The Significance of the Baronial Reform Movement, 1258–1267

R. F. Treharne

doi:10.2307/3678613

The Significance of the Baronial Reform Movement, 1258–1267

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2009

R. F. Treharne

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

The most significant feature of the baronial movement of 1258 is that it was the first deliberate and conscious political revolution in English history. The Angevin system of government, essentially a centralised despotism grafted on to the stock of a primitive national monarchy and growing within the framework of a feudal society, was transformed, at the Parliament of Oxford, into a limited monarchy based on written constitution. The entire power and authority of the crown, in every sphere of government, was put into commission and vested in a privy council of fifteen magnates, selected, not by the king, but by a sub-committee appointed by a committee of the great council; and for nearly two years England was successfully governed and reformed by this nominated privy council, which acted throughout in virtue of the mandate expressed in the Provisions of Oxford, regarding itself as representative of and responsible to the great council. In the king's own words, the Council of Fifteen treated him as a minor under their wardship, settling affairs of state without his presence, and without having asked him to attend, issuing orders without awaiting his authorisation, ignoring his views, and merely replying ‘Nous volons qe issy soit’, without any further explanation, when he remonstrated; they passed over his nominees for offices high and low, appointing others against his will; they used his great seal without consulting him, and denied him all use of it; in fact, they so far diminished his royal power and dignity that little or nothing was done at his command, and his orders were neglected as though it were the council that reigned.

Type: Research Article
Information: Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 25 , December 1943 , pp. 35 - 72

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3678613 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1943

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 35 note 1} Treharne, R. F., The baronial plan of reform (Manchester, 1932), pp. 344–346.Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 1} Rymer, T., Foedera (edit. Clarke, A. and Holbrooke, F., Record Commission, 1816), I. i. 405–406.Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 2} Ibid., pp. 433–4.

^{page 36 note 3} Treharne, op. cit., pp. 47–63, 65–81.

^{page 36 note 4} Ibid., ch. iii.

^{page 37 note 1} Ibid., pp. 100–1.

^{page 37 note 2} Monumenta Franciscana (edit. J. S. Brewer, Rolls Series, 1858), i. 110.

^{page 38 note 1} Bémont, C., Simon de Montfort (trans. Jacob, E. F., Oxford, 1930), pp. 39–48Google Scholar: a fairly full general discussion of the intellectual background of Simon's political ideas.

^{page 38 note 2} Powicke, F. M., ‘Some observations on the baronial council (1258–60) and the Provisions of Westminster’, in Essays presented to Tout, T. F. (edit. Little, A. G. and Powicke, F. M., Manchester, 1925), p. 122.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 1} Treharne, op. cit., pp. 47–56.

^{page 39 note 2} Ibid., ch. iii.

^{page 39 note 3} Ibid., pp. 93–5.

^{page 39 note 4} Ibid., pp. 94–5, 179.

^{page 40 note 1} Treharne, op. cit., pp. 95–7.

^{page 40 note 2} Ibid., pp. 97–9.

^{page 40 note 3} Ibid., pp. 99–100.

^{page 40 note 4} Ibid., 79–80, and 80, n. I.

^{page 40 note 5} Ibid., pp. 70–2.

^{page 40 note 6} Ibid., pp. 70–6, 79–80, 86, 101, 107–212 passim.

^{page 40 note 7} Ibid., pp. 108–11.

^{page 40 note 8} Ibid., pp. 111–17, 144–56.

^{page 40 note 9} Ibid., pp. 196–204.

^{page 40 note 10} Ibid., pp. 119–21.

^{page 40 note 11} Ibid., pp. 137–40.

^{page 41 note 1} Ibid., pp. 133–7, 157–212.

^{page 41 note 2} Ibid., pp. 79–80, 133–7, 157–60.

^{page 41 note 3} Ibid., pp. 175–8, 388–9.

^{page 41 note 4} Ibid., pp. 137–40.

^{page 41 note 5} Ibid., pp. 178–91.

^{page 41 note 6} Ibid., pp. 190–1.

^{page 41 note 7} Ibid., pp. 136–41, 160–4.

^{page 41 note 8} Ibid., pp. 73, 76–9, 125–30.

^{page 41 note 9} Ibid., pp. 66, 68–9, 101–7.

^{page 41 note 10} Ibid., pp. 97–9, 119–25.

^{page 41 note 11} Ibid., pp. 99–100, 108–17.

^{page 41 note 12} Ibid., pp. 70–1.

^{page 42 note 1} Treharne, op.cit., pp.95–6, 110–1, 118, 134, 347–8.

^{page 42 note 2} Ibid., pp.9, 143–4.

^{page 42 note 3} Treharne, , ‘An unauthorised use of the great seal in 1259’, Eng. Hist. Rev., xl. 403–411.CrossRef Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 1} Treharne, , The baronial plan, pp. 110–111.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 2} Ibid., pp. 133–4.

^{page 43 note 3} Ibid., pp. 157–91.

^{page 43 note 4} Ibid., pp. 175–7.

^{page 43 note 5} Ibid., pp. 179–82.

^{page 43 note 6} Ibid., pp. 83–4.

^{page 43 note 7} Ibid., pp. 179–82.

^{page 44 note 1} Treharne, , The baronial plan, pp. 120, n. 1, 167–9.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 1} See especially Cam, H. M., The hundred and the hundred rolls (London, 1930)Google Scholar, passim, and Studies in the hundred rolls (Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History, ed. Sir P. Vinogradoff, vol. vi), (Oxford, 1921), ch. iii; also W. A. Morris, The medieval English sheriff to 1300 A.D. (Manchester, 1927), ch. x.

^{page 45 note 2} Treharne, , Baronial plan of reform, pp. 47–63.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 3} Ibid., pp. 30–47.

^{page 45 note 4} Ibid., pp. 97–9, 108, 119–25, 132–9, 157–91.

^{page 46 note 1} Treharne, , Baronial plan of reform, pp. 99–100, 108–17.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 2} Ibid., pp. 115–16, 120.

^{page 46 note 3} Ibid., pp. 148–9, 155–6.

^{page 46 note 4} Ibid., pp. 185–6, 196–204.

^{page 46 note 5} Ibid., 155–6.

^{page 46 note 6} See ct. 8 of the Dictum of Kenilworth (Stubbs, Select charters, 9th edn., p. 409); also Mirafula Simonis de Montfort, edit. Halliwell, J. O. (Camden Soc., 1849)Google Scholar. There are useful summaries in Bémont, , Simon de Montfort, pp. 256–257Google Scholar, and in Prothero, G. W., The life of Simon de Montfort (London, 1877), 371–381, 388–91.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 7} Treharne, op. cit., p. 81.

^{page 46 note 8} Ibid., pp. 307–8, 311–12.

^{page 47 note 1} Ibid., pp: 323–4, 327, 332–3.

^{page 47 note 2} Ibid., pp. 332–3.

^{page 47 note 3} Rishanger, ,Chronicon de duobus bellis, ed. Halliwell, J. O. (Camden Soc., 1849), p. 30.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 4} Bémont, op. cit., pp. 213–14.

^{page 47 note 5} Ibid., pp. 250–1; Liber de antiquis, legibus, ed. Stapleton, T. (Camden Soc., 1846), pp. 77–89Google Scholar; Calendar of patent rolls, 1258–66, pp. 460, 469, 472, 519. 53O–1. 588, 658.

^{page 47 note 6} Prothero, op. cit., pp. 359–61.

^{page 47 note 7} Bémont, op. cit., pp. 250–1.

^{page 48 note 1} For Shrewsbury and Bridgnorth, see Treharne, op. cit., p. 266; Rishanger, op. cit., pp. 11–12; and N. Trivet, Annales (edit. T. Hog, London, 1845), p. 251. For Yarmouth and King's Lynn, see Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1266–72, pp. 44, 131–2, 214; and Chronicon Thomae Wykes (edit. H. R. Luard,Annales monastici, vol. iv), p. 197.

^{page 48 note 2} Treharne, op. cit., pp. 306, 313, 331–2; Bémont, op. cit., pp. 233–4, 251.

^{page 48 note 3} Treharne, op. cit., pp. 193, 310; Bémont, op. cit., p. 240; the Continuator of Gervase of Canterbury, Gesta regum (Historical works of Gervase of Canterbury (ed. Stubbs, W., Rolls Series, 1880, vol. ii), pp. 221–222.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 4} Calendar of patent rolls, 1258–66, pp. 444–5.

^{page 48 note 5} Wykes, op. cit., p. 138.

^{page 48 note 6} Stubbs, Select charters, p. 403.

^{page 49 note 1} Stignorial administration in England, Oxford, 1937.

^{page 49 note 2} Lapsley, G., ‘Buzones’, Eng. Hist. Rev., xlvii. 177–193, 545–67.CrossRef Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 3} Cam, The hundred and the hundred rolls, passim.

^{page 50 note 1} Pasquet, D., An essay on the origins of the House of Commons (trans. Laffan, R. G. D.), Cambridge, 1925, ch. ii.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 1} Treharne, op. cit., pp. 99–100, 108–11, 186–9.

^{page 51 note 2} Ibid., pp. 97–9, 119–25, 182–5, 204–9, 267–8.

^{page 51 note 3} Ibid., pp. 266–7.

^{page 51 note 4} Stubbs, Select charters, pp. 399–400,

^{page 51 note 5} Ibid., pp. 403–4.

^{page 52 note 1} Treharne, op. cit., pp. 160–4.

^{page 53 note 1} Ibid., op. cit., pp. 265–73, 278–9.

^{page 54 note 1} For a general account of the development of relations between Henry III and the clergy, and of their influence on the crisis of 1258, see Treharne, op. cit., pp. 56–63.

^{page 54 note 2} Ibid., pp. 57–8; see M. Gibbs and J. Lang, Bishops and reform (Oxford, 1934), especially pt. ii.

^{page 55 note 1} Treharne, op. cit., p. 58.

^{page 55 note 2} Ibid., pp. 61–2; cf. Annales monasterii de Burton (edit. H. R. Luard, Annales monastici, vol. i), pp. 411–22.

^{page 56 note 1} Treharne, op. cit., pp. 65–6.

^{page 57 note 1} For a detailed discussion of Grosseteste's political views and activities, see F. S. Stevenson, Robert Grosseteste (London, 1899), especially ch. viii, ix, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, and xv; also A. L. Smith, Church ánd State in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1913), lecture iii.

^{page 57 note 2} See especially W. Stubbs, Constitutional history of England (Oxford, 1906, 4th edn.), ii. pp. 62–5; also Treharne, op. cit., pp. 53–4.

^{page 58 note 1} Treharne, op. cit., pp. 238–41.

^{page 59 note 1} Paris, Matthew, Chronica majora (edit. Luard, H. R., Rolls Series), v, 705, 747.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 2} Treharne, op. cit., pp. 238–41.

^{page 59 note 3} Ibid., pp. 266–7.

^{page 59 note 4} Ibid., 305 sq.

^{page 60 note 1} Prothero, op. cit., p. 342.

^{page 60 note 2} Annales de Dunstaplia (Annales Monastici, edit. H. R. Luard, vol. iii.), 234.

^{page 60 note 3} E.g. Wykes, op. cit., p. 180.

^{page 60 note 4} Cf. Bémont, op. cit., p. 248, n. I, where these bishops and several abbots are named as active supporters of the earl.

^{page 61 note 1} Wykes, op. cit., p. 164.

^{page 61 note 2} Examples of such advocacy occur in the unpublished rolls of the Justices de terris datis et occtipatis, compiled in execution of the Dictum of Kenilworth.

^{page 61 note 3} Wykes, op. cit., pp. 185–7.

^{page 61 note 4} Foedera, I. i. 435; Rishanger, op. cit., p. 22.

^{page 61 note 5} See especially Kingsford, C. L., The Song of Lewes (Oxford, 1890), xviii–xxv.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 6} Miracula Simonis de Montfort (Camden Soc.),

^{page 62 note 1} For a general survey of this aspect of relations between the king and the barons, see Treharne, op. cit., pp. 33–7, 47–56.

^{page 62 note 2} Ibid., ch. ii. and ii

^{page 63 note 1} Treharne, op. cit., ch. iii., iv., v., viii., passim.

^{page 63 note 2} Ibid., pp. 143–4.

^{page 63 note 3} Ibid., pp. 253–6, 344–7.

^{page 64 note 1} For a full discussion of this matter, see Treharne, op. cit., pp. 83–9, 100–1.

^{page 64 note 2} Ibid., pp. 86–9, 117–18, 131–2, 133–5, 137, 158–60.

^{page 64 note 3} Ibid., pp. 137–41.

^{page 64 note 4} Ibid., pp. 160–4.

^{page 64 note 5} Ibid., pp. 119–21.

^{page 64 note 6} Ibid., pp. 137–41.

^{page 65 note 1} Ibid., pp. 157–212.

^{page 65 note 2} Ibid., pp. 118, 162–3. This view depends on general statements, in both chronicles and records, that ‘large numbers’ of magnates, or that ‘all the magnates’ were present.

^{page 65 note 3} Ibid., pp. 266–7.

^{page 65 note 4} Stubbs, Charters, p. 400.

^{page 65 note 5} Ibid., pp. 403–4.

^{page 66 note 1} Stubbs, , Charters, pp. 406–407.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 2} Ibid., p. 383.

^{page 66 note 3} Pasquet, op. cit., pp. 58–9.

^{page 67 note 1} Treharne, op. cit., p. 115, n. 3; H. M. Cam, ‘The parliamentary writs de expensis of 1258’, Eng. Hist. Rev., xlvi. 630–2.

^{page 67 note 2} Treharne, op. cit., pp. 205–9.

^{page 67 note 3} The baronial plan of reform, 1238–63. This is the principal conclusion of the book.

^{page 68 note 1} The baronial plan of reform, 1258–63, pp. 119–21.

^{page 68 note 2} Ibid., pp. 182–5, 204–9.

^{page 68 note 3} Ibid., pp. 185–9.

^{page 68 note 4} Calendar of patent rolls, 1258–66, p. 328.

^{page 69 note 1} Treharne, op. cit., pp. 137–40.

^{page 69 note 2} Ibid., p. 108.

^{page 69 note 3} Ibid., pp. 133–7, 157–78.

^{page 69 note 4} Ibid., p. 169.

^{page 69 note 5} Ibid., pp. 99–100, 108–11.

^{page 69 note 6} Ibid., pp. 111–16, 139, 145–56.

^{page 70 note 1} Treharne, op. cit., pp. 179–80, 185–6, 196–204.

^{page 70 note 2} Ibid., especially ch. iv., v., viii.

^{page 70 note 3} Ibid., pp. 67–70, 72–6, 86–8, 97, 179–83, 374–5.

^{page 70 note 4} Ibid., pp. 133–7, 158–69.

^{page 70 note 5} Ibid., pp. 111, 134.

^{page 70 note 6} Ibid., pp. 74, 374–5.

^{page 70 note 7} Ibid., pp. 96–7, 181–2, 369–72.

^{page 70 note 8} Ibid., ch. viii.

^{page 70 note 9} Ibid., pp. 66, 87–9, 100–1, 220.

^{page 71 note 1} Ibid., pp. 136–41.

^{page 71 note 2} Ibid., pp. 136–41, 160–4. 213–79.

^{page 71 note 3} Ibid., pp. 136–41, 160–4.

^{page 71 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 71 note 5} Ibid., pp. 213–79.

^{page 71 note 6} Ibid., pp. 261–71.

^{page 71 note 7} Ibid., pp. 271–2.

Article contents

The Significance of the Baronial Reform Movement, 1258–1267

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests