
What's so special about Simon de Montfort's 'January Parliament'?
Simon de Montfort, the medieval earl of Leicester, loomed large in thirteenth-century England. He arguably looms large still, with a university named after him and a monument adorning the walls of the US Capitol in Washington DC.
Much of this modern fame is due to his perceived role in the development of English democracy, hinging mainly on the parliament he convened in January 1265 when he was de facto ruler of England.
This gathering, which got underway on 20 January 1265, is sometimes presented as ‘the birth’ of today’s UK parliament. The House of Commons website, for example, held a year of events in 2015 to mark the 750th anniversary of the gathering, which it described as ‘the earliest forerunner of the modern Parliament.’
Yet this notion is sometimes lampooned by historians, and perhaps rightly. After all, many parliaments had taken place before January 1265 – including one summoned by earl Simon in the previous summer.
So why is Montfort’s 1265 parliament remembered in such mixed terms?
The first English parliament? Absolutely not
It's worth stressing again that Montfort’s gathering was not the first English parliament.
Kings of England had summoned their magnates to discuss matters affecting the realm long before 1265. Magna Carta, issued by King John in 1215 in response to pressure from his barons, included a provision that taxation required the common consent of the kingdom through assemblies akin to a parliament. And the revolution of 1258, that had resulted in Montfort securing power in 1264, had formalised these assemblies further. The Provisions of Oxford, which became the guiding stars of the revolution, stated that parliament should convene three times a year.
Widening participation
All that said, it is true that Montfort’s parliament was unlike any other before. And that’s because of its composition.
The earl summoned representatives from the major towns and two knights from every shire to the parliament. Knights from the shires had come to parliament in the past, as had burgesses sent from the towns. But never at the same parliament. This was the first time such a broad representation of communities attended.
This was, therefore, something of a landmark moment which unsurprisingly has captured the imaginations of modern writers. And as is often the case with these landmark moments in history, its position in the popular discourse has been simultaneously simplified and exaggerated.
However, it is a fact that Montfort’s January parliament was unprecedented in its composition, and while a world away from the modern representative democracy we have today, it does reflect an evolution of sorts. Professor David Carpenter, that titan of thirteenth-century scholarship, said it well when described the gathering as ‘the House of Commons in embryo’.
So yes, it's true that parliaments had happened before Montfort's 1265 gathering, but his decision to open it up to such a wide array of representatives is why it is remembered as a significant moment.
Self preservation
For those interested in just why Montfort widened the parliament in 1265, it was probably more to do with political necessity than a flourishing of democratic benevolence. The earl had seized power through a military victory at the battle of Lewes in May 1264, which saw the king, Henry III, captured. But controlling the kingdom proved more challenging than winning it, and Montfort's regime was plagued by disorder and resistance, notably from the magnates. Summoning representatives from the towns and shires was an attempt to build support in these key constituencies as a counterweight to the threat posed from the powerful forces arrayed against him.
For Montfort, it was all in vain. He was killed by those very same forces at the battle of Evesham seven months later. But the legacy of the parliament lived on, with Henry III's heir, Edward I, establishing the convention of wider representation into his reign.
Image:
Simon de Montfort
Av Ukjent/Gallica/Bibliothèque nationale de France 𝒲.
Lisens: Falt i det fri (Public domain)