 1 , , The ' com-
' community in the first instance included the whole munity,'
body of the baronage, the tenants-in-chief of the tnfghts
Crown, or in its narrower sense, when used in distinc- representa-
- - tive.
tion from ' the barons,' the rest of that body, 'the
smaller barons who did not personally attend.1 This
is evident from its connexion with what we know of
the constitution of the Great Council, the difference
between its legal and its actual members, the allusions
in Magna Carta, the subsequent appearances of this
body on subsequent occasions. It is this class of
smaller military tenants-in-chief, and not those below
it, which is most prominent among the unrepresented
during this whole period. There appears no reason
to suppose that the mention of them in Magna Carta,
especially as the clause was suppressed, brought about
' This is the conclusion arrived at by the framers of the Lords' Report
(i. 140) after consideration of all instances in which the word occurs.

3°o

Simon de Montfort.

chap. x.
1264-65
Popular
representa tion :
the ' com
munity '
and the
knightsrepresentative.

Extensionof the
franchise :
its reasons,

any real change in their political position. They were
the first of the non-governing classes of the day, so that
it is impossible not to connect them with the ' four law
ful and discreet knights,' who were to be elected by the
counties in 1226, to declare before the magnates their
causes of complaint against the sheriffs ; with the
two knights summoned in 1254 to Westminster, 'to
provide an aid in time of need ; ' with the four knights
elected in 1258 and 1259 by the counties, to report
on grievances against the sheriffs. It is probable that
many of this class were included in the number, of
those tenants-in-chief, a hundred or more, who ap
peared at Oxford in 1258 ; for so large an assembly
was very rare, and must have contained other than
the usual elements. They did not however appear
there as representatives, but only as individual tenants-
in-chief. The ' bachelorhood ' ' who were so ill re
presented by the twelve in 1258 that they complained
next year to Prince Edward, must be in the first
instance the lords of small manors and owners of
knights fees, though others may have, and probably
did, join in the remonstrance.
But, if it-is probable that the knights representative
stood at first for the smaller military tenants-in-chief,
and for no others, it is pretty certain that at the time
we have reached the class represented by them was
far less limited. The smaller barons were at first
separated by very vague limits from the greater
members of their class, by nothing else in fact than
the distinction between the special and the general
summons. But as these limits became more strictly
1 The derivation is uncertain. Littre derives it from ' vaccalaria,' a
small farm. In Latin it is
Paris, it is Ritterschaft.

' baccalaria ' or ' bachilleria.' In Matt.

The Government of Simon de Montfort. 301
denned through the consequences of that distinction,
and by constant usage, those separating the smaller
barons from the classes below seem to have become I2 4_ s
1 r • r oblitera
ns strict. Through the falling-in of escheats and tion of
other causes the number of small tenants-in-chief by tmctionsdlS"
military tenure was constantly on the increase. The
subtenants, the whole class of freeholders and
socage-tenants increased as rapidly. The amalgam
ation of. all these classes is natural enough, and is
traceable perhaps to the action of two main causes.
Since all freeholders were on certain occasions liable owing to
to military service, those who held their land of the san™^6'"
king in chief by military tenure, and were therefore mili^ary
0 J service,
legally members of the Great Council, tended to
coalesce with those who, though not holding their
lands by military tenure, might still be received
as members of the same class. Secondly, the want
of representation was equally felt by all ; and the and
ancient right of one part of the unrepresented class iack of
would naturally be used to further the claims put £°^al
forward on behalf of the whole body. The milit
ary tenants-in-chief by escheat, who seem to have
been considered to possess no legal claim to a seat
in the council, formed a link between the old tenants-
in-chief and the subtenants ; while the more im
portant subtenants would be unlikely to acquiesce in
the possession of even nominal political rights by the
many tenants-in-chief who were weaker than them
selves. Thus common military service and common
lack of political power tended to obliterate the arti
ficial distinctions of feudalism.
This tendency towards amalgamation is apparent Changes in
. J to rr . the use of
in the fluctuating use of words, and in the usurpation titles.

3°2 CHAP. X.
1264-65
Popular
representation : usur
pation of
the title of
baron,

and the use
of the
county-
court, imply an
extension of the j
franchise.

Simon de Montfort.
of titles by those not originally possessing them. We
have heard Henry revile those ' London boors who
styled themselves barons : ' the rioters of London
called themselves ' bachelors,' seeing clearly enough
the advantage of connecting themselves in name at
least with their superiors. Municipal dignities would
probably be held, at least in the great towns, by some
who had a right to a still higher position : we hear of
' Barons of the Cinque Ports,' whose position, as de
fenders of the coast, gave them military and political
importance. Those who shared with them muni
cipal power would probably aspire to share with
them political power as well. Moreover, this exten
sion of the electorate, which must have been rendered
almost necessary by the gradual coalition of classes,
appears still more probable when we regard the fact
that in all the instances of the election of representa
tives it is the regular county machinery which is set
in motion. It is the sheriff who is bidden to super
intend the election ; the knights are elected by and
for the county ; the writs place no restriction on the
right of election. In after times the knights of the
shires were elected at the county courts by the suitors
of those courts. We can hardly imagine any other
means of electing the members, if, as was provided
with such care by Simon de Montfort, the members
were to be anything more than mere nominees of the
" sheriff. It is pretty certain therefore that all who
owed suit at the county court joined in the election.
, An exact definition of those suitors is hard to give ;
they cannot however have been limited to the military
tenants-in-chief.1 ' I believe that I differ slightly here from Prof. Stubbs, who thinks
(Const. Hist. ii. 225, seq.) that the knights from the first represented

The Government of Simon de Montfort. 303
But supposing the body represented to have been chap.
so large as this, it seems impossible that all who com- - — '-,'- — •
nosed it can have had the right of being elected as , .I2. 4~. 5
r —,,,... r Limitations
well as that of electing. The definition of the county of the pas-
members, that they were to be ' legal and discreet chise™""
knights,' shows that they were limited to such
military tenants as held sufficient land to qualify them
for knighthood. It was indeed hardly possible yet for
any but those whose profession was in the first place
that of arms to sit in Parliament, even as members
for the boroughs. That subtenants were however
eligible, is shown by the lists of those who attended
the parliaments of Simon de Montfort. It is un
certain how far the sheriff was able to interfere in influenceof
. . the sheriff
the election, or to limit the number of those who on eiec-
might act as representatives ; but it is evident that lons '
he must have had great power in this respect, per
haps to the extent of presenting a certain number of
persons to the county court for election. He may
have even nominated the knights representative in
12 1 3, for no mention of election is made. The
long struggle for the right of appointing sheriffs
shows the great influence those officers must have
exercised in political matters, an influence similar to
that of the prefects under the French empire. It is
hardly probable that they would have allowed the
election of any one below the rank of a military
tenant-in-chief. In 1264 it appears likely that the proofs of
four knights belonged to the class of barons not per
sonally summoned. The words of the writ for the I264-
the whole body of suitors attending the county-courts ; but it seems im
probable that they should have been regarded at once as representing
any but those who were legal members of the Great Council. This was
no longer the case in 1264.

the limita
tion in

3°4

Simon de Montfort.

First
appearanceof the
knightsrepresentative in Par
liament.

appointment of guardians of the peace contemplate
a settlement of affairs by the king and barons,1 which
shows that the Parliament to be assembled was a
Parliament of barons only. But in the same writs
the election of the four knights to sit in this Parlia
ment is ordered. These knights were therefore in
cluded under the name barons, and can only have
belonged to the smaller baronage, the greater mem
bers of which attended in person. The passive right
of election was therefore probably much more limited
that the active. It is unfortunate that the evidence
we have is not sufficient to guarantee very positive
declarations on these points, but, in leaving this por
tion of the subject so uncertain, we do but follow the
precedent of the Lords' ' Report,' which declares the
whole matter ' to be involved in great obscurity.'
There remains the question as to the first occasion
on which the representatives actually took part in the
discussions of Parliament. We have no documentary
proof that they did so till 1 264. The knights whom
John summoned in 12 13 were to consult with him on
affairs of State. The words used do not imply more
than that they were to appear and to speak with the
king ; not necessarily that they were to sit in council
with the greater barons. In 1237 mention is made
by one authority 2 of ' citizens and burghers ' being
' in council' But besides the extreme improbability
that borough members were present in the kings
council at so early a date, the vagueness with which
the chroniclers speak makes them most untrustworthy
1 ' Donee per nos et barones nostras . . . fuerit ordinatum. ' — Fad.
i. 442 ; cf. Lords' Report i. 138. This may be however attributing too
much weight to an interpretation of the word ' barons.'
2 Ann. Tewk. sub anno, ' civium et burgensium.'

The Government of Simon de Montfort. 305
witnesses in such matters. The presence in Parlia- chap.
ment of elected knights in 1252 might be inferred -  ,J  -
from the words of the writ in which the ' earls, barons, I264-6s
knights, and others,' tested the confirmation of the
charters ; but we cannot lay much weight on the
expression, for these knights may have been members
of the exchequer, or other high officers, who would
naturally attend a council. The summons for two Parliament
r ¦ • °f I2S4'
knights of the shire to grant an aid, in 1254, is so
carefully worded, and the object for which they met
so distinctly stated, that it is hardly possible to doubt
that they actually appeared. Whether they as
sembled in the same chamber as the greater barons
of the council is however uncertain. The object of
their summons being restricted to the granting of an
aid, it seems improbable that they took part in the
regular discussions which would have taken place in
the council.1 It is not likely that the greater barons of 1258.
in 1258 admitted the large number of tenants-in-chief
who appeared at Oxford to the actual discussions on
the form of government ; their interests would have
obtained more attention had they had a voice. In of 1261,
1 26 1 the attendance of knights representative was no
doubt contemplated by the Earl of Leicester, but we
have no proof, nor is it on other grounds at all prob
able, that that meeting, or the one called in opposi
tion to it by the king, ever took place. But in the of 1264.
year 1264 we are no longer left in doubt. The con
cluding words of the Ordinance of London, made at
this Parliament, are explicit. 'This Ordinance was
made at London, by consent, will, and command of
our sovereign lord the king, also of the prelates, the
1 See Stubbs, Const. Hist. ii. 67, 221.
X

3°6 chap. X.
1264-65
Popular re
presentation : the
parliamentof 1265.

Unity of
parliament
aimed at
by Earl
Simon.

Simon de Montfort.
barons, and lastly of the community then present in
the same place.' • The prelates and barons are the
ordinary members of the national council hitherto ;
the community can mean no other than the elected
knights. The presence of the county and borough
members in the great Parliament of 1265 is not certi
fied in so distinct a manner, but cannot be doubted.
That in the confirmation of the charters,2 issued in
March 1265, this Ordinance is referred to as made
' by assent of king, prelates, earls, and barons,' does
not invalidate the above argument ; it does not imply
the exclusion of the knights, any more than the for
mer writ implies the exclusion of the earls. Besides
the occasions above mentioned, it is not unlikely that
they were assembled on others too. They may have
been frequently consulted when necessary, without
taking part in the discussions of the council, as the
assembly of minor ecclesiastics often met when the
prelates attended Parliament.
The union of these distinct chambers was one of
the great objects of Simon de Montfort. As far as the
laity were concerned, he carried out his intention in
the Parliament of June 1264. It is not so well
known that he intended to apply the same principles
to the clergy. He was not content with the system
of convocation, to which, if the above supposition is
correct, these occasional assemblies of the smaller lay
baronage in some measure answered. Neither of these
bodies could have any real power as long as they met
separately, and were merely consulted at will by the
members of the more important assembly. Accord-
1 Fad. i. 443 ; see note 5 on p. 285.
2 Sel. Charters, 407.

The Government of Simon de Montfort. 307
ingly he summoned to the Parliament, which was to
have met at Winchester in June 1265, two canons
from each cathedral chapter.1 This stroke of de I264-6s
Montforts political genius, which is in itself as re
markable as the summoning of the lay members,
though of far less political importance, and was a
logical complement of that measure, does not seem to
have been sufficiently noticed : the reason probably is
that his death prevented the execution of the plan,
and it remained therefore, unlike the corresponding
measure with regard to the laity, a mere intention.
It was then in the Parliament of 1264 that one Parliament
great and lasting constitutional advance was made. °(I26s.:
0 ° distinction
The other was reserved for the Parliament of 1265. of county
It was in this latter that the distinction between borough.
county and borough members first appears. In the
ranks of the smaller baronage were included not a
few inhabitants of the towns ; the ' nobles of the sea
ports 'joined in the remonstrance of 1246. Especially
remarkable in this respect is the appearance of the •
Mayor of London, who acted as witness to Magna
Carta and to the Ordinance of London in 1264. In
what capacity he attended does not appear ; he may
have been considered a member of the council, or
may have been summoned simply to witness an im
portant writ. In both cases he must have attended
as representative of the great city which had so
largely contributed to the victory of the popular
cause. But apart from him there is no trace of
1 Set. Chart. 409. Prof. Stubbs (Const. Hist. ii. 222) in speaking of
this writ, says, ' It is not impossible that Henry III, after the victory of
Evesham, when he summoned proctors for the cathedral chapters, sum
moned also representatives of the Commons to Winchester.' But the
writ is dated 15 May, nearly three months before Evesham, and must
therefore have emanated from Simon and not from Henry.
x 2

3o8

CHAP. X.
1264-65
Parliament
of 1265 :
distinction
of county
and
borough.

Incom pleteness of
Earl
Simons
parliaments, a
necessity ;

Simon de Montfort.
special members for the boroughs till 1265. For the
purpose of electing representatives the towns would
have been hitherto merged in the counties, and thus
far they were already represented. The representa
tion of Middlesex was doubtless practically the re
presentation of London, since the city had gained
municipal freedom, and even become responsible for
the county in which it lay. But other towns were
not so well off, and it was a remarkable piece of
political insight to recognise the justice of their
claims on separate representation. What towns were
invited to send representatives we are not told ; the
number, apart from London and the larger sea-ports,
was probably not large.1 The Cinque Ports were
distinguished from the rest by sending four knights
each to the Parliament of 1265, while other boroughs
sent two apiece. How many members represented
London we do not know ; there is, strangely enough,
no evidence that a writ was addressed to the city, but
that it was represented it is impossible to doubt.
It need hardly be remarked that the Parliaments
of 1264 and 1265 were in a sense very incomplete.
As Mr. Pearson says, ' It was no longer felt necessary
to admit a royalist element' He might have said,
' It was no longer possible to admit a royalist
element' When the royalists aimed at nothing less
than the total destruction of all that the Parliament
was summoned to do, it would have been the merest
absurdity to ask them to take part in its debates.2
As well might the National Assembly in 1791 have
allowed the emigre's to discuss with them on equal

' We are only told that writs were issued to York, Lincoln, ' et
ceteris burgis Anglise.'
2 Cf. Stubbs, Const. Hist. ii. 92.

The Government of Simon de Montfort. 309
terms the groundwork of their- new cbnstitution. chap.

When the infant State had become consolidated and
able to stand alone, then it would have been time I264-65
enough to admit those who were its sworn enemies.
Hence the incompleteness of de Montforts Parlia
ments. We do not know the names of the members
who composed the Parliament of 1264; but in that members
of 1265, though the Church was very fully repre- t™hmoned
sented, summonses were issued to only five earls and liamem of
eighteen barons. This list however does not include
all who were present, for the names of some are ment
ioned afterwards, who must have attended, but to
whom no writs are stated to have been issued.1 A
certain number of counties were also apparently ex
cluded from representation in the Parliament of 1 264,
though for almost all the omissions reasons can be
given ; and the omission of any summons addressed
to London in 1265 warns us not to depend too much
on the correctness of the list.2
Thus then there appears in the work of Simon de
Montfort, apart from the two most important points
1 The lists give the names of one archbishop, twelve bishops, 105
•abbots, priors, and deans, the masters of the two orders of Knights
Templars and Knights of St. John, five earls and eighteen barons : ten
¦of the northern barons received safe conducts a little later (17 Jan.).
The number of the clergy is not extraordinary, when we consider that
many of them who would not usually have attended were probably
regarded as corresponding to the county and borough members. No
writs are said to have been issued to Giles de Argentine, P. de Mont
fort and Simons own sons, who must have been present. The Bishop
>of Llandaff also attended, but is not mentioned in the list.
2 Durham, Chester, Lancaster, and Cornwall were under separate
¦and peculiar jurisdiction : Monmouth aud Hereford were border-counties
and half Welch ; Middlesex was accounted for by London ; Rutland
was perhaps too small. The reason for the omission of Surrey, Sussex,
Lincoln, and Somerset does not appear. Mr. Pearson however (Hist.
of Eng. ii. 251) sees in the omission of Cornwall, Surrey, Sussex, and
Hereford the fear of royalist influence ; but he includes in his list of
omitted counties Gloucestershire, to which a writ was sent : see Fad. i. 442,
.possibly the list in the Fadera is incomplete.

3io

Simon de Montfort.

CHAP. x.
1264-65
Summaryof Earl
Simons work.

explained above, hardly so much novelty as he
usually receives credit for. He can hardly be called
without reserve the ' creator of the House of Com
mons,1 though to him doubtless is owing far more
than to any other individual. Still less can the
famous Parliament of January 1265 be said to 'con
sist of completely new elements.' 2 Simon would
have been the first to repudiate so radical a change
as these words imply. His mind was as truly Con
servative as it was truly Liberal. It seems therefore
useless to guess whether he was influenced by a poss
ible acquaintance with the popular institutions of
Aragon, or took hints from the constitution which
Frederick the Great set up in his kingdom of Sicily.3
With a far wiser spirit of reform he worked upon
existing materials, and with his adopted country he
made her principles his own. His claim to bur grati
tude is a claim which has hitherto seemed to belong-
specially to English reformers, a claim which rests on
the development and adaptation of popular institu
tions, on a constant and disinterested pursuit of the
truest political education of the people. The consti
tution of 1264 shows Earl Simon in the light of a far-
seeing politician, a man of great ideas. The Parlia
ments of 1264 and 1265 prove him a wise statesman
and a practical reformer. He can afford to have the
claim for novelty put in the second place, for greater
praise cannot be given to a statesman than that he has-
clearly perceived and has fostered into a stronger life
that which already exists of good.
1 ' Der Schopfer des Hauses der Gemeinen.' — Ts.a\i,Simon de Mont
fort. 2 ' Jenes so vbllig neu zusammengesetzte Parlament.' — Id.
3 For Aragon, see Pauli, Simon de Montfort, 218, andHallam, Mid
dle Ages, ii. 43. For Sicily, see Milman, Lat. Christianity, bk. x. ch. 3.

3"

CHAPTER XL
THE LAST YEAR.
Simultaneously with the formation of a scheme of CHAP. XI
government in June 1264, the first three electors  A — -
were appointed, and received the royal authority to . ia. 4
,,..,, , . Appoint-
select the nine councillors, and to carry on the gov- ment of
eminent.1 The electors were the Earls of Leicester and\our?S
and Gloucester, and the Bishop of Chichester. Who clllors-
the councillors were, or whether they were chosen in
Parliament, we do not know. Their names do not
appear till next year as authorising any writ, and it
is possible that the danger of invasion and the dis
turbances on the Marches prevented the immediate
execution of the scheme. The queen assembled in Danger
the course of the summer a large army on the coasts ^^_
of Flanders, apparently with the countenance, if not
the active aid, of the King of France. This army,
composed of the most heterogeneous materials, and
commanded by those who had escaped from Lewes,
only waited for a favourable breeze to cross over to
England. The danger was very great, and Simon
made efforts to meet it, as strenuous as those made
three hundred years later to ward off a similar peril.
Fortunately the wind continued unfavourable, or
1 Writ dated 23 June in Fadera.

312

Simon de Montfort.

Negotia
tions with
Louis.

Court of
arbitrationappointed ;

rather, as Mr. Freeman says, the nation held firm,
and the motley array of troops lingered in vain until
with the approach of winter it melted away. For
Simon had not trusted in the wind alone ; he sent
the ships of the Cinque Ports to patrol the seas, and
called upon every county in England to defend the
coast1 The people felt the common danger and
flocked together to defend their country. ' Never
would one have thought to see such a multitude,' says
the chronicler, ' as was collected then on Berham-
down.' 2 The Clergy contributed its tithes for the
same object — an object far nobler than that for which
they had so often had to drain their pockets. Diplo
macy was not neglected. Letters were written to
Louis, begging him not to allow the assembling of
troops in his dominions for an attack on England,
and requesting him to send ambassadors to Boulogne
to treat with others from Henry.3 Louis acceded
to the latter request, and did not commit himself to
the policy of his sister-in-law. With the cessation of
immediate danger from abroad came leisure for a
settlement at home.
The most important business that occupied the
latter part of the summer was the execution of the
engagement about arbitration entered into at Lewes.
Of the arbiters then selected, three still appeared —the
Bishop of London, the Archbishop of Rouen, and
Hugh Despenser ; but there was no further mention

1 ' De singulis comitatibus,' Lib. de Ant. Leg. 69 ; 'per universos
comitatus,' Ann. Dunst. sub anno ; writ to Cambridge in Fadera ; and
to Northumberland, in Royal Letters ii. 271.
2 Matt. West. 325. The place was Barham Downs, near Canter
bury. 3 Royal Letters ii. 258-264.

The Last Year. 313
of the papal legate, in whom Henry had trusted, in chap.
1264 as in 1258. The other members of the court, ¦  , " _.
the Count of Anjou and the Abbot of Bee in Nor- I2<54
mandy, as well as the archbishop, were probably
well-disposed towards Simon.1 The arbiters were poWersof
¦empowered to treat of all matters, except the form of the court :
government and the retention of castles and public
offices in the hands of Englishmen, and the barons
swore to abide by their decision. There is a lack of its compo-
honesty about the composition of this court which, it
must be confessed, casts some stain on the upright-\
ness of him who doubtless appointed it. It was a|
packed tribunal, and Simon can hardly have expected j
that the King of France would consent to treat with 1
such a court for the purpose of reversing or at least
modifying his former decision. Whether the exigen
cies of the case can be held to excuse such a proceed
ing, or whether the good effects which a unanimous
decision in favour of reform would have had on the
peace of the country counterbalanced the bad im
pression produced by the unfairness of the selection,
is very hard to decide.
Simultaneously with the appointment of arbiters, papai op-
Henry of Almaine was released, though only on very P°sltIon-
heavy bail given by the bishops, to further the negotia
tions for peace.2 But the papal opposition was too
strong. The legate vehemently repudiated the arrange
ment, as contrary to the spirit of the Mise of Lewes, an
accusation to a great extent justified by the facts. He
1 The Count of Anjou, as Dr. Pauli points out, was the candidate for
Sicily, and so well-disposed toward Simon that he was supposed to be
his brother (Matt. West. 327) ; the Archbishop was a Franciscan, and
had probably entertained Simon once at least (see Mon. Franc. 86).
2 Writ dated 4 Sept. in Fadera.

3i4

Simon de Montfort.

CHAP. XI.
1264
Papal op
position,

not sup
ported by
the English
clergy and
people.

Disturb
ances on
the Marches,

demanded to be allowed to enter England, but this-
was refused ; he summoned the English bishops
before him, but they excused themselves on the plea
that the barons would not let them go, and sent
proctors instead.1 The legate refused to recognise
the proctors, and, far from showing any wish for re
conciliation, bade them publish the papal ban against
Simon de Montfort and his followers. From the effects
of this the king and Prince Edward were specially
exempted, since they were but unwilling parties to
the revolution.2 Whereupon the bishops appealed to
the Pope, and their appeal was supported by the
whole body of the clergy in their assembly.3 Clearly
there was no want of unanimity between the Church
and its great ally. Nor did the people allow them to
give way, for when the bishops returned with the bull of
excommunication which was to have been published
in England, the men of Dover seized it and threw it
into the sea. The bishops did not oppose or excom
municate the perpetrators of this sacrilege.
While the question of peace and arbitration was
temporarily suspended by this occurrence,4 and by the
elevation of the legate to the papal see as Cle
ment IV, disturbances had broken out in the West
of England. The Marchers, who had been released
after Lewes, no sooner found themselves at home

1 The proctors were the Bishops of London, Worcester, and Win
chester ; with them were appointed as ambassadors Hugh Despenser
and P. de Montfort (27-30 Sept.). Two of the five were arbiters
already. 2 Bull dated 29 Sept. in Fadera.
3 T. Wykes 156 ; Ann. Dunst. 234.
4 That it was not altogether given up is shown by a letter of Henry
(Royal Letters ii. 278 ; Oct. 30, 1264), in which he alludes to the send
ing of fresh envoys.

The Last Year. 315
again, than they broke their plighted word. An chap.
attempt was made by some of them to rescue Prince . *• .
Edward, who was then at Wallingford, but failed I264
owing to the vigilance of the garrison. In their own
country they speedily found a pretext for a renewal
of the war in the endless feud with the Welch, now
embittered by the fact that Llewelyn was an ally of
Simon de Montfort. At the same time the Earl of
Derby came into collision with the royalists in
Chester.1 The alliance of this lawless baron was far
more an obstacle than an aid to the party he pre
tended to support. He took advantage of the un
settled state of things to rob and plunder in all
directions, and had to be treated later as the free
booter that he was. Simon was obliged to interrupt suppressed
his peaceable settlement of affairs in order to suppress |y Earl
the worst of these disturbances. He marched west
ward, and with the help of the Welch, who attacked
the Marchers in the rear, forced them to surrender.
Sentence was passed upon them at a council held at
Oxford, towards the end of November, and they were
banished from the kingdom for a year and a day,
after which they were to return and be tried by their
peers.2 Yet even after these events so much leniency
was shown them that several were allowed to visit
and converse with Prince Edward, then under the
care of his aunt in the impregnable stronghold of
Kenilworth. Thus was danger apparently warded off both at Peace at
*> rr J home and
home and abroad. Tranquillity returned for a brief abroad.
space to the harassed land. Simon de Montfort
1 Perhaps Chesterfield, as in 1266 : see below p. 353.
2 Matt. West. 325 ; Ann. Dunst. 235 ; Lib. de Ant. Leg. 70.

3 r6

Simon de Montfort.

concealed
hostility.

Complaintsagainst Earl
Simon.

reigned supreme. ' All things were ordered by him,'
we are told ; ' the king had but the shadow of
royalty.' Y The earl was not slow to avail himself of
this calm in order to set about the consolidation
of the political edifice, the foundations of which had
been laid in the Parliament of June. Even the
hostile barons of the North had apparently come
round.2 Some of those who were against the earl the
previous Christmas, as Roger Bigod, were now such
strong partisans as to incur with him the papal excom
munication. But the outward calm concealed many
angry feelings. The sight of a captive king, a pris
oner in the hands of one who still called himself a
subject, and made a cats-paw to further all the plans
of his gaoler, could not fail to arouse sympathy even
in those who opposed Henry while in power. But,
.more than this, Simon was accused of cruelty to his
prisoners, of unfairness to his friends. It was said he
idid not divide the confiscated property justly, but
jtook eighteen baronies for himself,3 and gave too
much to his sons. It is only probable that here
again Simons adherence to his principles and his
imperious nature made him many enemies. He was
for the time the ruler of England, and did not
attempt to hide the fact. Bitter experience had
taught him the evils of a divided party ; he seems
to have thought it safer to brave the jealousy and

1 Matt. West. 328.
2 It is observable that a summons was thrice sent to these barons
to appear in London between 4 June and 5 Aug., 1264, but not after
the latter date (Royal Letters ii. 256-270). Matt. West, confirms this
supposition. 3 Possibly these eighteen baronies are King Richards, as he held
exactly that number. — Pearson, Hist. ofEng. ii. 260, note.

The Last Year. 3 [7
hatred of his own side, than to let the reins of govern- chap.
ment become loose and entangled in other hands. — -^—
And he was probably right ; it was an almost hopeless I2fi4
undertaking ; in this policy lay his only chance of
success. Much of the odium he incurred was due to Violence of
jealousy of his power, perhaps still more' to the folly Simons
of his allies. The men of the Cinque Ports were suPPorters'
accused of piracy and violence on the high seas ; the
scarcity of provisions and the high prices were attrib
uted, probably with some reason, to the excessive
hostility they manifested towards foreigners. These
charges, it should be added, are confirmed by inde
pendent authority.1 There were plenty to draw in- gives riseto
charges
ferences very damaging to de Montfort ; it was said, against
as had been said before on the occasion of the riots lm'
in London, that he received a third of the booty. To
these and the like accusations we are probably justi
fied in giving little credence. They were indignantly
rejected by the earls friends at the time, by the very
men, that is, whom his enemies declared he injured ;
there is nothing to prove the charge, and, whatever may
have been Simons faults, avarice was certainly not one.
That the plunder was taken by him and applied to
the uses of government is probable enough, and may
explain the charges against him. Moreover, if the Decay of
folly and perhaps the rapacity of our mariners caused
considerable privation, the terrible confusion in which
the country had been plunged for the last seven years
will account to a great extent for the decay of trade.
To remedy this Simon declared, with true insular
feeling, if on mistaken principles, that England could
1 Lib. de Ant. Leg. 73.

Opposingviews of
Earl
Simons conduct :

Dilemma
fa which he
was placed.

Simon de Montfort.
do without foreign merchandise. Many of his friends,
we are told, acted on his advice, and wore clothes
made of undyed wool, the produce of the country.
Of all his party his own sons seem to have done him
as much mischief as any ; that this had not escaped
his notice is shown by the words he addressed to
them on the morning of his death. But he loved
them only too well, and probably overlooked acts of
violence and imprudence on their part, which it would
have been wiser to check with a strong hand. The
fact that Henry de Montfort acquired the nickname
of the ' wool-merchant,' because he seized the wool
which was being exported, gives a great air of probab
ility to these reports.1
Of Simons own conduct towards his enemies it
is, owing to the contradictory verdicts of prejudiced
chroniclers, very hard to judge. One side declares
he treated the king with the utmost indignity, while
the other says he showed him all respect.2 Henry
was in fact a prisoner, and that is enough of itself to
account for the discrepancies between two sets of
writers, regarding the matter from opposite points of
view. It was utterly impossible to give such a king
his liberty ; it was fatal to Simons cause that he was
obliged to keep him in confinement. Necessity will
or will not excuse his action in such matters, accord
ing to the political opinions of the judge. It is easier
to be definite on other points. As to the estates of
the King of the Romans, which had been handed
over to the earl after the battle of Lewes, their

1 71 Wykes (p. 159) calls him ' lanarius. '
2 Compare T. Wykes 153, with the corresponding Chronicle of
Osney, p. 150.

The Last Year. 319
•cession can only have been regarded as temporary, a chap.
pledge for Richards good behaviour. The same was  A — -
not the case with the castles of Chester, Newcastle, ^ " -4
' Earl Simon
and the Peak, which had been in Prince Edwards does not
hands, but were now, as places of prirnary im- power. 'S
portance, conferred upon the earl and his heirs, to be
held of course, like other castles, of the king. Certain
lands were given to the prince in exchange,1 of equal
pecuniary but not political value. The confiscation
of Simons property after his death showed that with
this exception he had not enriched himself at the
¦expense of others. There is no doubt as to what
he would have had to expect had he been beaten
at Lewes ; the treatment of himself, his family, and
his lands after the battle of Evesham removes all
uncertainty on this head. Whether the motive was
self-interest or generosity, the policy he adopted in
his hour of victory cannot be characterised, under
the circumstances, as any other than merciful and
conciliatory. That the Church and the people remained faithful Opinion of
to their champion is plainly shown by the great con- inatrhe imon
temporary poem already referred to.2 It begins with g°e™ ™?
an elaborate defence of his policy, both before and of Lewes.
after the battle of Lewes. After a triumphant allu
sion to the battle itself, the occurrences which pre
ceded it, and the joy of England at the release from
so many evils, the poem proceeds to defend Simon
from the charge of deceit and cunning. Far from
it, exclaims the writer, he has ever been true and
constant, and has maintained the good cause in the
1 Rot. Lit. Pat. 49, Hen. Ill, quoted by Pauli.
2 See p. 178 note 2, and appendix ii.

320 Simon de Montfort.
chap, teeth of death ; he alone has kept the oath he swore.
XI •
¦  1  . His sense of right appears in his words to the Bishop
1264 of Chichester, who, when attempting to reconcile the
Earl Simon two parties, was bidden by Simon to choose arbiters
poem on from among the best and truest men, those who knew
the battle the Provisions well, and who were learned in the law
of God ; to them he would submit and so avoid
perjury. He would not have acted as he has acted,
continues the poem, had he looked to his own
advantage ; he has sacrificed himself for the good of
others. His is not the cunning which intrigues for a
secret object ; he fights in the sight of heaven, and
gives himself, like his master Christ, unto death for
many. His cause must be favoured of God, or he
could not have won the victory over such foes. With
Simons ' faith and fidelity ' is compared the treachery
which Edward manifested at Gloucester and else
where ; the prince is like the leopard, beautiful but
faithless. Had he and his won the day, England
had been lost for ever ; but praise be to God who
has given the earl the victory, for his enemies are the
enemies of heaven, the Church, and the country.
Such is the enthusiasm which Simon excited in men
like the author of this remarkable song of triumph ;
and the same strain of praise is kept up in other
songs of the time. His name of Montfort gives occa
sion for many allusions to 'the strong mount' to
which his friends look for protection ; the feeling
towards him is nothing less than veneration.
Disunion in 7&u\_t in spite of this support, Simons position with
Simons the greater barons was daily becoming more difficult
and unsatisfactory. No sooner was the victory won
than disunion began to show itself. An interesting

The Last Year. 321
letter,1 evidently belonging to this period, the author chap.
of which calls himself 'a faithful English subject,' :A

warns the barons of the danger to be feared from I264-6s
their divisions. They are in this dilemma, says the respecting
writer. If the legate be not admitted, the king-dom "ie .state of
° ' & artairs.
will be placed under an interdict, and the barons
excommunicated ; while if he be admitted, he will
speedily overpower them. United action is therefore
indispensable. The Earl of Leicester is advised to
leave no means untried in order to keep his party
together, an object which he has endangered by
injustice in giving the confiscated property of John
Mansel to his son. The French king is ready to
enter England ; the Pope is urging him not to tarry.
Let the barons therefore beware, let them make
alliances with Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, and care
fully defend the coasts. Lastly, they ought to choose
a leader to take the place of Simon de Montfort, in
case he should die. The letter is impartial and pru
dent, and appears to come from a person of auth
ority. The danger it alludes to is that which always
thwarted Simons plans, disunion among his own foil- s ,
owers, fostered by his own arbitrary action. The
warning was only too well grounded. The majority Eiri Simon
of the greater barons maintained a policy of sullen anies.
opposition, or at least could not be relied upon for
active aid. This fact is clearly proved by the com
position of the great Parliament of January 1265,
writs for which were issued in the preceding De
cember. The small proportion of the lay nobility
1 Ann. Tewk. 179. The mention of the legate shows it to belong
to this period. The author, from his connexion with Tewkesbury, was
probably one of Gloucesters partisans. Y

322 CHAP. XI.
1265
Parliament
of January:
obscurityof its pro
ceedings.

Defiant
attitude of
Earl Simon :
his mis
takes.

Simon de Montfort.
summoned to this Parliament is a disheartening proof
of the difficulties with which the earl had to contend.1
The Parliament assembled about the middle of
January, but of its proceedings, and of the light in
which they were regarded by the country at large, we
know next to nothing. It cannot be doubted that
the completion of peace must have been looked upon
as a real blessing by the greater part of the popula
tion, that all Englishmen must have rejoiced to see
the government in the hands of their own flesh and
blood. But the great measures, of which we have
spoken above, do not appear to have had the effect
on the nation which might have been expected, and,
whether from apathy or surprise, very slight efforts
were made to aid the earl when engaged in his last
struggle. The people may have thought he was safe
without their aid, for the popular belief in him, as
shown in song and legend, was too strong to allow
one to think that he reaped the reward of contempor
ary ingratitude, which has been the lot of so many
reformers. He himself showed no sign of fear. His
action in this very Parliament of 1265 showed that he
was inclined to brave all the consequences of disaffec
tion. So defiant was his attitude that one is forced
to blame it as at least injudicious. It was not much
that the office of high steward was now restored to
him ; a far less justifiable proceeding was the ap
pointment of himself as justiciar.2 The object of this
act is hard to discover, especially as Hugh Despenser
was at hand to undertake the duties he had already
' See note I on p. 309.
2 There is some doubt about this. Foso does not give the earls
name as Justiciar, but the evidence from writs signed by him as Justiciar
seems too strong to reject. In Fad. i. 450 H. Despenser appears still as
Justiciar.

The Last Year.

323

twice before discharged. Such an accumulation of chap.
power was most unwise ; it was a needless challenge — - lr-L_
to the opposition. Acts of this kind form the I26s
heaviest indictment against the earl ; they were an
imitation of the worst faults of his enemies, and laid
him open to the charge that he was aiming at a
tyranny. Whether it was that he had begun to dis
trust even his best friends, or, as is more probable,
that he let ambition and the sense of power get the
better of his political sense, certain it is that from this
time he began to sink towards his final fall.
The discussions in Parliament were at first inter- fjf^j,^
rupted by the threat of a tournament, to be held at hostility
11-1-11 1 • ,-, towards
Dunstable, in which the sons and partisans of de Earl
Montfort were to have met the Earl of Gloucester and Simon-
his followers. It seems to have been a challenge to
the latter, and the result would doubtless have been
to fan the smouldering embers of civil war, if not to
lead to actual bloodshed. Simon peremptorily for
bade the meeting, and was so annoyed that he is said
to have threatened to imprison his sons. The pro
hibition was however used by Gloucester as a grudge
against the earl, on the ground that all the money
spent in the preparations for the affair had been
thereby wasted.1 It was a bad omen too when the
old imputation of foreign blood began again to be
cast in Simons teeth.2 The real cause of the growing
hostility between the two chief men of the kingdom
1 Risk. Chron. 32 ; cf. Op. Chron. 15. The prohibition was sent
by Henry to Leicester as well, probably to avoid any appearance of un
fairness. The earl tested the writ as justiciar, in which character he
first appears on 17 Jan., 1264. P. de Langtoft 145 says the overbear
ing 'behaviour of the young de Montforts affronted the Earl of
Gloucester. 2 He was upbraided as an 'alienigena.' — Risk. Chron. 32.

324 Simon de Montfort.
chap, is however said to have been the fact that Simon
XI
 L — - kept all the royal castles in his own hands, or granted
„ I2 s , them to his sons.1 This proceeding placed in far too
Causes of r .
the quarrel strong a light the supremacy of Leicester, and gave
Leicester tne lie to the nominal equality of the three electors.
aiJd To the young Earl of Gloucester the retention of
Bristol Castle2 was doubtless a special source of irrita
tion, and he is no't likely to have borne in patience
an assumption of authority, which the Bishop of
Chichester, a creature of de Montforts,3 had not the
power, if he had the inclination, to resist. Hampered
by these difficulties and deserted by his chief ally,
Simon had to curb the insolence of his own partisans.
He seized the chief offender, the Earl of Derby, had
him tried by his peers in Parliament, and condemned
him to imprisonment in the Tower. The notion of
some writers 4 that Simon imprisoned him in order to
protect him from the kings wrath is evidently absurd.
Summons He also summoned to London his old ally and late
to the J
chiefs of enemy, Hugh Bigod, with the Earl of Warenne, Wil-
tion.°PPOS1" ham of Valence, and Peter of Savoy. They were
ordered to attend as prisoners, and to receive judgment
at the hands of Parliament. It does not appear how or
when they came into de Montforts power, for they
are said to have escaped after the battle of Lewes ;
nor are we told what punishment they received.
That they went abroad soon after this is certain, for
we find them landing with troops in May. It is
1 Ann. Wig. 453 ; Ann. Wav. 358 ; Ann. Osn. 162.
2 According to Rob. of Glouc. , the fugitives from Lewes had occupied
Bristol. It was probably retaken by Simon in the preceding autumn.
3 See Stubbs, Const. Hist. ii. 91, note 3.
4 E.g. Rob. of Glouc, who adds that Gloucester feared a like fate,
and that Simon put foreigners into the castles— a most improbable
statement — who were removed at this parliament.

The Last Year.

325

CHAP. XI.
1265

therefore probable that they were at this time ban
ished from England.1 To their deadly enmity was
now added the hostility of some of Simons own parti
sans, John Giffard and others, whom he had offended
by forbidding them to demand ransom for their pris
oners, which was contrary to one of the enactments
¦of the Mise of Lewes.2 But worst of all was the The quarrel
between
breach with the Earl of Gloucester, who had now an Leicester
additional cause of complaint in a similar prohibition. Gloucester
So hot did the quarrel grow that he feared, or pre- grows
tended to fear, the fate of the Earl of Derby. The
split grew daily wider; in vain did the bishops use
their influence to reconcile the leaders ; the old exper
iment of an arbitration is said to have been tried
¦again in vain. De Montfort would not tolerate any
resistance ; Gloucester would not recognise the supe
riority of a fellow-subject. In this very Parliament
the latter gave vent to his jealousy by accusing
Simon of violating the Compromise of Lewes, of
arbitrary and tyrannical action, of aiming even at the
Crown. Some of these charges may have been
¦correct, but the real reason of the quarrel could have
¦escaped no ones notice. Between two such men a
¦rupture was inevitable.
Meanwhile however Parliament brought its labours Business of
? ° Parha-
'to a close. The session was protracted to an unusual ment.
length. The chief business which occupied the atten
tion of the members was the final settlement of the
terms of peace, and the confirmation of the measures

1 This point is very obscure. It seems doubtful whether they were
ever in de Montforts hands. Pauli, Simon de Mont. 173, says they
escaped to France, and were invited on 19 March to the Parliament of
June 1. 1265. So too Blaauw, Barons' War, 259. But see Fad. i.
449 on this.
2 T, Wykes 160 : so too Rob. of Gloucester.

Simon de Montfort.
taken by Parliament in the preceding year, with the
object of releasing the king and the hostages, and
setting the new government fairly in motion. Of the
debates that took place we know nothing, except that
the bishops seem to have passed some resolutions to-
resist the power of Rome, ' for which,' says a chron
icler, 'they had to suffer afterwards;' and that the
Earl of Leicester, in the course of the discussion,.
upbraided the magnates with their inconstancy.1
Owing to the disturbing influences spoken of above,
the wished-for result was not obtained till the begin-
acceptance ning of March. The plan of Simons constitution was
stitution of then accepted as it stood, and the other enactments
4 ' already mentioned were passed. The kings formal
confirmation of these acts was the sign of the con
clusion of peace.2 The spirit of fairness in which
Simon acted is shown by the enactment passed with
respect to the outlawry of any one opposing the new
measures, so different was it from the sweeping con
demnation of such persons forced upon the king in
1258. It was now provided that such declaration of
treason should not be made without the assent of
the council and the nobles of the land. The scheme
of the constitution was probably completed at this
Parliament by the appointment of the Council of
Nine.3 A fresh confirmation of all existing charters
1 T. Wykes 160.
2 Writ of confirmation dated 10 March ; Prince Edwards oath, and
the orders for his and Prince Henrys release, 10 March ; the kings oath
to the new statutes, 14 March ; writs for delivery of castles to Leicester,
17 March — 2 April.
3 In several writs subsequent to this Parliament the council is ment
ioned as authorising their issue, though the whole nine never appear
together, nor can we do more than guess at their names. Prof. Stubbs
says (Const. Hist. ii. 92), 'The names of the council do not appear.
It no doubt contained P. de Montfort, Roger St. John, and G. de
Argentine.'

The Last Year. 327
was issued, and an oath taken by all to observe the chap. XI
new arrangements. No sooner was this done than,  r- — -
in accordance with the terms of the Compromise, the „ I2 5
1 , Release of
hostages were released ; but Edward had to promise the hos-
to keep only Englishmen near him, and not to leave arfam-
England for three years. King Richard seems already nesty' &c-
to have ransomed himself in the previous autumn by
payment of a large sum.1 The royal castles formerly
in Edwards keeping were handed over to the Earl of
Leicester ; a general amnesty and oblivion of all in
juries was decreed ; to call in papal intervention was
declared high treason. To these terms the king and
Edward took the oath with the usual solemnities ;
fresh homage was done by those of their vassals who
had been in arms against them ; and therewith the
new government was formally ushered in.
To a>superficial observer the Earl of Leicester must Earl Simon
now have seemed at the height of his power. The land suPr^"tly
had apparently recovered its equilibrium ; the mon
archy, freed from the bondage temporarily imposed
upon it, took up the position assigned to it in the
new order of things ; the author of these changes had
received the sanction of law and the popular voice.
But the anomaly of Simons position was thereby rea]Ivm
only made the more apparent. He was in a hopeless great diffi-
dilemma. To release Henry even now was to let
slip the dogs of war ; but by keeping him in a con
finement which was patent to all, though it was called
freedom, he violated the principles of his own consti
tution, and placed himself in a false and untenable
position. The inconsistency was too glaring to escape

Chron. Mail, sub anno 1264.

328

CHAP. XI.
1265
Earl Simon
in difficul
ties.

Gloucestergoes west-
Ward.

Earl Simon
at Odiham.

Simon de Montfort.
any ones notice ; it was evident that Simon must fall,
or the king. It is a mournful spectacle, a high and
noble spirit struggling hopelessly with circumstances
into which the principles of justice and aims however
honourable, with the aid, it must be confessed, of his
own indiscretion, had thrown him, and which he was
no longer able to control. Yet ' it was notorious,' we
are told, ' that no one ever saw the earl in despair, or
even downcast ; he was like a mountain, strong, con
stant, immoveable ; wherefore he was rightly called de
Montfort'1 But for all that his fate was inevitable.
The man and his principles were an anachronism, and
could not survive in the political ignorance of the times.
The end is soon told. Gloucester had left Lon
don before the close of Parliament,2 and had betaken
himself to his own county. There he met with the
Marchers, who had lurked there instead of departing
for Ireland in accordance with their sentence, and
with the discontented members of Simons own party.
By the middle of March Parliament had broken up,
and Simon de Montfort had lefr. London. On March
19 he met the Princes Edward and Henry, whom in
spite of their release he still kept near him, at his
castle of Odiham. There, attended by a princely
retinue, he remained till the end of the month. The
disturbances on the western border, and the pro
clamation of another tournament, this time at North
ampton, made an expedition westward a matter of
necessity. He left Odiham on April 2, and never

1 Opus Chron. 17.
* It is evidently Gloucester, not Leicester, as Dr. Pauli supposes,
who is referred to in the words of T. Wykes 160, ' Juncta sibi turma
non modica, spreto parliamento, secessit ad partes occiduas.'

The Last Year. 329
saw his wife or home again.1 With him went the chap.
king and the princes. By this time the Earl of Glou- . XI" .
cester had struck an alliance with Roger Mortimer, I265
one of the staunchest royalists, and a renewal of the Gloucester
civil war was evidently impending. To meet this !L.nd Mor"
danger Simon marched to Northampton, where he
probably put an end to the preparations, if such were
being made, for the proposed tournament ; and then
to Hereford, the centre of the disaffected district. On
his way he visited Worcester and Gloucester, both Earl Simon
. , . 1 , 1 • 1 g°es west-
which towns were most important as holding the ward.
bridges across the Severn. At the former place a
council was held, which decreed anew the banishment
of the rebellious Marchers.2 While at Hereford he
received the news that the Earl of Warenne, William Landing of
of Valence, Hugh Bigod, and others, had landed with Pembroke.
a strong force at Pembroke. He immediately issued
edicts commanding the ports to be carefully watched,
to prevent assistance being introduced from abroad,
¦and bidding the sheriffs, in accordance with the
decrees lately made at Worcester, seize all who
.should break the peace.3 At the same time however
the negotiations with France were not allowed to fall Negotia-
through ; letters were written to Louis, and Prince France'1
Henry sent over again to do what he could for peace ; contmu«-
.ships were despatched to fetch the French ambassadors,
and the Countess of Leicester made ready to welcome
1 See Household Expenses, 13 seq. He had with him at the castle a
retinue of 160 knights.
'" Writ in Fad. i. 456, spoken of in writ issued 20 May. It seems
nearly certain that this is not the writ of condemnation referred to on p.
3*5> which was issued at Oxford. Rob. of Gloucester says that the
Marchers again seized Bristol, and held it till obliged by letters from
Edward to give it up : but this seems to be a confusion with the events
of the previous autumn.
3 Royal Letters ii. 282 ; dated 10 May.

33° CHAP. XI.
1265
Attempt to
settle the
quarrel
between Leicester and
Gloucester.

Earl Simon
goes to
Hereford.

Escape of
Prince
Edward :

Simon de Montfort.
them at Dover. Her position as warden of the most
important stronghold of the realm shows the trust
which the earl always placed in that constant and
high-souled woman. Lastly, in spite of the hostile
bearing of the malcontents, headed by the Earl of
Gloucester, the attempt to settle the difficulty by
arbitration was renewed, and a proclamation issued,
assuring the country that the reports of a quarrel
between the two earls were false.1
The truth of these reports was however too soon
apparent. The Earl of Gloucester had already, it
appears, attempted to seize Simon and the king, or
to rescue the latter, while on his way through the
Forest of Dean from Gloucester to Hereford.2 In
spite of this attempt, which possibly was only pro
jected and therefore remained unknown to Simon,
two of the royalist barons, Leyburne and Clifford,.
were allowed to visit Prince Edward at Hereford.
This ill-timed leniency seems to have been the cause of
the decisive event which followed, for it was probably
at this meeting that a plan for Edwards escape was
arranged. Through Thomas de Clare, younger brother
of the Earl of Gloucester, his constant attendant, he
kept up communication with the Marchers. At length
all was ready. On May 28 Edward went out in the
cool of the evening with the companions assigned to
him, one of whom was Henry de Montfort, to ride in
the flat meadows outside the walls of Hereford. His
friends had managed to convey to him a horse of
great speed, which he proposed to try with the rest.
Mounting his comrades' horses one after another, he
1 Fad. i. 445 ; dated 20 May.. According to Rob. of Glouc. nego
tiations went on between Leicester and Gloucester, ending in a nominal
reconciliation on May 12. 2 Ann. Wav. 362.

The Last Year. 331
rode them till they were tired out. At this moment chap. XT
a horseman appeared on the hill, and waved his hat. -_-^_^
This was the signal agreed on. Edward at once lz6s
leapt on his own steed, saluted his gaolers with sarcas
tic politeness, and rode off, attended by one or two
who were in the secret. Before his guardians had time
to recover their surprise he had disappeared in the
forest, and though they pursued they were owing to
his artifice unable to overtake him. He was soon met
by some of his friends, and made the best of his way
to Roger Mortimers castle of Wigmore. The con
sequences of his escape were immediately felt. Two
days afterwards the Countess of Leicester left Odiham quences of
and travelled with all speed to Porchester, and thence thls event-
soon after to Dover. De Montfort saw his danger,
and at once issued edicts summoning all tenants-in-
chief to march against Prince Edward. Another
week and the desertion of the Earl of Gloucester was
published abroad, and the earl denounced as a rebel.
The bishops were bidden, in accordance with the en
actments of the last Parliament, to excommunicate
Prince Edward and his adherents, as violators of their
plighted faith. The garrison of Bristol Castle was
commanded to surrender that stronghold to de Mont
fort, but refused.1
Meanwhile the Earl of Gloucester had met Prince prjnce
Edward at Ludlow, and had sworn allegiance to him, ^"he
after having however induced him first of all to vow lead of the
1 r opposition.
that he would observe the ancient laws of the land,
and would never introduce aliens to power.2 Edward
immediately became the centre to which all royalistic
elements streamed. His name united all the dis-
1 For these events see writs in the Fadera, dated 30 May — 9 June.
2 T. Wykes 164.

332 ' Simon de Montfort.
chap, affected — the old royalists, the unruly Marchers, the
«_  ,1— moderates under the Earl of Gloucester.1 Crowds
1265 joined him as he marched on Worcester, and occu-
Ed'ward pied it and the neighbouring strongholds of Bridg-
leadof'the north and Shrewsbury. Gloucester remained, and he
opposition. iost no time in attacking it. The force which Simon
had been able to spare for its protection was not
strong enough to hold it. After a brave struggle the
defenders gave way, and surrendered the castle
towards the end of June. The royalists at once
broke down the bridges, carried off the boats, cut the
fords, and so hemmed in de Montfort behind the line
of the Severn.2 No help could reach him from the
Earl Simon east. Despairing of succour, he had already struck
amance a close alliance with Llewelyn, and to gain his aid he
with the seems to have made concessions scarcely justifiable
under any circumstances. He remitted many obliga
tions which the Welch had been bound to fulfil, gave
up to them for a nominal sum all the lands and
castles which they had lately retaken, and even
yielded others that were not in their possession. The
terms, we are told, provoked great disgust in Lon
don,3 and doubtless elsewhere, for an alliance with the
Welch was generally looked on as little less than
monstrous. Simon must have been very hard pressed
before he would have been driven to take so extreme
a step. Having however thus secured allies in this
quarter, he moved down the Wye to Monmouth, and
then went on to Newport, whence he tried to escape
across the channel to Bristol. He summoned ships
1 Cf. Dr. Hort in Macmillans Magazine, June 1864.
2 71 Wykes 161 seq.
' Lib. de Ant. Leg. 74 ; the alliance was signed 22 June.

The Last Year. 333
from that port, and though the garrison is said to have chap.
been hostile,1 the citizens were friendly and sent them. .  *f:  .
But Edward, sallying forth from Gloucester, attacked I26s
the transport fleet on its way, and dispersed it ; then, trie's fa™01"
landing on the northern side, he drove Simon westward vain l°
° cross to
across the Usk into Newport, and was only prevented Bristol,
from entering the town after him by the destruction
of the bridge. Under cover of night Simon left the
town, and retreated northwards again. His men suf
fered terribly from privation, not being able to subsist
on the goats flesh and milk which formed the only
food of the Welch. They were also wearied out by anti
the difficult march through a wooded and trackless ^treatsto>
& Hereford.
country. At Hereford he paused awhile to recruit,
and after a vain attempt to cross the Severn, in which
he was probably checked by floods, he returned to
wait for reinforcements.
So far he had been completely unsuccessful, and Earisimon
every day which he had to spend in wearisome inac- tbe'arrivai
tivity on the other side of the Severn was so much of his son-
loss to a cause in which the inspiration of his personal
presence was indispensable. Still all would not have
been lost, but for the folly of the younger Simon,
who was blockading Pevensey Castle when the news
of Edwards escape led him to raise the siege. He
had since then been engaged in collecting troops in who
the south and east, and especially in London, to reinforca-
bring to the assistance of his father. The democratic ments'
party in the capital had had some difficulty in keep
ing the upper hand, and the decay of the popular
cause was shown by the violent measures resorted to
1 They were probably temporising, for they were Simons men.

334

Simon de Montfort.

CHAP. XI.
1265
Simon the
youngermarcheswestward,

and arrives
at Kenil
worth.

Culpable
negligence of Simon
the
younger.

in order to keep down its enemies in that stronghold
of the reform party.1 As yet however these measures
were successful. Simon, after conducting his mother
to Dover, was able to bring together a consider
able force of Londoners and other partisans, with
which he set out from London early in July. But,
instead of marching straight towards the west, he
went southward again, and wasted precious time in
an attempt upon Winchester, with the object of col
lecting funds and men. The citizens of that loyal
town refused him admittance, whereupon he forced his
way in and gave the city over to pillage. Thence he
pursued his journey by way of Oxford and North
ampton, both of which towns showed themselves
friendly, or at least neutral. Marching thus by easy
stages he arrived at Kenilworth in the last days of
July.2 He reached the castle late one evening, after sun
set His army was too numerous to lie within the
enclosure of the walls ; the troops were therefore
scattered about the village and in the priory. The
younger Simon himself, and many of his most im
portant partisans, lay outside the castle, finding there
more comfortable quarters, or, according to other
authorities, on account of the greater facilities for
bathing.3 This they appear to have done for two or
' Forty men were seized, and were only saved from death by the
news of the battle of Evesham. — Lib. de Ant. Leg. 114.
2 There is a doubt about the date. T. Wykes says they arrived on
July 31, but it was probably a little earlier, since the surprise took place
on Aug. 1. Ann. Wav. say they were at Kenilworth ' vi dies,' which
Dr. Hort would change into ' iii dies. '
3 So Chron. Mel. 199, the chief authority on this affair : the account
in this chronicle is very lively and evidently taken from an eye-witness.
T. Wykes, Ann.Wav. and others are useful. W. de Hemingburgh adds
as usual picturesque and not improbable details, having their origin
most likely in local tradition.

The Last Year. 335
three nights, in fancied security but with a most chap.
culpable want of vigilance, for they knew that Prince i • .
Edward was hard by, and had in fact been warned by I26s
him, according to the rules of chivalry, that he meant
to pay them a visit1 It was Simon de Montforts
plan to surround the royalists as they lay at Wor
cester,2 or to effect a junction with his son and then
attack them with a superior force. The prince re
solved to anticipate this danger, and to crush his
enemies singly. He saw his opportunity, and having Edward
found out through spies3 the position of Simons Kefai-eS<
troops at Kenilworth, he left Worcester with a strong worth'
force on the evening of Friday, July 31.4 On Satur
day morning, August I, at early dawn, they came in
sight of the' castle and halted in a neighbouring
hollow, where they had the good fortune to fall in
with some foragers, whom they easily overpowered,
and so were able to exchange their own jaded horses
for fresher animals. Thence they marched into the
village. Edward had given orders to capture all, if and sur.
possible, alive, and the enemy were so completely PJises
taken by surprise that they were incapable of making younger.
any resistance. They were roused from their beds
by loud shouts of ' Get up, get up, ye traitors, and
1 'Mandavit ei Edwardus . . . quod eum visitaturus veniret.' —
Ann. Wav. 363.
2 So Chron. Mel. 1 98, and Ann. Wav. 364, ' Proposuit Edwardum
et G. de Clare ex uno latere includere, et ut Alius suus includeret ex
altero.' 3 According to Chron. Mel. , by means of a certain knight ; T.
Wykes says, ' per exploratores callidos ; W. de Hem. says it was
through a female spy named Margot, who was dressed in mans clothes.
4 'In aurora die sancti Petri ad vincula,' Ann. Osn. 166; 'Acta
sunt haec primo die mensis Augusti.' — T. Wykes 171. So too Rish. de
Bellis. Rob. of Glouc. however says that Edward left "Worcester on
a Lammas night, ' Sater night that was.'

336

Simon de Montfort.

CHAP. XL
1265
Simon the
younger surprised at
Kenil
worth :

importanceof the
defeat.

Earl Simon
leaves Hereford,
and crosses
the
Severn,

come out, or by the death of God ye are all undone ! '
A few made their escape by back ways, and fled,
some stark naked, some with their breeches on, others
carrying their clothes under their arms. Young
Simon himself, having perfect knowledge of the
locality, escaped by way of the large moat or pond,
which he crossed in a boat, and so got safe into the
castle. But far the greater number were taken
prisoners, and among them ten or more bannerets,
including the Earl of Oxford, William de Mun-
chanesy, Richard de Gray, and others of note. The
booty was immense. So many horses were taken
that Edward was able to turn his infantry into
cavalry, and the very grooms paraded themselves
before him in the arms and on the war-horses of
knights. The blow was fatal, for though Kenilworth
itself could not be taken, the larger half of the
baronial army was annihilated, and Edward left free
to attack the remainder with an overpowering force.
Meanwhile the Earl of Leicester, weary of waiting
for the aid which never came, or, according to pre
concerted plan, had at length broken up from Here
ford. All unconscious of his sons defeat,1 he crossed
the Severn in boats, on Sunday, August 2, and passed
the night at Kempsey, a few miles below Worcester,
a manor belonging to his old friend the bishop. He
remained at Kempsey most of the next day, and late
on Monday evening started for Evesham, with the
intention of marching up the Avon to Kenilworth,

1 Ann. Osney 167 must be wrong in saying that he knew of it the
same day ; T. Wykes and Ann. Wav. agree in making him ignorant
of it, and all the circumstances point to the same hypothesis. Most
accounts agree in making him cross the Severn on Sunday.

The Last Year. 337
there to join his son, if he did not meet him on the chap.
road. They appear to have arrived at Evesham  L — •
some time early on the morning of Tuesday, August I26s
4. They had marched some fifteen miles during the atEves-VeS
night, and were doubtless glad to halt awhile and nam-
take rest and refreshment. The king breakfasted
and heard mass in the abbey ; the earl however would
take nothing. The day wore on, and time was press
ing. They made ready therefore to continue their
march, and Simon and the king were just about to
mount their horses, when some of the vanguard, who
had already left the town, ran back and reported that
an armed troop was approaching.1
The little town of Evesham lies in a bend of the Position of
. , the town of
river Avon, which turning sharp to the west and then Evesham.
to the north forms here a complete peninsula, which
may be likened to a tightly- stretched bow. Across
the arc of this bow runs a line of low hills, which,
ending eastward in the Avon itself, are continued
westward along the right bank of the river, when it re
sumes its former course. At the extreme or southern
end of this peninsula lay the abbey, on a slight
eminence sloping into the stream, and north of the
abbey walls is the little town, the chief street of
which follows the line of the Alcester road, running
due north and south. To the east of the town, just
outside the abbey walls, is a bridge over the Avon, by
1 The authorities differ a little in the chronology, but the majority
agree in the dates which I have given. Of those that bear on the
battle of Evesham, the most useful are those which I have already ment
ioned in giving an account of the battle of Lewes. T. Wykes relates
all the events of this period with a circumstance which shows how truly
pleased he was by the result. Rob. of Gloucester and W. de Heming-
burgh preserve many interesting details. Some, but not the best, au
thorities, say that Simon passed the night at Evesham.
Z

338 CHAP. XI.
1265
Position of
the town
of Eves
ham, &c.

March, of
Edward
from Wor
cester.

Simon de Montfort.
which the road crosses to the suburb of Bengeworth,
and then turns northward along the left bank of the
river towards Kenilworth. This road however splits
into two at Bidford, one route crossing the river
again and going on by way of Alcester, the other
going by way of Stratford and Warwick. Simon
had therefore three routes by which to make his way
to Kenilworth, the most natural of which waS prob
ably the road leading directly northward through
Alcester. Two roads lead from Evesham to Wor
cester, one of which follows the left bank of the Avon,
and crosses it again when it bends southward at Per-
shore, while the other follows the right bank of that
stream. But by neither of these did Edward arrive
at the battle-field.
He heard that the earl would start for Kenil
worth by way of Evesham on Monday night, and
resolved at once to cut him off from his stronghold at
all hazards, by a flank march which should cross his
line of route. But he had to elude the vigilance of
certain spies whom he suspected to be in his camp.
He started therefore late in the evening of Monday,
August 3, and marched at first northwards up the
left bank of the Severn, as if aiming at Shrewsbury
or Bridgnorth. When he had reached Claines, a
little village about three miles north of Worcester,
he considered he had gone far enough to deceive
the spies, and turned suddenly towards the east.
Thence he rode without drawing rein, probably by
way of Alcester, and crossed the Avon at Priors
Cleeve, about four miles north-east of Evesham.
This brought him to the Warwick and Kenilworth
road. Finding that Simon had not passed that way,

to f*--t p->y. £'•?¦

London: Longmans & Co.

The Last Year. 339
he concluded he must have taken the direct road by
Alcester, and therefore recrossed the Avon near Dead
Mans Eyot, mounted the elevation now called Green
Hill, and took his station on the summit at a place
where four roads meet. Posting his own men in the
•open, he stationed Gloucester with his troop a little
way to the left, out of sight from the town. From
this point they commanded all the outlets, and knew
that Simon could not escape them. For Roger Mort
imer, with a third body, had been detached when
the rest recrossed the Avon, to march down its left
bank, and close the only remaining exit, that over
Bengeworth Bridge.1 But Simon made no attempt
1 I must take this opportunity of acknowledging my obligations to
Mr. H. New, of Evesham, who gave me most valuable help, in maps
of the country, and in his own publications on this subject. I have
however taken the liberty of differing from him on one or two compara
tively unimportant points. He believes Gloucester to have followed
the northern road by the right bank of the Avon, from Worcester to
Evesham, and Mortimer to have advanced by the southern, following
from Pershore the same route as Simon had the day before. But I do
not think there is sufficient authority for this hypothesis, and it is
hardly probable that Edward would have separated his forces till he
knew exactly where Simon was, for had he met him single-handed he
would not have had so many troops as the earl. But we are told that
Edward crossed a river at Cleeve, (' transito fluvio juxta oppidum quod
dicitur Clive viam comiti versus, &c. ' — Risk., Chron. 35, where the editor
has appended a note, ' Clinemam in Wats' text.'). There is some
doubt about the place, and some have thought that Edward crossed the
Severn at Claines ; but Claines is not on the river, nor is there any
reason why he should have crossed the Severn, as he would have had
to do, twice. On the other hand, we know that he left the north road
from Worcester three or four miles from Worcester, that is, at Claines.
Arrived at Priors Cleeve he may, as Mr. Hort suggests, have sent
Mortimer across and marched on himself to Evesham. But there is no
direct road to Evesham from Priors Cleeve on the right bank of the
river, by which he could have gone, and moreover he was yet too far
from Evesham to have known for certain of Simons whereabouts, At
the crossing by Dead Mans Eyot he was near enough to have found
out. I am inclined, therefore, to think that he sent Mortimer round
from there. We know he came up in Simons rear, and the only way
he could have done so was by crossing the Bengeworth Bridge.

34-0 Simon de Montfort.
to fly. Hemmed in on all sides by his foes, the old
lion turned savagely at bay.
When the earl heard that troops were seen ap
proaching, he cried out with joy, 'It is my son.
But nevertheless,' he added, ' go up and look and
bring me word again.' His barber, Nicholas, who
was gifted with a long sight and had some knowledge
of heraldry, mounted the bell-tower of the abbey,
and appears to have been followed by his master.1
At first Nicholas distinguished the ensigns of young
Simon and his partisans, floating in the van of the
advancing force. Another minute, and he saw they
were in hostile hands, a bitter proof of the fate of
his friends, and a warning of his own. From the
tower-roof one can still look out with Simons eyes
upon the beautiful landscape below. Straight in front
of him, about a mile distant, he looked upon the
slopes of Green Hill, glistening with the weapons of
those who were thirsting for his blood. A little to
the right, over the shoulder of the hill, his eye foll
owed the course of the winding stream, towards the
place where his home lay. Between him and the
hill stretched a small plain, over which he would have
to pass to his death, a plain probably then as now
bright with gardens,2 and golden with the ripening
fruit of autumn. Beneath him lay the little town,
1 Risk., de Bellis, &c, p. 45, says, ' Symon . . . cum montem
quandam vicinam ascendisset, ut ordinem ca;terorum consideraret, &c. ;'
but this is hardly possible, for there is no such hill, or even mound,
until you come to Green Hill. The bell-tower is the only place, and
the most natural place, whence he could have viewed the foe. The
present bell-tower was built early in the sixteenth century. Rob. of
Gloucester says that young Simon had started from Kenilworth to join
his father, and had stopped at Alcester to dine, but this seems hardly
probable. 2 The Welch are said to have been cut down in numbers in the
gardens about the town.

The Last Year. 341
and as he glanced at the bridge, while one thought chap.
of escape crossed his mind, he may have seen the - — 1~L  ¦
horsemen of Mortimer hastening down to block his I2 s
path. Behind him lay the river, before him the foe.
It needed not many moments to show him that all
was over. And bitterer than the thought of his own
fate, with years of life and power yet in him, more
numbing than the vague sense of what had befallen
his son, must have been the conviction that for a
time at least the cause which he had at heart, and for
the sake of which he had looked death in the face,
¦must perish with him. For a time at least : let us
hope that in his moment of agony he was consoled
by some vision of what was to come, by the faith
that in after years one yet greater and far more
fortunate than he would arise and protect the liberties
¦of the nation he had adopted for his own. But it
was no time for dreams ; he would sell his life as
dearly as he could. ' May the Lord have mercy upon
our souls,' he said, ' for our bodies are undone.'
Outnumbered as they were by three to one, vie- Earl Simon
tory was out of the question. His friends urged him ^battle
to fly, but the thought of flight for himself was not
in his mind. A natural flash of anger burst forth in the
remark that it was the folly of his own sons which had
brought him to this pass. Nevertheless he endeavoured
to persuade his eldest son Henry, his old comrade
Hugh Despenser, and others to fly while there was
yet time, and maintain the good cause when fortune
should smile again. But one and all refused to
•desert him, preferring not to live if their leader died.
'Come then,' he said, 'and let us die like men; for
we have fasted here and we shall breakfast in heaven.'

342

1265
Battle of
Evesham ;
Earl Simon
prepares
for battle.

Position of
the battle
field;

the;battlebegins ;

Simon de Montfort.
His troops were hastily shriven by the aged Bishop-
of Worcester, who had performed the same office a
year before upon a happier field. Then he led them
out against the enemy, with the white cross again
upon their shoulders,1 in as close order as he could.
In the midst of them was the king, for Simon seems
to the last to have cherished a faint hope of cutting
his way through his adversaries ; and as at Lewes,
the possession of the royal person was everything to
him.2 As they neared the hill, Prince Edwards
troops, who had been in no hurry to leave their
point of vantage, began to descend upon them.
Simons heart was struck with admiration of the fair
array before him, so different from that which he
had met a year before ; his soldierly pride told him
to whom their skill was due. ' By the arm of St.
James,' he cried, 'they come on well; they learnt
that not of themselves, but of me.'
On the south-western slope of Green Hill there is-
a small valley or combe ; in this hollow the chief
struggle raged. On the further side, in the grounds of
a private house, stands the obelisk, which marks the
spot where, according to tradition, Simon de Mont
fort fell. Towards the higher part of the combe is a
spring, still called De Montforts Well, which, on the
day of the battle, is said to have run with blood.
Prince Edward began the fray, and while the earl
was engaged with him, Gloucester came up with a
second body on his left, so that he was soon sur-

1 The royalists were marked here and at Lewes with red crosses.
' I think we may fairly reject the hypothesis that Simon placed the
king in the midst of his troops, that he might not survive them, as well as
the story that he disguised him in his own dress that he might be taken for
him. He was, however, very nearly killed in mistake by his own friends.

The Last Year. 343
rounded. The Welch infantry, poor, half-armed chap.
troops, fled at once, and were cut down in the neigh- , ' ¦
bouring gardens by Mortimers forces, which must I26s
now have been advancing from the rear. Simons
horse was killed under him ; his eldest son was
among the first to fall. When this was told him, he
cried, ' Is it so ? then indeed is it time for me to die ;'
and rushing upon the enemy with redoubled fury, and
wielding his sword with both his hands, the old war
rior laid about him with so terrific force, that had
there been but half a dozen more like himself, says
one who saw the fight, he would have turned the tide
of battle. As it was he nearly gained the crest of
the hill.1 But it was not to be. For a while he stood Death of
' like a tower,' but at length a foot soldier, lifting up -^
his coat of mail, pierced him in the back, and, with
the words ' Dieu merci ' on his lips, he fell. Then
the battle became a butchery. No quarter was asked
or given. The struggle lasted for about two hours complete
• i.i 1 • 11 ,1 defeat of
in the early summer morning, and then all was over, his army.
Of the horrid cruelties practised by the victors 0/^™^
on the body of their greatest foe it is better not to bod.v :
speak. The gallant old man lay, with the few who re
mained faithful to him and to his cause, dead upon
the field,2 and with him the curtain seemed to fall
upon all that was free and noble in the land. The
tempests which raged throughout the country that portents.
day were remarked as shadowing forth the grief of
1 Rob. of Gloucester says that the royalists turned to fly, and were
rallied by W. de Basingburn, who reminded them of their disgrace at
Lewes. The obelisk is just at the edge of the flat top of the hill.
2 According to T. Wykes, 160 knights and an infinite number of
nobles not yet knighted fell, besides many of less rank. The fragments
of Simons body, with those of his son Henry and Hugh Despenser,
were buried in the abbey, apparently by the command of Edward.

344 Simon de Montfort.
chap, heaven. The accompanying darkness, which was so
-_. L — . thick that in some places the monks could no longer
1265 see to chant their prayers, was nothing to that which
Eari must have fallen on many when they heard of the
hkpomicai deatn of their protector. But he had not lived in
work; vain. England had learnt a lesson from him, and
had seen glimpses of what might be ; and a re
tributive justice brought his principles to life again
- through the very hands which had destroyed him.
It was probably well for England that he died when
he did, for a victory at Evesham would not have
relieved him from the dilemma in which he was
caught, but would rather have made it worse. Had
he established and maintained his power, there was
no one to take his place when a natural death should
have removed him from the headship of affairs, and a
feudal anarchy worse than that under Stephen would
have supervened. It is easy enough to find fault with
his politics. The party of order will blame his un
constitutional violence, and declare that his end did
not justify his means. The party of reform will
object to his moderation, and condemn him as an
aristocrat after all. His political principles were
doubtless in some measure premature, circumstances
sometimes drove him into desperate and unjustifiable
acts. But for all that, it would have been ill for Eng
land then, and perhaps would be ill now, had he never
lived to raise his voice in favour of the oppressed, to
curb the power of a would-be absolute monarch and
an irresponsible baronage, and to remind his adopted
countrymen that the remedy against such things was
in their own hands and in the ancient institutions of
their country.

The Last Year. 345
- His character will be better learnt from his chap. XI
actions than from any analysis. An impartial judge1 •  ^ — ¦
has said, ' Nothing is more difficult than to form a just . I26s
idea of the character of this illustrious person, who character.
-was abhorred as a devil by one half of England, and
adored as a saint or guardian angel by the other.2
He was unquestionably one of the greatest generals
and politicians of his age ; bold, ambitious, and en
terprising ; ever considered both byfriends and enemies
.as the very soul of the party which he espoused.'
These words are true, but they contain only half the
truth. He was more than a great general, more
than a great politician, far more than a mere party
leader, inasmuch as he obeyed to the death that
ruling principle which his own words expressed, ' I
would rather die without a foot of land than break
the oath that I have made.' This was why he was
worshipped as a saint and a martyr ; and if we smile
at the popular superstition which believed in the
miracles wrought at his tomb, we can look up to the
popular instinct which recognised in him that rarest
of all miracles, a true patriot. The form of govern
ment which he set up and the constitutional measures
he adopted to strengthen it sufficiently disprove the
assertion that he used the pretext of reform to cover
the designs of a purely selfish ambition. The fact,
that he never aimed at supreme power, in spite of the
insults and injuries he received at the hands of Henry,
until it became evident that in no other way couid
justice be done, acquits him of the charge of traitorous
' Dr. Henry. See too the character of him in Stubbs, Const. Hist.
¦vol. ii.
- See the miracles, &c, given in appendices ii. and iv.

346

Simon de Montfort.

disloyalty to his king. The fact that he was the only
one of the greater nobles who remained true to his
cause, shows how far he was above the prejudices
of class, and what temptations he had to surmount
before he left the common rut in which his peers were
content to move, and marked out for himself the
nobler and more dangerous course to which duty
called him. A conviction of his own honesty of pur
pose, a firm faith that the right would triumph, as
well as an overweening confidence in his own powers,
led him to persevere in that course to the end, and to
essay the impossible. He failed, but he was fortunate
in that he did not live to feel the bitterness of failure.
If in his public life he cannot be altogether freed from
blame, his private life was beyond reproach. A blame
less husband, a kind, too kind, father, a constant
friend — -he was the model of a christian knight and
gentleman. That he was the best hated, as he was
the best loved, man of his day, is but natural. His
character was one calculated to offend as many as it
attracted. In a rough age, one may perhaps say
in political matters in every age, no one can do
great things without some ambition, some im-
periousness, some selfishness, if one is to stamp
with that name the necessary self-assertion of a
strong character. Who shall say in what proportion
these are to be mingled with other and nobler attrib
utes — sympathy, devotion, uprightness, perseverance,
energy, faith ? No man is faultless, and he was no
exception to the rule ; but if any faults can be said
to ennoble a character, they are those of Simon de
Montfort.

347

CHAPTER XII.
CONCLUSION.
STRANGE to say, the civil war was by no means chap.
concluded by the battle of Evesham, crushing as that , XIL .
defeat was for the party that followed de Montfort. I265
The hopeless contest was prolonged for more than ^a™^em
two years. Still the main interest was at an end. thecharacter
When Earl Simon had breathed his last, there was of the war.
no further talk of constitutional liberties. His party
was utterly disorganised, without union, without
leaders, fighting with the energy of despair for one
aim alone, that of self-preservation. The arrogance
and pitiless severity of the conquerors were in reality
the salvation of the conquered. The violence of the
measures taken to stamp out the last sparks of rebell
ion was such that the survivors were compelled to
continue the unequal struggle, until one of the victors
of Evesham, ashamed of the part he was playing,
stepped forward for their deliverance. The character
of the war thus undergoes a complete change, and
has no longer the same interest for the student of
constitutional history as before ; but it may still be
worth while to relate the course of events which led
to the final pacification, and the mournful fate which
overtook the remaining members of the family of
Earl Simon.

348 Simon de Montfort.
chap. Immediately after the victory of Evesham Henry
 ^ — - took the government again into his own hands, and
12 s lost no time in following up his success. Kenilworth
complete- showed no sign of giving way, but Despensers widow
victory.' e gave up the Tower of London, and the city itself, in
which the royalists had for some time been gaining
strength, made no effort to resist its surrender. The
remnants of the baronial party had hardly yet begun
to draw together again, and Henry probably fancied
that the work of restoration was complete. But in
stead of healing the wounds' of his exhausted country,
he had already done his best to make them incurable.1
Council of Within a few weeks after the death of Earl Simon,
ter; conns- n°t satisfied by the terrible revenge taken upon the
cations. field of Evesham, Henry summoned a council at Win
chester (September 8), at which punishment was meted
out to the survivors with an unsparing hand. In one
sweeping act of condemnation, the family of de Mont
fort and all his partisans were outlawed, and their
property confiscated.
Rewards to The wide estates which thus fell to the Crown
were employed in strengthening the hands of the
royal family, and in rewarding not only those who
had been loyal to them throughout, but those too
who had been traitors to the cause for which they
had fought a year before at Lewes. Prince Edward
received the goods of all the merchants of London
who had opposed the king during the late troubles.
Edmund, the kings second son, received the earldoms
of Leicester and Derby, to console him for the loss
1 ' Rex et sui complices, non sicut decuerat cautibres effecti sed potius
stultiores, sic evecti sunt in sublime ut futura regni dispendia contem-
nerent prremetiri,' says the royalist T. Wykes, 183.

thevictors

Conclusion.

349

of his nominal kingdom of Sicily. Henry of Almaine
received large estates in Nottinghamshire. The Earl
of Gloucester, Roger Mortimer, and others, were not I26s
, i t i 1 1 ,- penalties
neglected. London had to pay a heavy fine, its dem- for the
ocratical leaders were imprisoned, its privileges at eeate "
least temporarily annulled.1 That all the acts of the
late government, as well as the Provisions of Oxford,
were repealed, was of course a necessary consequence
of the victory. The action taken by the Court-party
was in strong contrast with that of Simon de Mont
fort after the battle of Lewes, when he brought upon
himself the wrath of his own followers, by setting
bounds to their avarice and their lust of revenge.
Nevertheless the absence of political executions is
remarkable : death, as a penalty for treason or rebell
ion, was an invention of later times.
The natural result of this violent action on the Revival of
part of the king was a revival of the baronial party. the bar°-
r » sr j nlai party -r
Isolated bands of malcontents, who went collectively the Disin-
by the name of 'the Disinherited,' made their ap
pearance in different parts of the country, but, having
no unity or organisation, were attacked singly and
dispersed before they had time to unite their forces.
Prince Edward, to whose well-directed energy and
politic clemency the gradual pacification of the
country was mainly owing, made the first step towards
that end by reducing the stronghold of Dover. The
Countess of Leicester, on hearing of Edwards escape Countess of
in the previous May, had left Odiham, and made her afiOover;
way by Porchester and Pevensey to Dover, resolved
to bar the entrance to England against her husbands
1 Fad. i. 461, seq. ; T. Wykes, 176 ; cf Blaauw, Barons' War, 298
seq.

350 CHAP. XII.
1265
Countess of
Leicester
leavesEngland.

Reduction
of Dover,

and the
Cinque Ports.

Simon the
younger at
Kenil
worth ;

Simon de Montfort.
foes. There she remained till the news of his death
showed her that further resistance was not only dan
gerous but useless.1 She did not however seek safety
in a precipitate flight. Not till the full effect of the
battle of Evesham became evident, and the decrees
against the Disinherited had been issued at Win
chester, did she relax her hold on the fortress. At
length, having sent her two younger sons, Amaury
and Richard, before her, and taking with her a con
siderable treasure, she passed over into France.2
Shortly afterwards the royalist prisoners in the castle
succeeded in making themselves masters of the keep,
and held out against the garrison until Prince Ed
ward, who had been informed of the event, hastened
from London to their assistance. Placed thus between
two fires, the garrison were soon compelled to sur
render. The fall of Dover was followed, a few months
later, by that of the other ports on the south coast.3
The queen and the Cardinal Legate Ottoboni were
enabled to land at Dover, and having been met at
Canterbury by the king and his brother, made a sort
of triumphal entry into London.4
The temporary lull was disturbed by news of
fresh outbreaks in the north and east. Simon de
Montfort, the eldest surviving son of the great earl,
did not allow the grief and remorse, which he naturally
1 See Hudson Turner, Household Expenses, &c. ; T. Wykes, 179,
says : ' Comitissa Leycestria; . . maritali simul et filiali nece
comperta, deposita purpura, habitumvidualem. . . . reassumens,
eorum inconsolabiliter miseranda funera deplorabat, &c. '
2 Early in October. The last entry in her accounts is dated Octo
ber 1 ; Amauri and Richard had crossed Sept. 18. — Household Expenses,
&c. 3 The. Cinque Ports formally admitted Edward next March. — Ann.
Wav. 369.
4 T. Wykes, 178, seq.

Conclusion.
felt at the loss his own folly had caused, long to over
power him.1 He first of all released his prisoners,
King Richard and his second son Edmund. Then,
after pillaging the country far and near round Kenil
worth, and stocking the fortress with arms and pro
visions enough, it was thought, to last out a siege of
seven years, he himself, with a strong force, marched
eastwards and occupied the island of Axeholme in
Lincolnshire.2 Tidings of the ravages which he and
his were committing in the surrounding country soon
brought Edward upon him. The natural strength of
the place, increased by artificial means, enabled him
to hold out for some time ; but Edward, by the aid
of bridges and a strict blockade, forced him, before
the end of the year, to surrender.3
A council was shortly afterwards summoned at
Northampton, where the king and the larger portion
of his army lay. There Simon presented himself,
under cover of a safe conduct, and a settlement was
effected, apparently through the mediation of the
legate and King Richard. Simon agreed to give
up the castle of Kenilworth, and to leave the king
dom for an indefinite period, promising to find surety
that he would not disturb the peace. He was to re
ceive a pension of five hundred marks a year, until
such time as tranquillity 'should be fully restored.4

351

CHAP. XII.
1265

he occupies
Axeholme,

but sur
renders.Council at
Northamp ton :
arrangement with
Simon the
younger.

1 ' Mente tarn lugubri patemum et fratemum deploravit excidium,
utputaretur diebus plurimis cibos vel potum non gustasse.' — T. Wykes
175. According to the same writer he had set out from Kenilworth to
meet his father, and returned on hearing of his defeat.
2 About the feast of St. Martin, II Nov.— Id. 181.
8 'Tertio die Nativitatis Dominici (?) '. — Ibid.
4 Ann. Dunst. 240 say that the covenant was not observed by
Edwird ; this probably refers not to the subsequent arrangement, but to
the promise made, according to the same authority, before the surrender,

352

1266
Suspensionof bishops.

Simon the
youngerflies to
France,

followed by
his brother
Guy.

Simon de Montfort.
At the same time the legate, whose appearance must
have reminded men of Cardinal Gualos mission fifty
years before, brought the power of the Church to bear
upon the delinquents. The bishops who had sup
ported the cause of freedom were suspended, and
bidden to journey immediately to Rome, there to
purchase pardon for their misdeeds.1 From North
ampton the king returned to London, taking Simon
with him, but the latter having apparently had a hint
that perpetual imprisonment was in store for him,
shortly afterwards made his escape, without finding
the surety he had promised, and crossed to France.2
He was soon followed by his brother Guy, who had
been imprisoned at Dover, but was released by his
gaoler from confinement.3 It is possible that the

that Simon and his followers should receive back their lands and chat
tels. According to Risk., de Bellis, &c, 51, the terms would have been
better but for the violence of the Earl of Gloucester and others : cf. T.
Wykes 180, seq.
1 These were the Bishops of London, Worcester,Winchester, Lincoln,
and Chichester. Ann. Osn. 181 ; Hie. Trivet 268. The Bishop of Wor
cester died in 1266. T. Wykes, 180, says of him, 'raptus . . . ne
videret dies malos, qui tanta sanctitatis eminentia cceteris prapollebat
episcopis, quod nisi. . . comiti Leycestriae tarn familiariter etfoiti-
ter adhcesisset, in catalogo sanctorum non immerito fuerat ascribendus. '
The authorities differ as to the exact date and place at which the sent
ence was given.
2 Ann. Dunst. 240; T. Wykes 182. Dr. Pauli (Simon de Mont.
204) says that he returned to England shortly afterwards and joined
the Disinherited in the fens of Ely ; and (p. 206) that he made his escape
again in 1267. But this seems to be unfounded, and to rest on a con
fusion between the affair of Axeholme and that of Ely, caused by the
untrustworthy account in W. de Hemingb. 328. Mr. Pearson (Hist, of
Eng. ii. 270) seems to be equally without authority in saying that he
returned to Kenilworth. He very possibly intended to come back, for
in a writ (Fad. i. 468) dated May 18, the Wardens of the ports are
bidden to be on their guard against ' S. de Monteforti et complices
ejus.' According to Risk., de Bellis, Sec, 53, he tried to collect troops
in France, but was hindered from crossing by the king.
3 Nic. Trivet 268. According to Risk., Chron. 47, he bribed his
guard.

Conclusion. ->c\
royalists were glad enough to be rid of them both, chap.
and connived at their escape. , XIL
In spite of these successes, the country was still I266
so disturbed that captains had to be appointed in fuccesses
every county to aid the sheriff in putting down the '°fthj?
armed bands which roved about, ravaging and de
stroying wherever they went.1 Prince Edward first
attacked one of the most noted of these freebooters,
Adam Gurdun, who with a force of eighty knights
held Farnham Castle, and carried fire and sword
throughout Hampshire and the neighbouring counties.
He was surprised in the woods near Alton, through Defeat of
the treachery of one of his own men, and captured, Gurdun
according to one account, by Edward with his own
hands.2 Robert Ferrars, the truest representative of
feudal anarchy, the enemy of constitutional govern
ment as well as of royal despotism, placed himself at
the head of a stronger body in his own county of
Derbyshire. There he was joined by many who had
been with Simon de Montfort at Axeholme, but had
rejected the compromise to which he had given way
and under the leadership of John d'Eyville preferred
continuing the conflict to acquiescing in confiscation
and exile. Henry of Almaine was sent against them,
and succeeded in surprising them at Chesterfield and of
(May 15). They were dispersed with great loss, and Ferrars.
the Earl of Derby himself was taken prisoner and
carried to Windsor, whither Adam Gurdun was also
brought, as the chronicler says, to ' bear him company.'3
1 Nic. Trivet 268.
Id. 269 : 'Inseptimana Pentecostes.' — T. Wykes 189.
3 ' Ne forte comes Ferrariensis ibidem captivus sine comite mo-
raretur.' — Id. 190 ; cf. W. de Hemingb. 326. The legend of the
chivalrous treatment experienced by Adam Gurdun at the hands of
A A

354 Simon de Montfort.
chap. D'Eyville and others cut their way through the royal
ists and made their escape.

1266
Siege of

But the strongest opposition was offered by Earl
kenilworth Simons own stronghold of Kenilworth. The siege of
' '" that fortress was not formally undertaken till June 25,
1266. The garrison had had plenty of time to pre
pare, and so strongly had the castle been fortified by
the military genius of Earl Simon, and provisioned
by the care of his son, that all efforts to reduce it
were vain. The garrison were summoned to surrender
in accordance with the agreement made in the spring
with Simon de Montfort. But they rejected the sum
mons, declaring that they held the castle at the will
of the Countess of Leicester, and to her alone would
they restore it.1 They had already given proof that
they meant to continue the struggle to desperation,
by cutting off the hand of a royal envoy whom they
had taken in his passage through the district.2 They
showed a more chivalrous feeling when a royalist
prisoner of noble birth died of his wounds in the
castle. His body was placed upon a bier, and, with
lighted candles, carried out of the castle-gates, in
order that his friends might receive it and give it
honourable burial.3 Humorous incidents were not
wanting. The legate, who was in the royalist camp,
Prince Edward seems to be of doubtful authenticity, and rests on the
story in Nic. Trivet (p. 269), whose account of this period is confused.
According to Wykes, Gurdun was imprisoned in chains at Windsor.
From Ann. Dunst. 241, one might infer that the place where Gurdun
was taken was Halton, in Bucks ; see Pearson, Eng. Hist. ii. 271,
note I.
1 ' Dicentes se nullam a Simone suscepisse castri custodiam,' &c. —
Rish., Chron. 43.
2 This happened in March, before the siege began. — Royal Letters
ii. 300. ' Risk., de Bellis, &c. 56.

XII. 1266

Conclusion. 355
.thought to awe the enemy into submission by the chap.
sentence of excommunication, whereupon one of the
besieged clad himself in ecclesiastical robes, and from
the castle-wall solemnly excommunicated the king
and the legate and all their followers.1 Enormous
engines were built, and hurled stones into the castle,
or battered the walls. They were met by equally
powerful machines from the inside. The garrison,
numbering, as they did, more than a thousand men,
made frequent sallies, and, meeting the besiegers on
equal terms, defeated them with loss. The state of
the country was by no means favourable to a pro
longed siege, and accordingly, after several months of
useless effort, the king consented to a compromise.
Three bishops and three lay barons were ap- The Die-
pointed by the assembled magnates, and these Kenii-
coopted six others, two of whom were the Earls wort '
of Gloucester and Hereford.2 These twelve formed a
committee of arbitration, to draw up terms of peace
to which the Disinherited might consent. The terms
so arranged were called the Dictum, or Ban,3 of Kenil
worth. This lengthy document, consisting of forty- restoration
one articles, begins by recognising the complete re- authority.
establishment of the royal authority, the restoration
of all rights and other matters alienated from the
Crown during the late troubles, and the abolition of
all promises or charters extorted from the king or
Prince Edward by Simon de Montfort and his party.
On the other hand, all ancient charters and liberties,
1 This was ' Maister Philip Porpeis, that was a quointe man, Clerc
and hardiof is dedesand hor cirurgian.' — Rob. of Glouc. 566.
2 See the names in Stubbs, Const. Hist. ii. 96, the document in
Set. Chart. 410.
3 So called in Rob. of Glouc. 568.

356

settlementwith the
Disin
herited.

Simon de Montfort.
especially those of the Church, and all royal grants
spontaneously made, were to be observed. It was
also recommended that the justices should be chosen
from among honest and unselfish men, and that
no one, be his quality what it might, should seize
corn or other goods without consent of the owner.
These two stipulations call to mind similar clauses in
Magna Carta.1 The rights thus secured are limited
enough. But the greater portion of the document was
naturally taken up with the settlement of the immed
iate quarrel. A complete amnesty was offered to
all those in arms against the king, with certain excep
tions, who should submit within forty days, and the
legate was begged to absolve all such as should have
incurred the sentence of excommunication by viol
ating the charters. The Disinherited were specially
dealt with. The confiscation of their estates decreed
the year before was now exchanged for a system of
redemption, by which the owners could recover their
property on payment of five years rental. An
exception was made in the case of the Earl of Derby,
who had to pay for seven years, and to surrender his
castles. Those who had no landed property were to
forfeit half their goods ; those who had neither land
nor goods were to take an oath and find surety that
they would keep the peace. Special stipulations
were made in favour of those who had been forced
into the war, or were falsely accused of taking part
against the king. Twelve men were to be appointed
to assess the value of confiscated property, and to see

1 Cf. §§ 28, 45 of Magna Carta of 1215.

Conclusion.

357

to the execution of the provisions. In these and a chap.
number of smaller enactments, the difficult questions . x*r' . .
of penalty and reconciliation were arranged with I266
scrupulous care and an evident attempt to do justice,
though a hard justice, to all. Finally, the legate was
to forbid the holding of Simon de Montfort as a
saint, and to prohibit, under severe penalties, the
reports of miracles done by him, which were already
being spread about through the country.1 Of the sons
of the late earl nothing was said, since the king had
put their affairs in the hands of the King of France.
The Dictum of Kenilworth shows a considerable Surrender
advance in point of justice and moderation on the worth
decrees of the previous year. Still the terms were Castle-
¦ very hard, and must have been equivalent in many
cases to confiscation. They were not accepted at
once. The Dictum was published at the end of
October, but the defenders of the castle held out
for several weeks longer. As soon however as it
appeared, they placed hostages in the kings hands,
promising to surrender if not relieved by Simon de
Montfort, who was then in France, within forty days.2
No help came, and at last, after suffering the ex
tremes of cold, hunger, and wretchedness of all
kinds,3 they accepted the terms offered them, and
gave up the place (December 20).4
The war was however not yet over, and was Continua-
J . tion of the
shortly to assume a more serious aspect than it war.
had presented since the death of Earl Simon. No
1 See Appendix II.
2 Ann. Dunst. 244; Risk., de Bellis, &c. 59. It was the term
allowed in the Dictum.
8 See the account in T. Wykes, 194 seq.
4 It was immediately conferred on Prince Edmund. — Id. 196.

358

1266-67
The Disin
herited in
the Isle of
Ely:

besieged by
the king ;

Simon de Montfort.
sooner were the Disinherited suppressed in one
quarter than they reappeared in another. John
d'Eyville collected the fragments of the force that
had been defeated at Chesterfield, and, attacking
Lincoln, massacred the Jews and plundered the city.
Thence he marched southwards, and, with the con
nivance of the inhabitants, occupied the Isle of Ely.
There, in the district where Hereward so long bade
defiance to the Conqueror, the Disinherited fortified
themselves in the midst of impenetrable marshes, and
blocked all the avenues so that none could approach
without their will. As their forces increased they
became bolder, and there was hardly a town in the
eastern counties which did not suffer from their raids.
They even attacked the important city of Norwich,
and, meeting with no opposition, carried off every
thing of value in the town. As long as the royal
forces were occupied with the siege of Kenilworth
they pursued their trade unchecked, and even after
the conclusion of the siege they successfully defended
themselves some time longer. The king, who had
removed to London from Kenilworth, was obliged,
old and weary as he was, to enter in the depth of
winter upon a new campaign. The Lent Parliament
was summoned to meet at Bury St. Edmunds ;
Henry, with a large army, took up his quarters at
Cambridge, and sought to reduce the defenders of
Ely by blockade. They however showed no inclina
tion to yield, rejected the legates exhortation to
surrender,1 and defeated with great loss a fleet which
1 See the, perhaps rather apocryphal, account of their answer to the
legate, in which they defend their orthodoxy and the justice of their
cause, in Risk., de Bellis, &c. 62.

Conclusion. 359
had sailed up the Ouse from Lynn, Yarmouth, and
other ports to attack them. Difficulties with the
clergy, who refused to pay the tenth for three years,
and other taxes which Henry demanded for the sub
jection of the Disinherited, hampered the efforts of
the royalists and emboldened their enemies.1 Mean
while the attention of Prince Edward was called
away by disturbances in the north. He soon suc
ceeded, by combined activity and clemency, in
quelling them ; but in his absence nothing could be
done.2 Matters were in this state when suddenly, with- Revolt of
out any warning, the Earl of Gloucester took up arms Gloucester:
and marched on London. Pretending that he was
come to support the just claims of the Disinherited,
which he had hitherto been foremost in rejecting, and
to secure the fulfilment by Edward of the oath which
he had exacted from him when he escaped from
Hereford, he entered the city (April 10), and was he occupies
favourably received by the democratical party, whom
fear alone had kept quiet during the past year. What
was the real motive which urged the earl to this step
it is impossible to say ; but one can hardly refrain
from a suspicion that he merely used the cry of justice
for the Disinherited as a pretext to cover a change of
sides prompted by some personal grievance which he
had, or thought he had, against the king.3 Of honest
effort for constitutional reform there is hardly a trace
1 The kings demand and the reply of the clergy are given in Risk.,
de Bellis, 60.
- See throughout the account in T. Wykes, 192, seq.
3 According to Risk., de Bellis, &c, 59, a quarrel had broken out at
Kenilworth between him and R. Mortimer, and they had retired from
the siege. Ann. Dunst. 245, imply that he was jealous of Mortimers
influence with the king. Cf. Stubbsj Const. Hist ii. 297.

London.

360 Simon de Montfort.
in his whole career, except for the brief space when
he was under the influence of Earl Simon. Naturally
however he at once became the head of the mal
contents, who streamed to him from all sides. John
d'Eyville and other chiefs of the Disinherited left
their stronghold and joined him in London. He lost
no time in fortifying the city, and in summoning the
legate to give up the Tower. The legate refusing, he
began the siege in regular form ; but the fall of the
fortress, which seemed imminent, was prevented by
the arrival of the king.
where he is Prince Edward, immediately on hearing of the
besieged by J °
Edward. outbreak, had hastened with his usual rapidity from
the north, and, joining the king at Cambridge, con
tinued his march upon the capital. He at once
released the legate, and threw into the Tower a
strong body of troops. Then he withdrew to a short
distance from the city, and waited for an opportunity.
It was a curious repetition of the events of 1264.
The citizens, emboldened by the respite thus allowed
them, marched out and pillaged the neighbouring
country, wrecked the palace of Westminster, and
murdered many who were suspected of royalist pro
clivities. Meanwhile those who had been left in the
Isle of Ely, under the leadership of Henry of Hast
ings, one of the defenders of Kenilworth, renewed
their ravages. The king was in sore want of money,
and could neither pay his French mercenaries, nor
supply his own troops with food. At length, when
both parties had begun to weary of the fruitless
struggle, discussion took the place of war, and after
some trouble, neither side being willing to yield, a
compromise was effected, through the mediation of

Conclusion. 361
King Richard, Henry of Almaine, and others (June chap.
15). The Earl of Gloucester confessed his fault, and „ xn- ,
received pardon after taking an oath never again to I2(57
make war upon the king, under a penalty of 20,000 ^jf
marks. John d'Eyville and other chiefs received a
free pardon. The citizens of London were admitted
to favour, and no penalties were exacted. The mer
cenaries were dismissed, and the king entered the
city in peace.1
While Henry rested from his labours in the Edward re-
J duces the
capital, Edward, indefatigable as ever, completed the isle of Ely.
work of pacification by reducing the last stronghold
of opposition, the Isle of Ely. Bringing together all
the neighbouring population, he prevailed upon them
by promises and good words to set their services
and local knowledge at his disposal. He was thus
enabled to construct causeways over the morass, by
which horse and foot could approach close to the
island itself. The work was made easier by the dry
ness of the season, and the connivance of Nicolas de
Segrave, who allowed the royalists to pass the out
posts which he guarded. Edward then, having made
all the preparations necessary to ensure success,
issued a stern proclamation, threatening death to any
one who should offer further resistance. This meas
ure produced the desired result. The defenders
immediately laid down their arms, and placed them
selves at his mercy. They received a free pardon,
and the permission to redeem their lands according
to the Dictum of Kenilworth, and were allowed two
days to depart. The conqueror entered Ely amid
1 T. Wykes, 198, seq. ; Ann. Dunst. 245 ; Risk., de Bellis 59.

362 CHAP. XII. 1267
Llewelyn
makes
peace.

General
peace.

Parliament
of Marl
borough.

Edwardgoes on
crusade.

Simon de Montfort.
the applause of the inhabitants. Only one element
of disturbance remained, Llewelyn, Prince of Wales.
An army was sent to Shrewsbury, which compelled
him, towards the end of September, to sue for peace.
Through the intervention of the legate, his lands,
which had been declared forfeit, were restored on
payment of a heavy fine, and peace was made.1
Before the winter began the country was again,
after nearly five years of open or secret warfare, and
incessant anxiety and trouble, completely tranquil.
A plentiful harvest went far to repair the damages
caused by the civil war, and universal exhaustion to
some extent allayed the passions to which it had
given rise. A spirit of compromise had for some
time been gaining the upper hand. In the Parlia
ment held at Marlborough, in November of the same
year, at which it seems probable that some repre
sentative members were present, the Provisions of
Westminster were teenacted with but slight omissions.
The only important difference was that the appoint
ment of the high officers of the Crown and of the
sheriffs was now left in the hands of the king.2 It
was an omen of happy augury when the future
monarch, who had recovered his kingdom by the sword,
signalised his victory by granting of his own free will
a part at least of the boon which at one time he had
striven to withhold from his people.
The first part of his work was done, and he was
able, three years later, to carry his victorious arms
to the assistance of the Christians in the Holy Land.

1 T. Wykes, 209 ; Ann. Dunst. 246 ; Nic. Trivet, 246.
2 Statutes i. 19 ; cf. Stubbs, Const. Hist. ii. 97.

Conclusion. 363
At the head of the nobility of England l he performed chap.
the duty which was still thought to be incumbent on ~_2^L_.
a Christian king, which his father had so often un- lz6?
dertaken, but had never been able to fulfil. Five 0feHenrysr
years of almost undisturbed tranquillity remained for reign'
Henry, and a sort of twilight happiness overspread
the remainder of his long and troubled reign.2 Free
for a time from the restless elements which might
have again • disturbed the public peace, the nation
waited quietly for the rule of one whom they had
proved to be strong, and whom they believed to be
good. When the old man sank at length into his
grave, the sceptre passed, for the first time since the
Conquest, without doubt or difficulty, into the hands
of his successor. Twenty-five years of prosperity Edward
, , 1 completes
and development at home, of honour and success the consti-
abroad, followed. Within thirty years after the
battle of Evesham there had grown up a younger
generation, in whom the evil tendencies of feudalism
were weaker, while the instincts of law and order
and constitutional government were stronger, than in
their fathers. The movement which crowned the
edifice of our constitution does not present the same
contrasts of light and shade which are so striking in
the movements of 12 15 and 1258, but it had a direct
connection with those earlier efforts. The great Par
liament of 1295 and the statutes of 1297 completed
and confirmed that which the Great Charter had
begun, and for which Simon de Montfort had died.
' Twenty-two bannerets and over a hundred knights are said to have
gone with Edward on crusade. — Pearson, Hist, of Eng. ii. 278. The
Karl of Gloucester was to have gone but did not go.
2 The later difficulties between Edward and the Earl of Gloucester,
and the riot at Norwich in 1272, were comparatively unimportant.

tution.

3^4 Simon de Montfort.
™p- It remains to trace briefly the subsequent events
¦  , — — which led to the extinction, within two generations,
Subse-"74 °*" t^e family 0I" tne great earl. The countess, after
quent life her escape to France, did not neglect the interests of
Countessof her family or of those who had been her husbands
Leicester, followers. In this she was supported, to some ex
tent at least, by her brother Richard, and by her
nephew, Prince Edward, who presented to the chanc
ellor a list of his uncles adherents, drawn up by the
countess, and recommended them to mercy.1 She
had other advocates, perhaps more hearty, in King
Louis and in her sister-in-law, the Queen of England.
It was probably through them that Henry, who no
longer used the title of ' sister ' in reference to the
countess, so far relented as to allow her a pension of
500/.,2 and even to offer to receive her in England,
and to promise that justice should be done her.3
This pension was confirmed to her by Edward on
his return from the east, while at the same time he
showed her other signs of favour.4 But she did not
live to reap any of the advantages which a change of
rulers might have conferred upon her. She had
taken refuge on her first arrival in France in the
Dominican Convent of Montargis, and after nine
years, passed under the quiet care of the sisterhood,
1 Greens Princesses ii. 454.
2 Rot. Lit. Pat. 51 Hen. Ill, quoted by Pauli. This was probably
the money which Henry had been accustomed to pay her from the pos
sessions of the Marshalls ; see above, pp. 217 seq. Hemyhad already
offered to continue the payment ; see Rot. Lit. Pat., 49 Hen. III. quoted
by Pauli. 3 Greens Princessesii. 455.
4 Pauli, Simon de Mont. 218. According to Ann. Dunst. 258,
Edward restored to her the lands which belonged to her as widow of
William Marshall.

Conclusion. 365
she died at the age of sixty, apparently some time in chap.
the year 1274.1 -J^L^
It would have been well for her children had they I26S-7I
had so peaceful an end. Henry, the eldest son, fell iife 0fquent
with his father at Evesham. Simon and Guy, after Q™™eand
their flight from England, stayed for a short time with Montfort.
their mother in France. Guy however soon tired of
inactivity, and went southwards to take service under
Charles of Anjou, then engaged in the acquisition of
his kingdom of Sicily. His energy and military
talents soon raised him to a high position in that
quarter, and won him the hand of Margaret, daughter
and heiress of Count Aldobrandini Rosso dell'Anguil-
lara.2 His elder brother followed him to Italy some
what later, after having stolen across to England and
paid a furtive visit to the graves of his father and
brother at Evesham.3 The bitter thoughts that must
have gnawed at his heart as he gazed upon their resting-
places, and heard from the monks all the story of
that terrible day, it is easy enough to conjecture.
The sight of the fair lands which might once have
been his but were now anothers, the destruction of
all his hopes, the ruin of his family, the brutalities
perpetrated on his fathers body, his own poverty
and exile — all this may well have implanted in him a
deeply-rooted yearning for revenge, which found vent
in the terrible crime that followed.
Henry of Almaine had accompanied his cousin Murder of
Edward as far as Sicily, but when the latter set sail Aimame.
for Syria, in the spring of 1 271, he returned north-
1 Risk., Chron. 87 ; Ann. Dunst.
2 'Magnus effectus est in partibus illis. ' — Ann. Dunst. 259; cf.
Pauli, Simon de Mont. 208.
3 Bart. Cotton 146 ; the date of the visit seems uncertain.

366

Simon de Montfort.

CHAP. XII. 1271
Murder of
Henry of
Almaine.

wards to take command of Gascony, of which pro
vince he had been appointed seneschal ' during Ed
wards absence. On his way he stopped at Viterbo.
There he met Charles of Anjou and Philip III of
France ;2 and there too were his cousins, Simon and
Guy de Montfort3 Against Henry they had no
peculiar grudge ; on the contrary, he and his father
had been on more friendly terms with them than the
rest of their kin. But considerations of this kind
were powerless against the blind desire of vengeance.
One of the hated family was at their mercy, and the
sight of him roused their passions into fury. Watch
ing, their opportunity, they fell upon him one morn
ing (March 1 3) in a church in the town.4 Mass was
over, and he had remained behind to pray alone,
when the brothers entered with drawn swords and
cries of ' murderer' and 'traitor.' Henry rose from his
knees and fled to the altar, but his enemies followed
him and stabbed him as he clung to the holy place
and cried in vain for mercy. They even dragged him
to and fro in horrible mockery of the way in which
their fathers body had been insulted at Evesham.
Then they rode off and succeeded in making good
their escape.
The universal horror inspired by the deed5 never-
1 T. Wykes, 239.
2 Dr. Pauli {Simon de Mont. 209) suggests that he was the bearer
of some message to the cardinals, then engaged at Viterbo in the elec
tion of a Pope.
3 It is implied by T. Wykes, 241, that another brother, Amauri,
was there too and was an abettor in the crime.
4 The authorities differ as to the name of the church.
' Witness Dante, Inferno, canto xii. 118,
'Mostrocci un' ombra dall'un canto sola,
Dicendo : colui fesse in grembo a Dio
Lo cor que in sul Tamigi ancor si cola. '
quoted by Pauli.

Conclusion. 367
theless produced for some time little results. The
efforts made to bring the murderers to justice were
ineffectual, and caused a suspicion that Charles of
Anjou was concerned in their safety. The Church
interfered with a tardy excommunication of the
offenders, but nothing serious was done till Edwards
return from the Holy Land. In the interval Simon
had died,1 but Guy and his father-in-law were brought
to trial. The latter cleared himself. Guy was out
lawed, and, after submitting to the Pope, was im
prisoned for ten years. He was then released by
Pope Martin IV, who needed his services as a soldier.
Five years later he was captured by the Sicilians at
sea, and thrown into a dungeon, whence he never
emerged alive.2 He left only daughters, of whom
nothing seems to be known.
What Amauri de Montfort had been doing Subsequent
during this time we are not told, but he appears to Amauri
have returned to England as chaplain — for he was in 5"d, . _,
° r . Richard de
orders — to the Bishop of Chester about the time of Montfort.
Edwards accession.3 He must however have left the
country again soon after, for he was captured with
his sister, while accompanying her to Wales. Some
years later he was set free, and passed into Italy, where
he turned soldier and subsequently died.4 What
became of Richard de Montfort we do not know.5
The fate of Eleanor, Earl Simons only daughter,
is better known. The old connexion between the
1 The place of his death is uncertain.
2 See Fadera, and other authorities quoted by Pauli, Simon de
Mont. 224.
3 Lib. de Ant. Leg. 159.
4 See Pauli, Simon de Mont. 228.
5 According to Ann. Dunst. 259, he died in France.

368

Simon de Montfort,

chap. xii.

1265-82.

life of
Eleanor de
Montfort,

two families had doubtless brought about her be
trothal to Llewelyn, Prince of Wales. For some
j.^u5 0.=. £jme however the necessity of submission to England
prevented Llewelyn from endangering peace by a
marriage which Edward was likely to oppose. When
war became imminent, and repeated summons to
Court showed Llewelyn that the English king was
intent on a more than formal homage, there was
no longer anything to be gained by temporising.
Eleanor was then called to add the strength of her
name to the cause of Welch independence, but in
passing over to Wales was captured in the Bristol
Channel by ships which Edward had ordered to
watch for her (1276). During the war that broke out
immediately after, Eleanor was placed in honourable
confinement, but no sooner was it over than the
generous conqueror granted the wishes of his late foe,
and with his own hand gave him his bride (October
1278). Her wedded happiness was but short-lived.
She died in childbirth in June 1282, before the war,
which the folly and treachery of David had renewed,
had ended so disastrously for Wales. It was well for
her that she was saved from the trouble to come.
Her little daughter was, when the war was over,
brought to England with the children of her uncle
David, and well cared for by order of the king. She
was however not allowed to marry, but remained a
nun in the convent of Sempringham till her death.'
In her perished the last known scion of the family
of the great earl, Simon de Montfort.
1 She had a pension of twenty pounds a year. Peter Langtoft
gives the date of her death as occurring in June 1337. Cf. Cont.
Flor. Wig. ii. 226. Her name was Guenciliana, that is, Guenllian, or
Gwendolen.

and of her
daughter.

APPENDICES. APPENDIX I.
PEDIGREE OF THE FAMILY OF MONTFORT L'AMAURI.

B B

PEDIGREE OF THE FAMILY OF MONTFORT L'AMAURI.
Charles the Bald
I
Judith = Baldwin (Bras-de-Fer)
.....
Amaun I

William (Count of Hainault)=(?) heiress of Montfort and Epernon
Hugh (of Broyes and Nogent) Amauri II = Bertrade
i   i 
i

(i) Isabella = Simon I = (3) Agnes
| ob. 1087
Amauri III
 osp. 1089 

Richard I (Count of Normandy)
Robert (Count of Evreux)
Richard (Count of Evreux)
William osp. 1118

.1 .1 ~" I " " I
Richard Simon II Amauri IV — Agnes (of Rochefort Bertrade=Fulk(of Anjou) Hugh de Grentemesnil

osp. 1092 osp. 1 104 ob. 1137

and Gournai)

Robert de Beaumont = Petronilla
(Earl of Leicester) |

1 1 1 - 1 1
,„•„¦ ,„ , ,„, , Amauri V Simon III = Amicia Robert Fitz-Parnell = Lauretta Margaret=S. de Ouenci
William (Earl of Gloucester) osp. 1140 ob. 1181 I (de Beaumont) j | (E. of Winchester)
 7 _ R.deQuenci(E. of Winchester)

Mabel :

Amauri VI Simon IV = Alice Guy Bertrade=

ob. ante 1204 ob. 1218

ob. 1228

Hugh

Bonchard V

Laurentia

I (E. of Chester) (of Montmorenci) I (of Hainault)
Ranulf (Earl of Chester)

Beatrice (of Vienne)= Amauri VII Guy Robert Simon V= Eleanor 3 -daughters John (K. of Eng.)= Isabella (of Ansrouleme)
nf Kicrnrrpl nh_ tr>ifi nri.rific; ob. 1273 I ,

I

J ob. 1241 (Ct. of Bigorre) ob. 1226 ob.1265
ob. 1220

Jean (ob. 1249) =Jeanne

r^Lw 1, s x> v w^ Henry Simon Guy Amauri Richard Eleanor = Llewelyn (of Wales)
Beatnce(ob. 1312) == Robert (Count ob. 1265 ob. 1273 ob. 1282 I ob. 1282
 I of Dreux)

(t) Alexander III =Yolande = (a) Arthur (Count of Brittany)

. Guenciliana
(died a nun 1337)

0/

-I

APPENDIX II.

I.— MIRACLES OF SIMON DE MONTFORT.
The following are a few of the miracles, over two hundred
in number, which are related to have been performed by
Simon de Montfort after death. They are printed by Mr.
Halliwell at the end of his edition of the ' Narratio de duo-
hus bellis apud Lewes et Evesham, &c.,' published for the
Camden Society. These miracles are spoken of in the Dic
tum of Kenilworth, when the Earl had been dead just a year,
and are alluded to in several contemporary MSS., e.g. the
Chronicle of Evesham and the Brute Chronicle, quoted by
Mr. Halliwell on p. xxviii of his preface. The list of mira
cles was preceded in the MS. by an account of the battle of
Evesham, now obliterated, and was compiled by a monk of
Evesham. I have thought that they might be found interest
ing as specimens of the superstition of the time, and have
accordingly translated a few of them, as follows :
i. The Countess of Gloucester had a palfrey that had
been broken-winded for two years. In returning from Eves
ham to Tewkesbury, the horse having drunk of the Earls
Well1 and having had its head and face washed in the water,
1 The Earls Well, otherwise called Battle "Well, or de Montforts
Well, is a small spring in the hollow of the hill where the battle was
fought. It is said, in local tradition, to have run with blood after the
fight.

372 Simon de Montfort.
recovered. ... Of this the Countess and all her com
pany are witnesses.
2. A sick woman of Elmley sent her daughter to the
Earls Well to fetch water. In returning she met the servants
of the castle, who asked her what she had in the pitcher.
She answered that it was new beer from Evesham, and they
said, ' Nay, but it is water from the Earls Well.' But when
they had drawn some forth, they found it as the girl had
said, and so they let her go.1 And when she came to the
sick woman, it was again changed into water, and the sick
woman having drunk thereof, was healed.
3. It is to be remembered of the hand of Simon,2 that
the bearer of it was journeying by a certain church, and,
hearing the bell toll for mass, entered in and prayed ; and
when the priest stood up to elevate the body of Christ, the
hand moved and stood upright, and adored Jesus, as it was
wont while yet alive.
4. William, surnamed Child, had a son who was sick to
death, at which Wiiliam was sore grieved. By chance a cer
tain Friar Preacher, an old companion of his, came to him,
and seeing his grief, asked him if he had ever been at enmity
with Earl Simon. And he said, ' Yes, for he deprived me of
my goods.' And the other answered, 'Ask pardon of the
martyr, and thou shalt recover thy child.' Meanwhile the child
died, and the father in great grief threw himself upon his
bed and slept. And he saw in a dream Christ descend
from heaven and touch him, saying, ' Whatever thou askest
in the name of my Earl, shall be given thee.' And he rose
in haste and measured3 the boy, and he opened his eyes.
1 It was forbidden by the Dictum of Kenilworth to call Earl Simon
a saint, or to spread reports of miracles done by him. The girl would
therefore have been lia'Ie to certain penalties for drawing water for the
purpose of healing from the Earls Well.
- This was the band of Earl Simon that was cut off and sent to the
wife of one of the royalists as a trophy.
3 The word is ' mensuravit.' The custom was to bind round the
head or other sick part of the body a piece of riband or cloth which
had been steeped in the water of the Earls Well, or applied to his
rehcs.

Appendix II. 373
Of this Clement of London and the father of the dead boy
are witnesses.
5. Stephen Hulle and others, citizens of Hereford, relate
a wonderful thing about Philip, chaplain of Brentley, who
reviled the Earl, and said, ' If the Earl be a saint, as they
say, may the devil break my neck, or some miracle happen
before I come home.' And as he asked, so it came to pass.
For in returning home he saw a hare, and pursuing it fell
from his horse. . . . Of this the whole city of Hereford
bear witness.

2.— SONGS IN HONOUR OF SIMON DE MONTFORT.
I have thought it best to collect in the shape of an
appendix the more important notices of Earl Simon and
other interesting pieces in the popular songs of the time,
instead of introducing them piecemeal in the notes. The
extracts are mostly taken from the book of Political Songs,
edited by Mr. Wright for the Camden Society.
1. This extract (Polit. Songs, p. 60), is part of a song
made during or shortly after the outbreak in the spring of
1263 : Mout furent bons les barons ;
Mes touz ne sai nomer lur noms,
• Tant est grant la some :
Pur ce revenk al quens Simon,
Pur dire interpretison,
Coment horn le nome.
II est apele de Monfort,
II est el mond et si est fort,
Si ad giant chevalerie ;
Ce voir, et je m'acort,
II eime dreit, et het le tort,
Si avera la mestrie.
El mond est vereement ;
La ou la comun a ly concent,
De la terre loee

;74 Simon de Montfort.

C'est ly quens de Leycestre,
Que baut et joius sepuet estre
De cele renomee.

;?. The following song is on the Battle of Lewes, aimed
especially at King Richard (Polit. Songs, p. 69).
Sitteth alle stille and herkneth to me :
The Kyng of Alemaigne, bi mi leaute,
Thritti thousent pound askede he
For to make the pees in the countree,
Ant so he dude more.
Richard, thah thou be ever trichard,
Trichen shalt thou never more.
Richard of Alemaigne, whil that he was kyng,
He spende al is tresour upon swyvyng ;
Haveth he nout of Walingford o ferlyng :
Let him habbe, ase he brew, bale to dryng,
Maugre Wyndesore.
Richard, &c.
The Kyng of Alemaigne wende do ful wel,
He saisede the mulne for a castel,
With hare sharpe swerdes he grounde the stel,
He wende that the sayles were mangonel,
To helpe Wyndesore.
Richard, &c.
The Kyng of Alemaigne gederede ys host,
Makede him a castel of a mulne post,
Wende with his prude ant is muchele bost,
Brohte from Alemaigne mony sori gost,
To store Wyndesore.
Richard, &c.
By God, that is abouven ous, he dude muche synnc,
That lette passen over see the Erl of Warynne :
He hath robbed Engelond, the mores, and the fenne,
The gold, ant the selver, ant yboren henne
For love of Wyndesore.
Richard, &c.

Appendix II. 375
Sire Simond de Mountfort hath swore bi ys chyn,
Hevede he nou the Eii of Waryn,
Shulde he never more come to is yn,
Ne with shelde ne with spere ne with other gyn,
To help of Wyndesore.
Richard, &c.
Sire Simond de Mountfort hath swore bi ys cop,
Hevede he nou here Sire Hue de Bigot,
Al he shulde quite here twelfmoneth scot,
Shulde he never more with his fot pot,
To helpe Wyndesore.
Richard, &c.
Be the luef, be the loht, Sire Edward,
Thou shalt ride sporeless on. thy lyard,
Al the ryhte way to Dovere ward ;
Shalt thou never more breke foreward,
Ant that reweth sore :
Edward thou dudest ase a shreward,
Forsoke thyn emes lore.
Richard, thah thou be ever trichard,
Trichen shalt thou never more.

3. The following extracts are from the great political
poem written after the Battle of Lewes in defence of Simon
de Montfort and of the principles of the baronial party.
(Polit. Songs, 72 seq.)
Benedicat dominus Simoni de Monte-Forti,
Suis nichilominus natis et cohorti.
Qui se magnanimiter exponehtes morti
Pugnaverunt fortiter, . ....
Sed hanc videns populi Deus agoniam,
Dat in fine sseculi novum Matathiam,
Et cum suis filiis zelans zelum legis,
Nee cedit injuriis nee furori regis.
Seductorem nominant Simonem atque fallacem,
Facta sed examinant probantque veracem. vv. 65-80.

376 Simon de Montfort.
Comitis devotio sero deridetur,
Cujus eras congressio victrix sentietur.
Lapis hie ab hostibus diu reprobatus
Post est parietibus duobus aptatus.
Anglise divisio desolationis
Fuit in confinio, sed divisionis
Affuit praesdio lapis angularis,
Symonis religio sane singularis.
Fides et fidelitas Symonis solius
Fit pacis integritas Angliae totius. vv. 253-268.
Commodum si proprium comitem movisset,
Nee haberet alium zelum, nee quzesisset,
Toto suo studio reformationi
Regni 
 ad ditationem
Filiorum tenderet, et communitatis
Salutem negligeret, &c. w. 325-332-
Non sic venerabilis Simon de Monte-forti,
Qui se Christo similis dat pro multis morti :
YsaaQ non moritur cum sit promptus mori ;
Vervex morti traditur, Ysaac honori.
Nee fraus nee fallacia comitem promovit,
Sed divina gratia, qua; quos juvet novit.
w. 345-349-
En radicem tangimus perturbationis.
Rex cum suis voluit ita liber esse ;
 et habere
Regni cancellarium thesaurariumque,
Suum ad arbitrium voluit quemcunque
Et consiliarios de quacunque gente,
Et ministros varios se prsecipiente,
Non intromittentibus se de factis regis
Angliae baronibus, vim habente legis
Principis imperio, et quod imperaret
Suomet arbitrio singulos ligaret. vv. 48S-5°4-
Baronum pars igitur jam pro se loquatur.
Quas pars in principio palam protestatur

Appendix II. 377

Quod honori regio nicliil machinatur ;
Vel quaerit contrarium, immo reformare
Studet statum regium et magnificare ;
Sicut si ab hostibus regnum vastaretur,
Non sine baronibus tunc reformaretur,
Quibus hoc competeret atque conveniret.
Regis adversarii sunt hostes bellantes,
Et consiliarii regi adulantes,
Qui verbis fallacibus principem seducunt,
Linguisque duplicibus in errorem ducunt.
w. 533-55°-
Non omnis arctatio privat libertatem,
Nee omnis districtio tollit potestatem.
Ad quid vult libera lex reges arctari ?
Ne possint adultera lege maculari.
Et haec coarctatio non est servitutis,
Sed est ampliatio regime virtutis.
Omnium principium non potest peccare ;
Non est impotentia, sed summa potestas,
Magna Dei gloria magnaque majestas.
Ergo regi libeat omne quod est bonum,
Sed malum non audeat : hoc est Dei donum.
Qui regem custodiunt ne peccet temptatus.
Ipsi regi serviunt, quibus esse gratus
Sit, quod ipsum liberant ne sit servus factus.
vv. 667-691.
Si princeps amaverit, debet reamari ;
Si recte regnaverit, debet honorari ;
Si princeps erraverit, debet revocari,
Ab hiis, quos gravaverit injuste, negari,
Nisi velit corrigi ; si vult emendari,
Debet ab hiis erigi simul et juvari. vv. 729-734.
Si solus [rex] elegerit, facile falletur,
Utilis qui fuerit a quo nescietur.
Igitur communitas regni consulatur,
Et quid universitas sentiat sciatur,
Cui leges propria; maxime sunt notae.

;78 Simon de Montfort.
Nee cuncti provincia; sic sunt idiota;,
Quin sciant plus casteris regni sui mores,
Quos relinquunt posteris hii qui sunt priores.
Ex hiis potest colligi quod communitatem
Tangit quales eligi ad utilitatem
Regni recte debeant ; qui velint et sciant
Et prodesse valeant, tales regis fiant
Et consiliarii et coadj utores. vv. 763-781.
Nee libertas proprie debet nominari,
Qua; permittit inscie stultos dominari :
Sed libertas finibus juris limitetur,
Spretisque limitibus error reputetur.
Ergo regis ratio de suis subjectis,
Suomet arbitrio quorum ( ? quocum) volunt vectis,
Per hoc satis solvitur, satis infirmatur. vv. 833-841.
Legem quoque dicimus regis dignitatem
Regere : nam credimus esse legem lucem,
Sine qua concludimus deviare ducem,
Lex qua mundus regitur atque regna mundi
Ignea describitur ; quod sensus profundi
Continet mysterium : lucet, urit, calet.

Ista lex sic loquitur, ' per me regnant reges,
Per me jus ostenditur hiis qui condunt leges.'
Dicitur vulgariter, ' ut rex vult, lex vadit : '
Veritas vult aliter, nam lex stat, rex cadit.
vv. 848-872.
Ex praadictis omnibus poterit liquere,
Quod regem (?) magnatibus incumbit videre
Quae regni conveniant gubernationi,
Et pacis expediant conservationi ;
Et quod rex indigenas sibi laterales
Habeat, non advenas, neque speciales,
Vel consiliarios vel regni majores,
Qui supplantant alios atque bonos mores.
vv. 951-958.

Appendix II. 379
4. The following are extracts from a song (Polit. Songs,
125), written immediately after the Battle of Evesham :
Chaunter m'estoit, mon cuer le voit, en un dure langage.
Tut en plorant fust fet le chaunt de nostre duz baronage,
Que pur la pees, si loynz apres se lesserent detrere,
Lur cor trencher e demembrer, pour salver Engleterre.
Ore est ocys la flur de pris, qe taunt savoit de guere,
Ly quens Montfort, sa dure mort molt emplorra la terre.
Mes par sa mort le quens Montfort conquist la victorie,
Come le martyr de Caunterbyr finist sa vie ;
Ne voleit pas li bon Thomas qe perist seinte Eglise,
Ly quens auxi se combati, e morust sauntz feyntise.
Ore est ocys, &c.
Sire Hue le fer, ly Despencer, tresnoble justice,
Ore est a tort lyvre a mort, a trop male guise.
Sire Henri, pur veir le dy, fitz le quens de Leycestre,
Autres assez, come vus orrez, par le quens de Gloucestre.
Ore est ocys, &c.

Sire Simoun, ly prodhom, e sa compagnie,
En joie vont en ciel amount, en pardurable vie.
Mes Jhesu Crist, qe en croyz se mist, Dieu en prenge cure,
Qe sunt remis, e detenuz en prisone dure.
Ore est ocys la flur de pris, qe taunt savoit de guere,
Ly quens Montfort, sa dure mort molt emplorra la terre.
5. The following is a fragment of an office in memory of
Simon de Montfort, which concludes the MS. containing
the account of his miracles, published with the Chronicle of
Rishanger by Mr. Halliwell for the Camden Society. It may
be compared with th; longer fragment in Appendix IV.
Anno Domini M.cc.lx.v. octavo Symonis Montisfortis sociorumque
ejus, pridie nonas Augusti. Salve, Symon Montis-Fortis,
Totius flos militiae,
Duras pcenas passus mortis,
Protector gentis Anglias.

380 Simon de Montfort.
Sunt de Sanctis inaudita,
Cunctis passis in hac vita,
Quemquam passum talia ;
Manus, pedes amputari,
Caput, corpus vulnerari,
Abscidi virilia.
Sis pro nobis intercessor
Apud Deum, qui defensor
In terris exterritas.
Ora pro nobis, beate Symon, ut digni efficiamus promissionibus
Christi.

3.— CHARACTER OF SIMON DE MONTFORT.
' Erat signidem, &c. ' Risk, de Bellis, <S°<r. ,6. 7.
He was indeed a mighty man, and prudent, and circum
spect ; in the use of arms and in experience of warfare,
superior to all others of his time ; commendably endowed
with knowledge of letters ; fond of hearing the offices of the
church by day and night ; sparing of food and drink, as
those who were about him saw with their own eyes ; in time
of night watching more than he slept, as his more intimate
friends have oft related. In the greatest difficulties which
he went through while handling affairs of state, he was found
trustworthy, notably in Gascony, whither he went by com
mand of the king, and there subdued to the Kings Majesty
rebels beforetime unconquered, and sent them to England
to his lord the King. He was moreover pleasant and witty
in speech, and ever aimed at the reward of an admirable
faith ; on account of which he did not fear to undergo death,
as shall be told hereafter. His constancy all men, even his
enemies, admired ; for whsn others had sworn to observe
the Provisions of Oxford, and the most part of them des
pised and rejected that to which they had sworn, he having
once taken the oath, like an immoveable pillar, stood firm,
and neither by threats, nor promises, nor gifts, nor flattery
could he be moved to depart in any way with the other

Appendix II. 381
magnates from the oath which he had taken to reform the
state of the realm. He commended himself to the prayers
of the religious, and humbly, as with brotherly affection, he
begged to be allied with them, in the pouring out of prayers
to God for the state of the realm and the peace of the
church ; and he was constant in supplication that divine grace
might keep him spotless from avarice and covetousness of
earthly things, knowing for a surety that many in those days
were encumbered by such vices, as the issue of things after
wards made clear. To the religious and other prelates of
the church, commended by honesty of life, he showed all
due reverence ; deserving to be called the perfect disciple of
a perfect master ; having been instructed in all good discip
line, inasmuch as he clung with hearty affection to the
blessed Robert, once Bishop of Lincoln, and gave his chil
dren to be brought up by him, and did many things by his
wholesome advice. And the said bishop is related to have
enjoined upon the Earl, for the remission of his sins, that
he should take upon himself that cause for which he fought
even unto death ; declaring that the peace of the English
church could never be secured without the temporal sword,
and constantly affirming that all who died in her and for her
should receive the crown of martyrdom. It is related by
tmstworthy persons, that the bishop once placed his hands
on the head of the Earls firstborn son, and said to him, ' My
dearest son, thou and thy father shall both die on one day
and by one hurt, for the cause of justice.' And of what
sort was the life of the Bishop, the miracles, done by the grace
of God at his tomb, sufficiently declare. And the Earl, like
a second Joshua, worshipped justice, as the very medicine
of his soul.

382

APPENDIX III.
LIST OF THOSE WHO TOOK PART IN EVENTS OF IM
PORTANCE BETWEEN 1244 AND 1267.
(The names are given in alphabetical order within their respective ranks. )

Parliamentary Committee, 1244.
Prelates.

Boniface, Abp. of Canterbury,
William, Bp. of Winchester,

Richard, E. of Cornwall,
Simon, E. of Leicester,

Robert, Bp. of Lincoln,
Walter, Bp. of Worcester.

The Abbot of St. Edmunds,
The Abbot of Ramsey,

Earls.

Roger, E. of Norfolk,
The Earl of Pembroke.

Barons.

John Balliol,
Rich, of Montfichet.

SIGNATURES TO THE LETTER OF REMONSTRANCE TO THE POPE,
I246.

Richard, E. of Cornwall,
Earl of Derby,
Richard, E. of Gloucester,
Humfrey, E. of Hereford,
Earl of Leicester,

Earl of Norfolk,
Earl of Oxford,
Earl of Winchester,
Earl of Aumale, and others.

Appendix III.

3§:

SIGNATURES TO THE LETTER OF GRIEVANCES TO THE KING, I258.

Earl of Gloucester,
Earl of Hereford,
Earl of Leicester,
Earl of Norfolk,
Earl of Warwick,
Count of Aumale,

John of Alditheley,
Hugh Bigod,
John Fitz-Cleoffrey,
Peter de Montfort,"
Peter of Savoy.

FIRST COMMITTEE OF TWENTY-FOUR, I258.
Royalist.

Archbishop of Canterbury,1
Aylmer, Bp. elect of Winchester,
Fulk, Bishop of London,
Abbot of Westminster,
John of Darlington,
John Mansel,

Henry Wengham,
John, Earl of Warenne,
John, Earl of Warwick,
Henry of Almaine,
Guy of Lusignan,
William of Valence.

Baronial.

Walter, Bishop of Worcester,
Earl of Gloucester,
Earl of Hereford,
Earl of Leicester,
Earl of Norfolk,
William Bardulf,

Hugh Bigod,
Hugh Despenser,
J. Fitz-Geoffrey,
Richard de Gray,
P. de Montfort.
Roger Mortimer.

ELECTORS OF THE COUNCIL OF FIFTEEN, I258.
John Mansel,

Royalist. I Earl of Warwick.

Baronial.
Earl of Norfolk, | Hugh Bigod.

1 The membership of the Archbishop of Canterbury is uncertain but
most probable. The framers of the Lords' Report think that the Earl of
Gloucester was elected on the kings side ; it is possible he was elected
by both parties. See above, p. 193, note, and Stubbs, Const. Hist. ii.
75, 82.

;84

Simon de Montfort.

THE COUNCIL OF FIFTEEN, 1258.
Royalist.
Archbishop of Canterbury, J. of Alditheley,
John Mansel,' j P. of Savoy.
Earl of Warwick,

Baronial.

Bishop of Worcester,
Earl of Gloucester,
Earl of Hereford,
Earl of Leicester,
Earl of Norfolk,

Count of Aumale,
J. Fitz-Geoffrey,
R. de Gray,
P. de Montfort,
Roger Mortimer.

REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMMUNITY, I258.
Bishop of London,
Earl of Winchester,
Giles de Argentine,
John Balliol,
Philip Basset,
Humfrey Bohun,2

Hugh Despenser,
John de Gray,
Thomas de Gresley,
Roger de Monthaut,
Roger de Sumery,
John de Verdun.

COUNCIL OF TWENTY-FOUR TO TREAT OF AID FOR THE KING, 1258.

Bishop of London,
Bishop of Sarum,
Bishop of Worcester,
Earl of Gloucester,
Earl of Hereford,
Earl of Leicester,
Earl of Norfolk,
Earl of Oxford,
Earl of Winchester,
Count of Aumale,
G. de Argentine,
John Balliol,

Philip Basset,
Giles de Erdinton,
J. Fitz-Geoffrey,
John de Gray,
Thomas de Gresley,
Fulk de Kerdiston,
John Kyriel,
P. de Montfort,
R. de Monthaut,
Roger Mortimer,
P. of Savoy,
Roger de Sumery.

1 The framers of the Lords' Report, on the authority of Fad. i. -378,
writ dated 18 Oct. 1258, give the name of H. Despenser and the Earl
of Winchester instead of John Mansel and the Count of Aumale. I have
given the list of the Fifteen according to the list in Stubbs, Const. Hist.
ii. 82 : see above, p. 195, note.
2 I have given the name of H. Bohun the younger instead of his
father the Earl of Hereford, as it seems hardly possible that the Earl
should have been a member both of the Council and the Representative
Body. Professor Stubbs however (1. c.) gives the Earl as one of the
latter.

Appendix III.

385

LIST OF THOSE TO WHOM PARDON WAS OFFERED BY THE KING,
I26l.

Earl of Leicester,
Earl of Norfolk,
Earl of Warenne,
W. Bardulf,
Hugh Despenser,
J. Fitz-Alan,

J. Fitz-John,
H. of Hastings,
Roger Mortimer,
N. de Segrave,
R. de Vipont.

LIST OF THOSE WHO PROMISED TO SUBMIT TO LOUIS' ARBITRATION,
I263.

Royalist.

Prince Edward,
Earl of Hereford,
Earl of Norfolk,
Earl of Warenne,
Henry of Almaine,
William of Valence,
J. of Alditheley,
John Balliol,
W. of Basingburn,
Philip Basset,
Hugh Bigod,
R. de Brus,
W. de Brus,
R. de Clifford,
H. 1' Estrange,
J. Fitz-Alan,

Bishop of London,
Bishop of Worcester,
Earl of Leicester,
W. Bardulph,
R. Basset (Sapcote),
W. le Blond,
H. Bohun (jun.)
J. de Burgh,
W. de Coleville,
Hugh Despenser,
J. Fitz-John,
R. de Gray,
H. of Hastings,

R. Fitz-Peter,
R. Foliot,
A. of Geremuth,
J. de Gray,
W. de Latimer,
R. de Leyburn,
P. Marmion,
R. Mortimer,
J. de Muscegros,
R. de Nevile,
H. de Percy,
R. de Sumery,
J. de Vaux,
J. de Verdun,
A. de la Zuche.

Baronial.

&. de Lucy,
W. Marshall,
H. de Montfort,
P. de Montfort,
S. de Montfort (jun.),
W. de Munchanesy,
A. of Newburgh,
R. de Ros,
N. de Segrave,
R. de Toney,
J. de Vescy,
R. de Vipont,
B. Wake.

C C

356

Simon de Montfort.

NAMES OF THOSE KNOWN TO HAVE TAKEN PART IN THE BARONS'
WAR,1 1264.

Prince Edward,
Earl of Hereford,
Earl of Warenne,
Henry of Almaine,
William of Valence,
J. of Alditheley,
D. de Barentin,
Hugh Bigod,

Gilbert, Earl of Gloucester,
Earl of Leicester,
H. of Basingburn,
J. of Bracebridge,
R. of Bruton,
P. de Covel,
J. of Craunford,
A. Despenser,
T. Despenser,
H. Despenser,
B. of Drayton,
J. Estormy,
J. 1'Estrange,
W. of Eylesford,
W. d'Eyville,
R. Fitz-Walter,

Royalist. R. de Clifford,
J. de Gray,
R. de Gray,
J. Fitz-Alan,
R. Mortimer,
J. de Vaux,
W. de la Zuche.

ronial.

G. de Furnival,
W. de Furnival,
H. of Hastings,
R. de la Hide,
P. de Montfort,
P. de Montfort (jun.),
R. de Montfort,
S. de Montfort (jun.),
H. de Montfort,
G. de Montfort,
H. of Penbregg,
N. de Segrave,
R. of Sutton,
H. de Tywe,
R. de Watervil,
J. de Wiavil.

CUSTODES PACIS APPOINTED BY THE BARONS, I264.

G. de Argentine,
J. de Au^, (?)
R. Basset (Drayton),
R. Basset (Sapcote),
W. de Beauchamp,
W. de Bovil,
J. de Burgh,
O. de Dunant,
G. of Ellesfend,
H. Engaine.
T. of Estleys,
G. d'Escudemor,
I. d'Eyville,
"j. Fitz-John,

R. Fitz-Nigel,
B. de Gowiz,
W. Marshall,
J. de Marevil,
H. de Montfort,
T. of Muleton,
A. of Newmarket,
J. de Plesseys,
R. of Stradeley,
R. de Toney,
W. de Tracy,
R. de Vernon,
J. de St. Waleric.

1 This list must of course be very incomplete. Many more than are
mentioned ir the chronicles must have taken part.

Appendix III.

38;

NAMES OF LAY BARONS SUMMONED TO PARLIAMENT, JAN. 1265.

Earl of Derby,
Earl of Gloucester,
Earl of Leicester,
Earl of Norfolk,
Earl of Oxford,
R. Basset (Drayton),
R. Basset (Sapcote),
R. Bertram,
R. de Caraoys,
W. deColville,
Hugh Despenser,
J. d'Eyville, Summoned to receive Judgment.
Earl of Warenne, | Peter of Savoy,
William of Valence, | Hugh Bigod.

J. Fitz-John,
G. de Gaunt,
H. of Hastings,
G. de Lucy,
W. Marmion,
W. de Munchanesy,
A. of Newmarket,
R. de Ros,
N. de Segrave,
R. de St. John,
J. deVescy.

John Balliol,
P. deBrus,
A. of Geremuth,

Received safe-conduct. R. de Nevile,
and ten others from the north.

NAMES OF BARONS KNOWN TO HAVE FOUGHT AT EVESHAM.

Earl of Leicester,
R. Basset,
J. de Beauchamp,
Hugh Despenser,

H. de Bohun (jun. ),
H. of Hastings,
J. Fitz-John,

Killed.

W. de Maundeville,
H. de Montfort,
P. de Montfort (sen.

Wounded and taken.
G. de Montfort,
P. de Montfort (jun.),
J. de Vescy.

ARBITRATORS WHO DREW UP THE DICTUM OF KENILWORTH, 1266.
First elected. R. de Sumery,
R. Waleran,
A. de la Zuche.

Bishop of Bath,
Bishop of Exeter,
Bishop of Worcester,

Bishop of St. Davids,
Earl of Gloucester,
Earl of Hereford,

Appointed by the above.
J. Balliol,

P. Basset,
W. of Basingburn.
C C 2

388

APPENDIX IV.
PORTIONS OF AN OFFICE IN MEMORY OF SIMON DE
MONTFORT.
I have thought it worth while to add here an interesting
fragment, not hitherto published, illustrative of the venera
tion in which Simon de Montfort was held after death. It
consists of three hymns, and the special portions of a service,
in which the memory of Earl Simon was hallowed, by some
part of the Church at least, as that of a martyr. It seems
that in this commemoration of him, and the setting apart of
a day for that purpose, consisted that popular canonisation,
which was forbidden by the Dictum of Kenilworth. I am
indebted to the kindness of Mr. Bradshaw, of the University
Library, Cambridge, for the copy of the MS. It was made
from the last leaf but one of MS. Kk, 4, 20, in that Library,
a volume which in the fourteenth century was in the
Cathedral Library at Norwich. Mr. Bradshaw says : ' The
hand- writing is of the time of Edward I, or thereabouts. The
three hymns are probably those used at First Vespers, at
Matins, and at Lauds, and the Suffragium was probably
the Commemoration at Lauds.'

HYMN I.
1.
<[ Rumpe celos et descende
capud ihesu martirum,
Signis sacris et ostende
comitis martyrium ;
Arma, scutum, comprehende
contra uires hostium.

2.
Heu dolorum nos multorum
torquet infor[tu]nium :
Simon cesus cadit lesus
anglie presidium,
Comes fidus regni sidus,
decus et flos militum.

Appendix IV.

3§9

Est iactura nimis dura
regno et ecclesie :
Simon fortis casum mortis
causa rei pupplice
Sumit, cadit dum inuadit
prelium perfidie. 4-
Juris sator exstirpator
fuit iniusticie,
Effugator et dampnator
fraudis et iniurie,
Pacis dator et seruator
plebis et ecclesie.

5-

Quis anglorum nunc regnorum
tuetur prudencia ?
Militaris expers paris
premitur prestancia.
Plebi cleri forma ueri
cedit sapiencia. 6.
Tu, qui pro salute mundi
cruris pressus pertica,
Da post casum putibundi
fati sit in gloria
Simon celi letabundi
per eterna secula. Amen.

HYMN II.

C Mater syon iocundare,
tantum decus dilatare :
tibi uenit nouus dare
noua martyr gaudia.

Comes symon thomam querit,
causam thome simon gerit,
et cum thoma falsas terit
leges per martyrium.

Thomas tytan orientis,
simon sydus occidentis,
uir uterque pie mentis
pungnat pro iusticia.

, 4-
Presul thomas, ueritatem
se[r]uans, dampnat prauitatem,
pungnans dedit libertatem
qua floret ecclesia.

Israelis symon murus,
plebi clero profuturus,
pro utroque pungnaturus,
dura passus prelia.

Nunc uterque pugil fortis,
post occasum dire mortis
in agone sacre sortis,
migrat ad celestia. Amen.

399

Simon de Montfort.

HYMN III.

3 Nequit stare sed rotare
fortuna mutabilis,
Per quam scita mors uel uita
uenit admirabilis.

En iam primus sed nee ymus
flos florem militie
Regnat modo ruit modo,
pacem zelans anglie.

Heu uir fortis montis fortis,
corpus tuum moritur,
Denudatur, mutilator,
per partes diuiditur.

Amputatur capud, datur,
mulieri mittitur.
Non uilescit nee sordescit,
baptiste coniungitur. 5-
Set mens fortis hora mortis
t morte percutitur :'
Sullimatur, coronatur,
in celis recipitur. 6.
Hoc monstrauit, hoc probauit
sol priuatus lumine,
Terre motus, orbis totus
tunc percussus fulmine.

Die martis marce martis
transit in uigilia,
Per amici dominici
cum sua milicia.

Deridebat et pedebat
scutifer ignobilis,
Male sonans quasi plorans
necem plangens comitis.
9-
Laus sit deo nil ab eo
post exisse dicitur :
Tumens uentre gemens mente
derisor confunditur.

Symon ergo mortis ergo
fac ne nos concuciat,
Te tutore te ductore
christus nos suscipiaf.
n.
Adhuc rota precor tota
prosterne maliuolos.
Quos leuasti que prostrasti
quam plures beniuolos.

Nonne uides ? non est fides
in tota prouincia,
Jura iacent, leges tacent,
mutescit ecclesia.

The word 'non' is here omitted in the MS.

Appendix IV.

59i

13-
Violator, spoliator,
nee ligat sentencia.
Quis quid fan quot in mari
nunc fiunt facinora.
14.
Quot dampnantur quot necantur
spiritus et corpora ;
Capiuntur, rapiuntur
naues mercimonia.

15-
Confundantur, prosternantur
perpetrantes talia,
Nisi cessent et emendent
tot commissa crimina.
16.
Ut hoc fiat et sic fiat
amen dicant omnia.

\_Suffraginm de B. Symone.]
\Antiphona.]
O decus milicie
gentium anglorum,
Comes Leicestrie,
dextra oppressorum,
Sanguine commercio
his tenes celorum :
posce nobis miseris
uitam beatorum.

[ Vers.]
Magna est gloria eius
in salutari tuo.
Gloriam et magnum decorem impones super eum.
Psalt. Rom. 20, 5.
[O ratio.]
DEUS, qui beatum symonem martyrem tuum uirtute constancie in
agone suo communisti, quique illi ad renouandum britannie
regnum milites inclitos associasti, tribue nos eius precibus adiuuari qui
celebri martyrio meruit consummari. Per.

Explicit
Vita Simonis de Monteforti
Comitis Leicestrice

39:

INDEX.

AFR
Africa, lands in, dowry of Earl of
Castile, 115: negotiations about,
238.
Agenois, claimed by Henry III,
217.
Aigueblanche. Peter d', Bishop of
Hereford, financial trick of, III ¦
attack on, 244 : seized by the
barons, 246.
Albigenses, crusade against, 36.
Alcester, Edward passes by, 338.
Aldobrandini Rosso, Count, father-
in-law to G. de Montfort, 365,
3^7-
Alexander HI, Pope, his policy
towards England, 151.
Alexander IV, Pope, follows policy
of InnocentIV, 114 . at war with
Manfred, 116: presses the Sicilian
scheme, 118 : sides with Henry
III, 131 : threatens an interdict,
206 : writes on patronage, 224 :
absolves Henry III, 230.
Alfonse, Count of Poitou, 55.
Aliens, in Magna Carta, 62 : royal
liberality to, 65, 81 : influence of,
156 : expulsion of, demanded,
189, 191 : regulations touching,
205 : hatred of, 208 : expelled,
246 -. admitted, 260 ; importance
of question, 262.
Almaine, Henry of one of the 24,
1258, 193 : High Steward pro tern.
226 : at Oxford, 245 : imprisoned
by royalists, 248 : leaves ,S. de

ARE
Montfort, 251 : sides with the
king, 256 : hostage, 281, 283 :
released, 313, but kept with S.
de Montfort, 328 : rewarded,
349 : defeats the Earl of Derby,
353 : mediates, 361 : murdered,
366.
Alton, A. Gurdun captured at, 353.
Amauri, family of, see family of
Montfort.
Amiens, Mise of, motives of, 158 :
summary of, 260 : results of, 261.
Amnesty, in Mise of Amiens, 260 :
in 1265, 327 : in 1266, 356.
Anjou, ceded to France, 220.
Anjou, Charles of, Sicily offered to,
258: an arbitrator, 365 connection
of, with G. de Montfort, 365,
367.
Anselm, influence and policy of,.
150.
Apulia, kingdom of, see Sicily.
Aragon, opposes S. de Montfort,
57 : intiigues in Gascony, 87,
104 : marriage of Beatrice with
heir of, 105 • constitution of,
310.
Arbitration, between Henry III
and S. de Montfort, 229, 233 :
on the Provisions, 234, 250, 255:
in the Mise of Lewes, 282 : court
of, appointed, 312 : between S.
de Montfort and the Earl of
Gloucester, 330 : at Kenilworth,
355-

394

Simon de Montfort.

ARL
Arlot (or Harold), papal legate,
1 86.
Assizes of Clarendon and Wood
stock, ii.
Audley (or Alditheley), John of, one
of the 15, 1258, 195 : sides with
king, 256.
Attmdle (or Albemarle), Earl of, one
of the 15, 1258, 195.
Axeholme, occupied by S. de Mont
fort the younger, 351.

Bachelorhood, protest of the, 213 :
enfranchised, 294 : meaning and
derivation of the word, 300 : of
London, 302.
Bacon, Robert, 60 : Roger, 265.
Baldwin (Bras-de-fer), 32 : B.
Emperor of Constantinople, 82,
243-
Bardulf, William, one of the 24,
194 : sides with S. de Montfort,
256.
Barentin, Drogo de, 97.
Barham Downs, army of defence
on, 312.
Barons, the (principles of), under
Norman kings, 8 : opposed to
Rome, 28, 78, 204 : not allied with
clergy, 29, 176 : allied with
clergy, 73, 78, no : resist taxa
tion, 1232, 59 ; 1242, 67; 1244,
73 ; 1248, 83 ; 1253, no; gene
rally, 156 : interfere in foreign
affairs, 55 : refuse to meet at Ox
ford, 60 ; in the Tower, 227 ; at
Windsor, 234 : grievances of,
155 : demand share in taxation,
&c, 156; in government, 159 ; in
appointment of high officers, 160 -.
parliamentary ideas of, 164 :
principles of, 179 : disunion of,
209, 321.
Barons (classes of), distinguished,
9> i55>, :56, 167, 211, 301 :
of London and Cinque Ports, 9,
171, 302 : of the Marches, see
Marchers : the greater, selfish

BEA
policy of, 155 : lose by Provisions
of Oxford, 196 ; protest of knight
hood against, 213 : the smaller,
growth in power of, 156; griev
ances of, 167 ; neglected in Pro
visions of Oxford, 198 ; lack of
power of, 21 1; enfranchised,
294 ; representation of, 298,
300.
Barons, the (events connected with),
support R. of Cornwall, 27 :
oppose S. de Montfort, 44 : sup
port S. de Montfort, 1252,100:
put forward their demands, 1258,
189 : present list of grievances,
191 : oath of, 192 : march on
Winchester, 202 ; return to Lon
don, 203 : settle foreign affairs,
204 : proceed with reform, 205 :
their energy, 206 : and violence,
208 : support S. de Montfort
against the Earl of Gloucester,
216: decrease in power of, 220 :
summon a Parliament, 1260, 224:
reaction against, 228 : resist the
king, 1 26 1, 231 : arbitration
between king and, 233 : sum
moned to Kingston, 236 : follow
S. de Montfort alone, 1263, 240:
meet at Oxford, 245 : march on
Dover, 247 : demands of, 248 :
power of, 250 : party of, 255 :
reject Mise of Amiens, 261 :
allied with Welch, 263 : meet at
Brackley, 265 : at Northampton,
267 : at Lewes, 271-278 : at
Evesham, 342 : for later events,
see Disinherited.
Basset, Philip, on council, I259> 222:
justiciar, 230 : letter of Henry to,
240 : deposed, 250.
Basset, Ralph, partisan of S. de
Montfort, 256 : killed at Eves
ham, 343.
Beam, Gaston of, rebels, 87 : sub
dued, 88 : sent to England, 89 ;
pardoned, 90 : renews disturb
ance, 96 ; deserts the English,
104 : excommunicated, 106.

Index.

395

BEA
Beatrice, marriage of, proposed, 105,
celebrated, 226.
Beaumont, Amicia de, heiress of
Leicester, 34.
Bee, Abbot of, an arbitrator, 313.
Becket, Thomas, comparison be
tween S. de Montfort and, 130 :
policy of, 151.
Bengeworth, suburb of Evesham,
338-
Bigod, Hugh, ambassador to France,
121, 190: one of the 24,1258, 193 :
elector of council, 194; justiciar,
200 : hatred of, 208 : activity of,
209 : on council, 1259, 222 :
resigns justiciarship, 227 : yields
Dover but not Scarborough, 230,
231 : leaves London, 254 : sides
with Henry, 256 : summoned to
Parliament, 1265, 324 : lands at
Pembroke, 329.
Bigod, Roger, see Norfolk, Earl of.
Bigorre, Guy, Count of, 39 : castle
and lands of, granted to S. de
Montfort, 127.
Bishops, the, yield to Pope, 76 :
policy of, 79, 139 : supported by
Innocent IV, 140 : oppose the
king, 141 ; give bail for H. of
Aim., 313: summoned by the
legate, 314 : mediate between S.
de Montfort and the Earl of Glou
cester, 325 : resist Pope, 326 :
several suspended, 352.
Blanche, Queen of France, 40.
Bohun, Humfrey, the elder, see
Hereford, Earl of.
Bohun, Humfrey, the younger, par
tisan of S. de Montfort, 256 :
goes to Amiens, 260 : taken at
Evesham, 343.
Bordeaux, Henry III at, 57, 105 :
citizens of, submit to S. de Mont
fort, 91 ; support him, 99 :
Abp. of, mediator and arbitrator,
96, 101.
Borough, distinction between county
and, 297, 307 : representation of,
3°4, 3°6, 3°s-

CHA
Boulogne, the Lusignans land at,
203 : Henry and Louis meet at,
252 : ambassadors sent to, 312.
Brackley, the barons meet at, 265.
Brcautc, Falkes de, rebellion of,
25-
Bridgnorth, occupied by Edward,
332-
Bristol, Edward at, 1263, 245 :
Edward tries to seize, 249 : held
by S. de Montfort, 324 : refuses
to yield to S. de Montfort, 331.
Bristol Channel, S. de Montfort
defeated in, 333 : El. de Mont
fort taken in, 368.
Brittany, Dukes of, 38.
Burgh, Hubert de, justiciar, 25 :
impolicy of, 26 : offends Henry,
28 : dismissed, 30 : accused, 48 :
liberated, 61
Burton, letter to monks of, 207.
Bury S t. Edmunds, Parliament at,
358.

Cambridge, Henry III at, 358, 360.
Canterbury, monks of, 27 : meeting
of Henry III and queen at, 350 :
Abp. of, see Becket, &c.
Cantilupe, Walter de, see Worcester,
Bishop of.
Carta, Magna, enactments of, as to
National Council, 10, 12, 14 :
general account of, 15-24 : of
1216, 1217, 15 . of 1225, 21 :
endangered, 26 : return to, 59,
117, 156 : improved on, 64 . on
ecclesiastical rights, 151 : ap
pointment of high officers, 160 :
dismissal of foreigners, 62 : vio
lated, 162 : confirmed, 1237, 4 ;
1253, in ; 1258, 201 ; 1261,
237 ; 1264, 260, 283 ; 1265,
326; 1260, 356; 1297, 363.
Castile, Eleanor of, see Eleanor :
King of, 119, 204.
Chancellor, want of a, 70, 161
demand for appointment of, by
Parliament, 71,83, 84, 113, 160,

396

Simon de Montfort.

CHA
200 : to be appointed by king,
260 : Ralph, Bishop of Chiches
ter, 64 : W. de Merton, 230 : N.
de Ely, 250 : of Oxford Univer
sity, 175.
Charter of William I, 5 : of Henry
I, 5, 6, 16, 18, 22 : of Forests,
17, 22, 26.
Chester, army to meet at, 188 : R.
Ferrars at, 315 : ceded to S. de
Montfort, 319.
Chester, Ranulf, Earl of, head of
opposition, 25, 28, 29 : death of,
30 ; holds the Leicester estates,
37-
Chesterfield, R. Ferrars defeated at,
353-
Chicliester, Ralph, Bishop of, Chan
cellor, 64, 161 : Stephen, Bishop
of, partisan of S. de Montfort,
311, 320, 324.
Church, the English, popularity of,
3, 80, 134 : principles of, 3, 13,
^S; !47> J4^ : legislation con
cerning, under William I, 5 ;
Henry I, 7 ; John, 1 7, 20, 151;
Henry III, 154, 198, 200; S. de
Montfort, 286 : rights and griev
ances of, 17, 20, 149, 151-154:
theories about, 148, 155 : consti
tutional position of, 150, 154 .
changing attitude of, 134, 139,
147, 314 : disunion in, 140, 144,
146 : assemblies of, 109, 167, 306,
3°9-
Cinque Ports, barons of, 9, 78, 1 73,
245 : rights of, 17 : duties of, 69 :
grievances of, 172 : side with S.
de Montfort, 1258, 131, 168,
102 ; 1261, 236 ; 1264, 261, 270,
308, 312 : violence of, 317 : re
presentation of, 308.
Cistercians, exemptions of the, 80.
Claines, near Worcester, 338.
Clare, Richard and Gilbert de, see
Gloucester, Earl of : Thomas de,
33°-
Cleeve, Priors, near Evesham, 338.
Clement IV, Pope, 314.

COR
Clergy, the, in National Council, 9 :
alienated from laity, 29, 63, 176 :
allied with laity, 72, 69, 78, 131,
187, 312 : oppose S. de Mont
fort, 44, and P. des Roches, 61 :
resist taxation, 59, 118, 359 :
remonstrances of, 66, 68 : vote
taxes, III, 120, 312 : neglected,
199, 211 : represented, 306.
Clifford, R. de, royalist baron,
33°-
Cluniac, monastery, at Northamp
ton, 267 ¦ priory at Lewes, 274.
Coinage altered, 81.
Committee of 25, in 1215, 21 ; of
1237, 65, 159; of 1244, 69, 161 ;
of 24, 1258, 189, 190, 193, 194;
of aid, 1258, 197 ; of 1264, 286 ;
of 1266, 355.
Communitas, the, appeal to, 18,
181 : meaning of word, 183,
299 : represented, 1258, 195 ;
1264, 289, 291, 305 : consulted
by the barons, 1258, 298.
Conrad, son of Frederick II, 53.
Constitutions of Clarendon, 1 1 .
Com imported, 186, 209.
Cornwall, Richard, Earl of, injured
by Henry HI, 27 : opposed, and
reconciled to S: de Montfort, 42,
44, 45 : married, 43 : on crusade,
52, 54 : goes to France, 55 :
lukewarmness of, 65 : attitude of,
in 1244, 70 ; in 1246, 78 : takes
the Mint, 81 : importance of, 83 t
supports S. de Montfort, 98 :
regent, 105 : in Gascony, 106 :
refuses Sicily, 1 14 : King of the
Romans, 115, 119: opposes Sici
lian scheme, 117 : swears to the
Provisions, 207 : mediates, 1260,
226: to Germany, 227 : arbitrator,
234, 237 : at Oxford, 1263, 245 :
mediates, 247, 249 : at Northamp
ton, 1264, 267 : at Lewes, 272,
280: property of, destroyed,
268 : estates of, kept by S. de
Montfort, 318 : ransoms himself,
327 : released, 351 : mediates,

Index.

597

cou
1267, 361: supports the Countess
of Leicester, 364.
Council, National, under Norman
kings, 3-8 : under Angevin kings,
II, 12 : in Magna Carta, 19 :
number, &c, of members of, 59,
293, 297 • places of meeting of,
164 : not representative, 167.
Council, of 1232, 59 : of 1234, 61 :
of Merton, 1236, 63 : of 1237,
64, 104 : of 1242, 55, 66: of
1244, 69 : of Lyons, 1245, 74,
76 : of Oxford, 1222, 153 : for
later years, see Parliament : of
15, 1258, 194, 195, 198, 214 : of
regency, 1259, 222 : of 9, 1264,
288, 326.
County, distinction of borough and,
297, 307 : representation of, 302,
305, 306, 309.
Croydon, Henry III at, 255.
Crusade, Albigensian, 36, 135 : in
Palestine, 1241, 52 ; used as pre
text by the Pope, 105, 108, 114 ;
by S. de Montfort, 235 • against
Frederick II, 118, 137, 147.
Curia, of Rome, exactions of, 28,
79, 149, 243 : venality of, 45, 49,
148, 149.

Darlington, John of, one of the 24,
1258, 193.
David, brother of Llewelyn, 368.
Dean, Forest of, Earl of Gloucester
in, 33°-
Derby, Robert, Earl of, seizes castles,
1263, 251 : lands of, ravaged,
264, 270 : at Chester, 1264, 315 :
imprisoned, 324 : defeated at
Chesterfield, 353 : pays seven
years' income, 356.
Despenser, Hugh, one of the 24,
1258, 194 : justiciar, 227 :
deposed, 230 : reinstated, 250 :
sides with S. de Montfort, 1263,
256 : at head of Londoners, 268 :
an arbitrator, 312 : death of, 343.
Disinherited, the, 349 : in Axe-

EDW
holme, 351 : at Chesterfield,
353 : terms offered to, 356 : at
E'y. 358-360 : submit, 361.
Domesday survey, 8.
Dominicans oppose S. de Montfort,
46 : subserviency to Pope, 80,
137 : position of, 138 : convent
of, at Oxford, 192 : at Montargis,
3^4- .
Dover, bull seized at, 76, 314 :
Henry III lands at, 1254, 107;
1262, 241 : importance of, 173,
330 : treasure seized at, 1258,
203 : occupied by Henry, 230 :
barons of, 245 : S. de Montfort
at, 1263, 247 : ceded to S. de
Montfort, 249 attempt of king
on, 1263, 254; 1264, 271 : reduced
by Edward, 350.
Dunstaple, H. Bigod at, 209 : tour
nament at, 323.

Earls, as distinct from barons, 9.
Edmund, son of Henry III, Sicily
offered to, 114, 116, 120 • pro
posed marriage of, 122 : rewarded,
348.
Edmund, son of Richard of Corn
wall, 351
Edward, Confessor, laws of, con
firmed, 5, 16 : relics of, 189.
Edward, son of Henry III, birth of,
47 : receives Gascony, 102 ; mar
riage of, 105, 112: gives way,
1258, 189 : resists the Provisions,
192, 205 : swears to them, 201 :
appeal of knighthood to, 213 ;
doubtful attitude of, 224, 225 : in
Gascony, 226 : character, ibid. :
in Paris, 240 : on Welch border,
1263, 244, 245 : plunders the
Temple, 247 : seized by S. de
Montfort, 249 ; submits again,
250 : centre of royalists, 251 :
holds Windsor, 253 : makes
attempt on Dover, 254, and
London, 255 : at Gloucester,
aid Oxford, 1264, 264 : at North-

398

Simon de Montfort.

EGR
ampton, 267; Rochester, 270 ;
Lewes, 271-281 : hostage, 283 :
at Wallingford and Kenilworth,
315 : cedes castles to S. de Mont
fort, 319 : compared to a leopard,
320 : swears to the Ordination,
327 : at Hereford, &c, 328 :
escapes, 330 : meets the Earl of
Gloucester, 331 takes towns,
332 • defeats S. de Montfort at
Newport, 333 : and his son at
Kenilworth, 335 : at Evesham,
338-343 : receives compensation,
348 : reduces Dover, 350 : and
Axeholme, 351 : captures A.
Gurdun, 353 : besieges Kenil
worth, 354 : in the north, 359 :
marches on London, 360 : re
duces the Isle of Ely, 361 : en
crusade, 362 : completes the
constitution, 363 : supports his
aunt, 364 : in Italy, 367.
Egremont, Bertram of, 88, 90,
101.
Eleanor, of 'Castile, marriage of,
105, 112.
Eleanor, .of Provence, marriage of,42,
62 : to France, 55 regent, 105 :
illness of, 124 : unpopularity of,
249 : in P'rance, 1263, 253 : in
fluence of, 161 • assembles an
army, 311 : returns, 350 : sup
ports her sister-in-law, 364.
Eleanor, Countess of Leicester,
takes the veil, 43 : marriage of,
44 : bears her first son, 46 : to
Prance, 48 : bears her second
son, 52 : at Kenilworth, 85 : to
Gascony, 92 : visits Adam Marsh,
102 : influence of, over Henry
III, 103 . claims of, 217, 218,
229, 233 : to France, 1259, 219 :
returns, 223 : Warden of Dover,
329 : at Dover, 331 : to France,
1265, 350 : subsequent life of,
364.
Election, form of, kept up, 6 : in
county court, 302.
Electors, in 1258, 194: in 1264,

FRA
288, 310 : of members of Parlia
ment, 302, 303.
Ely, Isle of, Disinherited in, 358,
360, 361.
Ely, Bishop of, insulted by Henry
III, no : Nicholas de, Chancel
lor, 250.
English, not to be distinguished
from French-born, 2 : language
used, 202.
Epernon, position, &c. , of, 31.
Escheat, tenants by, 301.
Evesham, position of, 336, 337 :
battle of, 338-343 : results of
battle of, 347 : visit of S. de
Montfort, the younger, to, 365.
Evreux, position, &c, of, 32 : in
possession of Montfort family,
33, 34-
Exchequer, recraited from the baron
age, 4 : barons of, 1258, 201.
Eyville, John d',one of Disinherited,
353 : occupies the Isle of Ely,
358 : joins the Earl of Gloucester,
360 : pardoned, 361.

Famine, in 1257-59, 186, 209 : in
1260-61, 228.
Farnham, castle of, held by A.
Gurdun, 353.
Ferrars, Robert, see Derby, Earl of.
Feudalism, under Norman kings, I,
17 : in Magna Carta, 23.
Fitz-Geoffrey, John, one of the 24,
1258, 193.
Fitz-Osbert, rising of, 13.
Fitz-Pamell, Robert, Earl of Lei
cester, 34.
Fitz-Warin, Bulk, expels Martin,
76.
Flanders, mercenaries of, 92 : army
of invasion in, 312.
Fletching, near Lewes, 271, 274.
Forests, royal tenure of, 6 : legisla
tion, 17 : charter of, 155.
Eos, Rocelin de, commissioner, 95-
France, expedition to, 1 230, 28 ;
1242, 55 : effect of wars with, 30,

Index.

399

ERA
59, 184: truce with, 88, 116,
121 : embassy to, 1258, 190 :
peace with, negotiated, 204, 212,
213 : negotiations with, inter-
rapted, 216, 217: peace with,
concluded, 219, 220.
Franciscans, the, subservient to
Pope, 80, 137: position of, 138 :
influence of, at Oxford, 175 :
convent of, at Lewes, 281.
Frederick II, Emperor, excommuni
cated, 27 : meets S. de Montfort,
45: quarrel with Rome, 48, 135 :
letter from nobles of Jerusalem to,
53 : entertains Richard of Cornwall,
54 : influence of, over Henry III,
82, 184: characterof, 136, 137.
Freeholders, not represented, 10,
23 : grievances of, 167 : increase
of, 301.
Fronzac, Count of, 90.

Gascony regained, 25 : S.de Montfort
lieutenant of, 87 : condition of,
88, 89: delegatt-s from, 97 : fresh
outbreak in, 119 : settlement of
difficulties touching, 220 : H. of
Almaine seneschal of, 366.
Geoffrey, Archbishop of York, resists
taxation, 13.
Germany, Emperor of, see Frederick
II, Richard of Cornwall: com
imported from, 186.
Gipfard, John, partisan of S. de
Montfort, 325.
Gloucester, importance of, 263 :
taken by Edward, 1264, 264;
1265, 322 : S. de Montfort at,
1265, 329.
Gloucester, William, Earl of, 34 :
Richard, Earl of, supports S. de
Montfort, 98: insulted, 187: one of
the 24, 1258, 193, 194: poisoned,
203 : leader of national party,
211: quarrels with S. de Montfort,
216, 225 : summons knights to
Parliament, 233: joins the king,

HAS
234 : exhortation to, 238 : death
of, 239.
Gloucester,. Gilbert, Earl of, follows S.
de Montfort, 240: at Oxford, 1263,
245 : at Lewes, 271-281 : an
elector, 1264, 311 : quanels with
S. de Montfort, 323, 324, 325 :
joins the Marchers, 328 : attempts
to rescue Henry, 330: meets
Edward, 331 : at Evesham, 339-
343 : rewarded, 349 : at Kenil
worth, 355: revolts, 359: occupies
London, 360: pardoned, 361.
Grand, Richard le, Archbishop of
Canterbury, 27, 28.
Gray, Richard de, one of the 24,
1258, 193 : sides with S. de Mont
fort, 254, 256: taken at Kenil
worth, 336.
Gregory IX, Pope, excommunicates
Frederick II, 27, 136: demands a
tenth, 28 : favours S. de Montfort,
46 : policy towards Plenry III,
60, 145 : towards England, 134.
Grosseteste, Robert, Bishop of Lin
coln, friend of S. de Montfort, 50,
85, 93, 106 : relations of, with
Oxford, 66, 175 ; with the Pope,
66, 76, 139, 142 : resists taxation,
71, 109: patron of the Friars,
138 : views of, on Church
and State; 141, 152, 154; on
episcopal rights, 139, 140; on
papacy and empire, 142 : policy
and character of, 141 : common
opinion of, 144.
Gualo, Cardinal, in England, 24, 25.
Guericiliana, grandchild of S. de
Montfort, 368.
Guido, Cardinal-Legate, an arbitra
tor, 282 : rejects arbitration, 313 :
excommunicates S. de Montfort,
314: made Pope, ibid.
Guildford, S. de Montfort at, 247.
Gurdun, Adam, taken by Edward,
353-
Hasta, Arnold de, 90.
Hastings, Henry of, sides with S.

4Q0

Simon de Montfort.

HEN
de Montfort, 277: wounded at
Evesham, 343 : leader of the
Disinherited, 360.
Henry I, feudalism under, 19 :
charter of, 5-7, 16 : coronation
of, 6.
Henry II, rules by law, 1,2: con
stitution under, 10-14 : system
of, 17, 83, 84, 160 : policy of,
151 : patron of the towns, 174:
influence of, 184: uses representa
tion, 297.
Henry HI, early years of, 24-30 :
gratitude of, to Pope, 25 : of
age, 26: weakness of, 27: quarrels
with H. de Burgh, 28 : to France,
1 23 1, 29 : dismisses H. de Burgh,
30 : receives S. de Montfort well,
40 : quarrels with Earl of Pem
broke^: allowsmarriageofS.de
Montfort, 43 : quarrels with S. de
Montfort, 47-50 : connection with
Frederick II, 48: reconciled to S.
de Montfort, 52: to France, 1242,
55-58 : absolved from oath to
Magna Carta, 60 : dismisses P. des
Roches, 61 : marriage, 62 : em
barrassments, 63 : unconstitutional
acts, 64 . lavish to aliens, 65,
82 : demands an aid, 1244, 69 :
obtains letter from Pope, 71 :
intends expedition to Scotland,
72; and Ireland, 73 : opposes
Pope, 75, 76 : gives way, 77,
80 : receives his half-brothers, 81 :
consents to demands of Parlia
ment, 1248, 83 : sends S. de
Montfort to Gascony, 87 : pardons
rebels, 90: distrusts S.de Montfort,
91, 94, 96 : quarrels with S. de
Montfort, 100: to Gascony, 1253,
105 : his incapacity, 106 : returns,
107 : agreement with Pope, 108 :
demands aid, 109, 1 10 : confirms
charters, 1 1 1 : accepts Sicily, &c. ,
114, 115 : urges the Sicilian
scheme, 116-120: changes foreign
policy, 1257, 121 : character of,
124 : relations of, with S. de

HEN
Montfort, 127: his party, 131 :
relations of, with Rome, 139,
145, 146 ; with the English
Church, 141, 151, 153; with the
barons, 153, 161 : under opposite
influences, 145 : rules without
ministers, 161 : not checked by
Parliament, 165 : exactions of,
from London, 169-171; from
Cinque Ports, 172 : favours the
towns, 174 : public opinion of,
177 : policy of, 184, 185 : demands
aid, 1258, 187, 188 : gives way,
189 : promises to observe the
Provisions, 190, 201 : influenced
by his half-brothers, 191, 192 :
his party, at Oxford, 193 : to
Winchester, 202 : confirms power
of the 24, 203 : hostility of, to
S. de Montfort, 210: disputes of,
with the Countess of Leicester, 217,
218: to Paris, 1259, 219: character
of struggle with S. de Montfort,
221 : connection with Louis IX,
222 : revives former policy, 223 :
returns to England, 224 : alien
ated from Edward, 225 : in the
Tower, 1260, 227 : declares
against the Provisions, 228, 237 :
gets papal absolution, 229, 230 :
recovers power, 231, 238 : sum
mons knights, 1261, 233 : writes
to Louis IX, 235 : negotiates
with the barons, 236 : to France,
1262, 240 : returns, 241 : mis
taken policy of, 242 : claims
allegiance, 1263, 245 • rejects
terms of peace, 246 : in the
Tower, 247 : negotiates, 248 :
promises to observe the Provisions,
249 : to Boulogne, 252 : returns,
253 : attacks Dover, 254, and
London, 255 : connection of, with
Louis IX, 258 : to Amiens, 1264,
260 : in France, 263 : at Oxford,
264, 265 : rejects terms of peace,
266 : takes Northampton, 267 :
at Rochester, 270 : at Lewes,
271-281 : financial tutelage of,

Index.

401

HEN
283 : to London, 285 : effect of
his weakness on constitution, 296:
confirms Ordinance of London,
326 : at Hereford, 329, 330 : at
Evesham, 337-343 : action of,
after victory, 348 : at Canterbury,
350: at Northampton, 351 : to
London, 1266, 352 : at Kenil
worth, 354, 355 : at Cambridge,
358 : demands a tenth, 359 : to
London, 360 : negotiates, 361 :
last years of, 363 : relents towards
the Countess of Leicester, 364.
Henry of Almaine, see Almaine.
Hereford, Humfrey, Earl of, one of
the 24, 1258, 194: sideswithS.de
Montfort, 216; with the king, 256:
arbitrator at Kenilworth, 355.
Hereford, Jews of, plundered, 244 :
S. de Montfort at, 329, 333, 336:
/W«-,Bishop of, see Aigueblanche.
Honorius III, Pope, his demands,
27 : favours PI. de Burgh, 61,
65 : his policy towards Henry
III, 134.
Huntingdon, earldom of, 127.
Innocent HI, Pope, policy of, 27,
134, 139 : urges Albigensian
crusade, 37.
Innocent IV, Pope, 68: policy of,
towards Henry III, 71, 75, 105,
108, 139, 145, 146: offers Sicily to
Edmund, 1 14 . uses the bishops,
139: supports Grosseteste, 140:
extortions of, 144 : policy of, con
demned by Louis IX, 136.
Isabella, wife of Frederick 11,48,62.
Isabella, wife of Richard of Cornwall,
43-
Isabella, widow of John, 81.
Isleworth, palace of Richard of Corn
wall, 250, 268.
Jerusalem, letter from nobles of,
53 : kingdom of, restored, 136.
Jews, fined by Henry III, 108, 125:
collusion of justices with, 162:
of London, 268: of Lincoln, 358.

KNI
John, legislation under, 12 : death
of, 15 : connection with S. de
Montfort the crusader, 36, 37 :
relations of, with London, 1 68,
169: favours towns, 174: uses
representation, 297, 304.
Jurisdiction, civil and ecclesiastical,
question of, 5, 150, 154, 286.
Justices, itinerant, authority of, 201 :
proceedings of, 1258, 208 : ap
pointment of, 214 : refused ad
mission, 228.
Justiciar, Chief, growth of power
of, 36 : question of appointment
of, 70, 71, 83, 84, 113, 160, 200,
260 : need of a, 161, 191 : H.
Bigod made, 200 : H. Despenser,
227 : P. Basset, 230: H. De
spenser again, 250 : S. de Mont
fort, 322.

Katharine, daughter of Henry III,
124.
Kempsey, near Worcester, 336.
Kenilworth, S. de Montfort at,46,85,
254: given up by S. de Mont
fort, 192 : strength of, 264, 348,
351 : Edward imprisoned at, 315 :
S. de Montfort, the younger, sur
prised at, 324 : siege of, 354,
355-
Kenilworth, Dictum of, 355, 36L
Kent, population of, sides with the
barons, 271.
Kingston, barons summoned to,
336 : Edward seized at, 249 :
taken by Henry, 270.
Knights, number of, under Henry
II, 10 : four in each county to be
elected, 1258, 200, 204, 209 :
protest of the, 1259, 213 : four,
to watch the sheriffs, 214: super
seded, 215 : summoned to Parlia
ment, 1261, 233; 1264, 285, 294:
sheriffs to be chosen from, 236 :
occasions of summons, 300 :
elected at county court, 302 :
definition of, 303.
D D

402'

Simon de Montfort.

LAN
Langton, Stephen, Archbishop of
Canterbury, 13, 24: death of, 27.
Law, reign of, introduced, 2 -.
superiority of, to the king, 180-
183.
Laws of Edward confirmed, 5, '6:
paucity of, 8 : not to be changed,
63-
Leicester supports Henry II, 174:
taken by Henry III, 270.
Leicester, Robert, Earl of, 34 : Simon,
Earl of, see Montfort : earldom of,
withHighStewardship,35: connex
ion of, with Montforts, 38, 40, 46.
Lewes, battle of, 271-281 : Mise of,
282-284 : observed, 287, 325 :
violated, 313 : Song on battle of,
178, 319-
Leyburne, royalist baron, 330.
Lichfield, Bishop of, partisan of S. de
Montfort, 248.
Lincoln, privileges of, 173: sacked,
358: Bishop of, see Grosseteste:
Bishop of, 1263, partisan of S. de
Montfort, 248.
Llewelyn,a.t feud with Marchers, 241,
253: negotiations with, 250, 254:
allies with S. de Montfort, 332:
makes peace, 362: rebels, &c.,369.
Lombard League, 45, 137-
London, against John, 3 : in Magna
Carta, 17, 20: citizens of, quarrel
with the Abbot of Westminster,
25 : oppose S. de Montfort, 45 :
extortions from, 69, 88, 169 :
appeal to S. de Montfort, 90: on
national side, 1258, 131, 168,
192, 207 : importance and char
acter of, 169, 174: barons of, 9,
171, 173, 302: famine in, 186: in
Provisions of Oxford, 200: citizens
of, welcome Richard of Cornwall,
207: H. Bigod in, 208: liberties
granted to, 222 : Henry III in,
1260, 225, 227 : indignation in,
1263, 247 : rises against Henry,
248 : receives S. de Montfort,
249: partly alienated from S.
de Montfort, 251 . secured by

MAN
S. de Montfort, 254: supports S.
de Montfort, 255 : rejects Mise of
Amiens, 261 : rising in, 1264,
268, 269 : citizens of) at Lewes,
271, 277 : represented by ttie
Mayor, 307: democratic party in,
grows weaker, 332, 333 : punished,
349: receives the Earl of Glouces
ter, 359, 36°: makes peace, 361.
London, Ordinance of \ see Ordinance.
London, Fulk, Bishop of, opposes the
king, 117, nS: oneofthe24, 1258,
193: death of,209: Henry, Bishop
of, partisan ofS.de Montfort. 248,
272: an arbitrator, 312: suspended,
352.
Longchamp, opposition to, 13.
Longespee, William, on crusade, 52,
53: in France, 57.
Louis VIII, of France, 25, 38.
Louis IX, makes A.de Montfort con
stable, 38 : makes Alfonse Count of
Poitou, 55 : supports Henry III,
131 : impartial attitude of, 2 1 6,
217, 221, 229: consents to arbi
trate, 233, 234 : disinclined to
arbitrate, 229, 240, 241 : proposed
as arbitrator, 250: meets Henry,
252 : arbitration of, accepted,
255: issues Mise of Amiens, 260:
criticism on, 261 : arbitration of,
proposed, 1264, 283 : neutral,
312: negotiations with, 1265,329:
favours family of S. de Montfort,
357, 364-
Ludlow, Edward at, 331.
Lusignan, Geoffrey de, ambassador,
190: at Oxford, 192: expelled, 203.
Lusignan, Guy de, comes to England,
93: ambassador, 190: at Oxford,
192: one of the 24, 1258, 193:
expelled, 203.
Lynn, fleet of, 359.
Lyons, Council of, 74, 76, 1 36.

Maine, ceded to France, 220.
Manfred, son of Frederick II, holds
Sicily, 114, 116, 118.

Index.

403

MAN
Mansel, John, one of the 24, 1258,
193: elector of council, 194: am
bassador to Scotland, 204 : flies
to France, 248 : obtains papal
letters, 258: property of, given to
H. de Montfort, 321.
Marclie,Hugh,Co\mt of la, promises
aid to Henry III, 55: deserts
him, 57.
Marchers, the, at war with Welch,
541 : feuds among, 243 : attack
Bishop of Hereford, 244 : side with
king, 1263, 251, 257; 1264,263:
banished, 315, 329: join the Earl
of Gloucester, 328: aid Edwards
escape, 330.
Margaret, Queen of P"rance, arbi
trates, 229 : influence of, 241, 261.
Margaret, wife of G. de Montfort,
365-
Marlborough, Parliament of, 362.
Marsh, Adam (oxde Marisco), friend
of S. de Montfort, 85, 92, 102 :
ambassador to France, 121: con
nexion of, with Oxford, 175.
Marsh, Robert, draws up list of
privileges, 155.
Marshall, William, Earl, see Pem
broke: Roger, Earl, see Norfolk.
Martin, papal nuncio, demands of,
68, 71, 72: expelled, 75.
Mayor of London, elected by
citizens, 169, 174: swears to
Provisions of Oxford, 207: sides
with S. de Montfort, 251 : repre
sents the city, 307.
Merchants, English, exactions from,
172: foreign, admitted, 287.
Merton, statute of, see Statute.
Merton, Walter of, Chancellor, 230:
deposed, 250.
Middlesex, represented by London,
169, 307.
Molis, Nicolas de, commissioner, 97.
Monarchy, Norman, absolute, 1-4:
rights of, discussed, 1 79 : position
of, in Provisions of Oxford, 198;
in Ordinance of London, 290.
Monmouth, S. de Montfort at, 332.

MON
Montargis, Dominican convent at,
3^4-
Montfort I'Amauri, position, &c,
of, 31, 32, 38.
Montfort, family of, 32, 33.
Montfort, Amauri VI de, claims the
earldom of Leicester, 38, 40 : on
crusade, 53, 54.
Montfort, Amauri de, flies to France,
350: subsequent life of, 367.
Montfort, Eleanor de, marries Lle
welyn, &c, 368.
Montfort, Guy de, at Lewes, 277: at
Evesham, 343: escapes, 352: to
Italy, 365 : murders H. of
Almaine, 366 : subsequent life of,
367-
Montfort, Henry de, born, 46: to
Gascony, 102: holds Dover, 173:
to France, 203: knighted, 226: at
Hereford, 1263, 244: to Amiens,
260: at Lewes, 277 : avarice of,
318 : attends Edward, 330 : at
Evesham, 343.
Montfort, Peter de (sen.), one of the
24, 1258, 194: on Welch border,
1263, 243 : to Boulogne, 252:
to Amiens, 260: at Evesham,343.
Montfort, Richard a^, flies to France,
350 : subsequent life of, 367.
Montfort, Simon IV de, Earl of
Leicester, 34 : marriage of, 35 :
character, ibid. : on crusade, 36 :
deprived of earldom, ibid. : re
stored, 37 : death of, ibid.
Montfort, Simon V de, early life of,
39 : first visit to England, claims
earldom, 40 : opposed by English
nobility, goes abroad, 41 : returns,
member of council, 42 : marries,
44 : opposed by nobility, to
Rome, 45 : returns successful,
46 : quarrels with king, 47, 48 :
to France, 48 : supported by
Grosseteste, 50: bribes Curia, 51:
reconciled to king, returns, 52 :
on crusade, 53 : in England again,
54 : to France, 1242, 55, 57 :
returns, 58 : on committee of.

404

Simon de Montfort.

MON
1244, 70: leader of opposition,
73 : signs protest, 1246, 78 :
public life of, 84 : private life of,
85 : takes cross, &c. , ibid. :
lieutenant in Gascony, 87 : first
success, returns, again to Gascony,
88 . letter of, to king, 89 : success
of, 89, 90 : returns, 9 1 : again to
Gascony, 92 : his difficulties, ibid. :
returns, 93 : letters of A. Marsh
to, 93 : accused, distrusted by
king, 94 : conduct of, investigated,
95 : again to Gascony, 96 : trial of,
98, 99 : quarrels with king, 100,
101: to Gascony again, 102: defeats
the Gascons, retires to France,
103 : rejects French offers, resigns
his post, 104 : goes to aid of
king, 105, 10O : returns to Eng
land, 106: in Parliament, 1254,
712: in England, 1254, 113:
ambassador to Scotland, 1 14 : in
France, 1255, 116; 1257, 121:
foreign policy of, 122: quarrels
with W. of Valence, 123, 187 :
public life of, till 1258, 127, 128:
private life of, 128 : political
character of, 129, 130: disadvan
tages, 132 : patron of Friars, 138:
supported by smaller barons, 167;
by London and Cinque Ports,
168; by Universities, 175: en
trusts Dover to H. de Montfort,
173 : link between clergy and laity,
176: political principles of, 178:
leads opposition, 1258, 188 :
ambassador to France, 190 :
gives up his castles, 192 : one of
the 24, 193 : objects to Provi
sions of Oxford, 200 : holds
Winchester, 202 : ambassador to
Scotland, 204 : hostility of Henry
to, 210 : jealousy of, 211 : weak
ness of his supporters, ibid. : con
stant, but loses power, 212 : at
Parliament, Lent, 1259, ibid. : to
France, 213 : quarrels with Earl
of Gloucester, 216 : yields pri
vate claims, 218 : conducts nego-

MON
tiations with France, 219 : ob
scurity of life of, 1260-63, 221,
232 : character of struggle with
king, ibid. : shifting power of,
222 : returns to England, 223 :
accused of introducing troops,
224 : quarrels with Earl of Glou
cester, 225 : supported by Edward,
ibid. : general against Welch,
226 : connection of, with Edward,
ibid. : influence of, 1 260, 227 ;
private dispute of, with king,
229 : summons "knights, 233 : to
France, 1261, 234 : negotiates
with Pope, 235 : pardon offered
to, 236 : remains abroad, 237 :
popular opinion of, 238, 239 r
returns to England, 1263, 239,
242 : sole leader, 240 : connexion
of, with Welch, 241 : in favour
with Louis IX, 242 : on Welch
border, 244 : negotiates, collects
forces, 245 : sends ultimatum,
246 : marches on Dover, 247 :
negotiates, 248 : to London, 249 :
supreme, 250 : constant, but loses
power, 25 1 : to Boulogne, 252 :
refutes charges, 253 : returns to
London, 254 : nearly taken by
king, 255 : proofs of constancy
of, 256 : motives for submitting
to arbitration, 257 : breaks his
leg, 1264, 260 : rejects Mise of
Amiens, 261 : sends his sons
westward, 264 : at Brackley,
negotiates, 265, 266 : to London,
267 : at St. Albans, 270 : attacks
Rochester, returns to London,
ibid. ¦ marches on Lewes, offers
terms, 271 : prepares for battle,
272, 273 : march of, 274 : plans,
276 : generalship of, 279 : com
plete victory of, 281 : dictates
Mise of Lewes, 282 : indemnity
to, 283 : ecclesiastical legislation
of, 286 : draws up scheme of
government, 287 : political genius
of, 289, 293 : enfranchises smaller
barons, 294 : political work of,

Index.

405

MON

OTT

296, 310 : wishes to unite clergy
and laity, 306 : one of three
electors, 1265, 311 : prepares for
invasion, 312 : excommunicated,
314 : subdues the Marchers, 315:
charges against, 316 : arrogance
of his sons, 318 : his difficulties,
318, 320 : exchanges castles with
Edward, 319 : poem in defence
of, 319 : justiciar, 322 : stops
tournaments, 323, 328 : quarrels
with the Earl of Gloucester, 324,
325 : upbraids the magnates,
320 : leaves London, 328 : goes
westward, 329 : summons army
against Edward, 331 : allies
with Llewelyn, 332 : cut off
behind the Severn, 333 : his
plans, 335 : marches on Eves
ham, 336 : conduct of, 337 :
death of, 343 : character of,
344 : effect of death of, 347 :
family of, outlawed, 348 : mira
cles of, 357 : work of, completed
by Edward, 363.
Montfort, Simon de, the younger,
born, 52: knighted, 226 : taken at
Northampton, 267 : goes to join
his father, 1265, 333 : surprised
at Kenilworth, 334, 335 : occu
pies Axeholme, surrenders, 351 :
flies to France, 352 : visits Eves
ham, 365 : murders Henry of
Almaine, 366 : death of, 367.
Montmorenci, Alice de, wife of
Simon IV de Montfort, 34.
Mortimer, Roger, one of the 24,
1258, 194 : pardon offered to,
236 : sides with king, 1263, 256 ;
1264, 263 : allies with Earl of
Gloucester, 329 : receives Edward,
331 :at Evesham, 339 : rewarded,
349-
Munchanesy, William de, taken at
Kenilworth, 336.
Navarre, King of, intrigues in Gas
cony, 87, 88.
Neville, Robert, royalist baron, 263.

Newcastle, ceded to S. de Montfort,
3'9-
Newport, Mon., S. de Montfort at,
332-
Nicholas, a mathematician, 39 :
another, 340.
Norfolk, Roger, Earl of, in France,
1242, 57 : on committee of 1244,
70: reply of, to king, 177:
against king, 1258, 188 : one of
the 24, 194 : elector of council,
ibid. : on council of regency, 222:
pardon offered to, 236 : on side
of king, 1263, 256 : excommuni
cated, 316.
Norman kings of England, 1-6.
Normandy, loss of, 2 : expedition
to, 1 1 77, 11 ¦' English claims on,
122 . ceded, 220.
Northampton, supports Henry II
and John, 1 74 : attacked by Ed
ward, 1264, 264, 267, tournament
at, 329 : on side of S. de Mont
fort, 334 : council at, 351.
Northern barons, against John, 14 :
royalist, 1258, 132, 263, 316.
Norwich, sacked by the Disinherited,
358.
Nottingham, taken by Henry III,
270.

Octavian, treasures of, 171.
Odiham, castle of Countess of Lei
cester, 43, 46, 328, 331 : given
up by S. de Montfort, 192.
Offham, near Lewes, 274-278.
Ordinance of London, 287-289 :
principles of, 289, 290, 295 :
compared with present system,
291 : incomplete, 292 : accepted,
3°5, 326.
Osney, riot at, 66.
Otho, papal legate, 66.
Ottoboni, cardinal-legate, arrives,
350 : suspends bishops, 352 : ex
communicates barons, 355 : for
bids miracles of S. de Montfort,
357-

406

Simon de Montfort.

OXF
Oxford, barons summoned to, 60 :
privileges of, 173 : University of,
175, 265, 267 : Parliament of,
191 : Provisions of, see Provi
sions : barons meet at, 1263,
245 : Henry III at, 264 : riot in,
265 : council at, 315 : S. de
Montfort, the younger, at, 334.
Oxford,Ha.Tl of. taken at Kenilworth,
336-
Pandulf Cardinal, 25.
Papacy, attitude of, under John,
13 : exactions of, 26, 29, 135,
139, &c. : relations of, with Eng
land, 134, 137 : gratitude of
Henry III to, 27, 126.
Parliament, early growth of, 3, 7,
14 : non-apparent in Magna
Carta, 20 : powers of, 23, 24,
166 : summons to, 164 : places
and times of meeting of, 164,
165 : growth of power of, 166 :
name of, in use, ibid. : of 1242,
67 : 1244, 69 : 1246, 78 : 1248,
82: 1249, 83 : 1252, no, 304:
1253, in : 1254, 106, 112 :
1255, 1,13, 117 : 1257, 120, 123 :
1258, 187, 191, 305 : to be called.
thrice a year, 195 : the Mad, 199V-
of Oxford, continued at Winches
ter and London, 203, 204, 206 :
1259, 212, 214 : no one to come
armed to, 60, 214 : forbidden by
king, 223 : of 1260, 225 1261,
227, 230, 304 : 1263, 250 :
1264, 285, 297, 305 : Jan. 1265,
297, 307, 321, 325 : °f 1264,
1265, incomplete, 308 : 1267,
358, 362 : 1295, 363.
Party, national and royalist, 1258,
131, 132 ; in 1263, 255 : princi
ples of national, 178.
Peak, Castle of the, ceded to S. de
Montfort, 319.
Pembroke, William, Earl of, 24, 25.
Pembroke, Richard, Earl of, against
Henry III, 43 : outlawed, 60 :
rebels, 61.

REO
Pembroke, Walter, Earl of, on com
mittee of 1244, 70 : William of
Valence, Earl of, see Valence.
Pembroke, Hugh Bigod and others
land at, 329.
Pestilence, 1258-59, 209.
Pevensey, royalists escape by, 281 :
besieged, 333.
Philip Augustus, connection of, with
Albigensian crusade, 37.
Philip III, of France, at Viterbo,366.
Pigorel, William, lieutenant of S.
de Montfort, 96.
Poitevins, see Aliens.
Poitou, regained, 25 : granted to
Alfonse, 55 : ceded, 58, 220.
Porchester, Countess of Leicester at,
331-
Prelates, foreign, in England, 26,
75, M9-
Proctors, English, at Lyons, 75 : at
Rome, 235.
Protest, of J 244, 70 : of 1245, 74 :
of 1246, 78 : of knighthood, 1259,
213.
Provisions of Oxford, 194 : charac
ter of, 197-199 : good points of,
200 : promise of king to observe,
201 : of Richard, 207 : well
received, ibid.: oath to, 210: S.
de Montfort objects to, 212: of
Westminster, 214, 215 : infringed,
223, 225 : not valid, 228 : king
released from oath to, 230 :
arbitration on, 234, 250, 255 : S.
de Montfort demands recognition
of, 1263, 246 : Henry promises
to observe, 249 : in Mise of
Amiens, 260, 261 : in Mise of
Lewes, 283 : abolished, 1265,
349 : confirmed, 1267, 362.

Radnor, castle of, taken, 264.
Reading, S. de Montfort at, 247 :
council at, 254.
Reigate, S. de Montfort at, 247.
Reole, La, citizens of accuse S. de
Montfort, 96,

Index.

407

REP
Representation, of smaller barons
wanting, 23 : in 1261, 213 : in
1264, 285, 304 : origin and
growth of, 297, 298 : uncertainty
about, 299 : occasions of, 300 :
machinery of, 302.
Representatives of the ''community,'
1258, 195, 196 : definition of,
, 303 : first actual appearance of,
3°4-
Rich, Edmund, Archbishop of Can
terbury, opposes S. de Montfort,
43,44; P. des Roches, 61.
Richard I, 2, 12 : R. Earl of Corn
wall, see Cornwall.
Roches, Peter des, Bishop of Win
chester, 25 : dismissed, 26 :
returns, 30 : has custody of Lei
cester estates, 38 : influence of,
59, 60, 135: dismissed again,
61.
Rochester, attacked by S. de Mont
fort, 270.
Ropeley, R. de, 37.
Ros, Robert de, 177.
Rouen, Archbishop of, an arbitrator,
312.
Rustand, papal nuncio, 117, 1 1 8.

Saintes, battle of, 57.
Sandwich, Henry of, see London,
Bishop of.
Savoy, Boniface of, 63 : Archbishop
of Canterbury, 66 : on committee
of 1244, 70 : unfitness of, 132 :
summons an assembly, 1258,
187 : one of the 24, 193 : on the
council, 195 : on council of re
gency, 222 : absent from Eng
land, 266, bidden to return, 286.
Savoy, Peter of, 63 : supports S. de
Montfort, 98 : ambassador to
France, 121, 190; to Scotland,
204 : on the council, 1258, 195 :
summoned, 1265, 324.
Savoy, Thomas of, 63.
Scarborough, held by H. Bigod,
231-

sus
Scotland, expedition to, 72 : tenth
from, 146 : in league with Welch,
186 : embassy to, 204.
Scutage, introduced, 12 : in Magna
Carta, 20 : taken, III, 155.
Segrave, Nicolas de, at Lewes,
277 : in Isle of Ely, 361.
Segrave, Stephen de, has custody of
Leicester estates, 37: justiciar, 61.
Sempringham, Guenciliana at, 368.
Severn, military importance of, 263,
332, 333-
Sheriffs, exactions of, 162, 214 :
removed, 1237, 163 : importance
of, 163, 302, 303 : complaints
against, 200 : enactments touch
ing, 201, 212, 236, 237, 362 :
removed, 1261, 231 ¦ resisted,
236 : expelled, 1263, 246.
Shrewsbury, Edward at, 332: army
to meet at, 362.
Sicily, offered to Edmund, 1 14 :
conditions touching, 115: the
scheme, Il6, 122, 184: repudiated,
204, 205: renewed, 223: offered
to Charles of Anjou, 258.
Sienna, merchants of, III.
Socage, tenants by, increase of, 301 :
unrepresented, 23, 167.
Song, on expedition to France, 55-
on battle of Lewes, 178, 319.
Southwark, poisoning at, 203: S. de
Montfort at, 255.
St. Albans, H. Bigod at, 109:
knights summoned to, 233: S. de
Montfort at, 269.
Statute, of Merton, 63, 154, 166: of
1297, 3°3-
Stephen, 4, 6 : recognised by London,
168.
Stewardship, High, office of, 35, 36:
held by S. de Montfort, 42, 322:
by H. of Almaine, 226.
Subtenants, rights of, in Magna Carta,
17, 18, 21 : unrepresented, 23,
167: grievances of, 167: increase
of, 301.
Sussex, population of, against king,
172: forests of, ibid.

408

Simon de Montfort.

TAX
Taxation, under Norman kings, 6-
10: under Angevins, 12 : in Magna
Carta, 19: importance of, 23:
question of assent to, 59, 64, 65,
67, 72, is6, 157, 298: disposal
of, 65: discussion on, 67: policy
of barons respecting, 155.
Templars, exemptions of, 80.
Temple, councils in, 206, 225 :
treasure in, 247, 268.
Tenants-in-chief, assent of, to tax
ation, 7> x9i 298: number of, 9:
duty of, 10: differences among,
ibid. : see also, Barons.
Tenth, granted by Pope, 1252, 108:
resisted, 108: collected, in, 236:
extended, 114, 119 : of Scotland,
146: demanded again, 1267, 239.
Tewkesbury, letter to monks of, 321.
Theobald, Archbishop of York, re
sists scutage, 13.
Toulouse, 37, 57-
Touraine ceded to France, 220.
Tower of London, barons summoned
to, 164, 227: Henry III in, 227,
230, 247, 248: Earl of Derby
imprisoned in, 324: yielded to
king, 348 : the legate in, 360.
Towns, unrepresented, 23: political
attitude of, 1258, 131, 174: con
dition of, 1 73 : represented, 308.
Treasurer, appointment of, 200.
Tunbridge, taken by Henry III, 270.
Universities, politics of, 132, 175:
University of Oxford dismissed,
265.
Urban IV, Pope, supports Henry
III, 235, 258: offers Sicily to
Charles of Anjou, 258: confirms
Mise of Amiens, 261 : appealed
to, 314.
Valence, Aylmei- of, Bishop-elect of
Winchester, 81 : supports the
tenth, 109: one of the 24, 1258,
193: expelled, 203: influence of,
205: dies, 206.

WES
Valence, William, Bishop-elect of,
63 : power of, 65 : death Of, 66.
Valence, WilliamofSi : quarrels with
S. de Montfort. 123, 187: opposes
the barons, 1258, 192 : one of
the 24, 193: expelled, 203: Earl
of Pembroke, 217: sides with
king, 1263, 256: opposes peace,
266 : property of, plundered, 268 :
at Lewes, 281: summoned, 1265,
324: lands at Pembroke, 329.
Viterbo, H. of Almaine murdered
at, 366.

Wallingford, 124: S. de Montfort
passes by, 1264, 247: Edward at,
315-
Wardens, of castles, 1258, 201: of
counties, 231.
Warenne, Earl of, one of the 24,
1258, 193: pardon offered to,
236: at Oxford, 1263, 245: at
Lewes, 281 : summoned, 1265,
324: lands at Pembroke, 329.
Warwick, John, Earl of, one of
the 24, 1258, 193: elector of
council, 194.
Welch, invade, 1233, 61: war with,
73, 78: ravage frontiers, 1257,
119: attack on, 120, 121: in
league with Scotch, 186: war
with, 1258, 188: truce with, 204,
226: war with, 1262, 241 ; 1263,
243, 244 : peace with, wanted,
254: in league withS.de Montfort,
1264, 263; 1265, 332 : at. endless
feud with the Marchers, 3 1 5 : make
peace, 1267, 362: rebel, 1282,
368: useful troops, 89.
Wengham, Henry of, commissioner,
95: one of the 24, 1258, 193.
Westminster, S. de Montfort married
at, 44: quarrel of Henry and S.
de Montfort at, 47: barons insist
on holding Parliament at, 64, 164,
227: fair at, I7I(: Parliament at,
1258, 187: Henry at, 1263, 250:
palace of, destroyed, 360.

Index.

409

WES
Provisions

of, see

Westminster, Provisions.
Westminster, Abbot of, quarrels with
Londoners, 25, 170: one of the
24, 1258, 193.
Wigmore, Edward at, 331.
William I, legislation of, 5, 150:
revenues of, 6.
William II, assemblies under, 5:
absolutism of, 7, 150.
Winchester, robberies at, 81, 163:
privileges of, ] 73 : held by S. de
Montfort, 202: barons at, 1258,
202, 203: Parliament at, 126 1,
230; 1265, 307, 348: sacked, 334.
Winchester, Saer de Quenci, Earl of,
36.
Wincliester, William, Bishop of, on
committee of 1244, 70: Aylmer,
Bishop of, see Valence.
Windsor, occupied by Henry, 1261,
230: knights summoned to, 233:
held by Edward, 1263, 247,253:
barons imprisoned at, 353.
Witenagemot, clergy in, 9.
Wolvesey, near Winchester, 192.

YOR
Wool, export of, forbidden, 172,
208 : seized by H. de Montfort,
318.
Worcester, S. de Montfort at, 1265,
329 : Edward at, 332, 335, 338.
Worcester, Walter, Bishop of, on
committee of, 1244, 70: bidden to
issue interdict, 77 : supports S.
de Montfort, 98: opposes Sicilian
scheme, 117 : ambassador to
France, 121: hierarchical tenden
cies of, 139, 140: one of the
24, 1258, 193 : on council of
regency, 222: summons knights
to Parliament, 233: negotiates
with Edward, 1263, 245, 248:
deceived by Edward, 249: con
stancy of, 255 : negotiates with
Edward, 1 264, 264 : at Lewes, 272,
273 : at Evesham, 342 : death r'
352-
Yarmouth, fleet of, 359.
Yolande, descendant of the Mont
forts, 38.
York, municipal privileges of, 173.

LONDON : PRINTED BY
Sr-OTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE
AND PARLIAMENT STREET
E E

MODERN HISTORICAL EPOCHS.
In course of publication, each volume infcp. 8vo. complete
in itself,
EPOCHS OF MODERN HISTORY:
A SERIES OF BOOKS NARRATING THE
HISTORY OF ENGLAND AND EUROPE
At Successive Epochs subsequent to the
Christian Era.

EDITED BY

E. E. MORRIS, M.A. Lincoln Coll. Oxford ;
J. S. PHILLPOTTS, B.O.L. New Coll. Oxford ; and
0. COLBECK, M.A. Fellow of Trim Coll. Oxford.

' This striking collection of little
volumes is a valuable contribution to the
literature of the day, whether for youth
ful or more mature readers. As an
abridgment of several important phases
of modern history it has great merit, and
some of its parts display powers and
qualities of a high order. Such writers,
indeed, as Professor Stubbs, Messrs.
Warburton, Gairdner, Creighton,

and others, could not fail to give us
excellent work. . . . The style of the
series is, as a general rule, correct and
pure ; in the case of Mr. Stubbs it more
than once rises into genuine, simple, and
manly eloquence ; and the composition
of some of the volumes displays no ordi
nary historical skill. . . . The series is
and deserves to be popular.'
The Times, Jan. 2, 1877.

Ten Volumes now published: —
The ERA of the PROTESTANT REVOLUTION.
By F. Seebohm, Author of ' The Oxford Reformers — Colet, Erasmus, More.
With 4 Coloured Maps and 12 Diagrams on Wood. Price 2s. 6d.
'Mr. Seebohm's Era of the Protest
ant Revolution shows an admirable
mastery of a complex subject; it abounds
in sound and philosophic thought, and as
The CRUSADES. By the Rev. G. W. Cox, M.A. late Scholar
of Trinity College, Oxford ; Author of the 'Aryan Mythology' &c. With a
Coloured Map. Price zs. 6d.

a composition it is very well ordered. . . .
This volume, in short, is of the greatest
merit/ The Times, Jan. 2.

'The earliest period, in point of time,
is that of the Crusades, of which we
have a summary from the accomplished
pen of the well-known Author of one of

the best and latest histories of Greece.
Mr. Cox's narrative is flowing and easy,
and parts of his work are extremely good.'
The Times, Jan. 2.

The THIRTY YEARS' WAR, 1618-1648. By
Samuel Rawson Gardiner, late Student of Ch. Ch. Author of ' History
of England from the Accession of James I. to the Disgrace of Chief Justice
Coke ' &c. With a Coloured Map. Price 2s. 6d.

'The narrative — a singularly perplex
ing task — is on the whole remarkably
clear, and the Author gives us a well-
written summary of the causes that led
to the great contest, and of the most

striking incidents that marked its pro
gress. Mr. Gardiner's judgments,
too, are usually just. . . . . The Author,
we should add, is very skilful in his de
lineation of historical characters.'
The Times, Jan. z.

The HOUSES of LANCASTER and YORK; with
the CONQUEST and LOSS of FRANCE. By James Gairdner, of
the Public Record Office, Editor of 'The Paston Letters' &c. With
5 Coloured Maps. Price 2s. 6d.
Mr. Gairdner's Epoch, 'Lancaster I and the conclusions of the Author are
and York,' is usually correct and sensible, j just and accurate.' The Times, Jan. 2.

Epochs of Modern History \

EDWARD the THIRD. By the Rev. W. Warburton,
M.A. late Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford ; Her Majesty's Senior
Inspector of Schools. With 3 Coloured Maps and 3 Genealogical Tables.
Price 2s. 6d.

* This Epoch is a very good one, and
is well worth a studious reader's atten
tion. Mr. Warburton has reproduced

extremely well the spirit and genius of
that chivalric age.' The Times, Jan. z.

The AGE of ELIZABETH. By the Rev. M. Creighton,
M.A. late Fellow and Tutor of Merton College, Oxford. With 5 Maps and
4 Genealogical Tables. Price zs. 6d.

' Mr. Creighton has thoroughly mas
tered the intricate mysteries of the
foreign politics of the whole period ; and
he has described extremely ably the re

lations between this country and the
other states of Europe, and the character
of the policy of the Queen and her coun
sellors.* The Times, Jan. 2.

The FALL of the STUARTS; and WESTERN
EUROPE from 1678 to 1697. By the Rev. Edward Hale, M.A.
Assistant Master at Eton. With n Maps and Plans. Price 2.?. 6d,
*Mr. Hale has thoroughly grasped I placed them in a very effective light.'
the great facts af the time, and has | The Times, Jan. 2.
The FIRST TWO STUARTS and the PURITAN
REVOLUTION, 1603 to 1660. By Samuel Rawson Gardiner, Author of
'The Thirty Years' War, 1618-1648/ With4 Coloured Maps. Price 2s. 6d.

'Mr. Gardiner's" First Two Stuarts
and the Puritan Revolution " deserves
more notice than we can bestow upon it.
This is in some respects a very striking

work. Mr. Gardiner's sketch of the
time of James I. brings out much that
has hitherto been very little known.'
The Times, Jan. 2.

The WAR of AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE,
1775-1783. By John Malcolm Ludlow, Barrister-at-Law. With 4
Coloured Maps. Price zs. 6d.

'Mr. Ludlow's account of the obscure
annals of what afterwards became the
Thirteen Colonies is learned, judicious,
and full of interest, and his description
of the Red Indian communities is ad

mirable for its good feeling and insight.
 The volume is characterised by
impartiality and good sense.'
The Times, Jan. 2.

The EARLY PLANTAGENETS. By the Rev. W.
Stubbs, M.A. Regius Professor of Modern History in the University of
Oxford. With 2 Coloured Maps. Price 2s. 6d.

* As a whole, his book is one of rare
excellence. As a comprehensive sketch
of the period it is worthy of very high
commendation  As an analyst of
institutions and laws Mr. Stubbs is cer
tainly not inferior to Hallam. His
narrative, moreover, is, as a rule, excel

lent, clear, well put together, and often
picturesque ; his language is always for
cible and sometimes eloquent ; his power
of condensation is very remarkable, and
his chapter on the contemporaneous state
of Europe is admirable for its breadth and
conciseness.' The Times, Jan. 2.

Volumes in preparation, in continuation of the Series ;—
The AGE of ANNE. By E. E. Morris, M.A. Original
Editor of the Series. [Nearly ready.
The BEGINNING of the MIDDLE AGES; Charles
the Great and Alfred ; the History of England in connexion with that of
Europe in the Ninth Century. By the Very Rev. R. W. Church, M.A.
Dean of St. Paul's. [In the press.
The NORMANS in EUROPE, By Rev. A. H. Johnson,
M.A. Fellow x>f All Souls College, Oxford. [Nearly ready.
FREDERICK the GREAT and the SEVEN
YEARS' WAR. By F. W. Longman, of Balliol College, Oxford.
The EARLY HANOVERIANS. By the Rev. J. T.
Lawrence, B.A. Downing College, Cambridge.
The FRENCH REVOLUTION to the BATTLE
of WATERLOO, 1789-1815. By Bertha M. Cordeey, Author of 'The
Struggle against Absolute Monarchy.
London, LONGMANS & CO.

TvI-A-HOH 1377.
GEIERAL LIST OE WOEKS
PUBLISHED BY
Messrs. LONGMANS, GREEN, and CO
PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON.
History, Politics, Historical Memoirs, &c.
SKETCHES of OTTOMAN HISTORY. By the Very Rev. R. W.
Church, Dean of St. Paul's. 1 vol. crown 8vo. [Nearly ready.
The EASTEEN QUESTION. By the Rev. Malcolm MacColl, M.A.
Svo. [Nearly ready.
The HISTOEY of ENGLAND from the Fall of Wolsey to the Defeat
of the Spanish Armada. By Jambs Anthony Froude, M.A. late Fellow
of Exeter College, Oxford.
Library Edition, Twelve Volumes, 8vo. price £8. 18s.
Cabinet Edition, Twelve Volumes, crown 8vo. price 72s.
The ENGLISH in IRELAND in the EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
By James Anthony Fbodde, M.A. late Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford.
3 vols. 8yo. price 48s.
The HISTOEY of ENGLAND from the Accession of James the Second.
By Lord Macaulay.
Stt/dskt's Edition, 2 vols, crown 8vo. 12s.
People's EDrnoN, 4 vols, crown 8vo. 16s.
Cabinet Edition, 8 .vols, post 8vo. 48*.
Library Edition, & vols. 8vo. £4.
tOED MACAULAY' S WORKS. Complete and Uniform Library
Edition. Edited by his Sister, Lady Tbevelyan. 8 vols. 8vo. with Portrait ,
price £5. 5s. cloth, or £8. 8s. bound in tree-calf by Riviere.
On PABLIAMENTAEY GOVERNMENT in ENGLAND; its Origin,
Development, and Practical Operation. By alpheus Todd, Librarian of the
Legislative Assembly of Canada. 2 vols. 8vo. price £1. 17s.
The CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY of ENGLAND, since the Acces
sion of George III. 1760—1860. By Sir Thomas Ersktne May, K.C.B. D.C.L.
The Fifth Edition, thoroughly revised. 3 vols, crown 8vo. price 18s.
DEMOCRACY in EUROPE; a History. By Sir Thomas Eeskinb
May, K.C.B. D.C.L. 2 vols. 8vo. [In the press.
JOURNAL of the REIGNS of KING GEORGE IV. and KING
WILLIAM IV. By the late Chables C. F. Grkvtlle, Esq. Edited by Henry
Reeve, Esq. Fifth Edition. 3 vols. Svo. 36j.
A

2 NEW WORKS joblished by LONGMANS and CO.
The OXFORD REFORMERS — John Colet, Erasmus, and Thomaa
More ; being a History of their Fellow-work. By Frederic Sbkbohm.
Second Edition, enlarged. 8vo. 14s.
LECTURES on the HISTORY of ENGLAND, from the Earliest Times
to the Death of King Edward II. By William Longman, F.S.A. With Maps
and Illustrations. 8vo. 15s.
The HISTORY of the LIFE and TIMES of EDWARD the THIRD.
By William Lonqman, F.S.A. With 9 Maps, 8 Hates, and 16 Woodcuts.
2 vols. 8vo. 28s.
INTRODUCTORY LECTURES on MODERN HISTOEY. By
Thomas Arnold, D.D. 8to. price 7s. Rd.
WATEELOO LECTURES ; a Study of the Campaign of 1815. By
Colonel Charles 0. Chesnhy, E.E. Third Edition. 8vo. with Map, 10s. 6d.
The LIFE of SIMON DE MONTFOET, EARL of LEICESTEE, with
special reference to the Parliamentary History of his time. By George
Walter Prothero, M.A. With 2 Maps. Crown 8vo. 9s.
HISTOEY of ENGLAND nnder the DUKE of BUCKINGHAM and
CHARLES the FIEST, 1624-1628. By Samuel Eawson Gardiner, late
Student of Ch. Ch. 2 vols. 8vo. with Two Maps, price 24s.
The PEESONAL GOVEBNMENT of CHAELES I. from the Death of
Buckingham to the Declaration of the Judges in favour of Ship Money, 1628-
1637. By S. B. Gardiner, late Student of Ch. Ch. 2 vols. 8vo. [In the press.
The SIXTH OEIENTAL MONAECHY ; or, the Geography, History,
and Antiquities of PAETHIA. By George Eawltnson, M.A. Professor of
Ancient History in the University of Oxford. Maps and Illustrations. 8vo. 16s.
The SEVENTH GEEAT OEIENTAL MONAECHY; or, a History of
the SASSANIANS : with Notices, Geographical and Antiquarian. By G.
Rawltnson, M.A. Map and numerous Illustrations. 8vo. price 28s.
ISLAM nnder the ARABS. By Robert Curie Oseohn, Major in
the Bengal Staff Corps. 8vo. 12s.
A HISTORY of GREECE. By the Rev. George W. Cox, M.A. late
Scholar of Trinity College, Oxford. Vols. I. & II. (to the Close of the Pelo-
ponnesian War). 8vo. with Maps and Plans, 36s.
GENERAL HISTORY of GREECE to the Death of Alexander the
Great ; with a Sketch of the Subsequent History to the Present Time. By
George W. Cox, M.A. With 11 Maps. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6<2.
The HISTORY of ROME. By William Ihne. Vols. I. and II.
8vo. price 30s. The Third Volume is in the press.
GENERAL HISTORY OF ROME from the Foundation of the City to
the Fall of Augustulus, B.C. 753— A.D. 476. By the Very Eev. C. Merivalh,
D.D. Dean of Ely. With Five Maps. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
HISTORY of the ROMANS nnder the EMPIRE. By the Very Rev.
C. Meiuyale, D.D. Dean of Ely. 8 vols, post 8vo. 48s.
The FALL of the ROMAN REPUBLIC ; a Short History of the Last
Century of the Commonwealth. By the same Author. 12mo. 7s. 6d.
The STUDENT'S MANUAL of the HISTORY of INDIA, from the
Earliest Period to the Present. By Colonel Meadows Taylor, M. R.A.I?.
M.B.I.A. Second Thousand. Crown 8vo. with Maps, 7s. 6d.

NEW WORKS published BY LONGMANS and 00. 3
INDIAN POLITY ; a View of the System of Administration in India.
By Lieutenant-Colonel George Chesnby, Fellow of the University of Calcutta.
8vo. with Map, 21s.
The HISTORY of PRUSSIA, from the Earliest Times to the Present
Day ; traoing the Origin and Development of her Military Organisation. By
Captain W. J. Wyatt. Vols. I. and H. A.D. 700 to a.d. 1525. 8vo. 36s.
The CHILDHOOD of the ENGLISH NATION ; or, the Beginnings
of English History. By Ella S. Armitage. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
POPULAR HISTORY of FRANCE, from the Earliest Times to the
Death of Louis XIV. By Elizabeth M. Sewbll, Author of ' Amy Herbert ' &c.
With 8 Coloured Maps. Crown 8vo. 7s. lid.
LORD MACAULAY'S CRITICAL and HISTORICAL ESSAYS. Cheap
Edition, authorised and complete. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Cabinet Edition, 4 vols, post 8vo. 24s. I Library Edition, 3 vols. 8vo. 36s.
People's Edition, 2 vols, crown 8vo. 8s. | Student's Edition, 1 vol. cr. 8vo. 6s.
HISTORY of EUROPEAN MORALS, from Augustus to Charlemagne.
By W. E. H. Leoky, M.A. Third Edition. 8 vols, crown 8vo. price 16s.
HISTORY of the RISE and INFLUENCE of the SPIRIT of
RATIONALISM in EUROPE. By W. E. H. Leoky, M.A. Fourth Edition.
2 vols, crown 8vo. price 16s.
The NATIVE RACES of the PACIFIC STATES of NORTH AMERICA.
By Hubert Howe Bancroft. 5 vols. 8vo. with Maps, £6. 5s.
HISTORY of the MONGOLS from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Cen
tury. By Henry H. Howorth, F.S.A. Vol. I. the Mongols Proper and the
Kalmuks; with Two Coloured Maps. Royal 8vo. 28s.
The HISTORY of PHILOSOPHY, from Thales to Comte. By
George Henky Lewes. Fourth Edition. 2 vols. 8vo. 32s.
The MYTHOLOGY of the ARYAN NATIONS. By Geobge W.
Cox, MA., late Scholar of Trinity College, Oxford, 2 vols. 8vo. 28s.
TALES of ANCIENT GREECE. By Geobge W. Cox, M.A. late
Scholar of Trinity College, Oxford. Crown 8vo. price 6s. 6d.
HISTORY of CIVILISATION in England and France, Spain and Scot
land. By Hemby Thomas Buckle. Latest Edition of the entire Work, with
a complete Index. 3 vols, crown 8vo. 24s.
SKETCH of the HISTORY of the CHURCH of ENGLAND to the
Revolution of 1688. By the Right Rev. T. V. Short, D.D. sometime Bishop of
St. Asaph. Eighth Edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. fid.
EPOCHS of ANCIENT HISTORY. Edited by the Rev. G. W. Cox,
M.A. and jointly by C. Sankey, M.A. Ten Volumes, each complete in itself,
in fcp. 8vo. with Maps and Indices : —
Beesly's Gracchi, Marius, and Sulla, 2s. 6d.
, Capes's Age, of the Antonines, 2s. 6d.
Capes's Early Roman Empire, 2s. 6d.
Cox's Athenian Empire, 2s. 6d.
Cox's Greeks and Persians, 2s. 6d.
Curteis's Rise of the Macedonian Empire, 2s. 6d.
Ihne's Rome to its Capture by the Gauls, 2s. 6d.
MERrvALE's Roman Triumvirates, 2s. 6d.
Sanxey's Spartan and Theban Supremacy. 1 In ^e ,,m,,.
Smith's Rome and Carthage, the Punic Wars. )
b. 2

NEW WORKS published by LONGMANS and CO.

EPOCHS of MODERN HISTORY. Edited by E. E. Morris, M.A.
J. S. Phillpotts, B.C.L. and C. Colbeok, M.A. Eleven volumes now published,
each complete in itself, in fcp. 8vo. with Maps and Index : —
Cox's Crusades, 2s. Gd.
Cretghton's Age of Elizabeth, 2s. Gd.
Gairdner's Houses of Lancaster and York, 2s. Gd.
Gardiner's Puritan Eevolution, 2s. Gd.
Gardiner's Thirty Years' War, 2s. Gd.
Hale's Fall of the Stuarts, 2s. 6d.
Ludlow's War of American Independence, 2s. Gd.
Morris's Age of Queen Anne, 2s. Gd.
Seebohm's Protestant Eevolution, 2s. Gd.
Stubbs's Early Plant agenets, 2s. Gd.
Warhurton's Edward III. 2s. Gd.
*** Other Epochs in preparation, in continuation of the Series.
REALITIES of IRISH LIFE. By W. Steuart Trench, late Land
Agent in Ireland to the Marquess of Lansdowne, the Marquess of Bath, and
Lord Digby. Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo. price 2s. Gd.
MAUNDER' S HISTORICAL TREASURY; General Introductory Out
lines of Universal History, and a series of Separate Histories. Latest Edition,
revised by the Rev. G. W. Cox, M.A. Fcp. 8vo. 6s. cloth, or 10s. Gd. calf.
CATES' and WOODWARD'S ENCYCLOPEDIA of CHRONOLOGY,
HISTORICAL and BIOGRAPHICAL. 8vo. price 42s.

Biographical Works.
The LIFE and LETTERS of LORD MACAULAY. By his Nephew,
G. Otto Trevelyan, M.P. Second Edition, with Additions and Corrections.
2 vols. 8vo. with Portrait, price 36s.
The LIFE of SIR WILLIAM FAIRBAIRN, Bart. F.R.S. Corre
sponding Member of the National Institute of France, &c. Partly written by
himself ; edited and completed by William Pole, F.R.S. 8vo. Portrait, 18s.
ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER, his LIFE and his PHILOSOPHY.
By Helen Zdimern. Post 8vo. with Portrait, 7s. Gd.
The LIFE and LETTERS of MOZART. Translated from the German
Biography of Dr. Ludwig Nohl by Lady Wallace. 2 vols, post 8vo. with
Portraits of Mozart and his Sister. [Nearly ready.
FELIX MENDELSSOHN'S LETTERS from ITALY and SWITZER
LAND, and Letters from 1833 to 1847. Translated by Lady Wallace. With
Portrait, 2 vols, crown 8vo. 5s. each.
The LIFE of ROBERT FRAMPTON, D.D. Bishop of Gloucester,
deprived as a Non-Juror in 1689. Edited by T. Simpson Evans, M.A. Vicar o£
Shoreditch. Crown 8vo. Portrait, 10s. Gd.
AUTOBIOGRAPHY. By John Stuart Mill. 8vo. price Is. Gd.
The LIFE of NAPOLEON III. derived from State Records, Unpublished
Family Correspondence, and Personal Testimony. By Blanchard Jerrold.
4 vols. 8vo. with numerous Portraits and Facsimiles. Vols. I. and II. price 18s.
each. The Third Volume is in the press.
ESSAYS in MODERN MILITARY BIOGRAPHY. By Charles
Cornwallis Chesney, Lieutenant-Colonel in the Royal Engineers. 8vo. 12s. Gd.
The MEMOIRS of SIR JOHN RERE8BY, of Thrybergh, Bart. M.P.
for York, &c. 1634—1689. Written by Himself. Edited from the Original
Manuscript by James J. Cartwright, M.A. 8vo. price 21s.

NEW WORKS published by LONGMANS and OC.

ISAAC CASAUBON, 1559-1614. By Mark Pattison, Rector of
Lincoln College, Oxford. 8vo. 18s.
LEADERS of PUBLIC OPINION in IRELAND; Swift, Flood,
Grattan, and O'Connell. By W. E. H. Lecky, M.A. New Edition, revised and
enlarged. Crown 8vo. price 7s. Gd.
DICTIONARY of GENERAL BIOGRAPHY; containing Concise
Memoirs and Notices of the most Eminent Persons of all Countries, frcm the
Earliest Ages. By W. L. E. Gates. Medium 8vo. price 25s.
LIFE of the DUKE of WELLINGTON. By the Rev. G. R. Gleio,
M.A. Popular Edition, carefully revised ; with copious Additions. Crown 8vo,
with Portrait, 5s.
MEMOIRS of SIR HENRY HAVELOCK, K.C.B. By John Ciark
Marshman. Cabinet Edition, with Portrait. Crown 8vo. price 3s. Gd.
VICISSITUDES of FAMILIES. By Sir J. Bernard Burke, C.B.
Ulster King of Arms. New Edition, enlarged. 2 vols, crown 8vo. 21s.
ESSAYS in ECCLESIASTICAL BIOGRAPHY. By the Right Hon.
Sir J. Stephen, LL.D. Cabinet Edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
MAUNDER' S BIOGRAPHICAL TREASURY. Latest Edition, re
constructed, thoroughly revised, and in great part rewritten ; with 1,500 addi
tional Memoirs and Notices, by W. L. R. Gates. Fcp. 8vo. 6s. cloth ; 10s. Gd. calf.
LETTERS and LIFE of FRANCIS BACON, including all his Occa
sional Works. Collected and edited, with a Commentary, by J. Spedding,
Trin. Coll. Cantab. Complete in 7 vols. 8vo. £4. 4s.
The LIFE, WORKS, and OPINIONS of HEINRICH HEINE. By
William Stigand. 2 vols. 8vo. with Portrait of Heine, price 28s.
BIOGRAPHICAL and CRITICAL ESSAYS, reprinted from Reviews,
with Additions and Corrections. Second Edition of the Second Series. By A.
Hayward, Q.C. 2 vols. 8vo. price 28s. Third Series, in 1 vol. 8vo. price 14s.

Criticism, Philosophy, Polity, &c.
The LAW of NATIONS considered as INDEPENDENT POLITICAL
COMMUNITIES ; the Rights and Duties of Nations in Time of War. By
Sir Travers Twiss, D.C.L., F.R.S. Second Edition, revised. 8vo. 21s.
CHURCH and STATE: their relations Historically Developed. By
T. Helsrich Geffcken, Professor of International Law in the University of
Strasburg. Translated and edited with the Author's assistance by E. Fairfax
Taylor. 2 vols. 8vo. 42s.
The INSTITUTES of JUSTINIAN; with English Introduction, Trans
lation and Notes. By T. C. Sandars, M.A. Sixth Edition. 8vo. 18s.
A SYSTEMATIC VIEW of the SCIENCE of JURISPRUDENCE.
By Sheldon Amos, M.A. Professor of Jurisprudence to the Inns of Court,
London. 8vo. price 18s.
A PRIMER of the ENGLISH CONSTITUTION and GOVERNMENT.
By Sheldon Amos, M.A. Professor of Jurisprudence to the Inns of Court.
Second Edition, revised. Crown 8vo. 6s.

NEW WORKS published by LONGMANS and CO.

A SKETCH of the HISTORY of TAXES in ENGLAND from the
Earliest Times to the Present Day. By Stephen Dowell. Vol. I. to the Civil
War 1642. 8vo. 10s. Gd.
OUTLINES of CIVIL PROCEDURE. Being a General View of the
Supreme Court of Judicature and of the whole Practice in the Common Law and
Chancery Divisions under all the Statutes now in force. By Edward Stanley
Roscoe, Barrister-at-Law. 12mo. price 3s. Gd.
Our NEW JUDICIAL SYSTEM and CIVIL PROCEDURE, as Re
constructed nnder the Judicature Acts, including the Act of 1876 ; with Com
ments on their Effect and Operation. By W. F. Finlason. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.
SOCRATES and the SOCRATIC SCHOOLS. Translated from the
German of Dr. E. Zeller, with the Author's approval, by the Eev. Oswald J.
Reichel, M.A. Crown 8vo. New Edition in the Press.
The STOICS, EPICUREANS, and SCEPTICS. Translated from the
German of Dr. E. Zeller, with the Author's approval, by OSWALD J. Reichel,
M.A. Crown 8vo. price 14s.
PLATO and the OLDER ACADEMY. Translated from the German
of Dr. Eduard Zeller by S. Frances Alleyne and Alfred Goodwin, B.A.
Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford. Crown 8vo. 18s.
The ETHICS of ARISTOTLE, with Essays and Notes. By Sir A.
Grant, Bart. M.A. LL.D. Third Edition. 2 vols. 8vo. 32s.
The POLITICS of ARISTOTLE ; Greek Text, with English Notes. By
Richard Congreve, MA.. 8vo. I8s.
ARISTOTLE'S POLITICS. Books I. III. IV. (VII.) The Greek Text
of Bekker, with an English Translation by W. E. Bolland, M.A. and Short
Introductory Essays by A. Lang, M.A. Crown 8vo. 7s. Gd.
The NICOMACHEAN ETHICS of ARISTOTLE newly translated into
English. By R. Williams, B.A. Fellow and late Lecturer of Merton College,
and sometime Student of Christ Church, Oxford. 8 vo. 7s. Gd.
ELEMENTS of LOGIC. By R. Whatelt, D.D. sometime Archbishop of
Dublin. 8vo. 10s. Gd. Crown 8vo. 4s. Gd.
LOGIC, DEDUCTIVE and INDUCTIVE. By Alexander Bain, LL.D.
In Two Parts, crown 8vo. 10s. Gd. Each Part may be had separately :—
Part I. Deduction, 4s. Part II. Induction, Gs. Gd.
PICTURE LOGIC ; an Attempt to Popularise the Science of Reason
ing by the combination of Humorous Pictures with Examples of Reasoning
taken from Daily Life. By A. SwrNBOURNE, B.A. Fcp. 8vo. Woodcuts, 5s.
ELEMENTS of RHETORIC. By R. Whately, D.D. sometime Arch-
bisliop of Dublin. 8vo. 10s. Gd. Crown 8vo. 4s. Gd.
COMTE'S SYSTEM of POSITIVE POLITY, or TREATISE upon
SOCIOLOGY. Translated from the Paris Edition of 1851-1854, and furnished
with Analytical Tables of Contents. In Four Volumes, 8vo. each forming in
some degree an independent Treatise : —
Vol. I. General View of Positivism and its Introductory Principles. Translated
by J. H. Bridges, M.B. Price 21s.
Vol. II. The Social Statics, or the AbBtract Laws of Human Order. Translated
by F. Harrison, M.A. Price 14s.
Vol. III. The Social Dynamics, or the General Laws of Human Progress (the
Philosophy of History). Translated by Professor E. S. Beesly, M.A. 8vo. 21s.
Vol. IV. The Synthesis of the Future of Mankind. Translated by R. Congreve,
M.D. ; and an Appendix, containing Comte's Early Essays, translated by H. D.
Button, B.A. [/» the press.

NEW WORKS published by LONGMANS and CO. 7
DEMOCRACY in AMERICA. By Alexis de Tocqueville. Trans
lated by Henry Rbeve, Esq. 2 vols, crown 8vo. 16s.
On the INFLUENCE of AUTHORITY in MATTERS of OPINION.
By the late Sir George CornewallLewis, Bart. 8vo. 14s.
BACON'S ESSAYS with ANNOTATIONS. By R. Whatelt, D.D.
late Archbishop of Dublin. Fourth Edition. 8vo. price 10s. Gd.
LORD BACON'S WORKS, collected and edited by J. Speddino, M.A.
B. L. Ellis, M.A. and D. D. Heath. 7 vols. 8vo. price £3. 13s. Gd.
On REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. By John Stuart Mill.
Crown 8vo. price 2s.
On LIBERTY. By John Stuart Mill. Post 8vo. 7s. 6i. Crown
8vo. price Is. id.
PRINCIPLES of POLITICAL ECONOMY. By John Stuart Mux.
2 vols. 8vo. 30s. Or in 1 vol. crown 8vo. prion 5s.
ESSAYS on SOME UNSETTLED QUESTIONS of POLITICAL
ECONOMY. By John Stuart Mill. 8vo. 6s. Gd,
UTILITARIANISM. By John Stuart Mill. 8vo. 5s.
DISSERTATIONS and DISCUSSIONS ; Political, Philosophical, and
Historical. By John Stuart Mill. 4 vols. 8vo. price £2. 6s. Gd.
EXAMINATION of Sir. W. HAMILTON'S PHILOSOPHY, and of the
Principal Philosophical Questions discussed in his Writings. By John Stuart
Mill. 8vo. 16s.
A SYSTEM of LOGIC, RATIOCINATIVE and INDUCTIVE. By John
Stuart Mill. Two vols. 8vo. 25s.
An OUTLINE of the NECESSARY LAWS of THOUGHT ; a Treatise
on Pure and Applied Logic. By the Most Eev. W. Thomson, Lord Archbishop
of York, D.D. F.E.S. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
PRINCIPLES of ECONOMICAL PHILOSOPHY. By Henry Dunning
Macleod, M.A. Barrister-at-Law. Second Edition. In Two Volumes. Vol. I.
8vo. prioe 16s. Vol. II. Part I. price 12s. Vol. II. Part LT. just ready.
SPEECHES of the RIGHT HON. LORD MACAULAY, corrected by
Himself. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
FAMILIES of SPEECH; Four LectureB delivered before the Royal
Institution. By the Rev. Canon Farrar, F.R.S. Crown 8vo. 3s. Gd.
CHAPTERS on LANGUAGE. By the Rev. Canon Farrar, F.R.S,
Crown 8vo. 5s.
HANDBOOK of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE. For the use of Students
of the Universities and the Higher Classes in Schools. By E. G. Latham, M.A.
M.D. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
DICTIONARY of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE. By R. G. Latham,
M.A. M.D. Abridged 'from Dr. Latham's Edition of Johnson's English Die-
tionary, and condensed into One Volume. Medium 8vo. price 24s.
A DICTIONARY of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE. By R. G. Latham,
M.A. M.D. Founded on the Dictionary of Dr. Samuel Johnson, as edited
by the Rev. H. J. Todd, with numerous Emendations and Additions. In lour
Volumes, 4to. price £7.,

8 NEW WORKS published by LONGMANS and CO.
ENGLISH SYNONYMES. By E. Jane Whatelt. Edited by Arch
bishop Whatelt. Fifth Edition. Fcp. 8vo. price 3s.
THESAURUS of ENGLISH WORDS and PHRASES, classified and
arranged so as to facilitate the Expression of Ideas, and assist in Literary
Composition. By P. M. Roget, M.D. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.
LECTURES on the SCIENCE of LANGUAGE. By F. Max Muller,
M.A. Sic. The Eighth Edition. 2 vols, crown 8vo. 16s. ,
MANUAL of ENGLISH LITERATURE, Historical and Critical. By
Thomas Arnold, M.A. Crown 8vo. 7s. Gd.
HISTORICAL and CRITICAL COMMENTARY on the OLD TESTA
MENT ; with a New Translation. By M. M. Kalisch, Ph.D. Vol. I. Genesis,
8vo. 18s. or adapted for the General Reader, 12s. Vol. II. Exodus, 15s. or
adapted for the General Reader, 12s. Vol. III. Leviticus, Part I. 15s. or
adapted for the General Reader, 8s. Vol. IV. Leviticus, Part II. 15s. or
adapted for the General Reader, 8s.
A DICTIONARY of ROMAN and GREEK ANTIQUITIES, with
about Two Thousand Engravings on Wood from Ancient Originals, illustra
tive of the Industrial Arts and Social Life of the Greeks and Romans. By A.
Rich, B.A. Third Edition, revised and improved. Crown 8vo. price 7s. Gd.
A LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY. By John T. White, D.D.
Oxon. and J. E. Riddle, M.A. Oxon. 1 vol. 4to. 28s.
WHITE'S COLLEGE LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY (Intermediate
Size), abridged for the use of University Students from the Parent Work (as
above). Medium 8vo. 15s.
WHITE'S JUNIOR STUDENT'S COMPLETE LATIN-ENGLISH and
ENGLISH-LATIN DICTIONARY. Square 12mo. price 12s.
&,™,™t„i„ / The ENGLISH-LATIN DICTIONARY, price 6s. 6d.
separately | jj, LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY, price 7s. Gd.
A LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY, adapted for the Use of Middle-
Class Schools. By John T. White, D.D. Oxon. Square fcp. 8vo. price 3s.
An ENGLISH-GREEK LEXICON, containing all the Greek Words
used by Writers of good authority. By 0. D. Yonge, M.A. 4to. price 21s.
Mr. YONGE'S NEW LEXICON, English and Greek, abridged from
his larger work (as above). Square 12mo. price 8s. Gd.
LIDDELL and SCOTT'S GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON. Sixth Edition.
Crown 4to. price 36s.
A LEXICON, GREEK and ENGLISH, abridged from Liddell and
Scott's Greek-English Lexicon. Fourteenth Edition. Square 12mo. 7s. Gd.
A PRACTICAL DICTIONARY of the FRENCH and ENGLISH LAN
GUAGES. By L. Contanseau. Post 8vo. 7s. Gd.
CONTANSEAU'S POCKET DICTIONARY, French and English,
abridged from the above by the Author. Square 18mo. 3s. Gd.
A NEW POCKET DICTIONARY of the GERMAN and ENGLISH
LANGUAGES. By F. W. Longman, Balliol College, Oxford. 18mo. 5s.
NEW PRACTICAL DICTIONARY of the GERMAN LANGUAGE;
German-English and English-German. By the Rev. W. L. Blackley, M.A,
and Dr. Carl Martin FuiedlAsder. Post 8vo. 7s. Gd.

NEW WORKS published by LONGMANS and CO. 9
Miscellaneous Works and Popular Metaphysics.
GERMAN HOME LIFE. Reprinted, with Revision and Additions,
from Eraser's Magatine, Third Edition. Crown 8vo. Gs.
THE MISCELLANEOUS WORKS of THOMAS ARNOLD, D.D.
Late Head Master of Rugby School. 8vo. 7s. Gd.
MISCELLANEOUS and POSTHUMOUS WORKS of the Late HENRY
THOMAS BUCKLE. Edited, with a Biographioal Notice, by Helen Taylor.
3 vols. 8vo. price 52s. Gd.
MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS of JOHN CONINGTON, M.A. late
Corpus Professor of Latin in the University of Oxford. Edited by J. A.
Symonds, M.A. With a Memoir by H. J. S. Smith, M.A. 2 vols. 8vo. 28s.
ESSAYS, CRITICAL and BIOGRAPHICAL. Contributed to the
Edinburgh Review. By Henry Rogers. 2 vols, crown 8vo. price 12s.
ESSAYS on some THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES of the TIME.
Contributed chiefly to the Edinburgh Review. By Henry Rogers. New
Edition, with Additions. Crown Svo. price Gs.
The ESSAYS and CONTRIBUTIONS of A. K. H. B. Uniform Cabinet
Edition, in crown 8vo. : —
Recreations of a Country Parson. Two Series. 3s. Gd. each.
The Common-place Philosopher in Town and Country. 3s. Gd.
Leisure Hours in Town. 3s. Gd.
The Autumn Holidays of a Country Parson. 3s. Gd.
Seaside Musings on Sundays and Week-Days. 3s. Gd.
The Graver Thoughts of a Country Parson. Three Series, 3s. Gd. each.
Critical Essays of a Country Parson. 3s. Gd..
Sunday Afternoons in the Parish Church of a University City. 3s. Gd.
Lessons of Middle Age. 3s. Gd.
Counsel and Comfort spoken from a City Pulpit. 3s. Gd.
Changed Aspects of Unchanged Truths. , 3s. Gd.
Present-day Thoughts. 3s. Gd.
Landscapes, Churches, and Moralities. 3s. Gd.
SHORT STUDIES on GREAT SUBJECTS. By James Anthony
Froude, M.A. late Fellow of Exeter Coll. Oxford. 2 vols, crown 8vo. price 12s.
or 2 vols, demy 8vo. price 24s. Third Series in the press.
SELECTIONS from the WRITINGS of LORD MACAULAY. Edited,
with Occasional Explanatory Notes, by George Otto Trevelyan, M.P.
Crown 8vo. price Gs.
LORD MACAULAY' S MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS :—
Library Edition. 2 vols. 8vo. Portrait, 21s.
People's Edition. 1 vol. crown 8vo. 4s. Gd,
LORD MACAULAY'S MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS and SPEECHES.
Student's Edition, in crown 8vo. price Gs.
The Rev. SYDNEY SMITH'S MISCELLANEOUS WORKS ; including
his Contributions to the Edinburgh Review. Crown 8vo. 6s.
The WIT and WISDOM of the Rev. SYDNEY SMITH ; a Selection of
the most memorable Passages in his Writings and Conversation. 16mo. 3s. Gd.
The ECLIPSE of FAITH; or, a Visit to a Religious Sceptic. By
Henry Rogers. Latest Edition. Fcp. 8vo. price 5s.
DEFENCE of the ECLIPSE of FAITH, by its Author ; a rejoinder to
Dr. Newman's Reply, Latest Edition. Fcp 8vo. price 3s. Gd.

10 NEW WORKS published by LONGMANS and CO.

CHIPS from a GERMAN WORKSHOP; Essays on the Science of
Religion, on Mythology, Traditions, and Customs, and on the Science of Lan
guage. By F. Max Muller, M.A. &c. 4 vols. 8vo. £2. 16s.
ANALYSIS of the PHENOMENA of the HUMAN MIND. By
James Mill. A New Edition, with Notes, Illustrative and Critical, by
Alexander Bain, Andrew Findlater, and George Grote. Edited, with
additional Notes, by John Stuart Mill. 2 vols. 8vo. price 28s.
An INTRODUCTION to MENTAL PHILOSOPHY, on the Inductive
Method. By J. D. Morell, M.A. LL.D1. 8vo. 12s.
PHILOSOPHY WITHOUT ASSUMPTIONS, By the Rev. T. P.
Klrxman, F.R.S. Rector of Croft, near Warrington. 8vo. 10s. Gd.
The SENSES and the INTELLECT. By Alexander Bain, M.D.
Professor of Logic in the University of Aberdeen. Third Edition. 8vo. 15s.
The EMOTIONS and the WILL. By Axbxander Bain, LL.D. Pro
fessor of Logic in the University of Aberdeen. Third Edition, thoroughly
revised, and in great part re- written. 8vo. price 15s.
MENTAL and MORAL SCIENCE: a Compendium of Psychology
and Ethics. By the same Author. Third Edition. Crown 8vo. 10s. Gd. Or
separately : Part I. Mental Science, 6s. 6d, Part II. Moral Science, is. Gd.
APPARITIONS ; a Narrative of Facts. By the Rev. B. W. Savtle,
M.A. Author of ' The Truth of the Bible ¦ &c. Crown 8vo. price 4s. Gd.
HUME'S TREATISE of HUMAN NATURE, Edited, with Notes
&c. by T. H. Green, Fellow and Tutor, Ball. Coll. and T. H. Grose, Fellow
and Tutor, Queen's Coll. Oxford. 2 vols. 8vo.. 28s.
ESSAYS MORAL, POLITICAL, and LITERARY. By David Hume.
By the same Editors. 2 vols. 8vo. price 28s.
*** The above form a complete and uniform Edition of David Hume's
Philosophical Works.
The PHILOSOPHY of NECESSITY ; or, Natural Law as applicable to
Mental, Moral, and Social Science. By Charles Bray. 8vo. 9s.

Astronomy, Meteorology, Popular Geography, &c.
BRINKLEY'S ASTRONOMY. Revised and partly re-written by J. W.
Stubbs, D.D. Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Dublin, and F. Brunnow,
Ph.D. Astronomer Royal of Ireland. Crown 8vo. 6s.
OUTLINES of ASTRONOMY. By Sir J. F. W. Hbrschel, Bart.
M.A. Latest Edition, with Plates and Diagrams. Square crown 8vo. 12s.
ESSAYS on ASTRONOMY, a Series of Papers on Planets and Meteors,
the Sun and Sun-surrounding Space, Stars and Star- Cloudlets ; with a Dissertation
on the Transit of Venus. By R. A. Proctor, B.A. With Plates and Wood
cuts. 8vo. 12s.
THE TRANSITS of VENUS ; a Popular Account of Past and Coming
Transits, from the first observed by Horrocks a.d. 1639 to the Transit of
A.D. 2012. By R. A. Proctor, B.A. Second Edition, with 20 Plates (12 coloured)
and 38 Woodcuts. Crown 8to. 8s. Gd.

NEW WORKS published by LONGMANS and CO. 11
The UNIVEESE and the COMING TEANSITS : Presenting Re
searches into and New Views respecting the Constitution of the Heavens ;
together with an Investigation of the Conditions of the Coming Transits of Venus.
By R. A. Prootor, B.A. With 22 Charts and 22 Woodcuts. 8vo. 16s.
The MOON ; her Motions, Aspect, Scenery, and Physical Condition.
By R. A. Proctor, B.A. With Plates, Charts, Woodouts, and Three Lunar
Photographs. Crown 8vo. 15s.
The SUN; EULEE, LIGHT, FIEE, and LIFE of the PLANETAEY
SYSTEM. By R. A. Proctor, B.A. Third Edition, with 10 Plates (7 co
loured) and 107 Figures on Wood. Grown 8vo. 14s.
OTHEE WOELDS THAN OURS; the Plurality of Worlds Studied
under the Light of Recent Scientific Researches. By R. A. Proctor, B.A.
Third Edition, with 14 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 10s. Gd.
The ORBS AROUND US ; Familiar Essays on the Moon and Planets,
Meteors and Comets, the Sun and Coloured Pairs of Stars. By R. A. Proctor,
B.A. Second Edition, with Charts and 4 Diagrams. Crown 8vo. price 7s. Gd.
SATURN and its SYSTEM. By R. A. Proctor, B.A. 8vo. with 14
Plates, 14s.
A NEW STAR ATLAS, for the Library, the School, and the Observatory,
in Twelve Circular Maps (with Two Index Plates). Intended as a Companion
to 'Webb's Celestial Objects for Common Telescopes.' With a Letterpress
Introduction on the Study of the Stars, illustrated by 9 Diagrams. By R. A.
Proctor, B.A. Grown 8vo. 5s.
CELESTIAL OBJECTS for COMMON TELESCOPES. By the Rev.
T. W. Webb, M.A. F.R.A.S. Third Edition, revised and enlarged ; with Maps,
Plate, and Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. price 7s. Gd.
The MOON, and the Condition and Configurations of its Surface.
By Edmund Neison, Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, &o. With 26
Maps and 5 Plates. Medium 8vo. 31s. Gd.
SCHELLEN'S SPECTRUM ANALYSIS, in its application to Terres
trial Substances and the Physical Constitution of the Heavenly Bodies. Trans
lated by Jane and C. Lassell; edited, with Notes, by W. Hugglns, LL.D.
F.R.S. With 13 Plates (6 coloured) and 223 Woodcuts. 8vo. price 28s.
AIR and BAIN; the Beginnings of a Chemical Climatology. By
Robert Angus Smith, Ph.D. F.R.S. F.C.S. With 8 Illustrations. 8vo. 24s.
AIR and its EELATIONS to LIFE. By W. N. Hartley, F.C.S.
Demonstrator of Chemistry at King's College, London. Second Edition,- with 66
Woodcuts. Small 8vo. 6s.
DOVE'S LAW of STORMS, considered in connexion with the Ordinary
Movements of the Atmosphere. ' Translated by R. H. Scon, M.A. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
The PUBLIC SCHOOLS ATLAS of MODERN GEOGRAPHY. In 31
entirely new Coloured Maps. Edited, with an llntrodnction, by the Eev. G.
Butler, M.A. Imperial 8vo. or imperial 4to. 5s. cloth.
The PUBLIC SCHOOLS ATLAS of ANCIENT GEOGRAPHY, in 28
entirely new Coloured Maps. Edited by the Rev. G. Butler, M.A. Imperial
8vo. or imperial 4to. 7s, 6d. cloth.

12 NEW WORKS published BY LONGMANS and 00.

KEITH JOHNSTON'S GENERAL DICTIONARY of GEOGRAPHY,
Descriptive, Physical, Statistical, and Historical ; forming a complete Gazetteer
of the World. New Edition (1877), revised and corrected. 8vo. price 42s.
MAUNDER'S TREASURY of GEOGRAPHY, Physical, Historical,
Descriptive, and Political. Edited by W. Hughes, F.R.G.S. Eevised Edition,
with 7 Maps and 16 Plates. Fcp. 6s. cloth, or 10s. Gd. bound in calf.

Natural History and Popular Science.
TEXT-BOOKS of SCIENCE, MECHANICAL and PHYSICAL,
adapted for the use of Artisans and of Students in Public and Science Schools.
The following Text- Books in this Series may now be had :—
Anderson's Strength of Materials, small 8vo. 3s. Gd.
Armstrong's Organic Chemistry, 3s. Gd.
Barry's Eailway Appliances, 3s. 6d.
Bloxam's Metals, 3s. Gd.
Goodeve's Elements of Mechanism, 3s. Gd.
 Principles of Mechanics, 3s. Gd.
Griffin's Algebra and Trigonometry, 3s. Gd.
Jenetn's Electricity and Magnetism, 3s. Gd.
Maxwell's Theory of Heat, 3s. Gd.
Merrtjteld's Technical Arithmetic and Mensuration, 3s. Gd.
Miller's Inorganic Chemistry, 3s. Gd.
Preece & Sivewright's Telegraphy, 3s. Gd.
Shelley's Workshop Appliances, 3s. Gd.
Thome's Structural and Physiological Botany, Gs.
Thorpe's Quantitative Chemical Analysis, 4s. Gd.
Thorpe & Mutr's Qualitative Analysis, 3s. Gd.
Tilden's Chemical Philosophy, 3s. Gd.
Unwtn's Machine Design, 3s. Gd.
Watson's Plane and Solid Geometry, 3s. Gd.
*»* Other Text-Books in continuation of this Series are in active preparation.
ELEMENTARY TREATISE on PHYSICS, Experimental and Applied.
Translated and edited from Ganot's Elements de Physique by E. Atkinson,
Ph.D. F.C.S. Seventh Edition, revised and enlarged ; with 4 Coloured Plates
and 758 Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 16s.
NATURAL PHILOSOPHY for GENERAL READERS and YOUNG
PEESONS ; being a Course of Physics divested of Mathematical Formula?
expressed in the language of daily life. Translated from Ganot's Cours de
Physique and by E. Atkinson, Ph.D. F.C.S. Second Edition, with 2 Plates
and 429 Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. price 7s. Gd.
ARNOTT'S ELEMENT3 of PHYSICS or NATURAL PHILOSOPHY.
Seventh Edition, edited by A. Bain, LL.D. and A. S. Taylor, M.D. F.E.S.
Crown 8vo. Woodcuts, 12s. Gd.
HELMHOLTZ'S POPULAR LECTURES on SCIENTIFIC SUBJECTS.
Translated by E. Atkinson, Ph.D. F.C.S. Professor of Experimental Science,
Staff College. With an Introduction by Professor Tyndall. 8vo. with nume
rous Woodcuts, price 12s. Gd.
On the SENSATIONS of TONE as a Physiological Basis for the
Theory of Music. By Hermann L. F. Helmholtz, M.D. Professor of Physics
in the University of Berlin. Translated, with the Author's sanction, from the
Third German Edition, with Additional Notes and an Additional Appendix, by
Alexander J. Ellis, F.R.S. &c. 8vo. price 36s.

NEW WORKS published BY LONGMANS AND CO. 13

The HISTORY of MODERN MUSIC, a Course of Lectures delivered
at the Royal Institution of Great Britain. By John Hullah, Professor of
Vocal Music in Queen's College and Bedford College, and Organist of Charter
house. 8v0. 8s. Gd.
The TRANSITION PERIOD of MUSICAL HISTORY; a Second
Course of Lectures on the History of Music from the Beginning of the Seven
teenth to the Middle of the Eighteenth Century, delivered at the Royal Insti
tution. By John Hullah. 8vo. 10s. Gd.
SOUND. By John Tyndall, LL.D. D.C.L. F.R.S. Third Edition,
including Recent Researches on Fog-Signalling j Portrait and Woodcuts.
Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.
HEAT a MODE of MOTION. By John Tyndall, LL.D. D.C.L.
F.R.S. Fifth Edition. Plate and Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.
CONTRIBUTIONS to MOLECULAR PHYSICS in the DOMAIN of
RADIANT HEAT. By J. Tyndall, LL.D. D.C.L. F.R.S. With 2 Plates and
31 Woodcuts. 8vo. 16s.
RESEARCHES on DIAMAGNETISM and MAGNE-CRYSTALLIC
ACTION ; including the Question of Diamagnetic Polarity. By J. Tyndall
M.D. D.C.L. F.R.S. With 6 plates and many Woodcuts. 8vo. 14s.
NOTES of a COURSE of SEVEN LECTURES on ELECTRICAL
PHENOMENA and THEORIES, delivered at the Royal Institution, a.d. 1870.
By John Tyndall, LL.D., D.C.L., F.R.S. Crown 8vo. Is. sewed ; Is. Gd. cloth.
SIX LECTURES on LIGHT delivered in America in 1 872 and 1873.
By John Tyndall, LL.D. D.C.L. F.R.S. Second Edition, with Portrait,
Plate, and 59 Diagrams. Crown 8vo. 7s. Gd.
NOTES of a COURSE of NINE LECTURES on LIGHT delivered at the
Royal Institution, a.d. 1869. By John Tyndall, LL.D. D.C.L. F.R.S.
Crown 8vo. price Is. sewed, or Is. Gd. cloth.
FRAGMENTS of SCIENCE. By John Tyndall, LL.D. D.C.L. F.R.S.
Third Edition, with a New Introduction. Crown 8vo. 10s. Gd.
LIGHT SCIENCE for LEISURE HOURS; a Series of Familiar
Essays on Scientific Subjects, Natural Phenomena, &c. By R. A. Proctor,
B.A. First and Second Series. Crown 8vo. 7s. Gd. each.
A TREATISE on MAGNETISM, General and Terrestrial. By Hum
phrey Lloyd, D.D. D.C.L., Provost of Trinity College, Dublin. 8vo. 10s. Gd.
ELEMENTARY TREATISE on the WAVE-THEORY of LIGHT.
By Humphrey Lloyd, D.D. D.C.L. Provost of Trinity College, Dublin. Third
Edition, revised and enlarged. 8vo. price 10s. 6d.
The CORRELATION of PHYSICAL FORCES. By the Hon. Sir W. R.
Grove, M.A. F.R.S. one of the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas. Sixth
Edition, with other Contributions to Science. 8vo. price 15s.
The COMPARATIVE ANATOMY and PHYSIOLOGY of the VERTE
BRATE animals. By Eiohard Owen, F.R.S. D.C.L. With 1,472 Woodcuts.
3 vols. 8vo. £3. 13s. 6d.

NEW WORKS published by LONGMANS and CO.

PRINCIPLES of ANIMAL MECHANICS. By the Rev. S. Hatohton,
F.R.S. Fellow of Trin. Coll. Dnbl. M.D. Dubl. and D.C.L. Oxon. Second
Edition, with 111 Figures on Wood. 8vo. 21s.
ROCKS CLASSIFIED and DESCRIBED. By Bebnhaed Von Cotta.
English Edition, by P. H. Lawrence; with English, German, and French
Synonymes. Post 8vo. 14s.
The ANCIENT STONE IMPLEMENTS, WEAPONS, and ORNA
MENTS of GREAT BRITAIN. By John Evans, F.R.S. F.S.A. With 2 Plates
and 476 Woodcuts. 8vo. prioe 28s.
The GEOLOGY of ENGLAND and WALES ; A Concise Account of
the Lithological Characters, Leading Fossils, and Economic Products of the
Rocks ; with Notes on the Physical Features of the Country. By H. B.
Woodward, F.G.S. With a Coloured Map and 29 Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. 14s.
The PRIMEVAL WORLD of SWITZERLAND. By Professor Oswald
Heer, of the University of Zurich. Edited by James Heywood, M.A. F.R.S.
President of the Statistical Society. With a Coloured Map, 19 Plates in Litho
graphy and Chromoxylography, and 372 Woodcuts. 2 vols. 8vo. 28s.
The PUZZLE of LIFE and HOW it HAS BEEN PUT TOGETHER :
a Short History of Vegetable and Animal Life upon the Earth from the Earliest
Times ; including an Account of Pre- Historic Man, his Weapons, Tools, and
Works. By A. Kicols, F.R.G.S. With 12 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 5s.
The ORIGIN of CIVILISATION and the PRIMITIVE CONDITION
of MAN ; Mental and Social Condition of Savages. By Sir John Lubbock,
Bart. M.P. F.R.S. Third Edition, with 26 Woodcuts. 8vo. 18s.
BIBLE ANIMALS; being a Description of every Living Creature
mentioned in the Scriptures, from the Ape to the Coral. By the Rev. J. G.
Wood, M.A. F.L.S. With about 112 Vignettes on Wood. 8vo. 14s.
HOMES WITHOUT HANDS ; a Description of the Habitations of
Animals, classed according to their Principle of Construction. By the Rev. J.
G. Wood, M.A. F.L.S. With about 140 Vignettes on Wood. 8vo. 14s.
INSECTS AT HOME ; a Popular Account of British Insects, theii
Structure. Habits, and Transformations. By the Rev. J. G. Wood, M.A. F.L.S.
With upwards of 700 Illustrations. 8vo. price 14s.
INSECTS ABROAD; a Popular Account, of Foreign Insects, theii
Structure, Habits, and Transformations. By J. G. Wood, M.A. F.L.S. Printed
and illustrated uniformly with ' Insects at Home.' 8vo. prioe 14s.
STRANGE DWELLINGS; a description of the Habitations of
Animals, abridged from ' Homes without Hands.' By the Eev. J. G. Wood,
M.A. F.L.S. With about 60 Woodcut Illustrations. Crown 8vo. price 7s. Gd.
OUT of DOORS ; a Selection of original Articles on Practical Natural
History. By the Eev. J. G. Wood, M.A. F.L.S. With Eleven Illustrations from
Original Designs engraved on Wood by G. Pearson. Crown 8vo. price 7s. Gd.
A FAMILIAR HISTORY of BIRDS. By E. Stanlet, D.D. F.R.S.
late Lord Bishop of Norwich. Seventh Edition, with Woodcuts. Fcp. 3 s. Gd.
KIRBY and SPENCE'S INTRODUCTION to ENTOMOLOGY, or
Elements of the Natural History of Insects. 7th Edition. Crown 8vo. 5s.

NEW WORKS published by LONGMANS and 00. 15
The SEA and its LIVING WONDERS. By Dr. George Hartwm.
Latest revised Edition. 8vo. with many Illustrations, 10s. Gd.
The TROPICAL WORLD. By Dr. George Hartwig. With above 160
Illustrations. Latest revised Edition. 8vo. price 10s. Gd.
The SUBTERRANEAN WORLD. By Dr. George Hahtwig. With
3 Maps and about 80 Woodcuts, including 8 full size of page. 8vo. price 10s. Gd.
The POLAR WORLD, a Popular Description of Man and Nature in the
Arctic and Antarctio Regions of the Globe. By Dr. George Hartwig. With
8 Ohromoxylographs, 3 Maps, and 85 Woodcuts. 8vo. 10s. Gd.
THE AERIAL WORLD. By Dr. G. Hartwig. New Edition, with 8
Ohromoxylographs and 60 Woodcut Illustrations. 8vo. price 21s.
MAUNDER'S TREASURY of NATURAL HISTORY, or Popular
Dictionary of Birds, Beasts, Fishes, Reptiles, Insects, and Creeping Things.
With above 900 Woodcuts. Fcp. 8vo. price 6s. cloth, or 10s. Gd, bound in calf.
MAUNDER'S SCIENTIFIC and LITERARY TREASURY. New
Edition, thoroughly revised and in great part rewritten, with above 1,000
new Articles, by J. Y. Johnson. Fcp. 8vo. 6s. cloth, or 10s. Gd. cab!.
BRANDE'S DICTIONARY of SCIENCE, LITERATURE, and ART.
He-edited by the Rev. George W. Cox, M.A. late Scholar of Trinity College,
Oxford ; assisted by Contributors of eminent Scientific and Literary Acquire
ments. New. Edition, revised. 3 vols, medium 8vo. 63s.
HANDBOOK of HARDY TREES, SHRUBS, and HERBACEOUS
PLANTS, containing Descriptions, Native Countries, &c. of a Selection of the
Best Species in Cultivation ; together with Cultural Details, Comparative
Hardiness, Suitability for Particular Positions, &c. By W. B. Hsmsley. With
264 Original Woodcuts. Medium 8vo. 12s.
DECAISNE and LE MAOUT'S GENERAL SYSTEM of BOTANY,
DESCRIPTIVE and ANALYTICAL. Translated by Mrs. Hooker. The
Orders arranged after the Method followed in the Universities and Schools of
Great Britain ; with an Appendix on the Natural Method, and other Additions,
by J. D. Hooker, F.E.S. &c. Second Thousand, with 5,500 Woodcuts. Imperial
8vo. 31s. Gd.
THOME'S TEXT-BOOK of STRUCTURAL and PHYSIOI0GICAL
BOTANY. Translated by A. W. Bennett, M.A. With Coloured Map and
600 Woodcuts. Small 8vo. 6s.
The TREASURY of BOTANY, or Popular Dictionary of the Vegetable
Kingdom ; including a Glossary of Botanical Terms. Edited by J. Ltndley,
F.R.S. and T. Moore, F.L.S. assisted by eminent Contributors. With 274
Woodcuts and 20 Steel Plates. Two Parts, fcp. 8vo. 12s. cloth, or 21s. calf.
The ELEMENTS of BOTANY for FAMILIES and SCHOOLS.
Tenth Edition, revised by Thomas Moore, F.L.S. Fcp. 8vo. with 164 Wood
cuts, 2s. Gd.
The ROSE AMATEUR'S GUIDE. By Thomas Rivers. Fourteenth
Edition. Fcp. 8vo. 4s.
LOUDON'S ENCYCLOPEDIA of PLANTS ; comprising the Specific
Character, Description, Culture, History, &o. of all the Plants found in
Great Britain. With upwards of 12,000 Woodcuts. 8vo. 42s.

16 NEW WORKS published by LONGMANS and CO.

Chemistry and Physiology.
INTRODUCTION to the STUDY of CHEMICAL PHILOSOPHY;
the Principles of Theoretical and Systematic Chemistry. By Wrr.UAM A. Tilden,
D.Sc. Lond. F.C.S. Lecturer on Chemistry in Clifton College. With 5 Woodcuts.
Small 8vo. 3s. Gd.
A DICTIONARY of CHEMISTRY and the Allied Branches of other
Sciences. By Henry Watts, F.R.S. assisted by eminent Contributors.
Seven Volumes, medium 8vo. price £10. 16s. Gd.
SUPPLEMENTARY VOLUME, completing the Record of Chemical
Discovery to the year 1876. [In preparation.
ELEMENTS of CHEMISTRY, Theoretical and Practical. By W. Allen
Miller, M.D. late Prof, of Chemistry, King's Coll. London. New
Edition. 3 vols. 8vo. Part I. Chemical Physics, 15s. Part II.
Inorganic Chemistry, 21s. Part III. Organic Chemistry, New Edition
In the press.
SELECT METHODS in CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, chiefly INOR
GANIC. By William Crookes, F.R.S. With 22 Woodcuts. Crown 8vo,
price 12s. Gd. ¦
A PRACTICAL HANDBOOK of DYEING and CALICO PRINTING.
By William Crookes, F.R.S. With 11 Page Plates, 49 Specimens of Dyed and
Printed Fabrics, and 36 Woodcuts. 8vo. 42s.
ANTHRACEN ; its Constitution, Properties, Manufacture, and Deriva
tives, including Artificial Alizarin, Anthrapurpurin, &c. with their Applica
tions in Dyeing and Printing. By G-. Auerbach. Translated by W. Crookes,
F.R.S. 8vo. 12s.
OUTLINES of PHYSIOLOGY, Human and Comparative. By John
Marshall, F.R.C.S. Surgeon to the University College Hospital. 2 vols.
crown 8vo. with 122 Woodcuts, 32s.
HEALTH in the HOUSE ; a Series of Lectures on Elementary Physi
ology in its application to the Daily Wants of Man and Animals, delivered to
the Wives and Children of Working Men in Leeds and Saltaire. By Catherine
M. Buckton. New Edition, revised. Small 8vo. Woodcuts, 2s.

The Fine Arts, and Illustrated Editions.
A DICTIONARY of ARTISTS of the ENGLISH SCHOOL : Painters,
Sculptors, Architects, Engravers, and Ornamentists ; with Notices of their Lives
and Works. By S. Redgrave. 8vo. 16s.
MOORE'S 1ALLA ROOKH, an Oriental Romance, Tenniel's Edition,
with 68 Illustrations from Original Drawings, engraved on Wood by G. Pearson
and other Artists. Fcp. 4to. 21s.
MOORE'S IRISH MELODIES, with 161 Steel Plates from Original
Drawings by D. Macllse, R.A. and the whole of the Text engraved on the same
Plates. Super-royal 8vo. 21s.

NEW WORKS published by LONGMANS and CO.

LORD MACAULAY'S LAYS of ANCIENT ROME. With Ninety
Original Illustrations engraved on Wood, chiefly after the Antique, from Draw
ings by G. Scharf. Fcp. 4to. 21s.
MINIATURE EDITION of LORD MACAULAY'S LAYS of ANCIENT
ROME, with the Illustrations (as above) reduced in Lithography. Lmp. 16mo.
10s. Gd.
HALF-HOUR LECTURES on the HISTORY and PRACTICE of the
FINE and ORNAMENTAL ARTS. By William B. Scott. Third Edition,
with 50 Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. 8s. Gd.
The THREE CATHEDRALS DEDICATED to ST. PAUL, in LONDON ;
their History from the Foundation of the First Building in the Sixth Century
to the Proposals for the Adornment of the Present Cathedral. By William
Longman, F.A.S. With numerous Illustrations, Square crown 8vo. 21s.
IN FAIRYLAND; Pictures from the Elf-World. By Richard
Doyle. With a Poem by W. Alltngham. With Sixteen Plates, containing
Thirty-six Designs printed in Colours. Second Edition. Folio, price 15s.
The NEW TESTAMENT, illustrated with Wood Engravings after the
Early Masters, chiefly of the Italian School. Crown 4to. 63s. cloth, gilt top ;
or £6. 5s. elegantly bound in morocco.
SACRED and LEGENDARY ART. By Mrs. Jameson. With numerous
Etchings and Engravings on Wood from Early Missals, Mosaics, Illuminated
MSS. and other Original Sources.
LEGENDS of the SAINTS and MARTYRS. Latest Edition, with 19
Etchings and 187 Woodcuts. 2 vols, square crown 8vo. 31s. Gd.
LEGENDS of the MONASTIC ORDERS. Latest Edition, with 11
Etchings and 88 Woodcuts. 1 vol. square crown 8vo. 21s.
LEGENDS of the MADONNA. Latest Edition, with 27 Etchings and
165 Woodcuts. 1 vol. square crown 8vo. 21s.
The HISTORY of OUR LORD, with that of his Types and Precursors.
Completed by Lady Eastlake. Latest Edition, with 31 Etchings and
281 Woodcuts. 2 vols, square crown 8vo. 42s.

The Useful Arts, Manufactures, &c.
GWILT'S ENCYCLOPEDIA of ARCHITECTURE, with above 1,600
Engravings on Wood. New Edition, revised and enlarged by Wyatt
Papworth. 8vo. 52s. Gd.
HINTS on HOUSEHOLD TASTE in FURNITURE, UPHOLSTERY,
and other Details. By Charles L. Eastlake, Architect. Third Edition,
with about 90 Illustrations. Square crown 8vo. 14s.
INDUSTRIAL CHEMISTRY; a Manual for Manufacturers and for
UBe in Colleges or Technical Schools. Being a Translation of Professors Stohmann
and Engler's German Edition of Payen's Precis de Chimie Industrielle, by Dr.
J.D.Barry. Edited and supplemented by B. H. Paul, Ph.D. 8vo. with Plates
and Woodcuts. [In the press.
B

18 NEW WORKS published by LONGMANS AND CO.

URE'S DICTIONARY of ARTS, MANUFACTURES, and MINES.
Seventh Edition, rewritten and enlarged by Robert Hunt, F.R.S. assisted by
numerous Contributors eminent in Science and the Arts, and familiar with
Manufactures. With above 2,100 Woodcuts. 3 vols, medium 8vo. £6 6s.
Vol. IV. Supplementary, completing all the Departments of the Dictionary to
the year 1877, is preparing for publication.
HANDBOOK of PRACTICAL TELEGRAPHY. By R. S. Cullet,
Memb. Inst. CE. Engineer-in-Chief of Telegraphs to the Post Office. Sixth
Edition, with 144 Woodcuts and 5 Plates. 8vo. price 16s.
ENCYCLOPEDIA of CIVIL ENGINEERING, Historical, Theoretical,
and Practical. By E. Cresy, CE. With above 3,000 Woodcuts. 8vo. 42s.
The AMATEUR MECHANICS PRACTICAL HANDBOOK; de
scribing the different Tools required in the Workshop, the uses of them, and how
to use them, with examples of different kinds of work, &c. with full Descriptions
and Drawings. By A. H. G. Hobson. With 33 Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. 2s. Gd.
The ENGINEER'S VALUING ASSISTANT. By II. D. Hoskolb,
• Civil and Mining Engineer, 16 years Mining Engineer to the Dean Forest Iron
Company. 8vo. [In the press.
The WHITWORTH MEASURING MACHINE ; including Descrip
tions of the Surface Plates, Gauges, and other Measuring Instruments made by
Sir Joseph Whitworth, Bart. By T. M. Goodeve, M.A. and C P. B. Shelley,
CE. Fcp. 4to. with 4 Plates and 44 Woodcuts. [Nearly ready.
TREATISE on MILLS and MILLWORK. By Sir W. Fairbairn,
Bart. F.R.S. New Edition, with 18 Plates and 322 Woodcuts, 2 vols. 8vo. 32s.
USEFUL INFORMATION for ENGINEERS. By Sir W. Fairbairn,
Bart. F.R.S. Revised Edition, with Illustrations. 3 vols, crown 8vo. price 31s. Gd.
The APPLICATION of CAST and WROUGHT IRON to Building
Purposes. By Sir W. Fairbairn, Bart. F.R.S. Fourth Edition, enlarged ; with
' 6 Plates and 118 Woodcuts. 8vo. price 16s.
The THEORY of STRAINS in GIRDERS and similar Structures,
with Observations on the application of Theory to Practice, and Tables of the
Strength and other Properties of Materials. By BrNDON B. Stoney, M.A.
M. Inst. CE. Second Edition, royal 8vo. with 5 Plates and 123 Woodcuts, 36s.
A TREATISE on the STEAM ENGINE, in its various Applications
to Mines, Mills, Steam Navigation, Railways, and Agriculture. By J. Bourne,
CE. With Portrait, 37 Plates, and 646 Woodcuts. 4to. 42s.
CATECHISM of the STEAM ENGINE, in its various Applications to
Mines, Mills, Steam Navigation, Railways, and Agriculture. By the same
Author. With 89 Woodcuts. Fcp. 8vo. 6s.
HANDBOOK of the STEAM ENGINE. By the same Author, forming
a Key to the Catechism of the Steam Engine, with 67 Woodcuts. Fcp. 9s.
BOURNE' S RECENT IMPROVEMENTS in the STEAM ENGINE in its
various applications to Mines, Mills, Steam Navigation, Railways, and Agri-
culture. By Jons Bourne, CE. With 124 Woodcuts. Fop. Svo. Gs.

NEW WORKS published by LONGMANS and CO. 19
LATHES and TURNING, Simple, Mechanical, and Ornamental. By
W. Henry Northcott. Second Edition, with 338 Illustrations. 8vo. 18s.
PRACTICAL TREATISE on METALLURGY, adapted from the last
German Edition of Professor Kerl's Metallurgy by W. Crookes, F.R.S. Sic.
and E. Bohrig, Ph.D. M.E. With 626 Woodcuts. 3 vols. 8vo. price SA 19s.
MITCHELL'S MANUAL of PRACTICAL ASSAYING. Fourth Edi
tion, for the most part rewritten, with all the recent Discoveries incorporated,
by W. Crookes, F.R.S. With 199 Woodouts. 8vo. 31s. Gd.
LOUDON'S ENCYCLOPEDIA of AGRICULTURE: comprising the
Laying-out, Improvement, and Management of Landed Property, and the Culti
vation and Economy of Agricultural Produce. With 1,100 Woodcuts. 8vo. 21s.
LOUDON'S ENCYCLOPEDIA of GARDENING: comprising the
Theory and Practice of Horticulture, Floriculture, Arboriculture, and Landscape
Gardening. With 1,000 Woodcuts. 8vo. 21s.

Religious and Moral Works.
CHRISTIAN LIFE, its COURSE, its HINDRANCES, and its
HELPS; Sermons preached mostly in the Chapel of Rugby School. By the
late Thomas Arnold, D.D. 8vo. 7s. Gd.
CHRISTIAN LIFE, its HOPES, its FEARS, and its CLOSE;
Sermons preached mostly in the Chapel of Eugby School. By the late
Thomas Arnold, D.D. 8vo. 7s. Gd.
SERMONS chiefly on the INTERPRETATION of SCRIPTURE.
By the late Thomas Arnold, D.D. 8vo. price 7s. Gd.
SERMONS preached in the Chapel of Rugby School ; with an Address
before Confirmation. By the late Thomas Arnold, D.D. Fcp. 8vo. 3s. Gd.
THREE ESSAYS on RELIGION : Nature ; the Utility of Religion ;
Theism. By John Stuart Mill. 8vo. price 10s. Gd.
INTRODUCTION to the SCIENCE of RELIGION. Four Lectures*
delivered at the Royal Institution ; with Two Essays on False Analogies and
the Philosophy of Mythology. By F. Max Mullbr, MA. Crown 8vo. 10s. Gd.
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION; an Inquiry into the Reality of Divine
Revelation. Sixth Edition. 2 vols. 8vo. 24s.
BEHIND the VEIL; an Outline of Bible Metaphysics compared
with Ancient and Modern Thought. By the Rev. T. Griffith, M.A. Pre
bendary of St. Paul's. 8vo. 10s. Gd.
The TRIDENT, the CRESCENT, and the CROSS ; a View of the
Religious History of India during the Hindu, Buddhist, Mohammedan, and
Christian Periods. By the Rev. J. Vaughan, Nineteen Years a Missionary of
the C.M.S. in Calcutta. 8vo. 9s. Gd. B 2

20 NEW WORKS published by LONGMANS and CO.
The PRIMITIVE and CATHOLIC FAITH in Relation to the Church
of England. By the Rev. B. W. Savile, M.A. 8vo. price 7s.
SYNONYMS of the OLD TESTAMENT, their BEARING on CHRIS-
TIAN FAITH and PEACTICE. By the Rev. E. B. Girdlestonb, M.A. 8vo. 15s.
An INTRODUCTION to the THEOLOGY of the CHURCH of
ENGLAND, in an Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles. By the Rev. T. P.
Boultbee, LL.D. Fcp. 8vo. price 6s.
An EXPOSITION of the 39 ARTICLES, Historical and Doctrinal.
By E. Harold Browne, D.D. Lord Bishop of Winchester. 8vo. 16s.
The LIFE and LETTERS of ST. PAUL, including a New English
Translation of the Epistles. By the Eev. W. J. Conybeare, M.A. and the Very
Rev. John Saul Howson, D.D. Dean of Chester. Copiously illustrated with
Landscape Views, Maps, Plans, Charts, Coins, and Vignettes.
Library Edition, with all the Original Illustrations, Maps,
Landscapes on Steel, Woodcuts, &c. 2 vols. 4to. 42s.
Intermediate Edition, with a Selection of Maps, Plates, and
Woodcuts. 2 vols, square crown 8vo. 21s.
Student's Edition, revised and condensed, with 46 Illustrations
and Maps. 1 vol. crown 8vo. price 9s.
HISTORY of the REFORMATION in EUROPE in the TIME of
CALVIN. By the Rev. J. H. Merle D'Aubigne, D.D. Translated by W. L. R.
Cates. (In Eight Volumes.) 7 vols. 8vo. price £5. lis.
Vol. VIH. translated by W. L. R. Cates, completing the English Edition of the
Eev. Dr. D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation in the time of Calvin, is in the
press.
NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARIES. By the Rev. W. A. O'Conob.
B.A. Rector of St. Simon and St. Jude, Manchester. Crown 8vo.
Epistle to the Romans, price 3s. Gd.
Epistle to the Hebrews, 4s. Gd.
St. John's Gospel, 10s. Gd.
A CRITICAL and GRAMMATICAL COMMENTARY on ST. PAUL'S
Epistles. By 0. J. Ellicott. D.D. Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. 8vo.
GALATIANS, Fourth Edition, 8s. Gd.
EPHESIANS, Fourth Edition, 8s. Gd.
PASTORAL EPISTLES, Fourth Edition, 10s. Gd.
PHILIPPIANS, COLOSSIANS, and PHILEMON, Third Edition,
10s. Gd.
THESSALONIANS, Third Edition, 7s. Gd.
HISTORICAL LECTURES on the LIFE of OUR LORD. By
C. J. Ellicott, D.D. Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. Sixth Edition. 8vo. 12s.

NEW WORKS published by LONGMANS and CO. 21
EVIDENCE of the TRUTH of the CHRISTIAN RELIGION derived
from the Literal Fulfilment of Prophecy. By Alexander Keith, D.D. 37th
Edition, with Plates, in square 8vo. 12s. Gd. ; 39th Edition, in post 8vo. 6s.
HISTORY of ISRAEL. By H. Ewald, late Professor of the Univ. of
Gottingen. Translated by J. E. Carpenter, M.A., with a Preface by Russell
Marttneau, M.A. 6 vols. 8vo. 63s.
The ANTIQUITIES of ISRAEL. ByHEiNRion Ewald, late Professor
of the University of Gottingen. Translated from the German by Henry Shaen
Solly, MA.. 8vo. price 12s. Gd.
The PROPHETS and PROPHECY of ISRAEL ; An Historical and
Critical Inquiry. By Dr. A. Kuknen, Prof, of Theol. in the Univ. of Leyden.
Translated from the Dutch by the Rev. A. Milroy, M.A. with an Introduction
by J. Mum, D.C.L. 8vo. 21s.
MYTHOLOGY among the HEBREWS, its Historical Development ;
Researches bearing on the Science of Mythology and the History of Religion.
By Ignaz Goldziher, Ph.D. Member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Translated by Russell Martlneau, M.A. 8vo. 16s.
The TREASURY of BIBLE KNOWLEDGE ; being a Dictionary of the
Books, Persons, Places, Events, and other matters of which mention is made in
Holy Scripture. By Rev. J. Ayre, M.A. With Maps, 16 Plates, and numerous
Woodcuts. Fop. 8vo. prioe 6s. cloth, or 10s. Gd. neatly bound in calf.
LECTURES on the PENTATEUCH and the MOABITE STONE.
By the Right Rev. J. W. Colenso, D.D. Bishop of Natal. 8vo. 12s.
The PENTATEUCH and BOOK of JOSHUA CRITICALLY EXAMINED.
By the Right Rev. J. W. Colenso, D.D. Bishop of Natal. Crown 8vo. 6s.
An INTRODUCTION to the STUDY of the NEW TESTAMENT,
Critical, Bxegetical, and Theological. By the Rev. S. Davidson, D.D. LL.D.
2 vols. 8vo. price 30s.
SOME QUESTIONS of the DAY. By the Author of ' Amy Herbert.'
Crown 8vo. price 2s. Gd.
THOUGHTS for the AGE. By the Author of ' Amy Herbert,' &c.
Fcp. 8vo, price 3s. Gd.
PASSING THOUSHTS on RELIGION. By Elizabeth M. Sewell.
Fcp. 8vo. 3s. Gd.
SELF-EXAMINATION before CONFIRMATION. By Elizabeth M.
Sewell. 32mo. Is. Gd.
PREPARATION for the HOLY COMMUNION ; the Devotions chiefly
from the Works of Jbremy Taylor. By Miss Sewell. 32mo. 3s.
LYRA GERMANICA, Hymns translated from the German by Miss
C Wlnkworth. Fcp. 8vo. price 5s.
SPIRITUAL SONGS for the SUNDAYS and HOLIDAYS through
out the Year. By J. S. B. Monsbll, LL.D. Fcp.8vo. 6s. 18mo. 2s.

NEW WORKS published by LONGMANS and CO.

HOURS of THOUGHT on SACRED THINGS ; a Volume of Sermons.
By James Marttneau, D.D. LL.D. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
ENDEAVOURS after the CHRISTIAN LIFE ; Discourses. By the
Eev. J. Marttneau, LL.D. Fifth Edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
HYMNS of PRAISE and PRAYER, collected and edited by the Rev.
J. Marttneau, LL.D. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d. 32mo. Is. Gd.
The TYPES of GENESIS, briefly considered as revealing the Develop
ment of Human Nature- By Andrew Jukes. ThirdEdition. Crown8vo. 7s. Gd.
The SECOND DEATH and the RESTITUTION of ALL THINGS ;
with Borne Preliminary Remarks on the Nature and Inspiration of Holy Scrip
ture. By Andrew Jukes. Fourth Edition. Crown 8vo. 3s. Gd.
WHATELY'S INTRODUCTORY LESSONS on the CHRISTIAN
Evidences. 18mo. Gd.
BISHOP JEREMY TAYLOR'S ENTIRE WORKS. With Life by
Bishop Herer. Revised and corrected by the Rev. C. P. Eden. Complete in
Ten Volumes, 8vo. cloth, price £5. 5s.

Travels, Voyages, &c.

A YEAR in WESTERN FRANCE. By M. Betham-Edwards. With
Frontispiece View of the Hotel de Ville, La Rochelle. Crown 8vo. 10s. Gd.
JOURNAL of a RESIDENCE in VIENNA and BERLIN during the
eventful Winter, 1805-6. By the late Henry Reeve, M.D. Published by hia
Son. Crown 8vo. price Ss. Gd.
The INDIAN ALPS, and How we Crossed them : being a Narrative
of Two Tears' Residence m the Eastern Himalayas, and Two Months' Tour
into the Interior. By a Lady Pioneer. With Illustrations from Drawings
by the Author. Imperial 8vo. 42s.
TYROL and the TYROLESE; being an Account of the People and
the Land, in their Social, Sporting, and Mountaineering Aspects. By W. A.
BaiTiT.te Grohman. With numerous Illustrations Crown 8vo. 14s.
' The FROSTY CAUCASUS ; ' An Account of a Walk through Part of
the Range, and of an Ascent of Elbruz in the Summer of 1874. By F. C Grove.
With Eight Illustrations and a Map. Crown 8vo. 15s.
A THOUSAND MILES up the NILE, being a JOURNEY through
EGYPT and NUBIA to the SECOND CATARACT By Amelia B. Edwards.
With Eighty Illustrations from Drawings by the Author, Two Maps, Plans,
Facsimiles, &c. Imperial 8vo. price 42s.
OVER the SEA and FAR AWAY; being a Narrative of a Ramble
round the World. By Thomas Woodbine Htnobldte, M.A. F.R.G.S. President
of the Alpine Club. With 14 full- page Illustrations. Medium 8vo. 21s.
THROUGH BOSNIA and the HERZEGOVINA on FOOT during the
INSURRECTION ; with an Historical Review of Bosnia, and a Glimpse at
the Croats, Slavonians, and the Ancient Republic of Ragusa. By A. J. Evans,
B.A. F.S.A. Second Edition, with Map and 58 Wood Engravings. 8vo. 18s.

NEW WORKS published by LONGMANS and CO.

DISCOVERIES at EPHESUS, including the Site and Remains of the
Great Temple of Diana. By J. T. Wood, F.S.A. With 27 Lithographic Plates
and 42 Engravings on Wood. Imperial 8vo. price 63s.
MEMORIALS of the DISCOVERY and EARLY SETTLEMENT of
the BERMUDAS or SOMERS ISLANDS, from 1615 to 1685. Compiled from
the Colonial Records and other original sources. By Major-General J. H.
Lefroy, R.A. C.B. F.R.S. &c. Governor of the Bermudas. 8vo. with Map.
[//* the press.
ITALIAN ALPS ; Sketches in the Mountains of Ticino, Lombardy,
the Trentino, and Venetia. By Douglas W. Freshfield, Editor of 'The
Alpine Journal.' Square crown 8vo. with Maps and Illustrations, price 15s.
The RIFLE and the HOUND in CEYLON. By Sir Samuel W.
Baeer, M.A. F.R.G.S. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 7s. Gd.
EIGHT YEARS in CEYLON. By Sir Samuel W. Baker, M.A.
F.R.G.S. With Illustrations Crown 8vo. 7s. Gd.
TWO YEARS IN FIJI, a Descriptive Narrative of a Residence in the
Fijian Group of Islands; with some Account of the Fortunes of Foreign
Settlers and Colonists up to the Time of the British Annexation. By Litton
Forbes, M.D. F.R.G.S. Crown 8vo. 8s. Gd.
UNTRODDEN PEAKS and UNFREQUENTED VALLEYS ; a Mid
summer Ramble among the Dolomites. By Amelia B. Edwards. With a
Map and 27 Wood Engravings. Medium 8vo. 21s.
The DOLOMITE MOUNTAINS ; Excursions through Tyrol, Carinthia,
Carniola, and Friuli, 1861-1863. By J. Gilbert and G. C. Churchill, F.R.G.S.
With numerous Illustrations. Square crown 8vo. 21s.
The ALPINE CLUB MAP of SWITZERLAND, with parts of the
Neighbouring Countries, on the Scale of Four Miles to an Inch. Edited by R.
C. Nichols, F.S.A. F.R.G.S. In Four Sheets, price 42s. or mounted in a case,
52s. Gd. Each Sheet may be had separately, price 12s. or mounted in a case, 15s.
MAP of the CHAIN of MONT BLANC, from an Actual Survey in
1863-1864. By Adams-Reilly, F.R.G.S. M.A.C Published under the Au
thority of the Alpine Club. In Chromolithography c- extra stout drawing-
paper 28in. x 17in. price 10s. or mounted on canvas in a folding case, 12s. Gd.
HOW to SEE NORWAY. By Captain J. R. Campbell. With Map
and 5 Woodcuts. Fcp. 8vo. price 5s.
GUIDE to the PYRENEES, for the use of Mountaineers, By
Charles Packs. With Map and Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 7s. Gd.
The ALPINE GUIDE. By John Ball, M.R.I.A. late President of
the Alpine Club. 3 vols, post 8vo. Thoroughly Revised Editions, with Maps
and Illustrations :— I. Western Alps, Gs. Gd. II. Central Alps, Is. Gd. ¦ III.
Eastern Alps, 10s. Gd. Or in Ten Parts, price 2s. 6d. each.
INTRODUCTION on ALPINE TRAVELLING in GENERAL, and on
the Geology of the Alps, price Is. Each of the Three Volumes or Parts of the
Alpine Guide may be had with this Introduction prefixed, price Is. extra.

24 NEW WORKS published by LONGMANS and CO.
.Works of Fiction.
The ATELIER du LYS ; or, an Art-Student in the Reign of Terror.
By the Author of ' Mademoiselle Mori ' Third Edition. 1 vol. crown 8vo. 6s.
NOVELS and TALES. By the Right Hon. the Earl of Beacons-
field. Cabinet Edition, complete in Ten Volumes, crown 8vo. price £3.

Lothair, 6s.
Contngsby, 6s.
Sybil, 6s.
Tancred, 6s.
Veneita, 6s.

Henrietta Temple, 6s.
Contartni Fleming, &c. 6s,
Alroy, Ixion, &c. 6s.
The Young Duke, &c. 6s.
Vivian Grey 6s.

CABINET EDITION of STORIES and TALES by Miss Sewell:—

Amy Herbert, 2s. 6d.
Gertrude, 2s. Gd.
The Earl's Daughter, 2s. Gd.
EXPERTENCE Of LIFE, 2S. Gd.
Cleve Hall, 2s. Gd.

Ivors, 2s. Gd.
Katharine Ashton, 2s. Gd
Margaret Percival, 3s. Gd.
Laneton Parsonage, 3s. Gd.
Ursula, 3s, Gd.

BECKER'S GALLUS; or, Roman Scenes of the Time of Augustus :
with Notes and Excursuses. Post 8vo. 7s. Gd.
BECKER'S CHARICLES; a Tale illustrative of Private Life among the
Ancient Greeks : with Notes and Excursuses. Post 8vo. 7s. Gd,
HIGGLEDY-PIGGLEDY ; or, Stories for Everybody and Everybody's
Children. By the Right Hon. E. M. Knatohbull-Hugessen, M.P. With Nine
Illustrations from Designs by R. Doyle. Crown 8vo. Gs.
WHISPERS from FAIRYLAND. By the Right Hon. E. H. Knatoh
bull-Hugessen, M.P. With Nine Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 6s.
The MODERN NOVELIST'S LIBRARY. Each Work, in crown 8vo.
complete in a Single Volume : —
Lothair. By the Eight Hon. the Earl of Beaconsfteld. Price 2s. boards, or
2s. Gd. cloth.
Atherstone Priory, 2s. boards ; 2s. Gd. cloth.
Bramley-Moore's Srx Sisters of the Valleys, 2s. boards ; 2s. Gd. cloth.
The Burgomaster's Family, 2s. boards ; 2s. Gd. cloth.
Elsa, a Tale of the Tyrolean Alps. Translated from the German of Wilhelmtne
Von Hillern by Lady Wallace. 2s. boards ; 2s. Gd. cloth.
Mademoiselle Mori, 2s. boards ; 2s. Gd. cloth.
Melville's Digby Grand, 2s. boards ; 2s. Gd. cloth.
 Gladiators, 2s boards ; 2s. Gd. cloth.
 Good for Nothing, 2s. boards ; 2s. Gd. cloth.
 Holmby House, 2s. boards ; 2s. Gd. cloth.
 ^— Interpreter, 2s. boards ; 2s. Gd. cloth.
 Kate Coventry, 2s. boards ; 2s. 6d. cloth.

• Queen's Maries, 2«. boards,; 2s. Gd. cloth.
• General Bounce, 2s. boards ; 2s. Gd. cloth.

Trollope's Warden, 2s. boards ; 2s. Gd. cloth.
 Barchestbr Towers, 2s. boards ; 2s. Gd. cloth.
Unawares, a Story of an old French Town, 2s. boards. ; 2s. id, cloth.

NEW WORKS published by LONGMANS and CO.

Poetry and The Drama.
POEMS. By William B. Scott. With 17 Etchings by L. A.
Tadema and W. B. Scorr. Crown 8vo. 15s.
MOORE'S IRISH MELODIES, with 161 Steel Plates from Original
Drawings by D. Maclise, R. A. and the whole of the Text engraved on the same
Plates Super-royal 8vo. 21s.
MOORE'S LALLA ROOKH, an Oriental Romance, Tenniel's Editior. ,
with 68 Illustrations from Original Drawings, engraved on Wood by G. Pearson
and other Artists. Fcp. 4to. price 21s.
SOUTHEY'S POETICAL WORKS, with the Author's last Corrections
and copyright Additions. Medium 8vo. with Portrait and Vignette, 14s.
LAYS of ANCIENT ROME ; with IVRY and the ARMADA. By the
Right Hon. Lord Maoaulay. 16mo. with Vignettes, 3s. Gd.
LORD MACAULAY'S LAYS of ANCIENT ROME. With 90 Original
tions, chiefly after the Antique, engraved on Wood from Drawings by
G. Soharp. Fcp. 4to. 21s.
MINIATURE EDITION of LORD MACAULAY'S LAYS of ANCIENT
ROME, with the Illustrations (as above) reduced in Lithography. Imperial
16mo. price 10s. Gd.
The JENEID of VIRGIL translated into English Verse. By John
Contngton, M.A. Crown 8vo. 9s.
The ILIAD of HOMER, Homometricallv translated by C. B. Cayley,
Translator of Dante's Comedy, &.c. 8vo. 12s. Gd.
HORATII OPERA. Library Edition, with Marginal References and
English Notes. Edited by the Rev. J. E. Tongs, M.A. 8vo. 21s.
The LYCIDAS and EPITAPHIUM DAMONIS of MILTON. Edited,
with Notes and Introduction, by C. S. Jerram, M.A. Crown 8vo. 2s. Gd.
BEOWULF, a Heroic Poem of the Eighth Century (Anglo-Saxon Text
and English Translation), with Introduction, Notes, and Appendix. By
Thomas Arnold, M.A. Univ. Coll. Oxford. 8vo. 12s.
BOWDLER'S FAMILY SHAKSPEARE, cheaper Genuine Editions.
Medium 8vo. large type, with 36 Woodcuts, price 14s. Cabinet Edition, with
the same Illustrations, 6 vols. fcp. 8vo. price 21s.
POEMS. By Jban Ingelow. 2 vols. fcp. 8vo. prioe 10s.
First Series, containing 'Divided,' 'The Star's Monument,'
&c. Sixteenth Thousand. Fcp. 8vo. price 5s.
Second Series, ' A Story of Doom,' ' Gladys and her Island,'
&c. Fifth Thousand. Fcp. 8vo. price 5s.
POEMS by Jean Ingelow. First Series, with nearly 100 Illustrations,
engraved on Wood by Dalziel Brothers. Fcp. 4to. 21s.

NEW WORKS published uy LONGMANS and 00.

Rural Sports, &c.
DOWN the ROAD ; or, Reminiscences of a Gentleman Coachman.
By C T. S. Birch Rbynardson. Second Edition, with Twelve Coloured
Illustrations from Paintings by H. Aiken. Medium 8vo. 21s.
ANNALS of the ROAD ; or, Notes on Mail and Stage Coaching in
Great Britain. By Captain Malet, 18th Hussars. To which are added, Essays
on the Road, by Nimrod. With 3 Woodcuts and 10 Coloured Illustrations.
Medium 8vo. 21s.
ENCYCLOPEDIA of RURAL SPORTS ; a complete Account, Histo
rical, Practical, and Descriptive, of Hunting, Shooting, Fishing, Racing,
and all other Rural and Athletic Sports and Pastimes. By D. P. Blaine.
With above 600 Woodcuts (20 from Designs by John Leech). 8vo. 21s.
The FLY-FISHER'S ENTOMOLOGY. By Alfred Ronalds. With
coloured Representations of the Natural and Artificial Insect. Sixth Edition,
with 20 coloured Plates. 8vo. 14s.
A BOOK on ANGLING ; a complete Treatise on the Art of Angling
in every branch. By Francis Francis. New Edition, with Portrait and 15
other Plates, plain and coloured. Post 8vo. 15s.
WILCOCKS'S SEA-FISHERMAN ; comprising the Chief Methods of
Hook and Line Fishing, a Glance at Nets, and Remarks on Boats and Boating.
New Edition, with 80 Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 12s. Gd.
HORSES and STABLES. By Colonel F. Fitzwysram, XV. the King's
Hussars. With Twenty-four Plates of Illustrations, containing very numerous
Figures engraved on Wood. 8vo. 10s. Gd.
The HORSE'S FOOT, and HOW to KEEP it SOUND. By W.
Miles. With Illustrations. Imperial 8vo. 12s. Gd.
A PLAIN TREATISE on HORSE-SHOEING. By W. Miles. Post
8vo. with Illustrations, 2s. Gd.
STABLES and STABLE-FITTINGS. By W. Miles, Imp. 8vo.
with 13 Plates, 15s.
REMARKS on HORSES' TEETH, addressed to Purchasers. By W.
Miles. Post 8vo. Is. Gd.
The HORSE: with a Treatise on Draught. By William Youatt.
8vo. with numerous Woodcuts, 12s. Gd.
The DOG. By William Youatt. 8vo. with numerous Woodcuts, 6s.
The DOG in HEALTH and DISEASE. By Stonehenge. With 70
Wood Engravings. Square crown 8vo. 7s. Gd.
The GREYHOUND. By Stonehenge. Revised Edition, with 25
Portraits of Greyhounds. Square crown 8vo. 15s.
The OX ; his Diseases and their Treatment : with an Essay on Parturi
tion in the Cow. By J. R. Dobson. Crown 8vo. with Illustrations, 7s. Gd.

NEW WORKS published by LONGMANS and CO.

Works of Utility and General Information.

Ihe THEORY and PRACTICE of BANKING. By H. D. Macleod,
M.A. Barrister-at-Law. Third Edition. 2 vols. 8vo. 26s.
The ELEMENTS of BANKING. By Henry Dunning Macleod,
Esq. M.A. Barrister-at-Law. Crown 8vo. 7s. Gd.
M'CULLOCH'S DICTIONARY, Practical, Theoretical, and Historical,
of Commerce and Commercial Navigation. New and revised Edition. 8vo. 63s.
Second Supplement, price 3s. Gd.
The CABINET LAWYER ; a Popular Digest of the Laws of England,
Civil, Criminal, and Constitutional : intended for Practical Use and General
Information. Twenty-fifth Edition. Fcp. 8vo. price 9s.
PEWTNER'S COMPREHENSIVE SPECIFIER; a Guide to the
Practical Specification of every kind of Building-Artificers' Work, with Forms
of Conditions and Agreements. Edited by W. Young. Crown 8vo. 6s.
WILLICH'S POPULAR TABLES for ascertaining according to the
Carlisle Table of Mortality the Value of Lifehold, Leasehold, and Church Property,
Renewal Fines, Reversions, &c. ; also Interest, Legacy, Succession Duty, and
various other useful Tables. Eighth Edition. Post 8vo. 10s.
HINTS to MOTHERS on the MANAGEMENT of their HEALTH
during the Period of Pregnancy and in the Lying-in Room. By the late
Thomas Bull, M.D. New Edition, revised and improved. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. Gd.
The MATERNAL MANAGEMENT of CHILDREN in HEALTH and
Disease. By the late Thomas Bull, M.D. New Edition, revised and improved.
Fcp. 8vo. 2s. Gd.
The THEORY of the MODERN SCIENTIFIC GAME of WHIST.
By William Pole, F.R.S. Eighth Edition, enlarged. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
The CORRECT CARD ; or, How to Play at Whist : a Whist Catechism.
By Captain A. Campbell- Walker, F.R.G.S. late 79ch Highlanders ; Author of
' The Rifle, its Theory and Practice.' New Edition. 32mo. 2s. Gd.
CHESS OPENINGS. By F. W. Longman, Balliol College, Oxford.
Second Edition revised. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. Gd.
THREE HUNDRED ORIGINAL CHESS PROBLEMS and STUDIES.
By James Pierce, M.A. and W. T. Pierce. With numerous Diagrams. Square
fcp. 8vo. 7s. Gd. Supplement, price 2s. Gd.

28 NEW WORKS published by LONGMANS AND CO.
A PRACTICAL TREATISE on BREWING; with Formulse for
Public Brewers, and Instructions for Private Families. By W. Black. 8vo.
price 10s. Gd.
MODERN COOKERY for PRIVATE FAMILIES, reduced to a
System of Easy Practice in a Series of carefully-tested Receipts. By Eliza
Acton. Newly revised and enlarged ; with 8 Plates and 150 Woodcuts. Fcp.
8vo. 6s.
MAUNDER'S TREASURY of KNOWLEDGE and LIBRARY of
Reference ; comprising an EnglishDictionary and Grammar, Universal Gazetteer,
Classical Dictionary, Chronology, Law Dictionary, a Bynopsis of the Peerage,
useful Tables, &c. Revised Edition. Fcp. 8vo. 6s. cloth, or 10s. Gd. calf.
MAUNDER'S BIOGRAPHICAL TREASURY. Latest Edition, recon
structed, and partly re-written, with above 1,600 additional Memoirs, by W. L. E,
Cates. Fcp. 8vo. 6s.
MAUNDER'S SCIENTIFIC and LITERARY TREASURY; a Popular
Encyclopaedia of Science, Literature, and Art. Latest Edition, in part re-written,
with above 1,800 now articles, by J. T. Johnson. Fcp. 8vo. 6s.
MAUNDER'S TREASURY of GEOGRAPHY, Physical, Historical,
Descriptive, and Political. Edited by W. Hughes, F.R.G.S. With 7 Maps and
16 Plates. Fcp. 8vo. 6s.
MAUNDER'S HISTORICAL TREASURY ; General Introductory
Outlines of Universal History, and a Series of Separate Histories. Revised by
the Rev. G. W. Cox, M.A. Fcp. 8vo. 6s.
MAUNDER'S TREASURY of NATURAL HISTORY, or Popular
Dictionary of Birds, Beasts, Fishes, Reptiles, Insects, and Creeping Things.
With above 900 Woodcuts. Fcp. 8vo. price 6s. cloth.
MAUNDER'S TREASURY of BOTANY, or Popular Dictionary of the
Vegetable Kingdom; including a Glossary of Botanical Terms. Edited by
J. Ltndley, F.R.S. and T. Moore, F.L.S. assisted by eminent Contributors.
With 274 Woodcuts aad 20 Steel Plates. Two Parts, fcp. 8vo. 12s. cloth.
MAUNDER'S TREASURY of BIBLE KNOWLEDGE ; being a Dic
tionary of the Books, Persons, Places, Events, and other Matters of which
mention is made in Holy Scripture. Edited by the Rev. J. Ayre, M.A. With
Maps, 16 Plates, and numerous Woodcuts. Fcp. 8vo. price Gs. cloth..

INDEX .

Aoton's Modern Cookery  « —  28
Alpine Club Map of Switzerland „  S3
Alpine Guide (The)  -  23
Amor's Jurisprudence „  5
 Primerof the Constitution  5
Anderson's Strength of Materials  12
Abmitage'S Childhood oi the English
Nation  3
Armstrong's Organic Chemistry  12
ARNOLD'S (Dr.) Christian Life  19
¦  LecturesonModem History 2
 Miscellaneous WorkB  9
 .  Sermons  19
 School Sermons  19
 (T.) English Literature  8
.  Beowulf  25
Arnott's Physics  12
Atelierdu Lys(The)  ..... 24
Ataerstone Priory  21
AUERBAOH'S Anthracen, by CROOKES  16
Autumn Holidays of a Country Parson  9
Ayeb'S Treasury of Bible Knowledge ......31,28

Bacon's Essays, by Whatelt  7
 Life and LetterB, by Speddlng  5
 Works, edited by Spedding  7
Bain's Emotions and Will  10
 Logic, Deductive and Inductive  6
—_— Mental and Moral Science  10
 on the Senses and Intellect  10
Bakbb'8 Two Works on Ceylon ™  23
Ball's Alpine Guide  23
Bancroft's Native Races of the Pacific „. 3
Babbt on Railway Appliances  12
Eeaconsfield'S (Lord) Novels and Tales 21
Becker's Charicles and Gallus .....  21
Beeslt's Gracchi, Marius and Sulla  3
Black's Treatise on Brewing  28
Blackley'S German-English Dictionary... 8
Blaine's Rural Sports  2S
Bloxam's Metals „.„.„  12
Bolland and Lang's Politics of Aristotle 6
BoULTBEE on 39 Articles  20
Bourne's Catechism of the Steam Engine . 18
 Handbook of Steam Engine  18
 Improvements in ditto  18
 Treatise on the Steam Engine ... 18
Bowdler's Family Sbakspbabe  25
Bramley-Moore's Six Sisters of the
ValleyB  24
Brande's Dictionary of Science, Litera
ture, and Art  15
Bray's Philosophy of Necessity  10

Brinkley's Astronomy  „  -  «,~ lo
Browne's Exposition of the 39 Articles...™ so
BUCKLE'S History of Civilization „.„.„.„«. 3
Btjoklb'S Miscellaneous Works   „ 9
Buokton's Health in the House ......... ...... 16
Bull's Hints to Mothers  ... 27
 Maternal Management of Children 27
Burgomaster's Family (The)  24
Burke's Vicissitudes of Families ..._.......« 5

Cabinet Lawyer „  „...  ..  27
Campbell's Norway  ..  -.. 23
Capes's Age of the Antoniries...„  3
 Early Roman Empire  3
Cates'S Biographical Dictionary  5
 and Woodward's Encyclopaedia 4
CAYLEY'sDiad of Homer  25
Changed Aspects of Unchanged Truths...... 9
Chebney's Indian Polity „.„.„.«.„,„.„.„.-. 3
 Modern Military Biography „. 4
 Waterloo Campaign  -. 2
Church's Sketches of Ottoman History ... l
Colenso (Bishop) on Pentateuch  „, 21
 on Moabite Stone, &c  « 21
Commonplace Philosopher, by A.K.H.B. „. 9
Comte's Positive Philosophy ...-.«.«  ... 6
Congreve'S Politics of Aristotle  6
CONINGTON'S Translation of the JZneid ... 25
 Miscellaneous Writings  9
CoNTANSEAU'8 French Dictionaries „  8
Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul  20
Counsel and Comfort from a City Pulpit  9
Cox's Aryan Mythology  ... 3
 Athenian Empire  3
 Crusades  4
 History of Greece  -. 2
 General ditto  ~ 2
 Greeks and Persians  3
 Tales of Ancient Greece  ... 3
Creighton'S Age of Elizabeth  4
Cresy'S Civil Engineering  18
Critical Essays of a Country Parson  9
Crookes's Chemical Analysis  16
 Dyeing and Calico Printing „.... 16
CULLHY's Handbook of Telegraphy  —. 18
Curteis's Macedonian Empire  3
D'Aubign^'s Reformation „  20
Davidson's Introd. to the New Testament 1
Deoaisnh and LE Maout'b Botany  5
Dh Tocqtteyillb's Democracy in America 7

NEW WORKS published by LONGMANS and CO.

DOBSON on the Ox  ... 26
Dote on Storms  1 1
DOWELL'S History of Taxes  6
DOYLE'S Fairyland  ». 17
Eastlake's Hints on Household Taste  17
Edwards's Egypt and Nubia  22
.  Untrodden Peaks  „. 23
 Western France  22
Elements of Botany  „  _.„. 15
Ellioott'S Commentary on Ephesians  20
 Galatians  20
 Pastoral Epist. 20
i  Philippians.&c 30
 Thessaloniana SO
¦ ¦  Lectures on the Life of Christ. . . 20
Elsa ; a Tale of the Tyrolean Alps ...„  24
Epochs of Aneient History  3
 Modern History  4
Evans' (A. J.) Bosnia  22
 (J) Ancient Stone Implements  14
EWALD'S Antiquities of Israel  21
 History of Israel »  ™ 21
FAXRBAIRN'S Applications of Iron ............ 18
 .  Information for Engineers ... 18
 Life  4
 Mills and Millwork  „. 18
Farrar'S Chapters on Language  w 7
 Families of Speech  „. 7
FlNLASON'S Judicial System  6
Fitzwygram on Horses and Stables  25
FORBES's Two Tears in Fiji  23
Frampton's (Bishop) Life  4
Francis's Fishing Book  26
Freshfield's Italian Alps  23
Froude'S English in Ireland  „. 1
 History of England  1
— ¦ Short Studies on Great Subjects 9
Gairdner's Houses of Lancaster andYork 4
Ganot's Elementary Physics  .. 1 2
- , Natural Philosophy  12
Gardiner's Buckingham and Charles  2
 Personal Government of Charles I. ... 2
¦ Puritan Revolution  4
 Thirty Years' War  „. 4
Gefpoken on Church and State  5
German Home Life  9
Gilbert and Churchill's Dolomites  23
Girdle stone '8 Bible Bynonymes  ... 20
Goldziher's Hebrew Mythology  21
Goodbye's Mechanism  12
 Mechanics  „. 12
Ghaut's Ethics of Aristotle   6
Graver Thoughts of a Country Parson „.„ 9
Greville'b Journal  „.m 1
Griffin's Algebra and Trigonometry  12
Griffith's Behind the Veil  19
Grohman's Tyrol and the Tyrolese  22
Grove on Correlation of Physical Forces ... 13
 's (F. C.) Frosty Caucasus  22
Gwilt'h Encyclopaedia of Architecture...... 17
Hale's Fall of the StuartB  4

Hartley on the Air „  11
HARTWIG'S Aerial World  15
 Polar World  15
 Sea and its Living Wonders ... 15
 Subterranean World  15
 Tropical World  15
Haughton's Animal Mechanics  14
Hayward's Essays  „. 5
Heer's Primseval Switzerland  11
Heine's Life, Works, and Opinions  5
Helmhotz on Tone...„  ,  12
 Popular Lectures  13
Hemsley's Handbook of Trees and Plants 15
Herbchel'B Outlines of Astronomy «  10
Hinohlifp's Over the Sea and Far Away 22
Hobson'S Amateur Mechanic  18
Hoskold's Engineer's Valuer  18
Howorth's History of the Mongols  3
HULLAH'S History of Modern Music  13
 Transition Period „.„  IS
Hume's Essays  10
 Treatise on Human Nature ,.....». 10
Ihne's Roman History -.«...,-  •..„ 2
 Rome to its Capture by the Gauls ... 3
Indian Alps (The), by a Lady Pioneer  22
Ingelow'b Poems  ..„  „.„....„....„. 25

Jameson's Saints and Martyrs   17
 Legends of the Madonna  17
 Monastic Orders  17
Jameson and Eastlake's Saviour  17
Jenkin'S Electricity and Magnetism  12
Jerram's Lycidas of Milton  25
Jerrold's Life of Napoleon  4
Johnston's Geographical Dictionary  „ 12
Jukes's TypeB of Genesis  22
— ,  on Second Death „  _ 22
Ealisoh's Commentary on the Bible  w 8
Keith on Fulfilment of Prophecy  21
Kerl's Metallurgy  19
Kirby and s pekoe's Entomology  —-. 14
KiRKMAN's Philosophy  ,  10
Kn atchbull-Hugessen'b Higgledy-pig
gledy  24
Knatchbull-Hugebsen's Whispers from
Fairyland  „  _  ~. 21
Kubnen's Prophets and Prophecy in Israel 21
Landscapes, Churches, and Moralities  9
Latham's New English Dictionary  7
 Johnson's Dictionary  7
 Handbook of the English Language 7
Lawrence on Rocks  1*
Leoky'S History of European Morals  — 3
.  - Rationalism  3
 Leaders of Public Opinion  5
Lefroy's Bermudas  23
Leisure Hours in Town  9
Lessons of Middle Age.  '¦  — 9

NEW WORKS published by LONGMANS and CO.

Lewes* History of Philosophy  3
Lewis on the Influence of Authority... „.„. 7
Liddell and Scott's Two Lexicons  8
Lindley & Moore's Botanical Treasury 15, 28
Lloyd's Magnetism  13
 Wave-Theory of Light  13
Longman's (W.) Edward the Third  2
 Lectures on History of England 2
.  Old and New St. Paul's  17
 (F. W.) Chess Openings  27
 German Dictionary  8
Loudon's Agriculture  19
 Gardening  19
 Plants  15
Ludlow's War of American Independence 4
Lubbock on Origin of Civilisation  14
Lyra Germanica  „.„  21

Maoaulay's (Lord) Essays _._   3
 History of England ... 1
 Lays of Ancient Rome 1 7, " 5
 Life and Letters  4
_^ — _ Miscellaneous Writings 9
 .  Select Writings  9
— — __^_-  Speeches  w 7
i  Complete Works „.„. 1
MacColl'b Eastern Question  1
MACLEOD'S Economical Philosophy  7
 Theory and Practice of Banking 27
 Elements of Banking  37
McCulloch's Dictionary of Commerce ... 27
Mademoiselle Mori  24
Malet's Annals of the Road  26
Marshall's Physiology.....  „. 16
Mars hilan's Life of Havelock  5
Martineau'S Christian Life  22
 Hours of Thought  22
 Hymns  22
MAUNDER'S Biographical Treasury  5, 28
 Geographical Treasury  12, t8
 Historical Treasury  4,28
 Scientific' & Literary Treasury 1 5, 28
 Treasury of Knowledge  28
 Treasury of Natural History. .15, 28
Maxwell's Theory of Heat  12
May's Constitutional History of England... 1
 History of Democracy  ™ 1
Mendelssohn's Letters  4
Melville's Novels and Tales  24
Mbrjvaxe's Fall of the Roman Republic... 2
 General History of Rome  2
 Roman TriumvirateB  3
 Romans under the Empire ... 2
Mbrrifdhld's Arithmetic & Mensuration . 12
Miles on Horse's Feet and Horseshoeing ... 26
 Horses' Teeth and Stables  26
Mill (J.) on the Mind  10
Mill's (J. 8.) Autobiography  4
 Liberty  7
— — Representative Government., 7
 Utilitarianism  7
—  Dissertations and Discussions 7
•  Essays on Religion &c  19
 Political Economy  „ 7
 System of Logic  „  « 7

Mill's (I. S.) Hamilton's Philosophy  7
 Unsettled Questions  7
Miller's Elements of Chemistry  is
—  Inorganic Chemistry  12
Mitchell's Manual of Assaying  19
Monsell's Spiritual Songs „  '_'"' 21
Moore's IriBh Melodies  ~"ifi 25
 Lalla Rookh  ', \q\ 25
Morell's Mental Philosophy  !!!!„ ' \0
Morris's Age of Queen Anne  ...', 4
M ozart's Life and Letters  '"'"' 4
Muller's Lectures on Language  8
¦ Science of Religion  ".[ 19
 Chips from a German Workshop lo

Neison on the Moon    n
Nicols's Puzzle of Life  7.,".'...'.. M
New Testament, Illustrated Edition.!]!!!.'."."! 17
NORTncorr's Lathes and Turning...!!!!!!" 19,
O'CONOR's Commentary on Hebrews  20
 — —  Romans  20
"  ;  St. John's Gospel 20
Obborn s Islam 
Owen's Comparative Anatomy and Physio
logy of Vertebrate Animals  13
Paoke's Guide to the Pyrenees  „, 33
Pattison's Casaubon  !!!!!!'","! "Z 5
PAYBN's Industrial Chemistry' .!..!!!.'.! !!".™ 17
Pewtner's Comprehensive Specifier  **' 27
Pieroe's CheBs Problems   2
POLE on Whist  !,..!!!™ 27
Preecb and Sivewright's Telegraphy'™* 12
Present-Day Thoughts  "[ 9
Proctor's Astronomical Essays  .....Z 10
¦  Moon ...„.„.„  !!!**' 21
 New Star Atlas  !!!.!!.!.'.".* 11
 OrbB Around Us  „  „.„ m \\
 Plurality of Worlds „.„.-._.!l'™ u
 Saturn and its System  „..». u
 Scientific EsBays  .',., i3
 Sun  *mm"t\ '"^ n
 Transits of Venus  ......'.". 10
 Universe  n
Prothbro's De Montfort  .....!"  b
Public Schools Atlases (The)  ."'."." n
Rawlinson's Parthia   „, 2
 SasBanian Monarchy  2
Recreations of a Country Parson  9
Redgrave's Dictionary of Artists  is
Reeve's Residence in Vienna and Berlin.. 22
Rbilly'S Map of Mont Blanc  23
Rbresby's Memoirs  4
Reynardson'S Down the Road  !..".!!!" 26
Rich's Dictionary of Antiquities  3
Rivers' Rose Amateur's Guide „  15
Rogers's Eclipse of Faith  ! 9
 Defence of ditto  9
— Essays  _    .' 9
Roget's English Thesaurus  ...!., a

NEW WORKS publishbd by LONGMANS AND CO.

Ronalds's Fly-Fisher's Entomology  26
Roscoe's Outlines of Civil Procedure  6
Sandars's Justinian's Institutes  «,. 5
Sankey's Sparta and Thebes  3
Savile on ApparitionB  10
 on Primitive Faith  20
Schellen'S Spectrum Analysis  1 1
Scott's Lectures on the Fine Arts  17
 Poems  25
Seaside Musings  9
Sebbohm'S Oxford Reformers of 1498  2
 Protestant Revolution  „. 4
Sewell *s Preparation for Communion  21
 Questions of the Day  21
 History of France  '.  3
 Tales and Stories  21
, Thoughts for the Age  21
.  . Passing Thoughts  21
 Self-Examination  21
Shelley's Workshop Appliances  12
Short's Church History  3
Smith's (Sydney) Essays  9
.  Wit and Wisdom  9
 (Dr. R. A.) Air and Rain  11
.  (R. B.) Rome and Carthage  3
Southey's Poetical Works  25
Stanley's History of British Birds  14
Stephen's Ecclesiastical Biography  5
Stonehenge on the Dog  26
 on the Greyhound  26
Stoney on Strains  18
Stubbs'S Early Plantagenets  4
Sunday Afternoons  9
Supernatural Religion  ....  19
Swinbourne's Picture Logic  6

Taylor's History of India    _. 2
 (Jeremy)Works,editedbyEDEN 2i
Text-Books of Science  12
Thome's Structural Botany  .,..12,15
Thomson's Laws of Thought  „. 7
Thorpe's Quantitative Analysis  12
Thorpe and Muir's Qualitative Analysis 12
Tilden's Chemical Philosophy  12, 16
Todd (A.) on Parliamentary Government... 22
Trench's Realities of Irish Life  4
Trevelyan's Selections from Maoaulay 9
Trollope's Barchester Towers  21
 Warden  24
TWISB'S Law of Nations  5

Tyndall on Diamagnetism  13
 Electrical Phenomena  13
 Heat  13!
 Sound  13|
 's American Lectures on Light 13
¦  's Fragments of Science  „.... 13
 's R. I. Lectures onLight..,««. 13
¦ — •  's Molecular Physics; ,;..;.'ii.«™ 13
Unawares  24
Unwin'S Machine Design  12
URE'S Arts, Manufactures, and Mines  „ 18
Vaughan's Trident, Crescent and Cross... 19
Walker on Whist  -  27
Warburton'S Edward the Third  „. 4
Watson's Geometry „  _ 12
Watts's Dictionary of Chemistry  16
Webb's Objects for Common Telescopes ... 11
Wellington's Life, by Gleig  5
Whatbly'b English Synonymes  „. 8.
 Christian Evidences  ,.„. 22
 Logic  „. 6
 Rhetoric  6
White's Latin Dictionaries  „. 8
Whitworth'S Measuring Machine  18
Wilcookb'S Sea Fisherman  2G
Williams's Aristotle's Ethics  6
WILLICH'S Popular Tables  27
Wood's (J. G.) Bible Animals  „. 14
 Homes without Hands ...... 14
 Insects at Home  14
 Abroad  ... 14
 Out of Doors  H
 Strange Dwellings  14
 (J. T.) Ephesus  23
Woodward's Geology  14
Wyatt's History of Prussia  3
VOnoe's English-Greek Lexicons  „.„.™ 8
. — .  Horace  ,.  „.-. 25
Vouatt on the Dog   26
 on the Horse »  »  „.....« 26
Zellbr's Socrates....,  ............ „.....,.~~ 6
 Stoics, Epicureans & Sceptics .... 0
 Plato 
Zimmern's Schopenhauer   „ 

Spottiswoode & Co., Printers, New-street Square, London.

YALE UNIVERSITY

a 3 9 0 0 2 00Jt0XL5i-7 P-