Chapter IX: Introduction (8)

John had already quarrelled with the bishops, because they had refused, at a council held at St. Albans, to give him a contribution which he had required, for the assistance of this same Otho, who was his nephew. The news therefore of the consecration at Viterbo at once moved him to violence. The monks of Canterbury were driven from their monastery, and when, in the following year, an interdict which the Pope had intrusted to the Bishops of London, Ely and Worcester, was published, his hostility to the Church became so extreme, that almost all the bishops fled; the Bishops of Winchester, Durham and Norwich, two of whom belonged to the ministerial body, being the only prelates left in England. The interdict was of the severest form; all services of the Church, with the exception of Baptism and extreme unction, being forbidden, while the burial of the dead was allowed only in unconsecrated ground; its effect was however weakened by the conduct of some of the monastic orders, who claimed exemption from its operation, and continued their services. The King’s anger knew no bounds. The clergy were put beyond the protection of the law; orders were issued to drive them from their benefices, and lawless acts committed at their expense met with no punishment. While publishing the interdict, the Pope had threatened still further measures, and the King, conscious of his unpopularity among the barons, sought to secure himself from the effects of the threatened excommunication by seizing their sons as hostages. Nevertheless, though acting thus violently, John showed the weakness of his character by continued communication with the Pope, and occasional fitful acts of favour to the Church; so much so, that, in the following year, Langton prepared to come over to England, and upon the continued obstinacy of the King, Innocent, feeling sure of his final victory, did not shrink from issuing his threatened excommunication. John had hoped to be able to exclude the knowledge of this step from the island, as his father Henry had done; but the rumour of it soon got abroad, and its effect was great. The fidelity even of the ministers was shaken, and one of them rose from the council table, asserting that it was unsafe for a beneficed clergyman any longer to hold intercourse with the excommunicated King.

[Sidenote: Attack on the other insular nations, Scotland.]

In a state of nervous excitement, and mistrusting his nobles, the King himself perpetually moved to and fro in his kingdom, seldom staying more than a few days in one place. None the less did he continue his old line of policy. Sums of money were still frequently demanded, and sent out of the kingdom to support the cause of Otho, who, having procured the assassination of his rival, was again making head in Germany. Nor did he refrain from carrying out a policy which in any other king would have been accepted as national and good. The loss of the French provinces had thrown England back upon itself, and the country now seemed inclined to seek a surer foundation for its power in the more complete subjection of the immediately surrounding nations. Thus William the Lion of Scotland was compelled, by the advance of an English army, to make a treaty which was in fact a complete submission to England. He was obliged to pay a large sum of money, and to give up into the hands of John his daughters Margaret and Isabella, as well as hostages drawn from the noblest families of the country; while some years later, in 1212, his son Alexander appeared in London, and was knighted and swore fealty to the King.

[Sidenote: Ireland.]

[Sidenote: Wales.]

[Sidenote: Disaffection of the Northern barons.]

Shortly after this success in the North, John betook himself to Ireland, where quarrels had arisen between the angry Irish nobles, and where Hugh de Lacy had suppressed his rival John de Courcy, and, being enfiefed with the kingdom of Ulster, had arrogated to himself rights closely touching upon royalty. John raised supplies from the English towns, and crossed over to Waterford. He there succeeded in establishing order, and having introduced the English form of administration, returned to England, leaving John de Grey, Bishop of Norwich, behind him as his representative. He then directed his arms towards Wales. Along the marches of that country there was constant strife, as the Lords Marchers erected new castles and encroached upon their neighbours. In 1211 the King marched through the country, and received at the foot of Snowdon the submission of Llewellyn, his son-in-law,[34] and other princes. A fresh outbreak, accompanied by the usual cruel slaughter of the garrisons of the castles, roused his anger. At Nottingham he had all the Welsh hostages he had taken under the late treaty hanged, and was preparing for further vengeance when news reached him of the discontent of the Northern barons. He was induced therefore to direct his arms against them, filled Northumberland with his foreign mercenaries, and seized fresh hostages from his suspected nobles.

[Sidenote: The King’s rapacity.]

These wars had but afforded still further opportunities for the King’s rapacity; from which every class in the kingdom was now suffering. Those classes even which John had hitherto somewhat spared now felt the pressure. There was a universal persecution of the Jews, who were all suddenly apprehended, and many of them tortured to declare their wealth. He is said to have extracted 60,000 marks from the race. The clergy too had been obliged to find him £100,000; the Cistercian monks some £30,000, or £40,000, and subsequently, in 1212, another £12,000 was wrung from them, because the chief of the order, acting as Papal Legate, had, during the Albigensian crusade, injured Raymond, the King’s brother-in-law.

[Sidenote: League with Northern princes.]

While he had been thus, even in the pursuit of national objects, estranging by his tyrannical conduct his own subjects, John had been carrying on his opposition to the Pope outside the limits of the kingdom; and events in Europe were rapidly approaching a crisis. Otho, the Guelphic Emperor, upon the death of his rival, had so completely succeeded, that in 1209 he had been solemnly crowned Emperor in Italy. But no sooner had he gained his object than the inevitable rivalry between Pope and Emperor again arose, and in a few years he had forfeited the Pontiff’s favour so completely as to become the object of his greatest hatred; he had even been excommunicated, while the Pope found a new protegé in the young Frederick of Sicily, whose anti-papal tendencies were not at that time suspected. Similarity of circumstances rendered still closer the bond of union between John and his nephew, and in 1211 a league of excommunicated leaders was formed, including all the princes of the North of Europe; Ferrand of Flanders, the Duke of Brabant, John, and Otho, were all members of it, and it was chiefly organized by the activity of Reinald of Dammartin, Count of Boulogne. The chief enemy of most of these confederates was Philip of France; and John thought he saw in this league the means of revenge against his old enemy.

[Sidenote: John is deposed 1213.]

[Sidenote: Surrender of the crown to the Pope.]

To complete the line of demarcation between the two parties, Innocent, who was greatly moved by the description of the disorders and persecutions in England, declared John’s crown forfeited, and intrusted the carrying out of the sentence to Philip. In 1213 armies were collected on both sides, Philip was already on the Channel, and John had assembled a large army on Barhamdown, not far from Canterbury. But Innocent probably never intended to proceed to extremities. To embroil two Christian nations would have been to thwart one of his greatest objects, which was a new crusade. But he knew his man; he knew the weakness which was hidden under the violence and ostentatious passion of John, and he also well knew from his emissaries in England the widespread disaffection there. While the army was still lying in its camp, there appeared at Dover Pandulf, as the Pope’s Legate. He demanded and obtained an audience with the King, and there explained to him the gravity of his position. He found means to bring home to his mind the perfect insecurity of his position at home, while John, from his own experience, knew both the power and the skill of Philip. The consciousness of his danger destroyed his boastful obstinacy, and he made an unconditional submission. The paper which he signed was drawn up almost in the very words of the demands of Pandulf. He offered to plead before the Papal Court; he promised peace and a good reception to Langton, the other bishops, and banished laity; he was to restore all Church property, and to make restitution for all loss since the interdict. Having accepted these conditions, the King went further. On the 15th of May, at Dover, he formally resigned the crowns of England and Ireland into the hands of Pandulf, and received them again as the Pope’s feudatory.

[Sidenote: John’s improved position.]

[Sidenote: Renewed difficulties with Stephen Langton.]

It was not without ulterior objects that John took this disgraceful step. He believed that he saw in it a way out of all his difficulties, and the means of revenging himself upon his enemies. He had no intention of allowing his new position to interfere with his continental alliances, and it was to their success that he looked to re-establish his power. When Philip of France was no longer the agent of Papal authority, he believed that it would be possible for him to resist the storm that was gathering round him. He expected that one great victory would go far to give him back his lost French dominions, when the prestige of success, the friendship of the Church, and the increase of power derived from his regained dominions, would make him master of the situation in England. At first all seemed to work as he wished. Pandulf immediately hurried to France, and forbade Philip to attack the Pope’s new vassal. The opportune attacks of Ferrand of Flanders diverted the French army towards the dominions of that prince; the English fleet which was sent to assist the Flemings destroyed the whole French shipping in the port of Damme; the Archbishop Langton was received with honour, John threw himself at his feet, reconciled himself with the Church, issued writs to all the churches to inquire into the amount of damages to be restored, and ordered a great council to meet at St. Albans to settle finally the restitution of the Church property. He then summoned his barons to meet him, and join him in an attack upon Poitou. But he was mistaken, both in the character of the Churchman, in whom he hoped to find an obedient servant of the Papal See, and in the amount of dissatisfaction among his nobles. The barons of the North refused to follow him, and the meeting at St. Albans resulted, not in a settlement of Church difficulties, but in the open declaration of the complaints of all classes. A few weeks after, Langton, who had seen through the character of John, and was full of hatred of his tyranny, met an assembly of malcontents at St. Paul’s in London, and there declaring that he had found documentary proof of their rights, produced the coronation charter of Henry I., which was at once accepted by the barons as the declaration of the views and demands of their party.

[Sidenote: John hopes to remove them by victory in France. 1214.]

[Sidenote: Battle of Bonvines. 1214.]

In the meantime, two events had happened disastrous to the royal cause. Nicholas of Tusculum had arrived as Papal Legate, and the justiciary Godfrey Fitz-Peter had died. The Legate, ignorant of the feelings of the English, and eager to support and make real the Papal authority, had thoroughly adopted the King’s cause. He threatened the clergy unless they at once accepted the arrangements which the King offered; and although it was the very thing which had before excited the anger of the Pope, he proceeded to fill vacant benefices with the devoted adherents of the royal party. In the place of the experienced Fitz-Peter, who, however far he might have strained the administrative power of the crown, had yet exercised a wholesome restraint on the King, Peter des Roches was raised to the office of justiciary, and appointed to be the representative of the crown during John’s absence in France. The people saw themselves, as they thought, both in spiritual and temporal matters in the hands of the tyrant. A great success abroad might yet have checked the growing disaffection. The King led an army to Rochelle. At first he was successful everywhere. He overran Poitou, and crossing the Loire captured Anger, but the Poitevin barons had been too deeply injured by him to be faithful friends; their disaffection soon compelled him to retire. But the great confederation was at work upon all sides. The Count of Flanders was pressing in upon the North, Otho was advancing from Germany. In July a junction was made at Valenciennes. Thither Philip now betook himself; he was followed faithfully by most of his great nobles, and by the militia of the chartered cities. The whole success of his policy was at stake. A defeat would ruin the object of his life--the establishment of the royal power in France. For Otho too the stake was high; the triumph of the Guelphic house in its long war against the Hohenstaufen would be the fruit of victory. For such prizes the battle of Bouvines was fought, at a small place upon the little river Marque. The fortune of the day was with the French; in all directions they were victorious. Both for Otho and John the defeat may be said to have been final; the Emperor withdrew to his hereditary dominions, in Brunswick, where, after some not very important fighting, he died in 1218. John returned, having lost his last hope of re-establishing his power at home by foreign conquests.

[Sidenote: Insurrection in England on his return. 1215.]

He returned to England to find himself in a worse position than ever; for Innocent had found out the errors his legate had committed, and recalled him; and John had lost another of his most trusty counsellors by the death of the Bishop of Norwich. Thus left to his own resources, with his usual folly he took the opportunity of demanding a heavy scutage from those barons who had not followed him abroad. The nobles of the North rose. A meeting was held in November at Bury St. Edmunds, and it was there determined that they would make their formal demands upon the King in arms at Christmas time. John was keeping his Christmas at Worcester; but having no doubt heard of the action of the barons, hurried to London, where they appeared before him in arms. He demanded till Easter for consideration. The time was given him. He used it in an attempt to sow dissension among his enemies. He granted to the Church the free right of election, hoping thereby to draw Langton from the confederation. He took the oaths of the crusader to put himself more immediately under the guardianship of the Church, and hastily summoned troops of mercenaries from Poitou.

[Sidenote: Meeting at Brackley.]

[Sidenote: Capture of London.]

[Sidenote: Runnymede.]

The barons at once reassembled at Brackley. At their head was Fitz-Walter, an old enemy of the King, and William Marshall, son of the Earl of Pembroke. Their strength consisted of the nobles of the North--and they were spoken of as the Northerners,--but many barons from other parts of England joined them, and in spite of various compromises offered by the King, they laid siege to the castle of Northampton. They there received messages of adherence from the mayor and citizens of London, into which city they were received in May; and thus masters of the greater part of England, and of the capital, they compelled John to receive them and hear their demands at Runnymede, a meadow by the Thames’ side not far from Staines. There was signed, on the 15th of June, the paper of forty-nine articles, which they presented, and which were afterwards drawn up into the shape of the sixty-three articles of the Great Charter.

[Sidenote: Political position of England.]

That Great Charter was the joint work of the insurgent lords, and of those who still in name remained faithful to the crown. In many points this rising of the barons bears the appearance of an ordinary feudal insurrection. Closer examination proves that it was of a different character. The very success of Henry II in his great plan of national regeneration had tended to change the character of English politics. Till his time, the bulk of the people had regarded the crown on the whole as a defence against their feudal tyrants. In the pursuit of good government he had crushed the feudal nobles, and had welded Norman and English into one nation. In so doing, he had greatly increased the royal power; for in those early times good government invariably implied a strong monarchy. In patriotic hands his work might have continued. But when the increased royal power passed to reckless rulers, such as Richard and John, it enabled them to play the part of veritable tyrants. They had used this power in ruthlessly pillaging the people. The great justiciaries, Hubert and Fitz-Peter, content with keeping order and retaining constitutional forms, had almost of necessity lent themselves to this course, while lesser officials had undoubtedly acted with arbitrary violence. The interests of the King and his ministers had thus become separated from those of the nation. To oppose this tyranny, nobles and people could now act in concert. The struggle was no longer between King and people on one side against the nobles on the other, but nobles and people had joined against the King. Besides this political change, a great revolution had taken place in the character of the nobility itself. The feudal nobles, the friends of the Conqueror, had for the most part given place to a new nobility, the sons of the counsellors and ministers of Henry II. In the centre of England alone did remnants of the old feudal families remain. The insurrection then, coming from the North, was the work not of feudal barons but of the new ministerial baronage. Again, the claims raised, although, inasmuch as the monarchy was still in form a feudal monarchy, they bear a resemblance to feudal claims, were such as might have been expected from men trained in the habits of administration. They were claims for the redress of abuses of constitutional power, and were based upon a written document. In addition to this, they were supported by the clergy, who were never and could never be feudal in their views, and by the towns, whose interests were always opposed to those of the feudal nobility. There is another thing to be recollected; the Charter, as ultimately granted, was not the same as the demands of the barons. A considerable number of the older barons, of the bishops, and even the Archbishop himself, remained ostensibly true to the King, and were present at Runnymede as his followers. We are told that it was the younger nobles who formed the strength of the reforming party. Nevertheless, with the exception of the King’s actual ministers, and of those foreigners, the introduction of whom was one of his gravest errors, the whole of John’s own following acknowledged the justice of the baronial claims, sympathized with the demands raised, and joined in putting them into the best shape. The movement was in fact, even where not in form, national.

[Sidenote: Magna Charta.]

The terms of the Charter were in accordance with this state of affairs. To the Church were secured its rights and the freedom of election (1). To the feudal tenants just arrangements in the matters of wardship, of heirship, widowhood, and marriage (2-8). Scutage and aids, which John had from the beginning of his reign taken as a matter of course, were henceforward to be granted by the great council of the kingdom, except in three cases, the deliverance of the king from prison, the knighting of his eldest son, and the marriage of his eldest daughter (12). The same right was secured by the immediate tenants to their sub-tenants. The great council was to consist of archbishops, bishops and abbots, counts and greater barons, summoned severally by writ, and of the rest of the tenants in chief, summoned by general writ to the sheriff (14). The lands of sub-tenants, seized by the king for treason or felony, were to be held by him for a year only, and then to be handed over to the tenant’s immediate lord (32). Similarly the crown was no longer to claim wardship in the case of sub-tenants, nor to change the custom of escheated baronies, nor to fill up vacancies in private abbeys (43, 46). These are all distinct regulations of feudal relations. The more general acts of tyranny of the crown were guarded against, by fixing the Court of Common Pleas at Westminster (17); by the settlement of land processes by itinerant justices in the counties where the disputes arose (18); by the limitations of punishments within reasonable limits (20-22); by the restriction of the powers of constables, sheriffs, and other royal officers, both in the matter of royal lawsuits and of purveyance (28-31); by an article (36), which is held to foreshadow the Habeas Corpus Act, stipulating the immediate trial of prisoners; and by other articles (38-40), which are held to foreshadow trial by jury, and which forbid the passing of sentence except on the verdict of a man’s equals, and witness upon oath. Other points secured their liberties to the free towns and to merchants. This Charter was to be guaranteed by the appointment of a committee of twenty-five nobles, any four of whom might claim redress for infractions of it, and upon refusal proceed to make war upon the king.

[Sidenote: John’s attempts to break loose from it.]

[Sidenote: Louis is summoned. 1216.]

This Charter, which with its final clause implied absolute submission, John never intended to keep. No sooner were his first ebullitions of anger over, than he proceeded to take steps for destroying it. Messengers were at once sent to Rome to get it annulled, and to Poitou to collect mercenaries. Troops came over in crowds, and the barons in alarm ordered William D’Aubigné to attack the castle of Rochester. He seized it, but was there besieged, and compelled to surrender to John’s mercenaries. All the common men of the garrison were hanged. John’s other message was equally successful. A letter from Innocent announced that he totally disallowed the Charter, and ordered Langton to excommunicate the King’s enemies. This he refused to do, and other excommunications and interdicts were also futile. John’s temporal weapons were more successful. He overran England with his mercenaries, burning, slaying and harrying with vindictive fury, and so superior was he in the field, that the barons found themselves obliged to summon Louis of France to their assistance. Louis’ wife was John’s niece, and they probably intended to use this slender connection to change the dynasty.

[Sidenote: John’s death.]

His success was not very rapid, though at first he seemed to have the game in his hands. He wasted his time and lost his opportunity before the castles of Dover and Windsor. His conduct also in bestowing fiefs upon his French followers began to excite the jealousy of the English; and John’s cause was again wearing a more hopeful appearance, when, marching from Lincoln, which he had lately conquered, he crossed the Wash, with all his supplies which he had lately drawn from Lynn. The rise of the tide destroyed the whole of his train, and broken by his loss, or perhaps poisoned, or perhaps a victim to his greediness, he died on the 19th of October at Newark. In July of the same year he had lost his great protector Innocent III.

HENRY III.

1216-1272.

Born 1207 = Eleanor of Provence.
|
+-------------------+---+-------------------+
| | |
Edward I. Edmund, Earl of Lancaster. Margaret = Alexander III.

CONTEMPORARY PRINCES.

_Scotland._ | _France._ | _Germany._ | _Spain._
| | |
Alexander II., | Philip Augustus, | Philip, 1197. | Henry I., 1214.
1214. | 1180. | Otho IV., 1208. | Ferdinand III.,
Alexander III., | Louis VIII., 1223. | Frederick II., | 1217.
1249. | Louis IX., 1226. | 1218. | Alphonso X.,
| Philip III., 1270. | Interregnum, | 1252.
| | 1250. |

POPES.--Honorius III., 1216. Gregory IX., 1227. Celestine IV., 1241
(vacancy 1241). Innocent IV., 1243. Alexander IV., 1254. Urban IV.,
1261. Clement IV., 1265 (vacancy 1268). Gregory X., 1271.

_Archbishops._ | _Chief-Justices._ | _Chancellors._
| |
Stephen Langton, | Hubert de Burgh, | Richard de Marisco,
1207-1228. | 1215-1232. | 1214-1226.
Richard le Grand, | Stephen Segrave, | Ralph Neville,
1229-1231. | 1232-1234. | 1226-1244.
Edmund Rich, | Hugh Bigot, | Walter de Merton, 1261.
1234-1240. | 1258-1260. | Nicholas de Ely, 1263.
Boniface of Savoy, | Hugh le Despencer, | Thomas Cantilupe, 1265.
1245-1270. | 1260. | Walter Giffard, 1265.
| Philip Basset, 1261. | Godfrey Giffard, 1267.
| Richard Middleton,
| 1269-1272.

[Sidenote: Difficulties at Henry’s accession.]

[Sidenote: Pembroke’s conciliatory measures.]

[Sidenote: Fair of Lincoln.]

[Sidenote: Louis leaves England.]

Immediately upon the death of John, William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke, and Gualo, the Papal Legate, the leaders of John’s faithful followers, declared Prince Henry king. It was a moment of extreme danger. The Scotch had advanced as far as Carlisle, the Welsh were harassing the Marches, the East and South of England were in the hands of Louis and the revolted barons, the court could with difficulty uphold its influence in the West. But Marshall was a man of tried experience, of trustworthy character, and, though a firm adherent of the crown, no friend to tyranny. The presence of the French prince in England shocked all national prejudices. Pembroke set on foot a policy of conciliation, and attempted to unite all parties against the foreigner. He at once separated the cause of the young Henry from that of his father by accepting the Charter. He wrote friendly letters to the leaders of the revolted barons, and found assistance in the ecclesiastical weapons wielded by Gualo. One by one the insurgents, feeling themselves sure of constitutional treatment at the hands of Pembroke, joined the royal party. Pembroke found himself strong enough to risk a battle. Louis had received reinforcements, and with the insurgent nobles who still upheld his cause marched to Lincoln, where, though the town was in his possession, the castle still held out for the English king. Thither Pembroke betook himself, determined to bring on a decisive engagement. Gaining access to the town through the castle, his troops fell upon the French in the streets, and completely routed them, capturing nearly all the English leaders. London and its neighbourhood alone remained to Louis, and when a great French fleet, under Eustace the Monk, which was bringing him assistance, was completely defeated by Hubert de Burgh and D’Albiney, Louis felt that his cause was lost, and consented to treat. The English, who only wanted to get rid of him, granted easy terms, including the freedom of most of their prisoners. They even advanced 10,000 marks towards defraying the heavy fine which Gualo on the part of the Church demanded as an expiation for disobedience to the Roman See, and Louis was escorted with all honour to the sea coast, and retired.

With Louis the great obstacle to the settlement of the country was gone. Pembroke continued to act in a conciliatory spirit. A pardon was issued, including all political offenders; peace with Scotland was secured; and the Charter, together with the charter of the forests, was again signed. It underwent, however, some changes. The King was no longer acting under coercion; restrictions which Pembroke considered inexpedient were therefore removed. His object appears to have been to reproduce as far as possible the state of things existing in the reign of Henry II. The destruction of castles erected during the late reign was therefore ordered, and the clause of the Charter forbidding the levy of scutage without the consent of the barons omitted. The reconciliation thus effected was in fact the triumph of the crown; the offices were filled with adherents of John. But in the hands of Pembroke the regained power of the crown would have been constitutionally employed.

[Sidenote: Papal attempt to govern by legates.]

[Sidenote: Pandulf’s government.]

[Sidenote: His fall.]

His death opened the door to a strange attempt on the part of the Papal See. The influence of Gualo, the Papal Legate, had been great. It had been so because John’s resignation of his crown was regarded at Rome as no vain formality, but as a real cession. But Gualo, a man of somewhat weak character, was no match for Pembroke, and was unfitted to make good the authority which Rome was inclined to claim. He was recalled, and a much more energetic legate appointed in the person of Pandulf, now Bishop elect of Norwich. His appointment represents an effort on the part of Rome to govern England as a conquered province by means of its legates. The natural governor of England during the minority of the sovereign was the great justiciary Hubert de Burgh. But Pandulf assumed authority over him, and his letters amply prove how overbearingly he used it. His government was at first successful. The dangers of a French invasion were averted by a renewal for four years of the Peace of Chinon. The friendship of Scotland was secured by the marriage of Henry’s sister Jane with the Scotch king. A splendid coronation, and an ostentatious ceremonial at the removal of Becket’s bones to the Cathedral of Canterbury, seemed to show the restored grandeur both of King and Church; while a Bull from Pope Honorius commanded the restoration of the royal castles, which the poverty of the King had, in many instances, obliged him to pledge to their governors. But Pandulf’s conduct was too overbearing to be endured. Langton, as the head of the English Church, and therefore no friend to the immediate government of Rome, tried to curb him by demanding his obedience as one of his suffragan bishops. The Pope declared him free from this obedience so long as his consecration to the See of Norwich was uncompleted. Langton finally betook himself to Rome, and there, by what means we know not, succeeded in obtaining an order for his recall, accompanied by a promise that no resident legate should be appointed in England during his own lifetime.

[Sidenote: Triumph of national part under Herbert de Burgh.]

Hubert de Burgh at once took his proper position as regent, supported by the national Church; and the attempt at immediate rule from Rome may be said to have failed, though throughout the reign England was regarded as in a special manner a fief of the Papal See, and, as Pope Innocent IV. said afterwards, “a well of wealth from which Rome might draw unlimitedly.” For eight years Hubert ruled England well. He was unduly grasping of money, he was occasionally arbitrary, but on the whole his government was directed to the honest support of the Great Charter, and the destruction of that foreign influence under which England was suffering.

[Sidenote: Parties in England.]

[Sidenote: Opposition barons at Leicester. 1223.]

[Sidenote: Resumption of royal castles.]

[Sidenote: Destruction of Faukes de Breauté. 1224.]

The centre of this influence was Peter des Roches, who had the care of the King’s person. These two ministers, Hubert and Peter, were the representatives of the different sides of that quarrel which gives its tone to the whole reign. The characteristic feature of the period is the growth of national feeling. This feeling had been outraged by John by the introduction of foreign favourites. The claims of the Pope on England, the tyranny which he exercised on the national Church, and the constant bestowal of English livings upon foreigners, had a similar effect in shocking the feelings of the clergy. Thus while the Pope and King appear throughout the reign as the favourers of foreigners, the national party both in State and Church were closely connected. As yet, indeed, the King was too young for such a part; the representative of the foreign party was Des Roches. Round him gathered themselves all classes of malcontents, consisting chiefly of those foreign mercenaries whom John had raised to power, and who were occupying the royal castles, of Llewellyn of Wales in close connection with them, and of the nobles of Ireland. Des Roches’ influence at Rome secured for this party on most points the support of the Pope. For two years they were constantly thwarting the government of De Burgh. The necessities of the government had obliged him to be severe in the collection of money; but there was some slight colouring for the charge of undue severity which was laid against him. An uproar in London, headed by Constantine Fitz-Alulf, an old partisan of the French invaders, had been followed by the summary execution of that demagogue. Attacks both in Wales and in Ireland upon the property of William Marshall, who was thoroughly English in his views, were the first signs of the coming storm. A Bull which De Burgh obtained from Honorius declaring the King of age, and demanding the restitution of the castles, brought matters to a crisis. Under this provocation the barons and Peter des Roches proceeded to action. An attack on London was planned, but failed. But the discontented nobles openly appeared before the King; and Peter des Roches formally charged Hubert with treason, and demanded his dismissal. Led by the Earl of Chester, they retired, and kept Christmas with great pomp at Leicester. The Justiciary and the King determined to hold a rival meeting at Northampton. The royal appeal for help was warmly answered. The force collected at Northampton was too strong for the malcontents. Excommunication issued against them by Stephen Langton completed their discomfiture. They separated and obtained peace as a price of the surrender of the castles. There was one exception, Faukes de Breauté, who contrived to retain his strongholds. This man, a mercenary of John, had risen to be the sheriff of six counties, the governor of several castles, and a Baron of the Exchequer. Hubert determined to complete his victory by destroying him. His opportunity occurred, when Faukes’ brother William laid hands on the travelling justice Henry Braibroc and imprisoned him at Bedford. With extreme rapidity De Burgh marched against him and captured Bedford. Faukes fled to join his former comrades; but it was in vain that both Chester and Peter des Roches, now at one with the Justiciary, petitioned in his favour, De Burgh remained unmoved, and De Breauté was stripped of all his offices, and condemned to perpetual exile. He betook himself to Rome, where he managed to obtain the ear of the Court, and still further increased the difficulties of the English government.

[Sidenote: Danger from France. Death of Phillip.]

[Sidenote: English neglect the opportunity.]

[Sidenote: Poitou remains French.]

Although he had thus worsted his domestic enemies the Justiciary was surrounded with difficulties. Philip Augustus had died in 1223, and had been succeeded by his son Louis VIII., the old enemy of England. He had begun his reign with a threat of renewed war, to which the disturbed state of Poitou and Guienne afforded a constant opportunity. In those countries there was a succession of unceasing disputes between town and town and noble and noble; the country roughly forming itself into two parties, the towns and the nobles. In 1224, war had in fact broken out. Henry had sought the friendship of the German Emperor Frederick against France, and connected himself with Peter Duke of Brittany, and when Louis appeared at the head of a great army, nominally for a war against the Albigenses, it seemed probable that its real aim was the English provinces. Louis’ unexpected death changed the state of affairs. The new king was a child in the hands of his mother Blanche, and the French nobles took the opportunity to loosen the connection between themselves and the crown which Philip II. had established, and thus destroyed for the present the possibility of united national action. But although, on the first slackening of authority, all Poitou passed into the English hands, the chance of forming a united opposition among the discontented French nobles was allowed to pass unused. One by one even the old allies of the English returned to their allegiance to France. At length, Richard, the King’s brother, who had the title of Count of Poitou, and had commanded his army, joined in the general pacification.

[Sidenote: Hubert’s continued power.]

It was the financial difficulties of the government which had chiefly prevented the success of this war. The opposition to Hubert de Burgh was constant, and it had only been upon condition of again signing the Charter that the King had been able to raise a fifteenth for the French war. This tax was probably the first raised in strict accordance with the terms of the Charter. De Burgh was honestly desirous, in opposition to the arbitrary views of his rival Des Roches, that the King should rule constitutionally, and both by proclamation and by official letters he took care to spread a knowledge of the Charter in the country. Although Henry was declared of age in 1227, when he was twenty, the government of De Burgh practically continued. He was made Earl of Kent, and declared Justiciary for life; and his victory was completed by the absence of Peter des Roches, who thought it better to withdraw for a time to the Crusades. His rule was not very popular among the nobles: not only was he naturally disliked by the chiefs of the adverse party, he even quarrelled with Richard, the King’s brother, and with William Marshall. Such an act indeed as the following could scarcely have failed to make him enemies. An inquisition was issued to examine into the title deeds[35] of all tenants in chief, who were obliged to make good their titles by large payments. The sum derived from this inquiry amounted to £100,000.

[Sidenote: Langton supports his policy.]

[Sidenote: Change of Popes: increased exactions.]

The support which the Justiciary invariably received from Langton bears witness to the national character of his government. The Archbishop’s efforts to free the Church from its foreign slavery were perhaps even more laborious than those of the Justiciary. Already the system which reached such excesses afterwards had been established. Gualo and Pandulf had been but single instances of a number of Roman officials who had grown rich on gifts of English benefices; and now the Roman Court determined, under the pretext of raising money for the Crusade, to demand both in France and England two benefices in each diocese and each abbey for the exclusive use of Rome. In neither country was the demand allowed. Otho, a Papal legate, held a council in 1226 at Westminster, and brought forward the demand. The clergy would probably have had to yield, had not the Archbishop, by private negotiations with the Pope, succeeded in getting the Legate’s commission withdrawn. The clergy then expressly declared that by the laws of England they were free from such exactions. That England was allowed thus to escape, and that the exactions were comparatively so light in these first years of the reign, is due to the character of Honorius and to the interest which he always took in the young King, whom he regarded as his special vassal and ward. The case was different when he was succeeded by Gregory IX., the nephew of Innocent III., and the heir to his imperious temper. It was fortunate that his constant war with the German Emperor prevented him from meddling much with English politics.

[Sidenote: Death of Langton. 1228.]

But this period, during which England was governed by such patriotic leaders as De Burgh and Langton, working in harmony with one another, was coming to a close. In 1228, the Archbishop died, and was succeeded, after a disputed election, by Richard Chancellor of Lincoln, who was authoritatively nominated by the Pope. The new Archbishop did not live long, and was in his turn succeeded, also on the nomination of the Pope, by Edmund Rich, a man of great sanctity and singleness of purpose. In the following year, a quarrel occurred between the King and the Justiciary, which was probably the beginning of that nobleman’s fall.

[Sidenote: Quarrel of Henry and De Burgh.]

[Sidenote: Henry’s false foreign policy.]

Henry, now that he was of age, had become anxious to distinguish himself by regaining some of his continental dominions. To this he was pressed by the discontented French nobles, more especially by the Count of Toulouse, who was suffering from the Albigensian crusades, by the Counts of Brittany and of the provinces in the north-east of France. In other words, he was thinking of throwing England back into that position of entanglement and dependence which had hitherto prevented the formation of the national spirit. This was exactly opposed to the Justiciary’s views. He was unable to change the King’s mind; but when Henry arrived at Portsmouth, where his army was assembled, he found the ships insufficient for its transport. Full of rage, he turned upon Hubert, abusing him as a grey-haired traitor, and affirming that he was bribed by France. The expedition had to be postponed, which was fortunate, as the scutage which had been demanded from the Barons and the Church had indeed been granted, but not yet collected. It was not till the end of April 1230 that the armies sailed. Although the expedition was unwise in itself, it was well timed. With the exception of the Count of Champagne, nearly all the French Barons were in arms, or ready to rise, against the Queen Regent Blanche; but Henry was incapable of seizing the opportunity. He tried diplomacy instead of war, but it was in vain that he persuaded many of the Barons of Poitou to join him; Blanche found means to break up the confederation against her. This change in the aspect of affairs compelled Henry to make a truce, and before the end of the year he returned home, leaving a small army behind him.

[Sidenote: Return of Des Roches.]

[Sidenote: Twenge’s riots.]

Under pretext of continuing the war, a new scutage was demanded and granted, not without opposition from the clergy; but finally a peace for three years was concluded in July 1231, which was again renewed for five years in 1235. We may suppose, although Henry declared that he was on perfectly good terms with the Justiciary, that their great difference on foreign policy made his suspicious mind inclined to listen willingly to the insinuations of Des Roches, his evil genius, who in this year returned from the Crusade. Every difficulty of the Justiciary was artfully taken advantage of. Among other things laid to his charge was the insecure state of the Welsh borders. He was even represented as fostering a strange lawless opposition to the encroachment of Rome, which had been showing itself in the kingdom. A secret society, part lay, part clerical, had been formed to check the habit of granting English livings to foreign priests, thus not only destroying the funds of the English clergy, but overriding the rights of private patronage. The society wrote letters to all ecclesiastical bodies, threatening them with vengeance if they paid the incomes of the foreign interlopers. The associates did not confine themselves to threats; several foreign priests were robbed and outraged. The head of the conspiracy, Sir Robert Twenge, boldly justified his conduct to the King, and was allowed to depart unharmed, and carry his complaints direct to Rome. The rioters were said to have shown in their justification letters from the Justiciary.

[Sidenote: Fall of De Burgh.]

[Sidenote: Effects of taking sanctuary.]

It is scarcely possible that this could have been true; but, together with the disturbances on the Welsh Marches, it formed the chief among a series of very trivial charges which were brought against Hubert, and produced his fall. On the 29th of July 1232, he was suddenly suspended from all his offices. His place was taken by Stephen de Segrave, a close ally of Des Roches. Peter de Rivaux, probably the Bishop’s son, was made treasurer, and other favourites of the Bishop were raised to office. Hubert, aware of the strength of his enemies, took refuge in the Priory of Merton in Surrey. He was granted a few weeks to prepare his defence, and to get ready accounts which were demanded of all the money that had ever passed through his hands. Supposing that he was thus at liberty for the present, he went to Bury St. Edmunds to join his wife, but on his journey thither, at Brentwood, he was, by order of the Court, assaulted, and fled for refuge to the sanctuary of a neighbouring chapel. He was torn from his refuge, and hurried to London. The favour he had gained in the eyes of the people and his whole political aim are well shown in the words that are reported to have been used by a smith when ordered to put irons on him: “Is not this that true and noble Hubert who has so often snatched England from the devastating hand of the foreigners, and made England, England?” The Church obliged Henry to restore him to his sanctuary, and the love with which he was regarded was shown by the touching offer of his own chaplain, Luke, Bishop of Dublin, to give himself up in his place. The effect of taking sanctuary was, that the fugitive was bound to swear before the coroner that he would leave England for ever. This exile he was bound to seek within forty days, leaving the coast within a tide after his arrival there, or, if the wind made that impossible, walking daily into the sea to show his willingness to do so. Hubert could not bring himself to abjure England; he would not therefore leave his sanctuary, and being surrounded by his enemies, was starved into submission. He was treated mercifully; his Crown fiefs were taken from him, his own property he retained, but he was kept in confinement in the Castle of Devizes.

[Sidenote: Revolution under Des Roches. 1233.]

[Sidenote: Earl of Pembroke upholds Hubert.]

Once in command of the government, Peter des Roches pushed headlong to the attainment of his objects. The friends of De Burgh were swept from the Court. The offices were filled with foreigners. Henry was persuaded to bring over 2000 troops from France. But Hubert was not the only Englishman among the nobility. Richard Marshall of Pembroke, the second son of the great Regent, and now his representative, raised the voice of patriotism, and declared to the King that as long as foreigners were ruling none of his English counsellors would appear at Court. Des Roches answered insolently that the King and his foreigners would soon bring rebels to reason. At assemblies at Oxford and at Westminster the same sort of language was used. By Peter’s advice, the King began to proceed against his discontented subjects. He deprived Gilbert Basset of his property, and ordered the apprehension of his brother-in-law Siward; they fled to the Earl Marshall, their property fell to Rivaux. In August, a day was appointed for the delivery of hostages by the suspected nobles. Pembroke, the Marshall, hearing that there was a plot against his life, retired to his Welsh possessions. The King summoned troops to meet him at Gloucester. The Marshall and his friends were outlawed without trial; fresh foreign troops came thronging over, and civil war began. The King’s army did not fare well, and the clergy began to take up the cause of the Marshall. They protested against the confiscation of a peer’s property without trial. “There are no peers in England,” said Des Roches, “as in France; the King may sentence whom he will, and drive them from the country.” The clergy could not hear such absolute principles unmoved. They threatened Des Roches and his favourites with excommunication; and when the King demanded their censure upon the Marshall for an attack upon Gloucester, they said the city was his, and they found no grounds for censure.

[Sidenote: Edmund of Canterbury causes Des Roches’ fall. 1234.]

[Sidenote: Henry becomes his own minister.]

Meanwhile, afraid for his life, De Burgh had escaped from Devizes and again taken sanctuary. Again he was illegally torn from it, again the Church remonstrated, and he was again restored. A sudden inroad into Wiltshire under the Marshall’s friend Siward set him at liberty, and he immediately joined the Marshall at Strigul. Again and again the royal troops were worsted; and at length, in 1234, at a meeting of the clergy at Westminster, Archbishop Edmund took the matter up, explained to the King the wretched effects of trusting to his foreign counsellors, warned him that excommunication would most likely fall upon him too, and induced him at length to order the Bishop of Winchester to retire and attend to his spiritual work in his diocese. For a month longer the war went on, or rather attacks continued to be made upon the followers of Peter. But in May, news arrived that Richard Marshall had been treacherously killed in Ireland at the instigation of Des Roches. This was more than the King himself could bear, and the Archbishop received orders to restore to favour all those whom Des Roches had outlawed. Gilbert Marshall received the property and office of his late brother, and Hubert was allowed to retain the earldom of Kent and his own property. This change was followed by the removal of Peter’s creatures. After some years of absence, he himself returned to England, was received into favour, and died in his diocese in 1239.

The fall of Des Roches was not productive of such advantageous changes in the government as might have been expected. Segrave held for a few years the office of Justiciary. On his death the office was not renewed till after the Parliament at Oxford. Ralph Neville continued in more or less favour as Chancellor till 1244, when that office also fell into abeyance. The King practically became his own minister, and unfortunately his views of government had more in common with those of Des Roches than with those of De Burgh. It is true that the growing power of the Great Council, which was gradually gaining the name of Parliament, prevented any great infractions of the Charter, and compelled the King again and again to renew that document, though always in exchange for an aid. The frequency of renewal, however, seems to show repeated efforts on the part of the King to free himself from it; nor was the state of his treasury such as to enable him to do without legitimate sources of revenue. The real faults of his reign were not illegal extensions of the royal power, but the readiness with which he allowed and even joined in the exactions of the Papal See, and the total absence of national objects which distinguish his rule, which may be traced to his culpable partiality to foreigners. From the year 1236 till the Parliament of Oxford, these errors were continually on the increase.

[Sidenote: Henry’s marriage.]

[Sidenote: Influence of the Queen’s uncles.]