CHAPTER II.

(47)At this time of day I suppose it is hardly necessary to prove the elective character of Old-English kingship. I have said what I have to say about it in Norman Conquest, i. 106, 596. But I may quote one most remarkable passage from the report made in 787 to Pope Hadrian the First by George and Theophylact, his Legates in England (Haddan and Stubbs, Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents, iii. 453). “Sanximus ut in ordinatione Regum nullus permittat pravorum prævalere assensum: sed legitime Reges a sacerdotibus et senioribus populi eligantur.” One would like to know who the “pravi” here denounced were. The passage sounds very like a narrowing of the franchise or some other interference with freedom of election, but in any case it bears witness to the elective character of our ancient kingship, and to the general popular character of the constitution.

(48)I have described the powers of the Witan, as I understand them and as they were understood by Mr. Kemble, at vol. i. p. 108 of the History of the Norman Conquest and in some of the Appendices to that volume. With regard to the powers of the Witan, I find no difference between my own views and those of Professor Stubbs in the Introductory Sketch to his Select Charters (p. 11), where the relationsbetween the King and the Witan, and the general character of our ancient constitution, are set forth with wonderful power and clearness. But I find Mr. Stubbs and myself differing altogether as to the constitution of the Witenagemót. I look upon it as an Assembly of the whole kingdom, after the type of the smaller assemblies of the shire and other lesser divisions. Mr. Stubbs fully admits the popular character of the smaller assemblies, but denies any such character to the national gathering. It is dangerous to set oneself up against the greatest master of English constitutional history, but I must ask the reader to weigh what I say in note Q in the Appendix to my first volume.

(49)I have collected some of the instances of deposition in Northumberland in the note following that on the constitution of the Witenagemót. (Norman Conquest, i. 593.) It is not at all unlikely that the report of George and Theophylact quoted above may have a special reference to the frequent changes among the Northumbrian Kings.

(50)I have mentioned all the instances at vol. i. p. 105 of the Norman Conquest: Sigeberht, Æthelred, Harthacnut, Edward the Second, Richard the Second, James the Second. It is remarkable that nearly all are the second of their respective names; for, besides Æthelred, Edward, Richard, and James, Harthacnut might fairly be called Cnut the Second.

(51)Tacitus, De Moribus Germaniæ, 13, 14:—“Nec rubor inter comites adspici. Gradus quinetiam et ipse comitatus habet, judicio ejus quem sectantur; magnaque et comitum æmulatio quibus primus apud Principem suum locus; et Principum cui plurimi et acerrimi comites.... Quum ventum in aciem, turpe Principi virtute vinci, turpe comitatui virtutem Principis non adæquare. Jam vero infame in omnem vitam ac probrosum, superstitem Principisuo ex acie recessisse. Illum defendere, tueri, sua quoque fortia facta gloriæ ejus adsignare, præcipuum sacramentum est. Principes pro victoria pugnant; comites pro Principe.” See Allen, Royal Prerogative, 142.

(52)The original text of the Song of Maldon will be found in Thorpe’s Analecta Anglo-Saxonica. My extracts are made from the modern English version which I attempted in my Old-English History, p. 192. I went on the principle of altering the Old-English text no more than was actually necessary to make it intelligible. When a word has altogether dropped out of our modern language, I have of course changed it; when a word is still in use, in however different a sense, I have kept it. Many words which were anciently used in a physical sense are now used only metaphorically; thus “cringe” is used in one of the extracts in its primary meaning of bowing or falling down, and therefore of dying.

(53)The history of the Roman clientship is another of those points on which legend and history and ingenious modern speculation all come to much the same, as far as our present purpose is concerned. Whether the clients were the same as theplebsor not, at any rate no patricians entered into the client relation, and this at once supplies the contrast with Teutonic institutions.

(54)The title ofdominus, implying a master of slaves, was always refused by the early Emperors. This is recorded of Augustus by Suetonius (Aug. 53) and Dion (lv. 12), and still more distinctly of Tiberius (Suetonius, Tib. 27; Dion, lvii. 8). Tiberius also refused the title ofImperator, except in its strictly military sense: οὔτε γὰρ δεσπότην ἑαυτὸν τοῖς ἐλευθέροις οὔτε αὐτοκράτορα πλὴν τοῖς στρατιώταις καλεῖν ἐφίει. Caius is said (Aurelius Victor, Cæs. xxxix. 4) to have been calleddominus, and there is no doubt about Domitian(Suetonius, Dom. 13; Dion, lxvii. 13, where see Reimar’s Note). Pliny in his letters constantly addresses Trajan asdominus; yet in his Panegyric(45)he draws the marked distinction: “Scis, ut sunt diversa natura dominatio et principatus, ita non aliis esse principem gratiorem quam qui maxime dominum graventur.” This marks the return to older feelings and customs under Trajan. The final and formal establishment of the title seems to have come in with the introduction of Eastern ceremonies under Diocletian (see the passage already referred to in Aurelius Victor). It is freely used by the later Panegyrists, as for instance Eumenius, iv. 21, v. 13: “Domine Constanti,” “Domine Maximiane, Imperator æterne,” and so forth.

(55)Vitellius (Tac. Hist. i. 58) was the first to employ Roman knights in offices hitherto always filled by freedmen; but the system was not fully established till the time of Hadrian (Spartianus, Hadrian, 22).

(56)See Norman Conquest, i. 89, 587, and the passages here quoted.

(57)Bothhlàfordandhlæfdige(LordandLady) are very puzzling words as to the origin of their later syllables. It is enough for my purpose if the connexion of the first syllable withhlàfbe allowed. Different as is the origin of the two words,hlàfordalways translatesdominus. The Frenchseigneur, and the corresponding forms in Italian and Spanish, come from the Latinsenior, used as equivalent todominus. This is one of the large class of words which are analogous to ourEaldorman.

(58)This is fully treated by Palgrave, English Commonwealth, i. 350, 495, 505.

(59)On the change from thealod,odal, oreðel, a man’s very own property, to the land held of a lord, see Hallam, Middle Ages, i. 113.

(60)See Norman Conquest, i. 85-88. I have there chiefly followed Mr. Kemble in his chapter on the Noble by Service, Saxons in England, i. 162.

(61)See the whole history and meaning of the word in the articleþegenin Schmid’s Glossary.

(62)See Norman Conquest, i. 89.

(63)Barbour, Bruce, i. 224:

“A! fredome is A noble thing.”

So said Herodotus (v. 78) long before:

ἡ ἰσηγορίη ὡς ἔστι χρῆμα σπουδαῖον.

(1)In the great poetical manifesto of the patriotic party in Henry the Third’s reign, printed in Wright’s Political Songs of England (Camden Society, 1839), there seems to be no demand whatever for new laws, but only for the declaration and observance of the old. Thus, the passage which I have chosen for one of my mottoes runs on thus:—“Igitur communitas regni consulatur;Et quid universitas sentiat sciatur,Cui leges propriæ maxime sunt notæ.Nec cuncti provinciæ sic sunt idiotæ,Quin sciant plus cæteris regni sui mores,Quos relinquant posteris hii qui sunt priores.Qui reguntur legibus magis ipsas sciunt;Quorum sunt in usibus plus periti fiunt;Et quia res agitur sua, plus curabunt,Et quo pax adquiritur sibi procurabunt.”

“Igitur communitas regni consulatur;Et quid universitas sentiat sciatur,Cui leges propriæ maxime sunt notæ.Nec cuncti provinciæ sic sunt idiotæ,Quin sciant plus cæteris regni sui mores,Quos relinquant posteris hii qui sunt priores.Qui reguntur legibus magis ipsas sciunt;Quorum sunt in usibus plus periti fiunt;Et quia res agitur sua, plus curabunt,Et quo pax adquiritur sibi procurabunt.”

“Igitur communitas regni consulatur;

Et quid universitas sentiat sciatur,

Cui leges propriæ maxime sunt notæ.

Nec cuncti provinciæ sic sunt idiotæ,

Quin sciant plus cæteris regni sui mores,

Quos relinquant posteris hii qui sunt priores.

Qui reguntur legibus magis ipsas sciunt;

Quorum sunt in usibus plus periti fiunt;

Et quia res agitur sua, plus curabunt,

Et quo pax adquiritur sibi procurabunt.”

(2)On the renewal of the Laws of Eadward by William, see Norman Conquest, iv. 324. Stubbs, Documents, 25. It should be marked that the Laws of Eadward were again confirmed by Henry the First (see Stubbs, 90-99), and, as the Great Charter grew out of the Charter of Henry the First produced by Archbishop Stephen Langton in 1213, the descent of the Charter from the Laws of Eadward is very simple. See Roger of Wendover, iii. 263 (ed. Coxe). The Primate there distinctly says that he had made John swear to renew the Laws of Eadward. “Audistis quomodo, tempore quo apud Wintoniam Regem absolvi, ipsum jurare compulerim, quod leges iniquas destrueret et leges bonas, videlicet legesEadwardi, revocaret et in regno faceret ab omnibus observari.” It must be remembered that the phrase of the Laws of Eadward or of any other King does not really mean a code of laws of that King’s drawing up, but simply the way of administering the Law, and the general political condition, which existed in that King’s reign. This is all that would be meant by the renewal of the Laws of Eadward in William’s time. It simply meant that William was to rule as his English predecessors had ruled before him. But, by the time of John, men had no doubt begun to look on the now canonized Eadward as a lawgiver, and to fancy that there was an actual code of laws of his to be put in force.On the various confirmations of the Great Charter, see Hallam, Middle Ages, ii. 111.

On the various confirmations of the Great Charter, see Hallam, Middle Ages, ii. 111.

(3)Macaulay, ii. 660. “When they were told that there was no precedent for declaring the throne vacant, they produced from among the records of the Tower a roll of parchment, near three hundred years old, on which, in quaint characters and barbarous Latin, it was recorded that the Estates of the Realm had declared vacant the throne of a perfidious and tyrannical Plantagenet.” See more at large in the debate of the Conference between the Houses, ii. 645.

(4)See Kemble, Saxons in England, ii. 186—194. This, it will be remembered, is admitted by Professor Stubbs. See above, note 48 to Chapter I.

(5)See Kemble, ii. 199, 200, and compare page 194.

(6)I have collected these passages in my History of the Norman Conquest, i. 591.

(7)On the acclamations of the Assembly, see note 19 to Chapter I. I suspect that in all early assemblies, and not in that of Sparta only, κρίνουσι βοῇ καὶ οὐ ψήφῳ (Thuc.i. 87). We still retain the custom in the cry of “Aye” and “No,” from which the actual vote is a mere appeal, just like the division ordered by Sthenelaïdas when he professed not to know on which side the shout was.

(8)See Norman Conquest, i. 100, and History of Federal Government, i. 263.

(9)See Norman Conquest, iv. 694. In this case the Chronicler, under the year 1086, distinguishes two classes in the Assembly, “his witan and ealle Þa landsittende men Þe ahtes wæron ofer eall Engleland.” These “landsittende men” were evidently the forerunners of the “libere tenentes,” who, whether their holdings were great or small, kept their place in the early Parliaments. See Hallam, ii. 140-146, where will be found many passages showing the still abiding traces of the popular constitution of the Assembly.

(10)The practice of summoning particular persons can be traced up to very early times. See Kemble, ii. 202, for instances in the reign of Æthelstan. On its use in later times, see Hallam, ii. 254-260; and on the irregularity in the way of summoning the spiritual peers, ii. 253.The bearing of these precedents on the question of life peerages will be seen by any one who goes through Sir T. E. May’s summary, Constitutional History, i. 291-298.

The bearing of these precedents on the question of life peerages will be seen by any one who goes through Sir T. E. May’s summary, Constitutional History, i. 291-298.

(11)Sismondi, Histoire des Français, v. 289: “Ce roi, le plus absolu entre ceux qui ont porté la couronne de France, le moins occupé du bien de ses peuples, le moins consciencieux dans son observation des droits établis avant lui, est cependant le restaurateur des assemblées populaires de la France, et l’auteur de la représentation des communes dans les états généraux.” See Historical Essays, 45.

(12)See the history of Stephen Martel in Sismondi, Histoire des Français, vol. vi. cap. viii. ix., and the account ofthe dominion of the Butchers, vii. 259, and more at large in Thierry’s History of the Tiers-État, capp. ii. iii.

(13)The Parliament of Paris, though it had its use as some small check on the mere despotism of the Crown, can hardly come under the head of free institutions. France, as France, under the old state of things, cannot be said to have kept any free institutions at all; the only traces of freedom were to be found in the local Estates which still met in several of the provinces. See De Tocqueville, Ancien Régime, 347.

(14)The thirteenth century was the time when most of the existing states and nations of Europe took something like their present form and constitution. The great powers which had hitherto, in name at least, divided the Christian and Mahometan world, the Eastern and Western Empires and the Eastern and Western Caliphates, may now be looked on as practically coming to an end. England, France, and Spain began to take something like their present shape, and to show the beginnings of the characteristic position and policy of each. The chief languages of Western Europe grew into something like their modern form. In short, the character of this age as a time of beginnings and endings might be traced out in detail through the most part of Europe and Asia.

(15)Dr. Pauli does not scruple to give him this title in his admirable monograph, “Simon von Montfort Graf von Leicester, der Schöpfer des Hauses der Gemeinen.” The career of the Earl should be studied in this work, and in Mr. Blaauw’s “Barons’ War.”

(16)“Numquam libertas gratior exstatQuam sub rege pio.”—Claudian, ii. Cons. Stil. 114.

“Numquam libertas gratior exstatQuam sub rege pio.”—Claudian, ii. Cons. Stil. 114.

“Numquam libertas gratior exstat

Quam sub rege pio.”—Claudian, ii. Cons. Stil. 114.

(17)Macaulay, i. 15. “England owes her escape from such calamities to an event which her historians have generallyrepresented as disastrous. Her interest was so directly opposed to the interest of her rulers that she had no hope but in their errors and misfortunes. The talents and even the virtues of her six first French Kings were a curse to her. The follies and vices of the seventh were her salvation.... England, which, since the battle of Hastings, had been ruled generally by wise statesmen, always by brave soldiers, fell under the dominion of a trifler and a coward. From that moment her prospects brightened. John was driven from Normandy. The Norman nobles were compelled to make their election between the island and the continent. Shut up by the sea with the people whom they had hitherto oppressed and despised, they gradually came to regard England as their country, and the English as their countrymen. The two races so long hostile, soon found that they had common interests and common enemies. Both were alike aggrieved by the tyranny of a bad King. Both were alike indignant at the favour shown by the court to the natives of Poitou and Aquitaine. The great grandsons of those who had fought under William and the great grandsons of those who had fought under Harold began to draw near to each other in friendship; and the first pledge of their reconciliation was the Great Charter, won by their united exertions, and framed for their common benefit.”

(18)I have tried to work out the gradual character of the transfer of lands and offices under William in various parts of the fourth volume of my History of the Norman Conquest; see especially p. 22, et seqq. The popular notion of a general scramble for everything gives a most false view of William’s whole character and position.

(19)See Norman Conquest, i. 176.

(20)This is distinctly asserted in the Dialogus de Scaccario (i. 10), under Henry the Second: “Jam cohabitantibusAnglicis et Normannis, et alterutrum uxores ducentibus vel nubentibus, sic permixtæ sunt nationes, ut vix discerni possit hodie, de liberis loquor, quis Anglicus quis Normannus sit genere; exceptis duntaxat ascriptitiis qui villani dicuntur, quibus non est liberum obstantibus dominis suis a sui statûs conditione discedere.”

(21)The Angevin family are commonly known as the Plantagenets; but that name was never used as a surname till the fifteenth century. The name is sometimes convenient, but it is not a really correct description, like Tudor and Stewart, both of which were real surnames, borne by the two families before they came to the Crown. In the almanacks the Angevins are called “The Saxon line restored,” a name which gives a false idea, though there can be no doubt that Henry the Second was fully aware of the advantages to be drawn from his remote female descent from the Old-English Kings. The point to be borne in mind is that the accession of Henry is the beginning of a distinct dynasty which could not be called either Norman or English in any but the most indirect way.

(22)I do not remember anything in any of the writers of Henry the Second’s time to justify the popular notions about “Normans and Saxons” as two distinct and hostile bodies. Nor do we as yet hear many complaints of favour being shown to absolute foreigners in preference to either, though it is certain that many high preferments, especially in the Church, were held by men who were not English in either sense. The peculiar position of Henry the Second was something like that of the Emperor Charles the Fifth, that of a prince ruling over a great number of distinct states without being nationally identified with any of them. Henry ruled over England, Normandy, and Aquitaine, but he was neither English, Norman, nor Gascon.

(23)That is the greater, the continental, part of the Duchy. The insular part of Normandy, the Channel Islands, was not lost, and it still remains attached to the English Crown, not as part of the United Kingdom, but as a separate dependency. See Norman Conquest, i. 187.

(24)See Norman Conquest, i. 310, 367; and on the appointment of Bishops and Abbots, i. 503, ii. 66, 571.

(25)See the Ordinance in Norman Conquest, iv. 392. Stubbs, Select Charters, 81.

(26)See Norman Conquest, iii. 317.

(27)It should be remembered that the clerical immunities which were claimed in this age were by no means confined to those whom we should now call clergymen, but that they also took in that large class of persons who held smaller ecclesiastical offices without being what we should call in holy orders. The Church also claimed jurisdiction in the causes of widows and orphans, and in various cases where questions of perjury, breach of faith, and the like were concerned. Thus John Bishop of Poitiers writes to Archbishop Thomas (Giles, Sanctus Thomas, vi. 238) complaining that the King’s officers had forbidden him to hear the causes of widows and orphans, and also to hear causes in matters of usury: “prohibentes ne ad querelas viduarum vel orphanorum vel clericorum aliquem parochianorum meorum in causam trahere præsumerem super quacumque possessione immobili, donec ministeriales regis, vel dominorum ad quorum feudum res controversiæ pertineret, in facienda justitia eis defecissent. Deinde ne super accusatione fœnoris quemquam audirem.” This gives a special force to the acclamations with which Thomas was greeted on his return as “the father of the orphans and the judge of the widows:” “Videres mox pauperum turbam quæ convenerat in occursum, hos succinctos ut prævenirent et patrem suum applicantemexciperent, et benedictionem præriperent, alios vero humi se humiliter prosternentes, ejulantes hos, plorantes illos præ gaudio, et omnes conclamantes, Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini, pater orphanorum et judex viduarum! et pauperes quidem sic.” Herbert of Bosham, Giles, Sanctus Thomas, vii. 315, cf. 148. See more in Historical Essays, 99.

(28)On the cruel punishments inflicted in the King’s courts Herbert of Bosham is very emphatic in more than one passage. He pleads (vii. 101) as a merit of the Bishops’ courts that in them no mutilations were inflicted. Men were punished there “absque omni mutilatione vel deformatione membrorum.” But he by no means claims freedom from mutilation as a mere clerical privilege; he distinctly condemns it in any case. “Adeo etiam quod ordinis privilegium excludat cauterium: quam tamen pœnam communiter inter homines etiam jus forense damnat: ne videlicet in homine Dei imago deformetur.” (vii. 105.) A most curious story illustrative of the barbarous jurisprudence of the time will be found in Benedict’s Miracula Sancti Thomæ, 184.

(29)One of the Constitutions of Clarendon forbade villains to be ordained without the consent of their lords. “Filii rusticorum non debent ordinari absque assensu domini de cujus terra nati dignoscuntur” (Stubbs, Select Charters, 134). On the principles of feudal law nothing can be said against this, as the lord had a property in his villain which he would lose by the villain’s ordination. The prohibition is noticed in some remarkable lines of the earliest biographer of Thomas, Garnier of Pont-Sainte-Maxence (La Vie de Saint Thomas le Martyr, Paris, 1859, p. 89), where he strongly asserts the equality of gentleman and villain before God:—“Fils à vilains ne fust en nul liu ordenezSanz l’otrei sun seigneur de cui terre il fu nez.Et deus à sun servise nus a tuz apelez!Mielz valt filz à vilain qui est preux e senez,Que ne feit gentilz hum failliz et debutez.”Thomas himself was not the son of a villain, but his birth was such that the King could sneer at him as “plebeius quidam clericus.”(30)We are not inclined to find fault with such an appointment as that of Stephen Langton; still his forced election at the bidding of Innocent was a distinct breach of the rights of the King, of the Convent of Christ Church, and of the English nation generally. See the account of his election in Roger of Wendover, iii. 212; Lingard, ii. 314; Hook’s Archbishops, ii. 668.(31)See the Bulls and Letters by which Innocent professed to annul the Great Charter in Roger of Wendover, iii. 323, 327; the excommunication of the Barons in iii. 336; and the suspension of the Archbishop in iii. 340.(32)There is a separate treatise on the Miracles of Simon of Montfort, printed along with Rishanger’s Chronicle by the Camden Society, 1840.(33)I think I may safely say that the only royalist chronicler of the reign of Henry the Third is Thomas Wykes, the Austin Canon of Osney. There is also one poem on the royalist side, to balance many on the side of the Barons, among the Political Songs published by the Camden Society, 1839, page 128.Letters to Earl Simon and his Countess Eleanor form a considerable part of the letters of Robert Grosseteste, published by Mr. Luard for the Master of the Rolls. Matthew Paris also (879, Wats) speaks of him as “episcopus Lincolniensis Robertus, cui comes tamquam patri confessori exstitit familiarissimus.” This however was in the earlier part of Simon’s career, before the war had broken out. Theshare of Bishop Walter of Cantilupe, who was present at Evesham and absolved the Earl and his followers, will be found in most of the Chronicles of the time. It comes out well in the riming Chronicle of Robert of Gloucester (ii. 558):—“Þe bissop Water of Wurcetre asoiled hom alle pereAnd prechede hom, þat hii adde of deþ þe lasse fere.”This writer says of the battle of Evesham:—“Suich was þe morþre of Eivesham (vor bataile non it was).”

“Fils à vilains ne fust en nul liu ordenezSanz l’otrei sun seigneur de cui terre il fu nez.Et deus à sun servise nus a tuz apelez!Mielz valt filz à vilain qui est preux e senez,Que ne feit gentilz hum failliz et debutez.”Thomas himself was not the son of a villain, but his birth was such that the King could sneer at him as “plebeius quidam clericus.”

“Fils à vilains ne fust en nul liu ordenez

Sanz l’otrei sun seigneur de cui terre il fu nez.

Et deus à sun servise nus a tuz apelez!

Mielz valt filz à vilain qui est preux e senez,

Que ne feit gentilz hum failliz et debutez.”

Thomas himself was not the son of a villain, but his birth was such that the King could sneer at him as “plebeius quidam clericus.”

(30)We are not inclined to find fault with such an appointment as that of Stephen Langton; still his forced election at the bidding of Innocent was a distinct breach of the rights of the King, of the Convent of Christ Church, and of the English nation generally. See the account of his election in Roger of Wendover, iii. 212; Lingard, ii. 314; Hook’s Archbishops, ii. 668.

(31)See the Bulls and Letters by which Innocent professed to annul the Great Charter in Roger of Wendover, iii. 323, 327; the excommunication of the Barons in iii. 336; and the suspension of the Archbishop in iii. 340.

(32)There is a separate treatise on the Miracles of Simon of Montfort, printed along with Rishanger’s Chronicle by the Camden Society, 1840.

(33)I think I may safely say that the only royalist chronicler of the reign of Henry the Third is Thomas Wykes, the Austin Canon of Osney. There is also one poem on the royalist side, to balance many on the side of the Barons, among the Political Songs published by the Camden Society, 1839, page 128.

Letters to Earl Simon and his Countess Eleanor form a considerable part of the letters of Robert Grosseteste, published by Mr. Luard for the Master of the Rolls. Matthew Paris also (879, Wats) speaks of him as “episcopus Lincolniensis Robertus, cui comes tamquam patri confessori exstitit familiarissimus.” This however was in the earlier part of Simon’s career, before the war had broken out. Theshare of Bishop Walter of Cantilupe, who was present at Evesham and absolved the Earl and his followers, will be found in most of the Chronicles of the time. It comes out well in the riming Chronicle of Robert of Gloucester (ii. 558):—

“Þe bissop Water of Wurcetre asoiled hom alle pereAnd prechede hom, þat hii adde of deþ þe lasse fere.”

“Þe bissop Water of Wurcetre asoiled hom alle pere

And prechede hom, þat hii adde of deþ þe lasse fere.”

This writer says of the battle of Evesham:—

“Suich was þe morþre of Eivesham (vor bataile non it was).”

(34)This letter, addressed in 1247 to Pope Innocent the Fourth, will be found in Matthew Paris (721, Wats). It is written in the name of “universitas cleri et populi per provinciam Cantuariensem constituti,” and it ends, “quia communitas nostra sigillum non habet, præsentes literas signo communitatis civitatis Londinensis vestræ sanctitati mittimus consignatas.” Another letter in the same form follows to the Cardinals. There are two earlier letters in 1245 and 1246 (Matthew Paris, 666, 700), the former from the “magnates et universitas regni Angliæ,” the other in the name of Richard Earl of Cornwall (afterwards King of the Romans), Simon Earl of Leicester, and other Earls, “et alii totius regni Angliæ Barones, proceres, et magnates, et nobiles portuum maris habitatores, necnon et clerus et populus universus.” The distinct mention of the Cinque Ports, whose representatives in Parliament are still called Barons—the “nobiles” of the letter—should be noticed.

(35)The writer of the Gesta Stephani(3)distinctly attributes the election of Stephen to the citizens of London: “Majores igitur natu, consultuque quique provectiores, concilium coegere, deque regni statu, pro arbitrio suo, utilia in commune providentes, ad regem eligendum unanimiter conspiravere.” He then goes on with the details of the election. He is borne out by the Chronicle 1135: “Stephne de Blais com to Lundene and te Lundenisce folc him underfeng;” and by William of Malmesbury, Historia Novella, i. 11: “A Londoniensibus et Wintoniensibus in Regem exceptus est.” So again when the Legate, Henry Bishop of Winchester, holds a council for the election of the Empress Matilda, the citizens of London were summoned, and it is distinctly said that they held the rank of nobles or barons: “Londonienses (qui sunt quasi optimates, pro magnitudine civitatis, in Anglia).” “Londonienses, qui præcipui habebantur in Anglia, sicut proceres” (Historia Novella, iii. 45, 46). All this is exactly like the earlier elections of Kings before the Conquest.

(36)The words of the Charter 12-14 (Stubbs, 290) are: “Nullum scutagium vel auxilium ponatur in regno nostro, nisi per commune consilium regni nostri, nisi ad corpus nostrum redimendum, etc..... Et ad habendum commune consilium regni, de auxilio assidendo aliter quam in tribus casibus prædictis, vel de scutagio assidendo, summoneri faciemus archiepiscopos, episcopos, abbates, comites, et majores barones, sigillatim per litteras nostras; et præterea faciemus summoneri in generali, per vicecomites et ballivos nostros, omnes illos qui de nobis tenent in capite.” This is exactly like the entry in the Chronicle [1123], describing the summoning of a Witenagemót by Henry the First: “Da sone Þæræfter sende se kyng hise write ofer eal Englalande, and bed hise biscopes and hise abbates and hise Þeignes ealle Þet hi scolden cumen to his gewitenemot on Candelmesse deig to Gleawceastre him togeanes; and hi swa diden.”

(37)These first glimmerings of parliamentary representation were carefully traced out by Hallam (Middle Ages, ii. 146-152). They can now be more fully studied in the work of Professor Stubbs. On the summons in 1213 of four men for each shire besides “milites et barones” (“quatuor discretos homines de comitatu tuo illuc venire facias”), theProfessor remarks [278]: “It is the first writ in which the ‘four discreet men’ of the county appear as representatives; the first instance of the summoning of the folkmoot to a general assembly by the machinery already used for judicial purposes.”

(38)On this subject the eighth chapter of Sir Francis Palgrave’s English Commonwealth should be studied.

(39)For the whole career of Simon I must again refer generally to Pauli and Blaauw. The great writ itself, dated at Worcester, December 14th, 1264, will be found in Rymer’s Fœdera, i. 449. It has often been noticed how small is the number of Earls and other lay Barons, and how unusually large the number of churchmen, who are summoned to this Parliament. The whole list will be found in Rymer. The parts of the writ which concern us stand thus:“Item mandatum est singulis vicecomitibus per Angliam; quod venire faciant duos milites de legalioribus, probioribus et discretioribus militibus singulorum comitatuum, ad Regem London’ in octab’ prædictis, in formâ supradictâ.“Item in formâ prædictâ scribitur civibus Ebor’, civibus Lincoln’, et cæteris burgis Angliæ; quod mittant in formâ prædictâ duos de discretioribus, legalioribus, et probioribus, tam civibus, quam burgensibus suis.“Item in formâ prædictâ mandatum est baronibus, et probis hominibus Quinque Portuum.”“This is often regarded as the origin of popular representation; but it is not in any sense entitled to that praise. The novelty was simply the assembling the representatives of the towns in conjunction with those of the counties; this was now done for the first time for the purpose of the national council.” Stubbs, 401.

“Item mandatum est singulis vicecomitibus per Angliam; quod venire faciant duos milites de legalioribus, probioribus et discretioribus militibus singulorum comitatuum, ad Regem London’ in octab’ prædictis, in formâ supradictâ.

“Item in formâ prædictâ scribitur civibus Ebor’, civibus Lincoln’, et cæteris burgis Angliæ; quod mittant in formâ prædictâ duos de discretioribus, legalioribus, et probioribus, tam civibus, quam burgensibus suis.

“Item in formâ prædictâ mandatum est baronibus, et probis hominibus Quinque Portuum.”

“This is often regarded as the origin of popular representation; but it is not in any sense entitled to that praise. The novelty was simply the assembling the representatives of the towns in conjunction with those of the counties; this was now done for the first time for the purpose of the national council.” Stubbs, 401.

(40)The account of this most remarkable trial, held on June 11th, 1252, is given in a letter from Simon’s intimatefriend the famous Franciscan Adam Marsh (de Marisco) to Bishop Robert Grosseteste. The Latin text is printed in Mr. Brewer’s Monumenta Franciscana, p. 122, and there is an English translation in the Appendix to Mrs. Green’s Life of Countess Eleanor, English Princesses, ii. 447. Simon’s witnesses, knights and citizens, come “muniti litteris patentibus communitatis Burdegalensis, in quâ quasi totum robur Vasconiæ ad distringendum hostiles et fideles protegendum consistere dignoscitur,” setting forth how good Simon’s government was in every way, and how those who brought charges against him did it only because his strict justice had put a check on their misdoings. We may compare the words of the great poetical manifesto (Political Songs, 76).“Seductorem nominant S. atque fallacem,Facta sed examinant probantque veracem.”

“Seductorem nominant S. atque fallacem,Facta sed examinant probantque veracem.”

“Seductorem nominant S. atque fallacem,

Facta sed examinant probantque veracem.”

(41)For the Londoners at Lewes let us take the account of an enemy. Thomas Wykes [148] tells us how the Earl set out, “glorians in virtute sua congregata baronum multitudine copiosa, Londoniensium innumerabili agmine circumcinctus, quia legitur stultorum infinitus est numerus.” Presently we read how the “Londoniensium innumera multitudo, bellorum ignara,” were put to flight by the Lord Edward very much after the manner of Prince Rupert.

(42)On the religious reverence paid to Earl Waltheof, see Norman Conquest, ii. 602. I have there referred to the office of Thomas of Lancaster, which will be found in Political Songs, 268. Some of the pieces are what we should think most daring parodies of parts of the Church Service, but we may be sure that what was intended was reverence and not irreverence. There is another parody of the same kind in honour of Earl Thomas, a little earlier back in thevolume, p. 258. It was a matter of course that Thomas of Lancaster should be likened to Thomas of Canterbury.“Gaude, Thoma, ducum decus, lucerna Lancastriæ,Qui per necem imitaris Thomam Cantuariæ;Cujus caput conculcatur pacem ob ecclesiæ,Atque tuum detruncatur causa pacis Angliæ.”

“Gaude, Thoma, ducum decus, lucerna Lancastriæ,Qui per necem imitaris Thomam Cantuariæ;Cujus caput conculcatur pacem ob ecclesiæ,Atque tuum detruncatur causa pacis Angliæ.”

“Gaude, Thoma, ducum decus, lucerna Lancastriæ,

Qui per necem imitaris Thomam Cantuariæ;

Cujus caput conculcatur pacem ob ecclesiæ,

Atque tuum detruncatur causa pacis Angliæ.”

(43)Let us take a Latin, a French, and an English specimen of the poems in which Simon’s death was lamented and his intercession implored.“Salve, Symon Montis Fortis,Totius flos militiæ,Durus pœnas passus mortis,Protector gentis Angliæ.Sunt de sanctis inauditaCunctis passis in hac vita,Quemquam passum talia;Manus, pedes, amputari,Caput, corpus, vulnerari,Abscidi virilia.Sis pro nobis intercessorApud Deum, qui defensorIn terris exstiteras.”—(Political Songs, 124.)The French poem which follows directly in the collection is too long to copy in full. This is perhaps the most remarkable stanza, in which we again find the comparison with Thomas of Canterbury:—“Mès par sa mort, le cuens Mountfort conquist la victorie,Come ly martyr de Caunterbyr, finist sa vie;Ne voleit pas li bon Thomas qe perist seinte Eglise,Le cuens auxi se combati, e morust sauntz feyntise.Ore est ocys la flur de pris, qe taunt savoit de guerre,Ly quens Montfort, sa dure mort molt emplorra la terre.”In this poem there is not, as in the Latin one, any direct prayer to the martyred Earl, but in the last stanza we read:—“Sire Simoun ly prodhom, e sa compagnie,En joie vont en ciel amount, en pardurable vie.”The only English piece on these wars belongs to anearlier date, namely, the satirical poem against King Richard, how the one English Augustus“Makede him a castel of a mulne post;”but we get verses on Simon’s death in the Chronicle of Robert of Gloucester (ii. 559):—“& sir Simond was aslawe, & is folk al to grounde,More murÞre are nas in so lute stounde.Vor Þere was werst Simond de Mountfort aslawe, alas!& sir Henri is sone, Þat so gentil knizt was.******& among alle oÞere mest reuÞe it was ido,Þat sir Simon Þe olde man demembred was so.”He then goes on with the details of the dismemberment, of which a picture may be seen opposite p. 254 of Mr. Blaauw’s book, and then goes on with the lines which I have before quoted:—“Suich was Þe morÞre of Eivesham (vor bataile non it was),And Þer wiÞ Jesu Crist wel vuele ipaied was,As he ssewede bitokninge grisliche and gode,As it vel of him sulue, Þo he deide on Þe rode,Þat Þoru al Þe middelerd derk hede Þer was inou.”

(43)Let us take a Latin, a French, and an English specimen of the poems in which Simon’s death was lamented and his intercession implored.

“Salve, Symon Montis Fortis,Totius flos militiæ,Durus pœnas passus mortis,Protector gentis Angliæ.Sunt de sanctis inauditaCunctis passis in hac vita,Quemquam passum talia;Manus, pedes, amputari,Caput, corpus, vulnerari,Abscidi virilia.Sis pro nobis intercessorApud Deum, qui defensorIn terris exstiteras.”—(Political Songs, 124.)

“Salve, Symon Montis Fortis,

Totius flos militiæ,

Durus pœnas passus mortis,

Protector gentis Angliæ.

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 exstiteras.”—(Political Songs, 124.)

The French poem which follows directly in the collection is too long to copy in full. This is perhaps the most remarkable stanza, in which we again find the comparison with Thomas of Canterbury:—

“Mès par sa mort, le cuens Mountfort conquist la victorie,Come ly martyr de Caunterbyr, finist sa vie;Ne voleit pas li bon Thomas qe perist seinte Eglise,Le cuens auxi se combati, e morust sauntz feyntise.Ore est ocys la flur de pris, qe taunt savoit de guerre,Ly quens Montfort, sa dure mort molt emplorra la terre.”

“Mès par sa mort, le cuens Mountfort conquist la victorie,

Come ly martyr de Caunterbyr, finist sa vie;

Ne voleit pas li bon Thomas qe perist seinte Eglise,

Le cuens auxi se combati, e morust sauntz feyntise.

Ore est ocys la flur de pris, qe taunt savoit de guerre,

Ly quens Montfort, sa dure mort molt emplorra la terre.”

In this poem there is not, as in the Latin one, any direct prayer to the martyred Earl, but in the last stanza we read:—

“Sire Simoun ly prodhom, e sa compagnie,En joie vont en ciel amount, en pardurable vie.”

“Sire Simoun ly prodhom, e sa compagnie,

En joie vont en ciel amount, en pardurable vie.”

The only English piece on these wars belongs to anearlier date, namely, the satirical poem against King Richard, how the one English Augustus

“Makede him a castel of a mulne post;”

but we get verses on Simon’s death in the Chronicle of Robert of Gloucester (ii. 559):—

“& sir Simond was aslawe, & is folk al to grounde,More murÞre are nas in so lute stounde.Vor Þere was werst Simond de Mountfort aslawe, alas!& sir Henri is sone, Þat so gentil knizt was.******& among alle oÞere mest reuÞe it was ido,Þat sir Simon Þe olde man demembred was so.”

“& sir Simond was aslawe, & is folk al to grounde,

More murÞre are nas in so lute stounde.

Vor Þere was werst Simond de Mountfort aslawe, alas!

& sir Henri is sone, Þat so gentil knizt was.

******

& among alle oÞere mest reuÞe it was ido,

Þat sir Simon Þe olde man demembred was so.”

He then goes on with the details of the dismemberment, of which a picture may be seen opposite p. 254 of Mr. Blaauw’s book, and then goes on with the lines which I have before quoted:—

“Suich was Þe morÞre of Eivesham (vor bataile non it was),And Þer wiÞ Jesu Crist wel vuele ipaied was,As he ssewede bitokninge grisliche and gode,As it vel of him sulue, Þo he deide on Þe rode,Þat Þoru al Þe middelerd derk hede Þer was inou.”

“Suich was Þe morÞre of Eivesham (vor bataile non it was),

And Þer wiÞ Jesu Crist wel vuele ipaied was,

As he ssewede bitokninge grisliche and gode,

As it vel of him sulue, Þo he deide on Þe rode,

Þat Þoru al Þe middelerd derk hede Þer was inou.”

Back to Index Next