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.]