Page images


Norman parties. After Philip had confiscated the lando of those Normans who lingered in England, John was careful to retaliate upon the English lands, not merely of laymen, but of ecclesiastics, if they had allowed themselves to benefit by the losses of their neighbours. Thus Hasculf Paynell, who asserted that Norman clerks were withholding his rents, received the rents and advowsons belonging to the Norman church in the Channel Islands 2

III. Begun as a counter-stroke to Philip's policy of expropriation, John's measures hardened, as we have seen, into a tradition of hostility to France and Frenchmen. This tradition had momentous effects upon English politics and English law. It gave precision to the growing selfconsciousness of the nation. From a continental standpoint, however, Philip's policy had a feudal rather than a national tendency. The conquest of Normandy caused no very important change in Norman law or custom, and had far less influence upon the political institutions of France than it had upon the political future of England. But none the less it established, at a critical period in the history of the French monarchy, two very important feudal principles.

In the first place, the legal supremacy of the king of 1. An interesting case in Rot. Chart., 151b; also in Round, Calendar, no. 105. On 30th May, 1205, John confirmed an agreement between the bishop of London and the abbot of Saint Ouen, by which the latter farmed certain English lands to the bishop. The king promised that “si predicte terre occasione aliqua in manum nostram devenerint predictus episcopus terras bene et in pace teneat respondendo nobis de eadem firma quam abbati et conventui reddere debebat.”

2. Rot. de Fin., 437; Rot. Pat., 81. A somewhat similar case in Rot. Pat., 67b: a letter of October 12, 1206, to Geoffrey fitz Peter "mandamus vobis quod faciatis habere Willelmo de Witefeld terram Abbatisse Mutervileriensis, scilicet Waddon, qui est in manu nostra, tenendam quamdiu eadem Abbatissa tenuerit terram ipsius Willelmi in Normannia.” Waddon, in Dorset, had been seized in 1204 (Rot. Norm.,

France over the great vassals of the crown was shown to be a reality and not a mere form. The moral effect of the condemnation and successful eviction of John was felt throughout the succeeding centuries. This result is closely connected with the second principle established by Philip. During the wars against Henry II and his sons, he insisted more and more upon a strict application of the theory of liege homage in his relations with the great vassals of the crown. This theory as it was defined in the twelfth century comprehended two points; first, that a vassal owed primary and personal allegiance to his liege-lord; and, secondly, that he had the privilege of being tried (and, conversely, is required to appear for trial) in his liegelord's court.1 The numerous treaties made between Philip and his Angevin rivals are of great significance on account of their rulings upon these points. Together with the various charters and concords which carried out their provisions they form a group of documents which are very important in the history of feudal law. For example, the treaty of Messina defined the relations between the Angevin empire and the king of France, while those of Mantes in July, 1193, and of Louviers in January, 1196, illustrate the problems of homage upon the borders. It is curious to observe how, as time went on, Philip interpreted the doctrine in his own favour, until John is finally caught in its legal meshes. During the reign of Henry II and Richard the houses of France and Anjou were so nearly equal that the principle of liege homage, if applied with precision, was as advantageous to the solidarity of one as to that of the other. To take the most important example : the triangular relations of the king of France, the duke of Normandy and the count of Flanders. As late as 1163 the counts of Flanders construed their obligations to the king of France, their liege lord, to mean that they were

1. See Lot, Fidèles ou Vassaux ? pp. 250, 251, 255; and, on the subject in general, Holtzmann, Französische Verfassungsgeschichte (1910), pp. 25-7.

only obliged to serve him in person with ten knights, and that under certain circumstances they might attend upon his ally of Normandy, unless this was forbidden by his peers in the royal court. In other words, the privilege of trial in the king's court was used as a safeguard of the count's freedom to neglect his feudal duties. Again, the reader will remember how, in 1197, Richard insulted Philip by appearing at an interview supported by the presence of the counts of Flanders and Boulogne, with whom he had recently concluded treaties. This conduct must have stung Philip the more, in that by the treaty of Louviers Richard and he had explicitly agreed to respect the rights of each other to the service of their liege vassals. It was of vital consequence to him that the count of Flanders should be tied to his service. But in the reign of John, Philip, by his juristic ability, turned the tables upon his enemy, and secured the advantages of his previous policy. As the change is of some importance in the explanation of our subject, I will briefly analyse the ways in which it was manifested.

(1) Philip extended the principle of liege homage to John himself. By the treaty of Le Goulet, and by subsidiary or later acts, John agreed to pay Philip a heavy relief (rechatum), and to allow his claims to Brittany and Anjou to be established by the judgment of the French court. The later condemnations of John were a natural consequence of this complaisance.5 John's position was further weakened by his agreement to

1. Lot, op. cit., p. 24. 2. Above, p. 179.

3. Cart. Norm., p. 277, “Neque nos recipiemus amodo homines ligios regis Francie contra ipsum quamdiu vixerit, nec ipse nostros homines ligios contra nos quamdiu vixerimus."

4. On the legal relations between France and Normandy, see Lot, op. cit., ch. vi, and especially Robert of Torigni's interpolation in the chronicle of William of Jumièges, which attempts to explain them away. Ibid, p. 261.

5. Above, p. 200.

repudiate the alliance with the count of Flanders, on the ground that the count owed peculiar duty to the king of France. 1 The advantage which Philip's control over John gave him may be seen if we compare his attempts to break through the allegiance of the Normans in Richard's reign with his success after 1202.

(2) As opportunity arose Philip had tried to counteract the obligations of Richard's liege vassals, but with little result. For example, there was his suggestion (in which of course John concurred) to separate John's continental lands from direct allegiance to Richard in the event of the latter's return from captivity. The complicated arrangements which deal in the treaties of this period with the counts of Meulan, and especially with Hugh of Gournai,3 are more pertinent illustrations of his method. Thus, by the treaty of Louviers Hugh of Gournai's homage was to remain to Philip during Hugh's lifetime, unless he should wish to return to his allegiance, although the knights of the fief were allowed to reserve their duty to Richard. But, except in the case of this particularly

1. This clause was a repetition of the clause in the treaty of 1196, but the specific insertion of the count of Flanders strengthened Philips position; see Cart. Norm., p. 281.

2. See the treaty of January, 1194, between John and Philip, in Cart. Norm., p. 275. Et si rex Francie faceret pacem cum rege Anglie ipse faceret michi pacem erga regem Anglie, ita quod ego (Johannes) terram, quam haberem pro pace citra mare, tenerem a rege Francie, si posset.”

3. Howden, ii, 218; Cart. Norm., pp. 276–7.

4. Cart. Norm., p. 277. This impossible arrangement illustrates the difficulty of describing feudal relations in terms of geography. So long as Hugh of Gournai remained true to Philip, Gournai would be comprehended with the Vexin, in the lands ceded to Philip; and I have included it within the line separating France from Normandy in the map at the end of this volume. Yet, presumably, in case of war bet een Richard and Philip, those of gh's who had remained true to Richard, and whose rights were safeguarded by the treaty, could

important fief, such cumbrous arrangements were not found desirable. Philip preferred to secure his rights in the border fiefs and castles which he had seized, by means of a public treaty and, at the same time, to force terms upon their unlucky lords. After his conquest of Vernon and Paci, which was confirmed by Richard in 1195-6, Richard of Vernon received lands in exchange, and for a time became a French vassal,' and Robert of Leicester, who was a captive, was forced to cede Paci as a ransom.” Yet Philip's regard for the earl's duty to King Richard is shown by an arrangement which he made with the earl's nephew, Simon de Montfort. Simon, as a French vassal, went surety for his uncle's promise that, after his release, he would never again use force against the king of France, or plot any evil against him, unless war should again break out between the two kings.

After John's condemnation Philip was no longer hindered by the accepted doctrine; he was, on the contrary, able to urge it in his own favour. In Richard's reign he had waged public war, in John's he punished a recalcitrant vassal. Hence he was able to push the theory to its logical conclusion and to insist upon the entire allegiance of John's vassals. Their service was now due to him, and those who refused to join him were rightly deprived, just as their lord had been deprived.

(3) At the same time Philip's attitude to the Normans was untouched by indignation. He had, as I have shown, no love for traitors and did not regard the Normans who


1. Cart. Norm., nos. 33, 34, p. 9. Above, p. 162.

2. Ibid, nos. 36-40, pp. 9, 10, 278. Howden, iii, 278; iv, 5. Cf. the charter of the count of Evreux after the treaty of 1200, Cart. Norm., no. 53, p. 281.

3. Cart. Norm., no. 41, p. 278.

[ocr errors]

join Richard's forces, or would not be expected to fight against him. It should be noticed that, although by the treaty of 1200 (Ibid, 281)

lip retained the Norman Vexin as ceded in 1196, Hugh of Gournai and his lands were not included. Hugh was one of John's sureties.

« PreviousContinue »