CHAP. II. 1239 Birth of a Quarrel of the king. denly a change took place, unexpected in its arrival, and most important in its consequences. A successor to the throne, afterwards Edward I, was born on June 16, 1239. Simon stood godfather to the child, and prince. acted as High Steward at his baptism. The king seized the opportunity to extort money from those to whom he announced the happy event. If the presents he received did not satisfy him, he sent the messengers back for more, so that it was remarked, 'God gave us this child, but my lord the king sells him to us." On August 9 the earl came with his wife to attend the churching of the queen at Westminster, when the king turned suddenly upon him, called him an excommunicated man, and drove him from his presence. Astonished and deeply hurt by these reproaches, the earl and countess retired across the river to the palace of the late Bishop of Winchester, where they lodged. But no sooner were they arrived than the king sent messengers to eject them. Thereupon they returned, and made one more attempt to appease their sovereign; but he, now thoroughly enraged, exclaimed, 'Thou didst corrupt my sister before her marriage, and it was only when I discovered this that I gave her to thee, unwilling as I was, to avoid scandal ;' and then he went on in the same style to shower accusations on the earl, declaring that he had bribed the Curia with gifts and promises, and that, being unable to fulfil the latter, he had deservedly fallen under sentence of excommunication; nay more, he had made the king, without his knowledge, security for his bond and partner in his fraud. The earl, we are told, withdrew, blush- Simon ing with shame or anger, and as soon as night fell England. 2 Id. 498. 1 Matt. Par. 488. leaves CHAP. 1239 Causes of the quarrel. Dr Shir leys opinion: reasons against this. dropped down the Thames in a small vessel, with his wife and a few attendants, and made the best of his way to France. What was the reason of this sudden and apparently unaccountable burst of temper? What truth was there in these violent reproaches? Dr Shirley, in the 'Quarterly Review,' followed by Pauli, ascribes it to the change in the politics of the English court, caused by the freshly-aroused hostility between Pope and Emperor. But surely it is hardly necessary to go so far afield to find a reason. The quarrel between the two heads of Christendom had indeed lately come to a climax. Frederick II had been excommunicated on Palm Sunday in this year, and the bull was published in England a fortnight before the scene at Westminster took place. It is said by the abovementioned authors that the papal party at court, now in the ascendant, had probably urged his dismissal, owing to the friendship known to exist between him and the Popes greatest foe. De Montfort had therefore to be got rid of, and the same charge was trumped up against him which had been made against Hubert de Burgh a few years before. But was the papal influence in England at that moment so high, or the kings friendship for his brother-in-law so far cooled, as to account for this? Only last year Henry had sent Frederick men and money,2 and letters of expostulation written by the latter this year, together with a very friendly one two years later,3 seem to show that the good-feeling between them was never really interrupted, at least till the death of Isabella severed the 1 Quart. Rev. cxix. 31, Pauli, Simon de Mont., 36. 3 bond of relationship between them. And, even if the papal party had been so strong, there is nothing to show that Simon was in such bad odour at Rome. It is true he was recommended by Frederick, and had assisted him in return, but we do not know that he had done anything since to change the feeling towards him which had won from the Curia so speedy an answer to his request. But what makes the idea of a papal intrigue most improbable is the language used by Henry himself with regard to the Curia; his allusions to the power of money at Rome, the avarice of that court, and the venal suppression of truth, show that he was by no means well-disposed towards the papacy at that moment. Further, it is more than doubtful whether an excommunication was ever really issued against de Montfort. Henry had no great regard for truth, and it is at least strange that Simon should have received the first news of it from the kings mouth, and in so unofficial a form. On the other hand, the king seems at the moment really to have believed the first accusation to be true; even he would hardly otherwise have dared to insult his sister publicly; nor was his anger feigned, for, though a hypocrite, he was not a good actor. The following explanation may perhaps cover all difficulties. CHAP. II. 1239 cause of the The party which had opposed Leicester before Probable was not likely to be pacified by the papal dispensa- quarrel. tion. It would not have been difficult for any Iago of the court to whisper in Henrys ear the insinuation that there was only too good reason for the eagerness with which the marriage ceremonies had been hurried Victa veritas Romanæ cessit avaritiæ,' &c.-Matt. Par. 498. E 50 CHAP. 1239 Quarrel between the king and Simon. Falsity of the first charge. Reason of Henrys anger. on. He, with his strange mixture of credulity and The immediate reason of Henrys anger, which, once stirred, looked round for what might be considered less selfish motives, is probably to be discovered 1 Cf. Hudson Turner, Household Expenses, xvii. This is urged by Dr. Shirley, Quart. Rev. cxix. 31. 123 II. 1239 in the latter part of his speech, in which he accuses CHAP. de Montfort of bribing the Curia, and using his name as security for extravagant promises. The fact of the bribery seems undeniable. Payment for justice, especially at the venal court of Rome,1 was so ordinary an occurrence that we need not wonder that Simon yielded to the custom. It was a dishonourable transaction, doubtless, and has therefore been considered by some writers so alien to Simons character as to make it impossible to attribute it to him. This rests perhaps hardly on sufficient grounds. He was not immaculate, and the job would hardly have been considered dishonourable. Further, it is likely enough that he made more use of Henrys name than the latter liked; though this would almost be justified by the favour in which he stood with the king at the time, and by the terms of his credentials, which amounted to a general assumption of responsibility for the whole affair. When de Montfort failed to fulfil his engagements, his creditors, Italian moneylenders who transacted the Popes business abroad, would have applied to Henry, whose surprise and indignation burst forth in the way we have seen. They may also have hinted that if the money were not paid Simon might still be considered liable to excommunication. This will account for Henrys allusion to that danger.3 The earl and countess bowed before the storm, and avoided the consequences by a voluntary exile of seven months in France. Though the kings anger 1 This is borne out by frequent allusions in contemporary poems and chronicles. 2 Quart. Rev. cxix. 31. • Hudson Turner, Household Expenses xvii. Simon retires to France. |
