The arrest of Robert de Ferrers, earl of Derby: Justice or betrayal?
The famous 'January Parliament' of 1265 is famed for its position in English constitutional history. But it also saw one of Simon de Montfort's biggest miscalculations.
​
The parliament that Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester, convened in January 1265 is one of the more famous gatherings of its kind in medieval England. Its unprecedented composition – involving representatives from major towns and each shire - has seen it occupy a prominent place in constitutional history; the ‘House of Commons in embryo,’ as one historian has put it.
Yet something else transpired at the parliament which is considerably less well-known. At some point during the proceedings, one of Montfort’s key allies, the powerful and warlike earl of Derby, Robert de Ferrers, was arrested and locked up in the Tower of London.
​
Robert has a reputation for intransigence among modern historians, who have been content to describe his imprisonment as just desserts for a lawless marauder.
The problem with this interpretation, though, is that it completely ignores contemporary reaction to the arrest.
Gilbert de Clare, the earl of Gloucester and the most powerful ally that Montfort had in his faction, is reported by one chronicler to have been stunned at the decision to arrest Robert. Another says that other Montfortians thought they might be next – a clear inference that Robert’s arrest had political or strategic motives.
More for the Montforts
​
For Gilbert, who had already clashed with Montfort over the latter's appropriation of lands captured during the rebellion, this was a move too far, and he broke with Simon at this juncture. He would play a central role in Montfort’s downfall and death in the ensuing months. For Montfort, imprisoning Ferrers was a deadly miscalculation.
So what compelled him to make such a dangerous mistake?
The chroniclers that mention the arrest differ in explaining it – a reflection of the confusion that it caused. Robert was clearly not universally condemned as a public enemy, otherwise we would expect more agreement across these accounts.
Some certainly do present a narrative that Ferrers was a criminal who had perpetrated trespasses against the king, Henry III, who wanted him executed as a consequence. William Rishanger's chronicle highlights Ferrers' excesses, adding that he colluded secretly with the Marchers, while in Robert of Gloucester's account, Montfort steps in to save Ferrers and arrests him to placate the king.
The documentary evidence, however, makes it clear that Ferrers was arrested after throwing himself at the mercy of the king during the parliament. This is recorded in the Patent Rolls. As Dr Peter Golob noted, the version set out by Robert of Gloucester is extremely unlikely because if Henry was calling for Ferrers' death, there is no way he would ask for his fate to be decided by the king himself.
Thomas Wykes, the chronicler who is most hostile to Montfort, noted that Simon did not give Ferrers a fair hearing, and this – combined with the reaction of Gilbert de Clare – points to a more likely explanation; Montfort was moving against Robert for his own interests.
​
Following the battle of Lewes, Ferrers had captured an array of royalist castles in pursuit of the Montfortian faction’s pacification of the realm. This included two notable royal fortresses – Harestan castle and the Peak, both in Derbyshire. It is highly probable that Ferrers captured Chester too, during the Montfortian suppression of a Marcher revolt towards the end of 1264. Robert is described as marching on Chester and putting a range of Marcher lords to flight around this time.
​
Montfort's smoking gun, to use a modern phrase, can be seen in the other business he conducted at the parliament. This was the arrangements put in place to reach a peace deal with Henry’s son, the Lord Edward, by which the prince would gain his freedom. As part of this deal, Montfort would receive swathes of land previously held by Edward – including Chester and the Peak…
​
Naivety or betrayal?
Professor John Maddicott, who wrote a brilliant biography of Simon de Montfort, has little sympathy for the treatment of Robert, whom he feels had alienated both sides in the rebellion due to his widespread disorder. He was lacking in ‘political sophistication’, Maddicott suggests, and was foolish to honour Montfort’s summons to the parliament. How could he not have seen so obvious a trap?
This assessment sits uneasy with me, as it jars quite violently with much of the contemporary – or near contemporary – evidence. First, as my recent research in Midland History demonstrates, Robert's activities were quite in line with other magnates during the war. Second, as we have seen, prominent Montfortians were shocked by Robert’s arrest, and some clearly recognised what was happening; namely, Montfort was consolidating power for himself and his family, at the expense of ally and enemy alike.
​​
The chronicler of Croxden Abbey, writing later, also contradicts the notion of Robert’s lack of political nous. ‘For so wise was he in council’, wrote the chronicler, ‘that had he not been betrayed by one of his knights, he’d have quickly brought a third of England under his command.’
​
It seems clear, then, that Robert's arrest was more about Montfort's self aggrandisement than his own conduct - an idea supported by the fact that the king released Ferrers after Montfort was killed at the battle of Evesham in August 1265, albeit at some cost.
Montfort's death at Evesham was in no small part a consequence of his break with Gilbert de Clare, who joined forces with the Lord Edward to hunt him down before the battle. Seeing Gilbert's forces arrive at Evesham, Montfort is said to have exclaimed "this red dog will eat us today" - a reference perhaps to Gilbert's red hair.
We'll never know if Montfort regretted his decision to arrest Ferrers and cause the break with Gilbert. But it certainly cost him. ​
Image: Seal of Robert de Ferrers III, sixth earl of Derby. Wikimedia Commons.