СНАР. 1240 Simon returns to England, and is nominally seems to have pursued them even there, it was soon mitigated, probably in a great degree by the efforts of the Bishop of Lincoln, who in the letter already quoted had promised to plead their cause; and in April 1240 Simon returned, and was received by king and court with all due honour. The countess remained for a time abroad, expecting the birth of her second child, who was named Simon after his father. The earl was now to all appearance safe, but the consequences of the late rupture between him and the king were not so easily effaced. Though he comreconciled pletely recovered his position at court, and continued to the king. to raise it in the country, his friendly relations with the king were irremediably shaken. Whatever confidence he can have had in Henry must have disappeared; the insult and the injury were such as a man of far milder temper and less haughty spirit could hardly have forgotten. He was forced to take up a more independent attitude. He would probably in no case have taken the kings side in the constitutional disputes, which were already becoming serious; but it is probable that the quarrel hastened the time at which he entered, as we shall soon see, on his long service in the ranks of the opposition. Preparation for a crusade. Meanwhile, whether on account of a former vow, or in order to allow time for things to settle, he prepared, with Richard of Cornwall, and other English nobles, to go on the crusade, so eagerly preached throughout Europe by the court of Rome. He had indeed with Earl Richard and William Longespee 1 Royal Letters, ii. 16, in which Henry bids his proctors at Rome do what they can to help Peter of Brittany in a dispute he has with de Montfort. been released from this vow,' and it seems doubtful whether he ever really started on the expedition. We hear nothing of his exploits in the Holy Land, nor is he mentioned by Matthew Paris as having joined the army, though both the departure and return of William Longespee, heir of the earldom of Salisbury, are especially noticed. It is possible he had no more real intention of going than he had in 1261, when he declared he would leave England for the Holy Land.3 The fact too, that he and his wife took the cross in 1247, and that it was then supposed to be for the purpose of expiating the sin of his marriage, seems to show that he had not been on crusade before.1 On the other hand, it must be said that he had a special incentive in the fact that his eldest brother Amauri had been taken by the Saracens, and was languishing with other noble captives in prison in Cairo. A letter written in June 1241 by the nobility of the kingdom of Jerusalem to Frederick II, asking him to allow Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, to act as regent till the arrival of the emperors son Conrad, has been considered sufficient proof that he was in the Holy Land, and had distinguished himself there so as to merit this great mark of approbation. This seems to be the 1 Letters of Greg. IX, quoted by Pauli. 2 Matt. Par. 536, 582. Ann. Osney, 129. Id. 530, (?) Babylon. Letter printed in Household Expenses, xix. dated 7 June, 1241. It is obvious however that the letter might have been written, though Simon should never have been there. Nichols seems to be wrong in stating that the Annals of Dunstable say Simon went to the Holy Land. CHAP. 1240-42 Richard of only ground,' though certainly a strong one, for believing that Simon took part in this crusade. The little band of Christians was hard pressed at this time by the superior power of the Mohammedans, in the East. and Richards assistance, rendered perhaps even more Simon returns to England. valuable by his great wealth than by the troops he brought with him, was welcomed with the greatest joy on his arrival at Acre in the autumn of 1240. There was however but little for him to do; a truce had already been struck, involving the release of the captives, and a special treaty was made between the earl and the Sultan of Egypt, which gave the former time to rebuild the shattered strongholds of the Christians, and otherwise to place their affairs on a better footing. In May 1241 he re-embarked, and on his passage through Italy visited his brotherin-law the Emperor. He was entertained by him for two months with all that eastern luxury and elegance, which increased the fame and injured the reputation of Frederick II.3 If Simon de Montfort was in the Holy Land he would probably have returned with Richard. He may have stayed to close the eyes of his brother, who died on his way home, at Otranto, in the summer of this year. Whatever be the truth on this point, we find him. in England early in 1242. He must have been present About the same time however Simon sold property to the Canons of Leicester to the amount of 1,000l.-Greens Princesses, 77. See Richards own letter, giving an account of the expedition.Matt. Par. 566. Matthew Paris gives an interesting account of the musical and other entertainments, and especially of the performance of two Saracen girls of great beauty, who danced exquisitely on rolling spheres, and glided to and fro over the polished floor wherever they would, singing and clapping their hands, interlacing their arms, and bending their bodies to the tune of the cymbals and tambourines on which they played. CHAP. II. 1242 tions for France, at the important council of that year, in which the king met with the most determined opposition to his demands for money, and had to submit to a sound rating from the assembled baronage for his wasteful- Preparaness, and his unconstitutional action in breaking the war with truce with France without their consent.' The names of the barons are not given by the historians, but there is no reason to doubt that Simon took his place among them; which side he took must however remain uncertain. Louis IX had made his brother Alfonso Count of Poitou, an insult to the English claims, and especially to Richard of Cornwall, who held that title. The Count of la Marche, Henrys stepfather, found little difficulty in persuading the king to undertake an expedition to France. He promised to find the men if the English would provide the money. Henry, with his usual rashness and short-sighted ambition, entered on the war with a light heart. In spite of the opposition of the magnates he collected a large sum of money, by means only too well-known to the financial policy of the day, the policy of attacking singly those whom he could not break when united together. to France. In May 1242 Henry entered upon his ill-advised Expedition expedition, attended by the queen, Earl Richard, and a few nobles, among whom was Simon de Montfort. It is to this affair that we must probably refer a Contemvery interesting satirical song, written by a French-porary man, on a certain assembly held in England to discuss an expedition against France. The writer, in sarcastic 1 See below, p. 66. 2 Polit. Songs, p. 63. Mr. Wright. refers this song to 1264, and says it alludes to the mediation of the King of France. But nothing in poem. CHAP. II. 1242 Song on tion to France. and somewhat coarse language, paints the extravagant pretensions of the English king, the ardent wish of Henry and his brother Richard to recover Normandy, the expedi and the paternal pride which the former takes in his son Edward of the flaxen hair.' Henry thinks he has only to land and the French will run away; he will march on Paris, will carry off the Sainte Chapelle just as it stands, for a trophy of his victory; will have Edward crowned in St. Denis, and will celebrate the occasion with a great feast of beef and pork. But at the assembly in London, in which the king proposes the expedition, 'not a baron, from best to worst, will move.' Afterwards however the Earls of Gloucester and Winchester support the king, outdoing him in braggadocio; upon which Sir Simon de Montfort starts to his feet, with anger in his face, and advises the king to let the matter drop, for the Frenchman is no lamb,' and will defend himself bravely. Thereupon ensues a quarrel between de Montfort and Roger Bigod, who is indignant at Simons freedom of speech, and vows, perhaps in allusion to his own name, by 'Godelamit' that the affair shall be brought to a glorious conclusion. The king appeases him, and there is an end of the matter. These events are of course not introduced here as undoubted matter of history, but, allowing for poetical treatment and a the song agrees with this hypothesis. There is no allusion to an act of mediation; invasion and conquest are alone spoken of. The opposi tion mentioned is just that of the Parliament of 1242; we know of no Parliament in 1263, or 1264, at which the events of the song would have been possible; at the latter period there was no talk of an invasion of France, and Normandy was formally given up in 1259. The only difficulty is that Edward, then three years old, is called a bold knight; but that is probably only a satirical exaggeration of his fathers pride in him. |