the two Courts vied with each other in splendour and extravagance, to England. He landed at Dover shortly after Christmas in that year.' 1 His debts incurred during this expedition are said by Matt. Par. 913, to have amounted to more than 300,000 marks. This is over and above what he actually paid. CHAP. IV. 1254 108 CHAP. CHAPTER V. PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY, 1249-1257. THE state of things in England had not improved during Simons absence in Gascony. The wearisome 1249-52 tale of oppression and futile resistance, of broken proPecuniary difficulties mises and disunion, need not be told in full. continue. The Pope grants the king a tenth for three years. The king tried all sorts of means to get money, mulcted the Londoners and the Jews, and made spasmodic efforts to be thrifty, but all in vain. He did not give de Montfort much aid, but the contributions, which apparently nothing but Simons presence could obtain, small as they were, increased his difficulties. In 1252 there came a change. The king, who, as we have seen, had already given up the part of national leader which sat so badly on him, was now in close communication with the Pope, and had procured a bull granting him a tithe of the spiritual revenues of the Church for the space of three years, on the pretext of an aid for his expenses in the contemplated crusade.' An assembly of the prelates accordingly met in London in October 1252. The clergy appear to According to Matt. Par. 834, he had got the bull as early as April 1252, and had ordered the crusade to be proclaimed in London with great solemnity, vowing to start on it before 24 June; but his intention was mistrusted from the first. The original bull appears not to be extant; that given in Fad. i. 280, under the year 1252, belongs to 1253, and alludes to an opposition to the grant of the tenth. CHAP. V. 1252 Opposition of the clergy, have been summoned separately at first, in order that they might be prevailed upon the more easily when deprived of the assistance of the laity. Both archbishops were absent. The papal bull, granting the three years' tithe, was then read aloud to them, and the kings proctors, assuming the grant as a matter of certainty, went on to ask that the money for one year, or at least half of. it, should be paid before the king started. Upon which the Bishop of Lincoln exclaimed, in great anger, 'What is this, by our Lady! ye take things too much for granted. Think ye we headed by shall consent to this accursed contribution? Far be it that we should so bow the knee to Baal.' 1 And when the Bishop-elect of Winchester, the kings halfbrother, hinted that France had submitted, and England would have to do the same, Grosseteste retorted that for that very reason England should not yield, and so strengthen the exaction by a precedent. The great majority of the bishops supported him. The king then altered his tactics, and requested submissively that an aid might be granted him. But the bishops remained firm, and pleaded the absence of the primates of York and Canterbury as an excuse for avoiding a decision.2 Henry then tried, as usual, to influence them singly, and began with the Bishop of Ely. The bishop still refusing to yield, he turned 'Matt. Par. 849. O quid est hoc, pro nostra Domina? Absit hæc a nobis ad Baal genium incurvatio.' The account illustrates well the superiority of Grosseteste, and the vacillation of the majority of the Episcopate. 2 The Archbishop of Canterbury returned 18 Nov. 1252 (Hist. Angl. 127). The clergy of the northern province had, it appears, already consulted on the matter, and had made answer to the king that, seeing that the interests of the whole English Church were at stake, they could not decide without their brethren of the province of Canterbury. Stubbs, Const. Hist. ii. 67, quoting Roy. Letters, ii. 95. Grosseteste. CHAP. V. 1252-53 The king demands money from Parliament, but is refused. Grant of money made. savagely upon him, and bade his servants 'turn out that boor.' Meanwhile the lay baronage had begun to assemble, though in small numbers. The season was very rainy,' the roads were almost impassable, and when the travellers arrived, wet, dirty, and out of temper, they found London a sea of mud, provisions at famine prices, and the city so full of people that it was almost impossible to get a lodging. And for what were they summoned ? Only to hear once more the never-ending demand for money. The king however does not seem to have dared to lay before the laity the demand for the tenth, which indeed did not immediately concern them, but asked their advice in the matter of Gascony, laying the blame of the troubles there on the Earl of Leicester, whose violence, he said, had so disturbed the province. At the end of his address, as if merely by the way, he requested money to help him on the crusade. The magnates answered that their reply must depend on that of the clergy, and laughed in secret at the silly king who, without skill or experience in war, was going to make an attempt in which the King of France and all his chivalry had failed.' The council broke up in the midst of universal indignation.* However, in the spring of 1253, when de Montfort had left Gascony and was staying in France, affairs in the province had come to such a pitch as to necessitate active interference, and the Easter Parlia 'Matt. Par. 852. 2 Whether it was at this Parliament or at a smaller meeting held later in the year that Henry met with the rebuff alluded to above (p. 100), in his attempt to raise the baronage against Leicester, I am unable to say. 'Regulum istum,' &c.-Matt. Par. 852. 6 • Cum omnium indignatione.'-Hist. Angl. 126. ment yielded to the kings request. V. After a discus- CHAP. sion, which lasted more than a fortnight, the barons 1253 Charter. by forgery. granted him a scutage, and the clergy acquiesced in Confirmathe collection of the tithe. As the price however of tion of the the concession they demanded that the king should observe all privileges and liberties previously granted, both lay and clerical, and, on his promising this, a solemn excommunication of all those who should infringe the charters was pronounced with book and candle by the assembled prelates, the king and the whole council taking part.' But the effect of this imposing ceremony was spoilt by a deed, which perhaps caused more universal indignation than any other, and made the name of the chief actor in it 'to stink in the nostrils' of all Englishmen.2 Peter d'Aigueblanche, Money got Bishop of Hereford, a native of Savoy, proposed to the king a plan for getting money, to which the latter consented, but which nowadays would send its perpetrators to the common gaol. The royal seal was affixed to a schedule which was fastened so that the inside could not be seen the schedule was blank. The swindlers then, under some pretext or other, obtained the signatures of several bishops and abbots to the schedule, which was taken to Rome and filled up with an obligation to pay certain merchants of Sienna sums of money owed them by the king. The Pope was duped into believing that the prelates in question had signed with their eyes open, and threatened them with excommunication if they did not act up to their engagements. This story is given by so many authori 1 Fœd. i. 289; cf. Matt. Far. 865. The writ of excommunication, with the bishops' signatures, is dated 13 May 1253. 2 Cujus memoria fotorem sulphureum exhalat.' Albans. |