Page:EB1911 - Volume 18.djvu/812

 invalid. Montfort, who had remained in England to prepare for the worst, at once resumed the war, and thus exposed himself to accusations of perjury, from which he can only be defended on the hypothesis that he had been led to hope for a genuine compromise. Though merely supported by the towns and a few of the younger barons, he triumphed by superior generalship at Lewes (May 14, 1264), where the king, the Lord Edward, and Richard of Cornwall fell into his hands. Montfort used his victory to set up the government by which his reputation as a statesman stands or falls. The weak point in his scheme was the establishment of a triumvirate (consisting of himself, the young earl of Gloucester, and the bishop of Chichester) in which his colleagues were obviously figureheads. This flaw, however, is mitigated by a scheme, which he simultaneously promulgated, for establishing a thorough parliamentary control over the executive, not excepting the triumvirs. The parliament which he summoned in 1265 Was, it is true, a packed assembly; but it can hardly be supposed that the representation which he granted to the towns (see and ) was intended to be a temporary expedient. The reaction against his government was baronial rather than popular; and the Welsh Marchers particularly resented Montfort’s alliance with Llewellyn of North Wales. Little consideration for English interests is shown in the treaty of Pipton which sealed that alliance (June 22, 1265). It was by the forces of the Marchers and the strategy of Edward that Montfort was defeated at Evesham (Aug. 4). Divided from the main body of his supporters, whose strength lay in the east and south, the earl was outnumbered and surrounded before reinforcements could reach him. For years after his death he was revered by the commons as a martyr, and the government had no little difficulty in reducing the remnants of his baronial supporters. His character has suffered in the past from indiscriminate eulogy as much as from detractors. He was undoubtedly harsh, masterful, impatient and ambitious. But no mere adventurer could have won the friendship of such men as Marsh and Grosseteste; their verdict of approval may be the more unhesitatingly admitted since it is not untempered with criticism.

MONTGAILLARD, JEAN GABRIEL MAURICE ROQUES, (1761–1841), French political agent, was born at Montgaillard, near Villefranche (Haute Garonne), on the 16th of November 1761. His parents belonged to the minor nobility, and he was educated at the military school of Sorèze, where he attracted the notice of the comte de Provence (afterwards Louis XVIII.). After serving for some years in the West Indies Maurice de Roques returned to France. In 1789 he was established in Paris as a secret diplomatic agent, and though he emigrated to England after the 10th of August 1792, he returned six weeks later to Paris, where his security was most probably purchased by services to the revolutionary government. He was again serving the Bourbon princes when he met Francis II. of Austria at Ypres in 1794 and saw Pitt in London, where he published his État de la France an mois de mai 1794, predicting the fall of Robespierre. He was employed by Louis XVIII. to secure Austrian intervention on behalf of Mme Royale (afterwards duchess of Angouléme), still a prisoner in the Temple, and he drew up the proposition made by the prince to Charles Pichegru, the details of which appear in his “Mémoire sur la trahison de Pichegru” (Moniteur, April 18, 1804). In June 1796 he made a journey to Italy in the hope of opening direct relations with Bonaparte. On his return to the princes at Blankenburg he was regarded with suspicion, and he departed for Paris to await events. He is thought to have indicated the possession by the comte d’Antraigues, agent of the princes, of documents compromising Pichegru. In April 1798 he surrendered to Claude Roberjot, the Hamburg minister of the Directory, further papers relating to the matter. He followed Roberjot to Holland, and there wrote a memorandum to prove that the only hope for France lay in the immediate return of Bonaparte from Egypt, followed by assumption of the supreme power. This note reached Alexandria by way of Berlin and Constantinople. When he ventured to return to Paris in the hope of recognition from the First Consul he was imprisoned, and on his release he was kept under police supervision. Napoleon, who appreciated his real insight into European politics and his extraordinary knowledge of European courts, attached him to his secret cabinet in spite of his intriguing and mendacious character. He received a salary of 14,000 francs, reduced later to 6000, for reports on political questions for Napoleon’s use, and for pamphlets Written to help the imperial policy. He tried to dissuade Napoleon from the Austrian marriage and the Russian campaign, and counselled the limitation of the empire Within the Rhine, the Alps and the Pyrenees. The Bourbon restoration made no change in his position; he was maintained as confidential adviser on foreign and home politics, and gave shrewd advice to the new government. His career ended with the old monarchy, and he died in obscurity at Chaillot on the 8th of February 1841.

MONTGELAS, MAXIMILIAN JOSEF GARNERIN, (1759–1838), Bavarian statesman, came of a noble family in Savoy. His father John Sigmund Garnerin, Baron Montgelas, entered the military service of Maximilian Joseph III., elector of Bavaria, and married the Countess Ursula von Trauner. Maximilian Josef, their eldest son, was born on the 10th of September 1759. He was educated successively at Nancy, Strassburg and Ingolstadt. Being a Savoyard on his father’s side, he naturally felt the French influence, which was then strong in Germany, with peculiar force. To the end of his life he spoke and wrote French more correctly and with more ease than German. In 1779 he entered the public service in the department of the censorship of books. The elector Charles Theodore, who had at first favoured him, became offended on discovering that he was associated with the Illuminati, the supports of the anti-clerical movement called the Aufklärung. Montgelas therefore went to Zweibrücken, where he was helped by his brother Illuminati to find employment at the court of the duke, the head of a branch of the Wittelsbach family. From this refuge also he was driven by orthodox enemies of the Illuminati. The brother of the duke of Zweibrücken—Maximilian Joseph—took him into his service as private secretary. When his employer succeeded to the duchy Montgelas was named minister, and in that capacity he attended the conference of Rastadt in 1798, where the reconstruction of Germany, which was the consequence of the French Revolution, was in full swing. In 1799 the duke of Zweibrücken succeeded to the electorate of Bavaria, and he kept Montgelas as his most trusted adviser. Montgelas was the inspirer and director of the policy by which the electorate of Bavaria was turned into a kingdom, and was very much increased in size by the annexation of church lands, free towns and small lordships. As this end was achieved by undeviating servility to Napoleon, and the most cynical disregard of the rights of Bavaria’s German neighbours, Montgelas became the type of an unpatriotic politician in the eyes of all Germans who revolted against the supremacy of France. From his own conduct and his written defence of his policy it is clear that such sentiments as theirs appeared to be merely childish to Montgelas. He was a thorough politician of the