/>V»* £* 'H

¦ /*

*,r»:*

••• fy.% <¦ •

Jr***

'fgivet/itfe Haoii- .., ,
j /rr. the founding of a College ify ^jOCetvrvjj^

! • Y^JLH«¥]MlI¥EI^S2inf •

DEPOSITED BY THE
LINONIAN AND BROTHERS LIBRARY

This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in
cooperation with Yale University Library, 2008. You
may not reproduce this digitized copy ofthe book for
any purpose other than for scholarship, research,
educational, or, in limited quantity, personal use. You
may not distribute or provide access to this digitized copy
(or modified or partial versions of it) for commercial purposes.

HISTORY OF ENGLAND DURING THE
EARLY AND MIDDLE
AGES.

rd rr\e Tv%nc ovk dvev tpvcxeojc, r\ cvyKkoiaetoQ Kal imiOKoKriQ riTtv Trpovoia
ScotKovpivwv. Makcus Aukelius.
Wir tragen die Lasten unserer Vater, wie wir ihr Gutes empfangen
haben, und so leben die Menschen in der That in der ganzen Vergangen-
heit und Zukunft, und nirgend weniger als in der Gegenwart. Novalis.

HISTORY OF ENGLAND

DURING THE EARLY AND

MIDDLE AGES.

BY CHARLES H^PEARSON, M.A

FELLOW OF OBIEL COLLEGE, OXFORD.

VOL. II.

l<

o«?

LONDON:
BELL AND DALDY,
YORK STREET, COVENT GARDEN.
1867.

[The Bight of Translation is reserved.']

3y7 2

PREFACE.
HT^HE present volume, like its predecessor, is in-
J- tended to serve as a handbook of English history,
and makes no pretensions to be an exhaustive narra
tive. The period which it embraces is one of great
constitutional importance, and one for which we pos
sess copious materials. By the time these have been
thoroughly sifted we shall probably understand the
history of families and property, the chronological
order of events, and even the gradual changes in the
distribution of population and wealth, as completely as
we know them for any times but our own. In all
these respects there is no reason why history should be
less certain than geology; and the discrepancies ob
served in the statements of conflicting historians are
really evidence to the wealth of material, and promise
positive results, when the whole field has been ex
plored. It is true, that, when all this shall have been
done, only the dry bones of the past will have been
collected. The processes of that silent groAvth, by
which the society of men has successively taken up
new forms of life, never holding altogether by its past,
nor altogether resigning it, must be comprehended by

VI PEEPACE.

insight even more than analysis, and demand the labours
of many generations rather than of isolated students.
There is, perhaps, another respect in which the his
torian is at exceptional disadvantage, inasmuch as he
cannot, like the chemist or physiologist, test the truth
of his theories by experiment. But under many dis
guises of laws and manners our nature remains true to
the first principles of its humanity ; and a modern war,
the growth of a colony, or the immature civilization of
a young state, may explain many old problems that
have seemed insoluble. The " legend of the ages " is
for all time; and if we can never understand it fully,
we may hope, with every fresh sum of experience, to
widen our comprehension of those whose actions and
thoughts we have inherited.
While I regard the science of history as perpetually
approaching a certainty, which it will only not reach, I
make no claim for more than comparative accuracy in
its present results. I believe we are at last on the
right track ; and in proportion as it is understood that
the truth of facts thoroughly apprehended is more pic-..
turesque and various, as well as more real, than any
Fata Morgana of an uncertain light, the method under
which a vivid narrative from a chronicle has been pre
ferred to a critical induction will gradually be confined
to its appropriate sphere in the literature of fiction.
It will be time to add in the warmth and colouring of
history, when its outlines have been rigorously defined ;
and it is as a contribution to the earliest stages of ad
vance, that I have tried to present the last results of

PREFACE. Vll
the best enquirers in a popular form. I have laid my
predecessors freely under contribution; and desire to
acknowledge my especial indebtedness to the histories
of Dr. Pauli and Mr. Burton, to Mr. Hardy's invaluable
labours on the reigns of king John and Henry IIL, and
to Mr. Blaauw's excellent monograph on the Barons'
War. If my notes occasionally contradict one or other
of these authorities, it is not because I have often
differed, but because it was needless to express agree
ment, and sometimes very important to explain the
grounds of difference.
The student will perceive at a glance, that I have
confined myself exclusively to the political side of
history. In the chapter on the English Church, for in
stance, I have not attempted to sketch the variations of
religious thought, or even to appropriate the labours, by
which I have tried to profit, of Professor Brewer and
Professor Stubbs, on the inner life of the great religious
orders. It is necessary to my plan that I should treat
such matters only in their results on secular society :
and those who have leisure and inclination for fuller re
searches can easily refer to the sources I have indicated.
It is difficult to be quite consistent in these matters,
but, at the hazard of occasional meagreness, I have
thought it better to confine myself to a single subject.
A part of this volume was already written, when I
was compelled by illness to renounce study for a time
and leave England. After all labours of revision, I
am afraid that several passages may have been left
uncorrected, and that there is some want of cohesion in

VIII PREFACE.
the general narrative. Even those who have not
worked at our early history will easily understand
the extreme difficulty of ensuring accuracy in cases
where there is a conflict of good authorities. I see
that, the same name has sometimes received two
different spellings in these pages. Orthography was
very much optional in the Middle Ages ; and there are
several instances where a surname undergoes five
transmutations in official documents of the same period.
In one or two small matters I have offended de
liberately. Finding it inconvenient to speak of the
heir-royal by the usual mediaeval formulae of the
" king's son," or the " king's eldest-born," I have
adopted the modern title of " prince," which is partly
borne out by official phraseology. In this too, as in
the first volume, I have preferred the modernized form
of a name, wherever it has become universal, and have
not ventured to alter back Bruce and Athol into De
Brus and Asceles. Where changes of this sort do
not involve erroneous conceptions, I think it allowable
to defer to popular use. Charles H. Pearson.
Oriel College,
Nov. 25, 1867.

Pago

CONTENTS.

I. — The Loss of Normandy.
Position of England. John's Title and Election. Occupation of Nor
mandy and Peace with France. John's Divorce and Marriage.
Revolt in Poitou and Aquitaine. Capture and Murder of Arthur.
War with France. English Nobles alienated. Siege and Capture
of Castle Gaillard. Rouen reduced. Loss of Normandy. Causes
of John's Failure ........

II. — The Interdict.
John's Relations with the Church. Stolen Election of a Primate by
the Monks of Christ Church. John's Nominee. Stephen Lang
ton. Quarrel between the Pope and the King. The Interdict.
John takes Hostages. William de Braose. Alliances against
France. Failure of the Interdict. Disaffection to John. John's
Submission to the Pope. Naval Victory at Swinemiinde . . 36

III. — Magna Chabta.
Campaign in France. Battle of Bouvines. Peace with France. Con
federacy of Barons. Beginnings of Civil War. Runnimede.
General and Special Provisions of Magna Charta. Its Constitu
tional Importance ...... 71

IV.— The Barons' War.
Preparations for Civil War. Siege of Rochester. Triumph of the
Royal Forces. Ravage of the Country and Desperate Position
of the Barons. French Aid implored and promised. Louis and
Gualo land in England. Doubtful issue of the Campaign, and
Suspicion of French Treachery. Illness, Death, and Last Will

CONTENTS.

Page

of John. His Character. Coronation of Prince Henry. Battle
of Lincoln. Naval Victory off Sandwich. Treaty with Louis.
Gualo's Conduct ......... 94

V.— Hubert de Burgh.
Guardianship of the Pope. Re-enactment of the Charters. Constitu
tion and First Measures of the Government. Abuses of Papal
Vice-royalty. Riot in London. Relations with France. Henry's
Majority. Increased Power of the Crown. Revolt and Banish
ment of Faukes de Breaute. His Statement of Grievances. War
in France. Relations of the English Church with Rome. As
cendancy of Hubert de Burgh. Campaign in France. Fresh
Difficulties with Rome. Fall of Hubert de Burgh. His Cha
racter ... .... 120
VI. — Government by Favourites.
Aliens in Office. Opposition of the Great Nobles. Civil War. Run
of Grosmont. Murder of Earl Marshal. Amnesty and Change
of Ministry. Henry's Marriage. Foreign Influences at Court.
Simon de Montfort. Council of Merton. The Papal Nuncio.
Papal Collectors driven from England. Inglorious Campaign in
France. De Montfort's Government of Gascony. Corruption of
the Judicature. Henry's Taxation, Prodigality, and Unpopu
larity  ..... 158
VII. — The Second Barons' War.
Question of. the Sicilian Succession. War in Wales. Great Famine.
Parliament of Oxford. Expulsion of Aliens. Council of Re
gency. Fluctuations of Public Opinion. Gradual Revival of
the King's Power. Civil War. The Award of Amiens. Re
newal of Civil War in England. Battle of Lewes, and Triumph
of the Barons .... ..... 214
VIII. — Simon De Montfort.
Parliament of London. Scheme of Government. Favour shown to
the Clergy. Legate's Sentence of Excommunication. Second
Parliament of London. Unpopularity of De Montfort as Regent.
Quarrel with the Earl of Gloucester, and Escape of Prince Ed
ward. War in the Welsh Marches. Surprise of Kenilworth.
Battle of Evesham. Triumph of the Royalists throughout Eng
land. Siege of Kenilworth. Dictum de Kenilworth. Parlia
ment of Marlborough. Last Years of the Reign. Character of
Henry III. Material Progress under his Reign . . 250

CONTENTS. XI

IX. — First Years of Government.

Page

The English Regency. Edward's Actions in Palestine. Return to
Europe. Homage to the French King. War in Gascony and
Guienne. Submission of the Earl of Flanders. Return to
England and Coronation. Edward's Character. Inquiry into
Titles and Privileges. Judicial Reforms. First Statute of
Westminster. New Method of Taxation. Measures against the
Jews. Statute of Mortmain. Second. Statute of Westminster,
and Abridgment of Clerical Privileges .... 286
X. — The Conquest of Wales.
Disintegration of Wales. The Lords Marchers. Union of the North
under a. Single Dynasty. Llewellyn's Refusal of Homage.
Negotiations. First Welsh Campaign. Llewellyn's Submission.
Edward's Conduct to Llewellyn and David. Quarrel of the
Welsh Princes with the Royal Officers. Second Insurrec
tion. Edward's Campaign. Death of Llewellyn. Capture,
Trial, and Condemnation of David. Statute of Wales. Last
Disorders .......... 313
XI. — Edward's Peace.
The Second Statute of Westminster. Conditional Gifts. Questions
of Distraint and Commonage. Attempt to give Citizenship to
the Irish. Its Failure. Edward's Visit to the Continent. His
Return. Trial and Punishment of the Judges. Expulsion of
the Jews. Private War. Commission of Trail-baston. Death
of Queen Eleanor .... ... 337
XII. — The Scotch Succession.
Question of Scotch Homage. Policy of Saxon and Early Norman
Kings. Later Relations of the Two Kingdoms. Different Kinds
of Vassalage. Recognized Rights of Scotch Royalty and Uncer
tain Claims of the English Crown. Interregnum in Scotland.
Treaty of Brigham. Death of the Fair Maid of Norway.
Disputed Succession. Edward's Interference. Conference at
Norham. Recognition of Edward's Suzerainty. Progress of
the Pleadings, and Decision in Favour of Balliol. Balliol's
Homage. New Relation ofthe Two Crowns and Annulment of
the Treaty of Brigham. King John cited to the English
Court  ... 353
XIII. — War with France and Scotland.
Jealousy of England and France. Battle of St. Mahe. Negotiations
and Treacherous Seizure of Gascony. Preparations for War in

XU CONTENTS.

Page

England. First Campaign in Gascony. Turberville's Conspiracy
and Fate. Rupture with Scotland. Storm of Berwick. Con
quest of Scotland. Taxation of the Clergy Enforced. Opposi
tion to Illegal Taxation. Campaign in Flanders, and Truce
with France. Edward's Concessions to the Constitutional Party.
War of Independence in Scotland. Sir William Wallace.
Battle of Stirling. Ravage of Northumberland. Battle of
Falkirk, and its immediate Results ..... 378
XIV. — Last Years of Edward's Reign.
Peace with France. Papal Intervention for Scotland, and Answer of
the Parliament of Lincoln. Redress of Forest Grievances. Con
quest of Scotland. Capture, Trial, and Execution of Wallace.
Ordinance for the Settlement of Scotland. Domestic Opposition
removed. Murder of Comyn. Coronation of Robert Bruce.
English Preparations for War. Rout of Methuen, and Ruin of
the Patriotic Cause. Severity towards the Captives, and Penal
Ordinance for Scotland. Parliament of Carlisle. Death of
Edward I.  417
XV. — The Structure of the English Constitution.
Royal and Political Government. The Continual Council. The
Great Council. Fluctuating Constitution of Parliament. Royal
Influences. The Earls. Barons by Tenure and Barons by Writ.
Contrasts of Nobility in France and England. Real Power of
the English Nobles. Life Peers and Peers by Office. Bishops
and Abbots. Position of the Clergy in Parliament. The
Untitled Gentry. Knights of the Shire. Borough Members.
Contrasts of Modern and Ancient Parliament. Financial
Dependence of our Kings on Parliament. Position of Royal
Ministers. Balance of Power between King and People . . 453
XVI. — The English Church of the Thirteenth Century.
Claims of the English Church. Partial Independence of the State.
Benefit of Clergy. Church Jurisdiction in Faith. Smaller
Ecclesiastical Courts and their Functions. Their Reputation
among the People. Extent of Church Property. Number of
Parishes and Monasteries. Good and Bad Influences of Church
Endowments. Lawsuits. Divisions within the Church. Rise
and Growth of the Mendicant Orders. Some Results affecting
Knowledge and Popular Theology. Balance of Spiritual and
Secular Influences in Actual Life ..... 485

ERRATA.
Page 11, 1. 2, and p. 12, 1. 7, instead o/"Hawisa" read " Isabel." John's
first wife is called Hawisa by Hoveden (p. 803, ed. Frankfort), but a
royal rescript to the knights and free servants of Gloucester describes
her as " Isabel, Countess of Gloucester, our cousin." Rot. Litt. Pat.,
p. 109.
Page 26, note 1, 1. 9, instead o/"during service" read " doing service."
Page 27, 1. 28, dele full stop after " comes."
Page 43, note 1, 1. 2, instead of " Branbefeld " read " Brantefeld."
Page 49, note 1, 1. 9, instead o/"Fioribus" read " Finibus."
Page 53, I. 29, instead of " Literate" read " Liberate."
Page 56, 1. 11, instead of " whom" read " whose priory of Binham."
Page 59, note 2, 1. 26, instead of" Abbey of St. Alban's " read " Priory of
Binham."
Page 83, 1. 4, insert as note 1, " This regulation was especially necessary, as
John sometimes changed his court more than a dozen times in the
year, and in one year (11 John) 'sat in no less than twenty-four
different places.' " Foss, Judges, ii. p. 4.
Page 119, note 1, 1. 6, instead of " Gervase de Horbragge" read " Gervase de
Horbridge."
Page 158, 1. 4, instead off Ruin of Grosmont " read " Run of Grosmont."
Page 178, 1. 27, dele full stop after " Glanville."
Page 179, 1. 15, instead of " 1227" read " 1237."
Page 270, 1. 30, and p. 271, note 1, instead of" Gordon" read " Gurdon."
Page 313, 1. 4, instead of" Dehewbarth" read " Deheubarth."
Page 315, 1. 20, after " ability " insert " and."
Page 316, note 2, 1. 7, instead of" Cowan" read " Conan."
Page 343, 1. 27, after " Charles of Anjou " insert " the younger."
Page 368, 1. 29, instead of " on " read " one."
Page 410, note 2, 1. 17, instead of " Hemingford " read " Hemingburgh."
Page 443, 1. 29, instead of" three" read " five."
Page 464, 1. 9, instead o/"from poverty" read " for poverty."
Page 465, note 1, 1. 7, instead of "on," read " or."
Note. — The book cited as Prynne's Records, iv. is Prynne's Brief
Animadversions on and Explanatory Records to the fourth part of the
Institutes of the Laws of England.

THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND DURING THE
EARLY AND MIDDLE AGES.
Chapter I.
THE LOSS OF NORMANDY.
Position of England. John's Title and Election. Occupation of
Normandy and Peace with France. John's Divorce and Mar
riage. Revolt in Poitou and Aquitaine. Capture and Murder
of Arthur. War with France. English Nobles alienated.
Siege and Capture of Castle Gaillard. Rouen reduced. Loss
of Normandy. Causes of John's failure.
THE death of Richard had taken place at a critical
moment for Europe. • Although the English king's
generalship had not altogether retrieved the frontiers1
which once bounded his father's possessions in France,
the prestige of victory on the whole rested with him.
His hatred of Philip had assumed a character of fanati
cism; and the fortresses of Chateau Gaillard and of
Boutavant, which he had built on the Seine, were
avowedly fixed camps from which he meant to push on
to the conquest of Paris. English gold had procured
the election of Otho, Richard's nephew, as king of the

1 By the last treaty, which, how- ever, he was to indemnify Richard
ever, was never executed, Philip had by giving him the presentation to
agreed to give back all his conquests the archbishopric of Tours. Hove-
except Gisors. Even for this, how- den, Savile, p. 449.
B

2 RESULTS OF RICHARD'S POLICY AND DEATH.
Romans, and the Pope favoured the choice of a candi
date from the pious Saxon line. The counts of Flan
ders, Blois, and Boulogne,1 were in secret or open
league with the English court against their tyrannical
sovereign. Never had France been exposed to a more
formidable coalition than that which threatened to
unite the statesmanship of Innocent III. and the war
like energy of Richard against a sovereign whom none
of his subjects loved cordially, and over whom sentence
of the Church was even then impending for a monstrous
separation from his queen. The shaft that struck the
king down before Chaluz changed the face of Europe
for all succeeding centuries. It gave England over to
a weak prince, embarrassed by a disputed succession.
The country, no longer under the iron grasp of its late
ruler, was left to guide itself by its wants and impulses.
The cost of Richard's ransom, of his wars, and of his
diplomacy, had drained England of its treasure. Four
years' famine had caused general misery. The nobles
and fighting men had been decimated by the crusades,
and by the endless French campaigns. Wise men had
probably begun to count the cost of their country's
foreign possessions, maintained only by incessant blood
shed, at the price of the sovereign's absence, and rule
by deputy. The intrusion of foreign favourites into
bishoprics and justiciarships was a patent and odious
incident of foreign dominion. Possibly it may have
been foreseen even then, that the greater country can
not be annexed to the less, and that London would
cease to be a capital from the day our kings entered
Paris as conquerors.
To modern notions of succession the claim of Arthur

1 Armoricus, Bouquet, xvii. p. 74.

HIS RIVAL SUCCESSORS. 3
of Brittany, son of Geoffrey, Henry II.'s third son, ap
pears indisputably better than any right, John, as
fourth son, could put forward. But to Englishmen,
and even to Normans in the twelfth century, though
the matter might admit of dispute, John was on the
whole the legitimate candidate. He had in his favour
the nomination of the late king, the very title which
William and Harold had respectively asserted in the
eleventh century, and Stephen and Matilda not seventy
years before. The right of an adult uncle to super
sede a young nephew in his inheritance was a latent
principle at least of the earliest feudal law, which re
garded the possession of fiefs as a duty to be discharged
by the most competent. In England the witan, and
later the baronage, had perpetually claimed and exer
cised the right of nominating the king out of the royal
family; Alfred, Edward the Elder, Edred, Edward
the Confessor, William Rufus, and Henry I. were
familiar instances of these constitutional titles. It may
seem strange that Richard and his great nobles should
have preferred a prince infamous for treachery, and but
five years before an attainted rebel to the young Ar
thur. But many private and public reasons co-operated
to give John the preference. Arthur's mother, Con
stance, had quarrelled with Richard, and above all with
the dowager queen Eleanor. Arthur himself, though
a boy only twelve years old, had been entertained
at the court of France, and put forward in opposition
to English interests. These were probably the para
mount motives with Richard, when he named John on
his death-bed. To his council the choice would seem
to lie between an Anglo-Norman and a French candi
date. Associated by his birth and education with
Brittany and Paris, Arthur could scarcely fail to add

4 JOHN AND ARTHUR CONTEST
another to the list of English sovereigns, who, like
Henry II. and Richard, preferred the continent to the
country that gave them their title. Some of John's
partisans in after years may have regretted their
choice, when its issue seemed to be unprosperous.
But it is rare in the many chronicles to find a line that
impugns the validity of John's royal title, or that taxes
him with any other injustice than that of withholding
the earldoms of Anjou and Brittany from his nephew.1
When the news of his brother's death reached him in
Brittany John at once marched upon Chinon, (April 14,
1199,) and obtained possession ofthe royal treasure from
its guardian, Robert de Turnham. In Normandy, which
was English at heart, the clergy and nobles easily
agreed to elect the earl. In Aquitaine and Poitou the
influence of his mother prevailed over her hereditary
vassals; and here too allegiance was sworn to John.
But in Anjou, Touraine, and Maine, the claims of Ar
thur were preferred, and John found the city gates
everywhere closed against him when he entered those
provinces, except at Le Mans, where he was indeed

1 Thus Rigordus says simply, "sue- not consider his right absolute and
cessit Regi Ricardo frater ejus Joan- universal. Most conclusive of all,
nes," and calls Arthur " Comes Bri- perhaps, is the language of Louis's
tannici littoris." Bouquet, xvii. p. deputies to the Pope : " Filii fratris
50. Guillelmus Armoricus calls Ar- non debent succedere ex quo tem-
thur " Dux Britannise minoris," pore latse sententiae," (and of course
and John, " Rex Anglise," through- similarly the inheritance falling va-
out. The English chroniclers use cant any other way,) " frater non
similar expressions. St. Hugh of vivebat." The reason seems to be,
Lincoln accepted John's claims at " quia non sunt in lined descendenti."
once. And the argument put for- Paris, Hist. Major, p. 284. Only the
ward for Arthur by his supporters Annales de Margan (p. 24) put for-
was that he was entitled to all the ward the modern doctrine of Ar-
lands which Geoffrey would have thur's prior right, supporting it, how-
had by "the judgment' and cus- ever, by the argument that John had
torn of those provinces," if he had been attainted. But the Annalist
survived his brother. The qualifi- wrote when John was in discredit.
cation seems to imply that they did

THE ENGLISH CROWN. 5
admitted, but barely escaped by flight from a surprise
at night. Furious at the general defection, and eager
to deter others by a fearful example, he razed Le Mans
to the ground, and imprisoned the chief citizens. His
mother and Mercader, advancing from the south, de
vastated Anjou and burned Angers. But the march
of a French army rescued the doomed provinces for the
time : and John hastened to secure the crown of Eng
land. The primate, Hubert Fitz-Walter, and the chief
justiciary, Geoffrey Fitz-Petre, two men of the highest
character, had already been sent over to treat with the
nobles. William, earl Marshal, who owed his fortunes
by marriage with Strongbow's heiress to Henry II. , and
who supported his sons with unshaken loyalty, was
among the most powerful of John's partisans, and
William de Braose the most active.1 The real diffi
culty lay in the great lords who had shared John's
estates after his attaint, and who now dreaded his re
venge. Already every stronghold in the country had
been garrisoned and provisioned for the event of war.
But the antagonism of such men, as the earls of
Huntingdon, Hertford, Chester, and Warwick, was too
formidable to be provoked. In a council at Northamp
ton they received a solemn pledge that their rights
should be respected, and agreed in return to acknow
ledge John as king. The disbelief in Richard's death,
which had prevailed for some weeks, had perhaps con
tributed to prevent them from forming any organized
plans for determining the succession. It was weeks
before Richard's name was disused in official acts.
Even then by constitutional precedent, John was
described merely as duke of Normandy and lord of
England ; the title of king being withheld till he was

1 Annales de Margan, p. 12.
II.

6 CORONATION OF JOHN.
crowned.1 On Ascension-day, (May 27, 1199,) the pri
mate performed the ceremony. In his opening sermon
he laid down the principles of succession ; declared that
the kingdom was elective, with only a preference to
the best man in the royal family ; and designated John
as the fittest candidate, at once for his sagacity and
courage and for his kingly birth. The courtly speech
recommended the manly doctrine, and John and all
present accepted the limitation. The new sovereign,
by a judicious mixture of titles, defined himself soon
afterwards, in the preamble to a law, as king by here
ditary right, and by the unanimous assent and good
will of the clergy and the people. Later in life the
admission was quoted against him to good purpose.2
In spite of the urgent need for his presence in Nor
mandy, John went as far as Northampton to receive
the homage of the Scotch king. He waited some days,
in vain, and then committed the custody of the north
to William de Stuteville, and ordered the revenues of
the see of York, its archbishop being then absent, to
be laid out for the benefit of the see. Before long
worse counsels prevailed, and he appropriated the in
come for his own wants.3 Supplies of another kind
were rapidly pouring into the treasury. City after
1 Hardy's Rotuli Chartarum in ratione successionis sed per electio-
Turr. Lond., vol. i. p. xvii. Hardy's nem." It may be observed, too,
Introduction to the Close Rolls, vol. that Henry IV. and Henry VII. put
i. p. 135. De Gestis Giraldi Cam- forward mixed titles of descent and
brensis, lib. iii. c. 12. popular election.
2 Archbishop Hubert's speech 3 Geoffrey Plantagenet, the arch-
being reported only by Matthew bishop of York, had then been absent
Paris, Hist. Major, p. 197, has been two years in Rome. He had sided
called in question. But it seems with his half-brother in the dispute
confirmed by the preamble cited, against William de Longchamp, and
New Rymer, vol. i. part i. pp. 75, 76, was still on friendly terms with him.
and by the language of Louis, p. 140, Hoveden, Savile, p. 452.
who in 1216 calls him king, "non

ALLEGIANCE OF NORMANDY. 7
city hastened to pay large sums for the renewal of its
charters, and every petitioner who had anything to
hope or to fear from the new sovereign approached the
treasury with gold.1 Presently John hurried to the
coast, followed by the envoys of William of Scotland,
who had come to denounce war if their master were
not invested with the fiefs of Northumberland and
Cumberland. William underrated the real though
fitful energy of his suzerain's character, or counted un
duly on the difficulties of his position on the Continent.
The fact was that John Avas still an overmatch in every
thing but character for his enemies. The alliances
formed by Richard were important and likely to be per
manent, as neither Otho nor the count of Flanders could
be reconciled to Philip. Indeed, Baldwin of Flanders
hastened to transfer his homage to the king when he had
crossed over into Normandy (June). The nobles and
knights of the province flocked to the royal standard.
Philip agreed to a truce till the Feast of the Assump
tion, and was well disposed to treat of peace, though
he had made Arthur a knight, and accepted his homage
for all the French provinces he could allege a title to.2
But an interview between the two kings at Boutavant
1 "The citizens of Lincoln give the 2 Normandy, Brittany, Anjou,
king 300 marks for having the city Poitou, Maine, and Tours ; Philip
of Lincoln to farm as they had it in apparently holding that John had
the time of king Richard," &c. "The forfeited his claim to Normandy by
burgesses of Cambridge give the the neglect to perform homage. Of
king 250 marks to have their town at Aquitaine during Eleanor's life there
the accustomed farm," &c. " Count could be no question. Otho was
Ferrars gives the king 2000 marks properly count of Poitou, but had
for Hecham, with its hundred, and devastated France, and was after-
park, and purtenances, &c, and re- wards excluded from the peace of
signs to the king all his claim for the Goleton. Rigordus, Bouquet, xviii. p.
other lands which belonged to Wil- 53 ; and Innocent. Epist., Bouquet,
liam Peverell," &c. Rotuli de Ob- xix. p. 461.
latis et Finibus, pp. 1-5.

o PHILIP AND THE POPE.
led to no immediate result. Philip declared that John
ought to have done homage for his French inheritance
before he presumed to enter on it,1 and in strict feudal
law there can be little doubt the pretension was well
founded. Nothing could be more anomalous than the
spectacle of a tenant -hvchief appealing to his vassals
for a title, and neglecting to apply for his lord's consent.
But John had not sunk so far below the pretensions of
his ancestors as to admit that the king of France had
any right to settle the succession to the dukedom of
Normandy, and the question remained to be decided by
the sword. Circumstances combined for the present to
force an amicable arrangement on the French king.
His high-handed conduct . in Brittany, where he had
levelled the castles entrusted to him, alarmed the
jealousy of Arthur's guardians, and the young prince
for a time took refuge with his uncle, till a graver fear
for his life drove him back to the French court. Still
it had become evident that Arthur's partisans would
not sacrifice their provincial liberties to support their
favourite candidate ; and Philip thought it wise to con
clude a second armistice (October). Then again Philip
was involved in a series of little feuds with the Pope. An
article in his last treaty with Richard had been can
celled by Innocent III. as injurious to the Church; and
the king had been ordered and forced by an interdict
to give up the bishop elect of Cambrai, whom he had
taken prisoner.2 It was poor consolation that John was
constrained in like manner to dismiss the bishop of
Beauvais, and pay him a heavy sum for the expenses of
his captivity. Most serious of all for Philip was the
1 Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 141, 142. 2 Innocent. Epist., Bouquet,
xix. p. 361. Hoveden, Savile, p. 452.

FRANCE UNDER INTERDICT. 9
question of his pretended divorce from his queen, Inge-
borg. His old feeling of repulsion towards her— so
strong and groundless that it was currently ascribed to
witchcraft — was by this time heightened into bitter
hatred, and intensified by his passionate attachment to
his morganatic wife, Agnes de Meran. Innocent, strong
in his cause, and supported by the public opinion of
Europe, expostulated, threatened, and at last struck. In
December, 1199, all France was laid under interdict.
The violent king retaliated by expelling all the clergy
who observed the interdict from their benefices ; while
he levied heavy fines on the more scrupulous knights,
and on the towns.1 But if he was still king, and sup
ported even by a few among the bishops, his arm was
paralyzed for offensive war. It became necessary to
treat in earnest, and the favourable conditions which
he obtained are high evidence of the respect his
character inspired. From first to last he seems to have
cowed his rival by steadily treating him as an inferior.
John literally bribed and bought himself into substan
tial vassalage. By the treaty of Goleton, (May 18,
1200), the peace sworn to in 1196 was confirmed.
But as there had been several infractions of it on the
part of Richard, John agreed to make certain cessions
of territory, including the city of Evreux and the dis
trict of Quillebeuf.2 The fortresses of De Portes and
De Landes were to be demolished ; but there is no men
tion of Chateau Gaillard, which had been erected in
direct infringement of treaty.3 Probably Norman
1 Rigordus, Bouquet, xvii. p. 51. belonged to the abbey of Jumieges,
2 So Dom Brial translates Guite- and was too valuable, from its posi-
bo (Bouquet, xvii. p. 52, note b.) tion near the sea and Rouen, to be
The village between Evreux and Le granted away to a foreign power,
Neubourg is meant, not Quillebeuf even by John.
at the mouth of the Seine, which 3 " Andeliacum non poterit infor-

10 JOHN'S TREATY WITH PHILIP.
public spirit would not have brooked its dismantling.
Several fiefs were to be given to Philip's son, Louis, as
the dower of John's niece, Blanche of Castile, whom he
was to marry ; but these, if Louis died without heirs,
were to revert to the English crown. Arthur was to
be invested with his ancestral fief of Brittany, and the
count of Angouleme, and the viscount of Limoges,
were to be reconciled to John ; while similar provisions
stipulated that Philip should admit the counts of Flan
ders and Boulogne to do homage, and should not invade
the rights of Otho over his county of Poitou. John,
however, was to give no assistance to his nephew in the
struggle in Germany. Insufficient as this peace was,
John bought it at the price of twenty thousand marks.
One result of it was soon seen. The counts of Flanders
and Blois, despairing of effectual support from England
against the French king, set out for the fourth Crusade,
which ended in the conquest of Constantinople, and ,
the election of Baldwin to be Emperor of the East.
John seemed now to be in possession of the peace
for which so much had been sacrificed. It soon ap
peared that he had desired it as holiday-time for his
court rather than as breathing-space for an exhausted
people. His first care was to marry again. By a freak
of the late earl of Gloucester, who could not bear to die
without leaving an heir-male to the title and estates,1

tiari " is the eighteenth article of the ship of Gloucester in his family, and
treaty of 1 196. Rigordus, Bouquet, should pay £100 a-year to the counts
xvii. p. 45. ofEvreuxandClarerespectively,who
1 In 1176, William, earl of Glou- had married his two elder daughters,
cester, and son of Robert the Con- Mabel and Amice. Diceto, Bromp-
sul, natural son of Henry I., agreed, ton, X Scriptores, cc. 594, 1116. In
at the request of Henry IL, to 1189, Richard allowed the marriage
make John his heir, on condition that to take place. Hoveden, Savile p. 385.
the king should preserve the count- John's lands were at once put under

HIS DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE. 11
John had been married twelve years before to his third
cousin Hawisa, the earl's daughter and co-heiress.
But no kindly or honourable sentiment towards the
woman by whom his fortunes had been made, and with
whom he had lived so long, restrained the king from
now demanding a divorce on the plea of consanguinity.
The archbishop of Bordeaux, one of the worst men of
his time, and John's zealous partisan, readily pronounced
a sentence of dissolution, and other prelates were found
in Normandy and Poitou to co-operate.1 As Hawisa
did not appeal to Rome against it, and some years later
married the earl of Essex, there is ground for hope that
the divorce from John in some degree compensated the
loss of a crown. The king at the time of his separation
was not under the influence of any other attachment.
He sent ambassadors to Lisbon to demand the hand of
the princess of Portugal. But before their answer
could be received, captivated by the beauty of Isabella,
daughter of the count of Angouleme, he wooed and
married her, though she was affianced to Hugh, count
de la Marche. It is said that he was encouraged in
this outrage upon public opinion by Philip.2 The act was
certainly disastrous to the king of England. He won
only a worthless woman, whose influence contributed
to keep him in a round of vicious pleasure, at a time
when his dominions were being lost. He insulted the
court of Portugal, and the general right feeling of
interdict by Baldwin, archbishop of of Lisieux, Baieux, and Avranches,
Canterbury, for his marriage within and says there were others. Innocent
the canonical degrees, but he ap- says the sentence was pronounced by
pealed to the Papal legate, and the the bishops ofhis land. Bouquet, vol.
interdict was quashed. Diceto,c. 650. xix. p. 414.
1 Hoveden specifies Helie of Bor- 2 " Quam in transmarinis despon-
deaux, William of Poitou, and Henry saverat consilio Regis Philippi," Cog-
of Xaintonges. Savile, p. 457. geshale.p. 91. Hoveden, Savile, p.
Diceto, c. 706, mentions the bishops 457.

12 John's marriage impolitic
Europe by his indecent haste. The injury done to his
own vassal converted the count de la Marche into a
bitter and legitimate enemy, who was warranted in
waging war against his disloyal suzerain. It may
seem strange that the Church did not interpose in a
question of violated contract. Innocent, when re
proached for allowing the divorce of John from Hawisa,
answered justly that it had been pronounced by com
petent authority, and that no appeal had been lodged
with the Curia.1 It would have been intolerable if
the Pope had interfered, unasked, in the private rela
tions of princes. Probably, Hugh de la Marche did not
seriously care to reclaim a woman who had freely given
herself away, and who could only be recovered by con
straint after some months' marriage. But the insult to
his honour had to be avenged, and he exercised his
feudal right of levying war against the king.
For a time it seemed as if John were too powerful
to be shaken. In November, 1200, he received the
homage of William the Lion at Lincoln. In the spring
of the next year he travelled through the northern
counties with his bride, conferring honours, confirming
liberties, and giving judgment in disputed cases of
right; while at the Easter festival they were crowned
again at Canterbury, probably to place the queen's
title beyond impeachment. During the succeeding
summer he visited France. The country was still un
quiet, and the English barons had refused aid till their
own rights were secured them; but John's energy or
diplomacy arranged every difficulty. William des
Roches, hitherto Arthur's trustiest adherent, suddenly
1 Innocent., lib. v. epist. 50. mandatum domini Papas." Bouquet,
This disposes of Coggeshale's state- xviii. p. 91.
ment, that the divorce was " per

REVOLT IN POITOU AND AQUITAINE. 13
deserted his cause and surrendered the town of Le Mans
to the English king. Philip had done his duty loyally
by John, and refused all assistance to the insurgent
barons under Hugh de la Marche.1 John was now
invited to Paris, and welcomed with ostentatious cor
diality ; the king's own seat assigned him ; and a public
ovation given him in the church of St. Denys. Even
the county of Anjou was awarded him by solemn
judgment of the peers.2 All the articles of the late
treaty had been carried out, and Arthur was pledged
to quiet, though he preferred remaining at the court of
France. In September his restless mother, Constance,
died of leprosy,3 and John had one enemy the less.
But he could not conciliate fortune. He had irritated
the Cistercian order in England by attempting for the
first time to levy a tax on them; and had alienated
his most powerful ally, Innocent, by the pledge given
not to assist Otho. He had ventured, perhaps justly,
but rashly, to forbid the papal legates to try causes in
England. He had now to deal with a revolt in Poitou
and Aquitaine, which had certainly been provoked by
his own misconduct, and in which the chief prelates
and nobles of those parts were involved. He showed
himself pitiless and unscrupulous. Hugh de la Marche
and his followers were easily crushed, and then the
work of retribution began. The church of the bishop
of Poitiers was destroyed and his lands ravaged. In
the south the archbishop of Bordeaux, John's favourite,
was accused of letting loose armed bands of marauders
upon the province; while the bishop of Limoges was
1 " Guillelmus de Barris, ex parte 2 Id., p. 275.
Regis Francorum Turonum ve- 3 New Rymer, vol. i, part i. p. 85 ;
niens, Pictavos insequitur." Chron. Chron. Brit. Alt., Bouquet, xviii. p.
Turon., Anon., Bouquet, xviii. p. 294. 330.

14 WAR WITH PHILIP.
driven from his see, his lands sequestered, and even
the offerings of the altar seized by the king's emis
saries.1 All John's after-history proves that it was his
settled policy to govern by mercenaries and intimidate
his subjects by unsparing vengeance on rebellion. It
was not to be expected that a prince like Philip would
allow the opportunity of interference to escape. Setting
aside all question of policy, and all questions of homage
delayed, and stipulations evaded,2 it was his duty as
suzerain to decide controversies between his vassals;
and when Hugh de la Marche, overmatched and hope
less of continuing the war alone, at last appealed to the
supreme court at Paris, Philip summoned the English
king to appear before him at Easter next (1202).
John pleaded that as duke of Normandy he was en
titled to meet the French king on the frontiers of their
respective territories. He was answered that the king
of France did not lose his rights over the count of
Anjou because the count happened to be duke of Nor
mandy.3 The reply seems perfectly just, and John
might quite as relevantly have pleaded that he was
king of England and owed no homage. Holding as he '
did by different tenures he might at any time be bound
by the conditions of the least honourable. Yet it was
impossible for him to accept the- summons, and both
sovereigns were forced to struggle through war to a
new settlement. Meanwhile the Court of Peers de
clared that he had forfeited all his French fiefs.
Philip's plan was from the first definite and states
manlike. If there was one part of John's continental
1 Innocent., lib. v. epist. 68, 168 ; Peers, promised to pledge Boutavant
lib. vi. epist. 216. and Tillery, and would not perform
2 Armoricus says he delayed doing his promise, Bouquet, xviii. p. 75.
homage, appealing to the Court of 3 Coggeshale, Bouquet, xviii p. 95.

ARTHUR TAKEN PRISONER. 15
dominion to which the crown of France had no right,
and where the natives were English in feeling, that
province was Normandy. Precisely for these reasons,
and because it lay between England and Paris, was it
the key-stone of English power, and the one possession
on which all depended, whether a Plantagenet or a
Capet should be the greater king. Philip accordingly,
having destroyed Boutavant and taken Gournay by
cutting the dykes, and so sweeping away the wall,
supplied Arthur with money and with a body-guard
of two hundred knights, and dispatched him to wage
war in Poitou, whilst he himself besieged Arques in
Normandy. But Arthur, led away by the rash counsels
of the Poitevin knights, advanced upon Mirebeau, where
his grandmother Eleanor then was, without waiting for
the Breton troops, which were said to be within a day's
march. At first it seemed as if his bold stroke for a
crown would be successful, for only one tower of the for
tress remained to be taken. But John was roused to
action by the incalculable danger and disgrace if his
mother were made prisoner, and collected a large army,
partly of mercenaries, partly of native knights, who
espoused his cause on the promise that he would not
kill his prisoners or imprison any of them north of the
Loire, and that he would give his nephew his heritage.1
The attack made suddenly and by night, (Aug. 1), was
completely successful; and English chroniclers of our
then inglorious annals tell with pride how Arthur, and
his sister, Hugh de la Marche, Geoffrey of Lusignan, and
two hundred less important barons and knights were
taken prisoners. In fact the victory might have changed
the fate of the war had John known how to profit by
1 Philippidos, Bouquet, xvii. p. 191.

16 FAITHLESSNESS AND CRUELTY OF JOHN.
it; and it actually forced Philip to retreat hastily from
Normandy, where the count of Boulogne had joined
him, and where half the province was by this time
overrun. But the king of England disgusted his fol
lowers by at once breaking his promise and taking his
prisoners northward. The gentlemen of Maine, Tours,
and Anjou, headed by William des Roches, were offended
and left his standard.1 They had wished to restore the
normal state of feudal independence under a distant
king, and did not desire John to be too powerful.
Least of all can they have anticipated the tragic issue
of their triumph. Twenty-two of the wretched knights
are believed on probable grounds to have been starved
to death in Corfe Castle.2 Eleanor, the fair maid of
Brittany, was kept in honourable but strict custody,
that she might not marry and transmit the dangerous
pretensions of her race. The manner of Arthur's death
is uncertain. He was first confined at Falaise, and
when his guardian William de Braose was ordered to
give him up to be transferred to Rouen, he is said to
have led him out before the nobles and called men to
witness that not a hair of the boy's head had been
harmed.3 Beyond, all is darkness. One pathetic story
relates how John ordered that he should be emasculated

1 Philippidos, Bouquet, xvii. p. Rolls, p. 10, note 2. Coggeshale
192; Coggeshale, Bouquet, xviii. p. says (Bouquet, xviii. p. 192), "that
96. Accordingly, in Jan. 1203, we many of the prisoners who were dis-
read that William des Roches, " ac- missed on the promise not to serve
cepta" contra regem Anglise guerra," against John broke their parole."
burned Angers. Addenda Chron. 3 Philippidos, Bouquet, xvii. p.
Andegav., Bouquet, xviii. p. 325. Pos- 192; Coggeshale, Bouquet, xviii. p.
sibly Arthur's death, real or ru- 96. Compare the invective of Ma-
moured, may have decided these tilda de Braose against John for
open hostilities. murdering his nephew. Wendover,
2 Annales de Margan, p. 26. iii. p. 225.
Hardy's Introduction to Patent

MURDER OF ARTHUR. 17
and blinded, but that two of the three executioners
slunk away for very shame on the way, while the
new warden, Hubert de Burgh, proved incapable to
execute his master's barbarous orders, and sheltered
the young prince under a false report of his death;
his clothes were given to lepers, and the church bells
tolled for him as for the dead. Then, when the cry of
public indignation rose high against the barbarous
uncle, Hubert produced the young prince; and John,
whose nobles feared reprisals, was not displeased at the
disobedience.1 But the king's penitence, it is said, was
short-lived. He transferred his nephew to the care of
Robert de Vipont; and, leaving the court secretly as
if on a hunting-party, came at midnight to the gates of
Arthur's prison, stabbed him with his own hand, and
cast the body into the river some miles lower down.2
One version adds that the murder was preceded by an
angry interview, John demanding that the prince
should renounce his claims, and Arthur resolutely re
fusing.3 In the absence of all official record, the fact
of a murder seems the only point certain ; and its best
proof is that John himself never professed, when it
might have done him service, that his nephew died
naturally. Except in Brittany, where the people
mourned the last representative of their native line,
and where Arthur is still remembered, the crime does
not seem to have been much regarded or abhorred.
It was one of many acts which showed John to be a
stupid and brutal man; but it had a certain colour of
right, for Arthur was in rebellion, and was rather an

1 Coggeshale, Bouquet, xviii. pp. 193, 194.
97, 98. 3 Wendover, vol. iii. p. 170.
2 Philippidos, Bouquet, xvii. pp.

18 FRENCH INVASION OF NORMANDY.
abuse of power than an outrage on all law. Innocent
does not seem to have attached much importance to
the event. But Philip saw the advantage to be derived
from it, and vowed, when the first rumours were afloat,
that he would never make peace unless Arthur were
restored; and that, if he had been killed, Eleanor must.
be given up to him, with all the English dominions in
France as her dower. Henceforth he answered all
proposals of peace by insulting and impossible condi
tions of this sort.1
In the spring of 1203, John was sovereign nowhere in'
France but in Guienne and Normandy. Guy of Thouars,:
the second husband of Constance, had presented his
young daughter Alice to the Breton estates, and they
had acknowledged her heir to the dukedom without
prejudice to the rights of the captive Eleanor. Rebel
lion had the upper hand in Aquitaine, Poitou, and
Anjou, and the king of France was preparing to invade.
Normandy. A fresh sentence of the peers declared
John guilty of felony and treason in the murder of
Arthur, a homager of the crown of France and near
kinsman to the king, and adjudged him to forfeit all the
lands which he held by homage, and even to suffer
death.2 Philip and the Bretons accordingly poured.
from opposite sides into Normandy. They met with
no effectual opposition. John, it is said, passed his
time in feasts and parties of pleasure, replying to those
who warned him of the advance of the enemy that he
would regain all their conquests in a single day. His

1 Coggeshale, Bouquet, xviii. pp. dem Arturi." Henaingburgh, i. p.
98, 99. 242. It is remarkable that Innocent
2 Wendover, iii. p. 374. John was answered it by declaring that Ar-
appealed"perquendammilitemstre- thur had justly been put to death
nuissimurnparentemproximumejus- for rebellion.

THE ENGLISH NOBILITY ALIENATED. 19
nobles, it is added, left him in disgust, obtaining fur
loughs for England, and never returning, or betrayed
the castles committed to them to his rival. It is quite
possible, though these statements are certainly over-
coloured, that John was infatuated by his success at
Mirabeau, and believed for a few weeks that a province
like Normandy, which single-handed had once been an
overmatch for France, could not be conquered when
the armies of England defended it. His habitual riot
must have seemed grossly out of place when his towns
were burning. But it is impossible to believe that
there are not other reasons for the loss of Normandy.
John, as he showed afterwards, though wanting moral'
courage and high statesmanship, was no roi faineant,
and had much of the family ability, while his captains,
Savari de Mauleon and Martin Algais, were fully com
petent to advise and serve him. The fact is that during
the last two years he had alienated the English nobility
by demanding fresh fines for the lands and honours,
which he had covenanted at his election to leave un
touched.1 His favourite advisers were new men and
foreigners, who enjoyed the places and rewards, to
which natives aspired. Barbarities like those at Dol,
where .he tortured the garrison (Sept. 1203), and his
murders of Arthur, of the captive knights at Corfe, and
of the hostages from Poitou,2 had not only disgusted
his adherents, but induced them to fear reprisals.
1Thus, in 1201, " perambulabat being granted away to another
terram et homines regni redemit . . . knight; the king having a grudge
quod per eos devastata erat foresta against Fulke. History of Fulke
ejus." Hoveden, p. 465. The nobles Fitz-Warine, pp. 66, 67 ; and Dug-
accordingly refused to cross into dale's Baronage, vol. i. p. 444.
France, "nisi ille reddiderit illis 2 Trivet, p. 171. Cf. Rigordus,
jura sua." Hoveden, p. 466. Fulke Bouquet, xvii. p. 59, about executions
Fitz-Warine was driven into rebel- of French partisans at Rouen.
lion by his honour of Whittington

20 NORMAN FORTRESSES
Lastly, the very nature of the English dominions in
France — a chain of provinces stretching round the
coast— made it impossible for any sovereign to resist a
general insurrection effectually. The strength of the
army was wasted in fortresses which were taken in
de.tail before they could be relieved. The English
king's only chance of success, as far as can be judged
by events, would have been to concentrate all his
troops before the rebellion had gathered strength, and
stake the chances of the war on a great battle with
Philip. As it was, the conviction that they were
isolated in the midst of a hostile country, and were
• fighting with halters round their necks, for an attainted
master who could demand no conditions for them,
seems to have paralyzed the English commanders.
Some were traitors or cowards ; others fought well, but
without .hope or result.
The strategy of the Norman dukes, consummated hy
Richard, had guarded the duchy by a double chain of
fortresses. Boutavant, Chateau Gaillard, Andelys,
Portejoye, with their outworks, Radepont on the An-
delle, and Rueil (Vaudreuil) near the mouth of the
Eure, defended the line of the Seine from the frontiers
to Rouen; while Tilliers, Conches, and Montfort fol
lowed the almost parallel course of the Rille. No
invader could venture within or without this network
of camps without serious risk of having his flank turned,
so long as the attack was directed from Paris, and
Maine, Anjou, and Brittany were in the English in
terest. The rebellion of these provinces allowed Philip
to operate unconcernedly. Boutavant had been de
stroyed in the last year; Conches was reduced in the
beginning of the present campaign : and Rueil was in-
gloriously surrendered by Robert Fitz- Walter and Sa-

TAKEN BY PHILIP IN DETAIL. 21
her de Quincy, before a stone had been shaken down or
a man hurt; even Philip, it is said, was indignant at
the cowardice by which he profited, and imprisoned
the commanders straitly, and held them to heavy ran
som. Hugh de Gournai, who had been loaded by John
with favours, admitted the French by night into the
castle of Montfort. One of the two lines being thus
reduced, Philip, joined by the count of Alengon, pro
ceeded to invest the triple fortress of the island and
town of Andelys, with Chateau Gaillard. These lay in
a bend of the Seine, Chateau Gaillard, the easternmost,
crowning a low steep hill surrounded by rocky pla
teaux of the same formation; the town of Andelys
lying further west in a slope of lower ground between
the hills and the river, and communicating with the
castle on one side, and with an island that lay flush
with it on the other. There were thus three separate
fortresses to be reduced, each of which communicated
with the other. But further, as the Seine at this point
is broken by other islands besides the one fortified, and
drains partially off in a small stream round a strip of
marshy land on the southern and lower side, it was
easy to throw bridges across the whole of it, and the
island was thus connected with both banks. It was
not, however, rocky or with any natural difficulties of
access ; its chief military advantage being that its small
size enabled it to be covered with works and held by a
slight force. Castle Gaillard, on the other hand, with
its three walls and three deep fosses, mostly hewn out
of the living rock, was the Gibraltar of the day.1

1 The history of the siege of An- mus Armoricus and Brito Armoricus.
delys and the Chateau Gaillard is Bouquet, vol. xvii.
taken from the accounts of Guillel-

22 SIEGE OF THE ISLAND OF ANDELYS,
Philip at first encamped on the southern side of the
river, and tried to reduce the island. But the gar
rison burned the bridge upon that side, preserving
their communications with the north, and laughed at
the arrows and stones which fell harmlessly on their
parapets and covered passages. The French now con
structed a bridge of barges, placed lengthwise to the
stream and secured with stakes, and hollow towers
through which the river could flow. This allowed the
siege to be formed on the northern side, but it also
divided the strength of the blockading army. John
attempted to profit by the opportunity.1 He was not
strong enough to give battle in the field, and the hired
troops whom he employed, Coterells and Routiers, as
they were called, seem not to have been equal to or
dinary men-at-arms in close action ; they were probably
worse equipped and less reliable. John accordingly
resolved on a night attack by land and water. His
soldiers, under William the marshal and Lupescaire,
penetrated successfully to the southern camp and slew
some two hundred of the camp followers. The alarm
spread, and the bridge broke down at its nearer end
under the crowd of fugitives who hurried to it. But
William des Barres and his knights succeeded in re
storing order, and in beating back the assailants. The
boats destined to attack the bridge came up late, as is
usual in combined operations, and were repulsed, after
a gallant attack, with heavy loss, from the artillery on
the bridge.
Gradually the toils closed around the besieged.
They had barred the passage of the Seine with pali
sades; these were torn up or cut away by the French
1 John was at Montfort, July 18, 26, 28, 29, 30. Itinerary of King John.

AND CASTLE GAILLARD. 23
divers. A wooden stockade round the island was
burned down. The artillery had shaken the walls;
the parapets were so broken that it was unsafe to stand
on them ; and stones and arrows fell in fatal numbers
within the walls. The garrison were compelled to sur
render at discretion. This surrender left the town a
certain and easy prey at no very distant date, so that
many of the townsmen took shelter in Chateau Gaillard.
Philip left an army of observation, and advanced to be
siege Radepont. John had retaken Montfort while the
siege of Andelys was in progress, and he now tried to
effect a diversion by besieging Alengon (August 11-15).
Philip did not choose to interrupt his works, but he
hurried without soldiers, and by forced marches, across
Normandy, put himself at the head of the local militia,
who had assembled for exercise, and so alarmed the
king of England that he broke up the siege ingloriously,
and returned to Rouen. The twenty knights who
officered the garrison of Radepont sustained a vigorous
attack for three weeks, and then surrendered, having
no hope of relief. John attempted to redeem his credit
by a plundering excursion into Brittany.1
The fate of the war now hung upon Castle Gaillard,
and Philip's preparations show that he understood its
importance. A fosse, two hundred feet broad, and
protected by seven castles, was drawn completely round
the beleaguered fort. The garrison was thus shut out

' Armoricus, p. 77. Philippidos, p. fecto recessit." As the Itinerary gives
189. Itinerary of King John. Armo- no trace of this excursion into Perche
ricus says, p. 76," Circaeadem tempo- it must have had some other com-
ra"(asthe siege of Alencon),"J. R. mander than the king. It tends,
cum immenso exercitu obsedit eas- however, to show that he was
trum . . . Bruerolos (Bressoles) sed not as regardless of the fate of his
Francis supervenientibus opere in- dominions as has been assumed.

24 GALLANT DEFENCE OF CASTLE GAILLARD.
from all hope of supplies, and was too weak to attempt
sallies upon the besiegers. The commander, Roger de
Lacy, prepared early for the worst by expelling the use
less mouths, mostly citizens of Andelys. But after two
companies had successively been sent out, Philip ordered
that no more should be allowed to pass the French lines.
In the hope that these orders would not be adhered to^
or in the resolution to save his fortress at any cost,
Roger de Lacy presently made a fresh draught of in-
capables. The castle gates were closed upon four hun
dred and more,1 mostly women and young children, and
the French sentinels refused them passage. During
three months the miserable victims of war lurked in the
valleys and ditches around the castle, living upon water
and the scanty winter grass. The camp dogs were
trapped and eaten; a hen that flew among them was
devoured, feathers and all, by the stronger; most hor
rible of all, it was said that a woman who gave birth to
a child saw it taken from her and eaten. Exposed to
the artillery of both sides, as well as to cold and hunger,
their numbers gradually dwindled away. At last
Philip, visiting the works in person, was assailed by the
cries of the wretched survivors, and at once ordered
them to be taken in and cared for. But the mercy
came late, and almost all perished when food was again
given them. Months went on, and every appliance of
military art was exhausted to batter the walls or repel
the attack. At last a point was fixed on where two
strong walls met in a high tower. The French miners
advanced under the shelter of a Roman tortoise to the
ditch ; descended one side and escaladed the other with
ladders, and then, working under their shields, hewed

1 Brito Armoricus says twelve hundred. Bouquet, xvii. p. 203.

ITS CAPTURE. 25
away the stones, putting in wooden props, lest the wall
should fall upon themselves. When the work was suf
ficiently advanced they set fire to the props and hurried
away. The tower crashed into the ditch ; a storming
party rushed in over the breach ; and the first line was
carried. In the second wall John had imprudently
constructed a chapel jutting out from the line, and with
a window towards the enemy. A certain Peter Bogis
succeeded in climbing up to the window and drawing up
his companions after him. The garrison seeing the
chapel filled with the enemy, set fire to it and aban
doned the second line. Peter Bogis and his com
rades escaped alive by taking refuge in the castle
crypt. There was now only one wall to be carried.
Between the mines sunk under it, and three fatal dis
charges from a great petronel, which the soldiers called
Chadabala, even this before long gaped with a deadly
rent, and the enemy poured in (March 6). Roger de
Lacy and his men tried to cut their way out, but were
overpowered.1 Thirty-six knights and a hundred and
twenty men-at-arms were taken. Never had fortress
in those days been more desperately defended than
Chateau Gaillard was in its seven months' siege. Even
John was touched by the loyal service of a noble who
was neither courtier nor mercenary. He paid De Lacy's
ransom of one thousand marks, and made him sheriff of
York and Cumberland.2
Whatever his conduct may have been at the opening

1 Armoricus, p. 79, says forty Patent Rolls, p. 48. It is note-
knights were taken ; but Rigordus, worthy, however, that Saher de
p. 57, says four had been killed Quincy, whose ransom, with that
during the siege, and thirty-six were of his companion, Philip had fixed
made prisoners. at £5000, to show his disgust, was
2 Foss's Judges, vol. ii. p. 88. taken again into John's favour, as

26 john's difficult position.
of the war, John perceived, his danger long before
Chateau Gaillard was reduced, and took it keenly to
heart. He tried to procure Innocent's intercession, and
the Pope actually sent two legates, whose approach
only induced Philip to hurry on operations at Andelys.
The spring and summer of 1204 were spent in a royal
progress through England to collect money and press
on preparations for the coming campaign. Conciliatory
measures were tried. Fulke Fitz-Warine, who had been
outlawed for an old grudge, was pardoned, together with
his companions, and the loyalty of English subjects
was more than once confirmed with the lands of avowed
rebels in Normandy.1 The result was not satisfactory.
In a plaintive letter to Innocent, praying him to excuse
Geoffrey Fitz-Petre from a pilgrimage, John complains
how few about him are to be trusted. The primate and
the justiciary did their best to sustain the honour of the
country, and laid heavy fines on the reluctant nobles,
and taxed even the convents and parish churches; Once
we find the king at Portsmouth apparently superintend
ing the transport of troops (May, 1204). 3 But his lead
ing ideas seem to have been to amass money by all
means, and collect with it an army which should ren
der him an undoubted overmatch for Philip in the field.3

the rolls attest. Close Rolls, p. 29. of Angevine knights, during service
John even declared the surrender to to Philip. Duchesne, p. 1032.
be by his orders. July 5, p. 31. Cf. 2 It is noteworthy that in a brief to
Patent Rolls, p. 30. Walter de Lacy and others, the jus-
1 Thus the lands of Hugh de ticiaries of Ireland, April29,1204,Pa-
Gournay " proditoris nostri" were tentRolls,p.41,JohndeclaresWilliam
granted away to John Marshall, de Burg free from all crown suits for
nephew of the Earl. Rotuli in Turr., the time, " quod . . . ipsumque duci-
p. 113. Cf. Rotuli Norm., II. p. mus nobiscum in Normanniam."
clxxiii. Compare the grant to Wil- 3 Lingard says he actually col-
liam Briwer, p. 123, of the land of lected an army, and that the nobles
John Briwer, who appears in the list refused to serve. This, however,

DEFECTIONS FROM HIS SERVICE. 27
Meanwhile, Normandy was being lost. The mercena
ries in John's service had plundered the country they
were paid to defend,1 and the nobles were half-hearted
or openly disaffected. Even the marshal, William de
Humet, went over to the enemy.2 Philip skilfully re
presented himself as only asserting his rights of lord
paramount against a disloyal and cowardly vassal, and
promised not to tamper with the rights of property.3
Lupescaire, one of the mercenaries who had served
John so ill, surrendered Falaise after a week's siege, and
entered Philip's service with all his troops. It was said
in his excuse that the townsmen pressed him to save
them from the horrors of war.4 The French army
now swept almost unopposed through the province, and
effected a junction at Caen with the Breton troops under
Guy de Thouars, who had burned the fortress of Mont
St. Michel. Caen and Bayeux came bloodlessly to terms.
Only Rouen, Arques, and Yerneuil displayed something
of the old Norman spirit and formed a league against
the invader. Even when the French appeared before
the walls of Rouen, and took the barbican which com
manded the bridge, the citizens only broke the bridge
down, and continued to defend themselves.5 But the
seems to be a confusion with the Lupescaire not to plunder the lands
events of 1205, more fully detailed by of John de Preaux. Patent Rolls,
Coggeshale. » For the account in the p. 35.
text, see Patent Rolls, p. 41. " B. 2 Annales Waverleienses, p. 256.
Comes. Albemarl," &c ; Itinerary 3 Wendover, vol. iii. p. 174.
of King John, April 6-12 ; the lan- 4 Armoricus, Bouquet, p. 79.
guage of Trivet, p. 175, " cum non s So says Armoricus, p. 80. In
posset suis detrectantibus militiam the treaty as given by Rigordus, p.
exercitum congregare," the letters in 58, it is, however, stipulated that
New Rymer, vol. i. part 1, pp. 136, Philip shall have the barbican given
137, and the story in Matthew of to him, shall erect a fortress there,
Westminster, A. 1204, of John's and that if he demands it, the citi-
boast that his " sterlings " should zens shall break down four arches of
reconquer Normandy. the bridge.
1 See the curious admonition to

28 FALL OF ROUEN AND
town was not properly provisioned ; the burghers were
compelled to treat, and Philip gave them honourable
terms, partly on the inducement of a large sum of money,
and partly as not caring to drive his future subjects to
despair. A term was assigned within which they were
to obtain English aid or to capitulate. Their envoys, it
is said, found John playing at chess. He vouchsafed
them no answer till the game was ended, and then told
them they must do the best they could ; he had no means
of succouring them. Rouen, and its two allies, were
accordingly reduced to admit the French. The humilia
tion was especially great for the ducal city. The pledge
given in the treaty to respect its charter was only par
tially observed, and it was compelled to demolish part
of its fortifications and erect a castle for a foreign
garrison. The fall of " headstrong Normandy " came so sud
denly that it might well seem to argue singular baseness
in the king who could not guard his fathers' heritage,
and some shortcomings in the people who let their
country be overrun. That John' committed an irre
parable fault in alienating his English baronage may
be readily granted, and it is probable also that he was
afraid to meet Philip in the field, and that "his
spirit was rebuked before him," like Mark Antony's
before Caesar. But allowing all this, and putting out
of view the grave reasons apart from hatred of John
which made the English nobles indifferent to conti
nental dominion, it is difficult to see how John with his
actual resources could have maintained the struggle
with very different results. Normandy was no longer
the one part of France in which fighting-men were to be
found ; the French knights had been schooled to war in
the Crusades, and Normandy was nothing more than a

LOSS OF NORMANDY. 29
province, like others near it, and with a scanty muster-
roll of two thousand five hundred knights.1 The
sovereign whose capital lay within two days' march of
the frontiers was necessarily stronger than the one who
could only bring troops from beyond the sea. As it
happened, the English looked on apathetically, while the
French threw themselves impetuously into their king's
quarrel, and warned Innocent III. himself, in an indig
nant rescript, not to meddle with temporal matters.2
Philip's policy completed what his arms had begun.
He confirmed the Norman cities generally in possession
of their charters.3 He allowed every man to retain his
land unmolested, and only twenty- three altogether neg
lected to appear in person or by proxy and do homage
for their fiefs. Even John's personal adherents, like
William de Braose, and the highest English officer, the
constable of Normandy, consented to hold of a French
suzerain.'' The archbishop of Rouen, a turbulent pre
late, who had once excommunicated Richard, and the
bishop of Lisieux, who had been high in John's confi
dence, were honourably reluctant to acknowledge a new
master, and consulted Innocent whether they might do
it lawfully. Innocent had learned a lesson from the
spirited resistance of the French barons to his inter
ference, and declined to answer the question as one that
exceeded his competency, from his ignorance of the law
and the facts.5 The prelates in time solved it for them
selves, and recognized the rights of possession. John

1 Duchesne, p. 1049. canonical purgation. But the whole
2 Martin vol. iii. p. 578. The story is of doubtful authority. Bou-
French bishops, whom Innocent had quet, xix. p. 470, note a.
assembled in council at Meaux, 3 Philippidos, Bouquet, xvii. p.
are said to have appealed to the 214.
apostolical see in person against " Duchesne, pp. 1026, 1031.
the command to interfere, offering 5 Innocent, lib. viii. epist. 7.

30 NORMANS DESPOILED OF ENGLISH FIEFS.
was not hampered by the considerations of policy that
restrained Philip. All the fiefs held in England by
Normans, whether persons or corporations, were seized
into the king's hand.1
In a few cases, mostly of church property, the late
owners had managed to dispose of some of the stock.2
Probably in some instances family arrangements had
been made, and brothers had espoused different interests,
so as to maintain claims in each country on the property.
Yet, after all, the amount of land held by Normans in
England is singularly at variance with popular estimates
of the connection of England with the duchy. In twelve
counties for which the records are preserved, the whole
rental only amounted to £868 Is. lie?., or less than the
rental of any single county when Domesday Book was
compiled.3 Much of this, and the part best cared
for, was in the hand of Norman abbeys. Grants to
courtiers of demesne lands, or of heiresses in marriage,
will probably account for the greater portion of the re
mainder. Not a single noble family can be proved
to have disappeared from the English baronage in con
sequence of these forfeitures.4 That the Norman con
quest of England should have left such deep traces in

1 Cf. Rot. de Fin., p. 226. 15*. lO^d. in 1085.
2 E.g. Winterburn, Terra Canoni- 4 This is the more remarkable as
eorum de Constancia. " Robertus de there are some apparent instances :
Costentino amovit post Pascham duo Hugo Bussel, whose barony was
pondera et dimidium lanse et tria granted to Roger de Ldcy in 1205,
pondera casei." Rotuli Normannise, and Roger de Burun, whose barony
p. 123. was transferred to William Bri-
3 The counties in question were were in April, 1204. But the first
Dorsetshire, Somersetshire, Devon- case was one of forfeiture for some
shire, Essex, Kent, Surrey, Oxford- default (Dugdale's Baronage, vol. i.
shire, Northamptonshire, Berkshire, p. 593), and in the case of the
Warwickshire, Leicestershire, Not- Buruns, the heir received land in ex-
tinghamshire. The rental of Mid- change. Rot. Chart, in Turr. Lond.,
dlesex, without London, was .£731 p. 123.

John's southern possessions invaded. 31
our language, literature, and character, although the
conquerors were so soon and so completely naturalized,
may seem unaccountable.1 The explanation probably
lies in the gradual expansion of foreign commerce and
the settlement of Norman traders in our towns, in the
great intermixture of nations in our wars, foreign and
civil, and in the migratory habits of scholars, fostered by
the political connection of France and England. We may
point to India as a fair instance of a country where a few
conquerors scattered among a much denser population,
with far less proportionate interest in the soil, are gra
dually changing the whole character of the civilization.
Whilst the fate of English supremacy was being
decided in Normandy, Aquitaine and Poitou were
desolated by civil war. The aged queen mother, Eleanor,
who had done so much for John and for Anglo-Norman
interests, had died at Beaulieu, in Hampshire, early in
the spring. Unsustained by her influence, the English
commanders, Robert de Turnham and Savari de Mau-
leon, fought gallantly, but losingly, against William de
Roches and Hugh le Brun at the head of a whole insur
gent population. In July, Philip was able to march his
victorious troops out of Normandy southwards. No
where was John better served than in these parts, yet
the struggle only lasted a year. The gallant defence of
Chinon by Hubert de Burgh, who held out a year
against the French army, and when the walls were bat
tered down attempted to cut his way through the invest-

1 Forfeitures and escheats were so Albemarle, WilliamMalet, and Sweyn
common in the century succeeding of Essex, had probably no heirs
the conquest, that family after male owning property in England in
family lost the estates granted it by John's time, while in other cases, as
the Conqueror. Thus Raoul de Gael, of the de Braose family, there had
Roger de Montgomeri, William Fitz- been wholesale confiscations.
Osbert, the earl of Mortain, Odo of

32 PREPARATION FOR CAMPAIGN TO FRANCE.
ing force, shed a last lustre on the English arms.
Gerard of Athy did good service in Loches, but was at
last taken, while Rochelle actually maintained itself
against the enemy, though the governor of the province,
Robert of Turnham, was captured. Further south, the
Gascons were English at heart, and the influence of the
archbishop of Bordeaux was successfully exerted to pre
serve the country in its allegiance. For a moment it
seemed as if John would support his subjects. He had
amassed large treasure by taxes and less legitimate
exactions during the last year (1204), and in the sum
mer of 1205 he was able to assemble a large army and
sailors from the whole coast of England at Portsmouth
(June). The nobles of Poitou and Gascony had sent
over cordial promises of support, and a party among
the Normans was discontented with Philip's strong go
vernment. But when all was prepared, the ships
provisioned and assigned to the different nobles, the
primate and William the marshal suddenly demanded
an audience of the king. They dilated on the dangers
of the expedition. There was no port in France that
would serve safely for head-quarters ; the faith of the
Poitevin nobles was doubtful; and the count of
Boulogne would certainly invade England, if the whole
military force of the kingdom left it. Under no circum
stances could John oppose an equal force to his enemy.
Not only his own person, but his royal line was in
danger if any mischance befel him in a perilous cam
paign. John at first resisted the cowardly counsel.
But his advisers fell at his knees and declared that they
would hold him by force if he did not grant their re
quest. A council was hastily summoned, and it was
resolved that a part of the army should be sent under a
few nobles, the remainder paying in money for their

ABANDONMENT OF THE ENTERPRISE. 33
exemption from military service. The knights and
sailors, who had been summoned from every part of
England, were furious at being counter-ordered, and
cursed the primate and his party for their cowardly
counsel. John himself rode sadly to Winchester, re
pented when it was too late, and came back to find his
host broken up. He even put to sea for two days, as if
he would cross over single-handed, as William Rufus
had once done ; but his courage cooled on the voyage,
and he returned.1 The earl of Salisbury conducted the
minor expedition to Rochelle, but of course effected
nothing. Why two men of undoubted loyalty and
ability should have given advice so disastrous, and
seemingly so dishonourable, must remain a mystery.
The earl Marshal, who had just returned from France,
may, however, have had good reasons for believing the
restoration of English dominion impossible. Hubert Fitz-
Walter may perhaps, as the king suspected, have been
steadily opposed in his heart to any scheme for re
covering the transmarine provinces.2 In this case we
must assume that he knew John's character to be more
accessible to sudden impulse than rational conviction,
and seconded his efforts to assemble an army with the
idea of preventing his embarcation, at the last moment,
by a coup de thedtre. As a statesman he probably judged
rightly that John would fail disastrously in a campaign.
But any failure on the field of battle would have been
preferable to an unconsummated enterprise, which alien
ated loyal subjects and made future alliance with the
disaffected in France impossible.
There was yet a last act in the tragi-comedy of these
1 Coggeshale, Bouquet, xviii. pp. " de regis Francorum nimi& famili-
102, 103. aritate suspectus." Wendover, iii.
2 This must be the meaning of p. 183.
II. D

34 CAPTURE OF MONTAUBAN.
French wars. Encouraged by Guy de Thouars, who
had found the powerful ally converted into a strong
master, and began to tremble lest Brittany should be
absorbed into France, John collected a fresh army and
landed at Rochelle in the summer of 1206. His first
efforts were successful. His troops stormed the strong
fortress of Montauban or Bourg-sur-mer (August 1),
which the chief nobles of the district garrisoned. John
was present in person at the siege, and it shed an un
wonted lustre upon his reign, that he had reduced in
fifteen days a city which was famous in romance as
having held out for seven years against Charlemagne.1
The king pushed on to Angers, and, characteristically
enough, burned it to the ground, while he wasted the
whole territory of Anjou, Nantes, Rennes, and La M6e
with fire and the sword. But he was recalled (Septem
ber 22) by the news that Philip had entered Aquitaine
at the head of a large army. At first John marched
rapidly and directly, as if he desired only to give battle.
But his courage failed him when the armies encamped
opposite to one another, and he slunk away to Rochelle,
under cover of negotiations which he had opened. The
negotiations, however, continued, favoured by the inter
vention of papal mediators, and Philip easily consented

1 " Burgum-super-mare qui anti- Montauban on the Dordogne. The
quitus dicebatur Mons Albani." version translated by Hazlitt makes
Hemingburgb, ii. p. 47. John was the siege last fifteen years (p. 174):
at Bourg-sur-mer, June 29 and 30, that edited by Michelant predicts
when be probably reconnoitred it, that it may go on for seven years
and again from July 17 to August 10. (p. 145), but does not give the actual
(Mr. Hardy's Itinerary). The city duration. The fact of the siege by
was taken August 1. Wendover, iii. John seems undoubted, and he is said
p. 187. The romance of the Four to have written home, giving par-
Sons of Aymon, from which the tra- ticulars of his success ; but there is a
dition of Charlemagne's siege (un- strange silence on the subject among
known to Turpin) is derived, places French and English chroniclers.

JOHN'S PUSILLANIMITY. 35
to grant an armistice of two years, by which John agreed
to desert his ally, and only purchased a respite from his
enemy's arms. The king of England and duke of Nor
mandy, as he still styled himself, agreed by this treaty
to abide by the status quo, which implied an abandon
ment for the time of all lands north of the Loire, and of
large portions of Poitou and Aquitaine. The omen of
his installation in Normandy, when he had let the ducal
standard fall from his hands, was now literally fulfilled.
Never perhaps in history have vast territories been jested
away, idled away, almost thrown away, by a king so fond
of power and with so much real capacity as John. Even
in these, the most disastrous years of his life, it seemed,
from time to time, as if he would make some great effort
and retrieve all. His after-history showed that when
he was not overmatched by some one tremendous antag
onist, or by a whole people in arms, he could wield the
appliances of despotism with more than ordinary saga
city and energy. But he had not the strength of a high
character, or the self-reliance of a man superior to fate.
The pleasant vices of his youth and manhood seem so
completely to have overpowered him that he could only
act fitfully, and as it were by flashes of his better self.
Had he even been a mere debauchee he might have
retained loyal counsellors and good captains to protract,
if they could not avert, the doom of illegitimate power.
It was John's peculiar infamy that he united the sullen
ferocity of a savage and utter -callousness to honour
with the gluttony, the sloth, and the lust that are com
monly the signs of a purely animal nature.

36

Chapter II.
THE INTERDICT.
John's Relations with the Church. Stolen Election op a Primate by
the Monks or Christ Church. John's Nominee. Stephen Lang
ton. Quarrel between the Pope and the King. The Interdict.
John takes Hostages. William de Braose. Alliances against
France. Failure op the Interdict. Disaffection to John.
John's Submission to the Pope. Naval Victory at Swinemunde.
IN ordinary times John might have gone down to the
grave with the reputation of a mere vulgar tyrant,
and without the infamy of having almost ruined his
people. It was his peculiar misfortune to be cast on
days when the spirit of nationality and devotion to the
Church were kindling every people of Europe to civil
or foreign war, and were represented by such consume
mate leaders as Philip Augustus and Innocent III.
Before Normandy was well lost John was hurrying to
a fresh struggle with the whole power of the papacy,
which had just reduced his rival in a single year to
submission, and had divided the allegiance of Germany
with its rightful emperor. Never, in fact, had the
Church been stronger than now. The intense exalta
tion of spirit which the Crusades fostered turned exclu^
sively to the benefit of the hierarchy; and the men
who returned from Palestine, and the many thousands
more who took the cross, but delayed indefinitely to
go, were alike soldiers of the Holy See in sentiment.

influence of the church. 37
Preachers everywhere traversed Europe, enlisting and
raising money for the sacred war. One fanatic, abbot
Eustace de Flay, made a progress in England, ascribing
the failure of the Crusades to the general habits of Sun
day trading and fairs ; and commanding that in future
even the Saturday after nones should be kept holy, and
the commonest occupations, the baking of bread, and
laundry work, be suspended. Convinced by the mi
racles that attended his course, the people changed their
accustomed days of trade, and submitted, till the revival
had worn itself out, to devote the whole of the Sunday
to the sacred offices.1 Never, perhaps, were more mi
racles wrought, more visions seen, or more monasteries
founded, in any period of English history since the
Confessor had died, than in the twenty and odd years
between Richard L's accession and John's surrender of
his crown to the pope. Yet there were some circum
stances that might blind a king of England to the real
character of the times. The principles Becket con
tended for, though nominally recognized by the crown,
had never been thoroughly carried out in England or
perhaps in Normandy. The formation of a large bu
reaucracy, judges itinerant, and commissioners of assize,
had given the crown great power of bribing the abler

1 Wendover, iii. pp. 151-154. In lewe the Satyrday at the noun Nam-
1204, the earl of Clare is allowed to licheinYnglonde." Handlyng Sinne,
transfer his market at Rowell from p. 28. Cf. Itin. Camb., Gir. C, lib. i.
Sunday to Monday (Rot. Chart, in c. 6, for the exhortation of an Eng-
Turr. Lond., p. 117). In 1207 he lish peasant to Henry IL, " per totas
fines for having it on Sunday again, ditioni vestrae terras subditas ne
" as it used to be before it was re- mercatus dominicis diebus fiant."
moved by the abbot of Flay's preach- Hoveden says, (p. 458), that the abbot
ing." Rot. de Oblatis et Finibus, p. was once driven out of England by
378. CompareRobertofBrunne'sre- the bishops for preaching without, a
gretful observation: "Sum time licence.
hit was wont to be dowun, To ha-

38 john's opposition to the papacy.
members of the clergy ; and it had become a proverb,
that there was no clerk who was not also a lawyer.
Out of nineteen English prelates, ten during John's
reign had been, or even were, law-officers of the crown.
Add to this, that the nobles and higher clergy were
quite as likely, as they had shown in Becket's, case, to
side with the crown as with the papacy, and that there
was a strong current of anti-Roman, though hardly yet
perhaps of anti-papal feeling, among all who came in
contact with the curia ; and it will be understood that
an English monarch might well estimate his chances of
success in a quarrel with Rome highly. In fact, the
precedents of John's life were rich in defiance or eva
sion of church censures. He had married in spite of
the primate j1 he had wrested the government of Eng
land from a bishop authorized by the pope to excom
municate ; he had driven the archbishop of Dublin into
banishment, the pope's remonstrances notwithstanding;2
and he had procured an unjust sentence of divorce from
his wife by influence over his French bishops. It is
scarcely wonderful if he ventured on more direct ag
gressions, and ravaged the lands of hostile prelates,
seizing even the sacred offerings of the altar, or forbade
papal commissioners to try causes in England.2 Inno
cent's letter of remonstrance mentions even a graver
insult than these. In a fit of childish anger that some
of his requests had been denied, John had forbidden
any man in England to entertain the papal legate ; and
the order, though presently recalled, was a grave diplo
matic outrage. Later on, (1206), he forbade a synod,
which the pope had authorized to be held. Once he

1 Diceto, c. 650.
2 Innocent. Epist., lib. v. 160. Bouquet, xix. p. 424.

conciliatory policy of the pope. 39
forbade (1205) the collection of Peter's pence by a
commissioner whom the pope preferred to the English
bishops. At another time he dissolved a synod which
had met (1206) at St. Alban's to consult the same im
portant question.1 The pope, as guardian of orphans
and widows, had been constrained to interpose his ad
vocacy for the queen dowager Berengaria, whose dowry
of Norman castles had been confiscated in reprisals
for John's seizures. The interposition had been backed
by the English bishops and had been unheeded. Yet
for a time pope and king remained upon good terms.
Innocent was content to overlook much in the hope of
gaming the king of England's assistance for his nephew
Otho, the papal candidate in Germany. He even con
descended to gratify the king's taste for jewellery by the
present of a ring with precious stones, whose mystical
significance as types of the cardinal virtues he explained
in a letter.2 John on his side applied to the pope in
his French difficulties, and actually profited by his in
tervention. Nor was John altogether a prince for
churchmen to dislike. He employed them largely in
his service ; he made liberal benefactions to monasteries,
or confirmed their charters freely; he visited Hugh of
Lincoln on his death-bed, and cheered him with a pro
mise to ratify bishops' bequests for the future ; and he
gave generous support out of his subjects' money to
the new crusade, which the pope was advocating.3
1 Annal. de WaverleiS, p. 257. with the tone adopted by Innocent
Wilkins' Concilia, vol. i. pp. 514, 515. during his quarrel. Matthew Paris,
He did not, however, prevent the the only authority for the later date,
papal commissioner from carrying 1207, is not sufficient by himself.
off large sums ultimately. Wendo- 3 He gave ^ of all his revenues,
ver, iii. pp. 187, 188. escheats, and wards in England, and
2 This letter is put in Rymer, vol. orderedmostillegallythathislaysub-
i. part i. p. 139, under the year 1205 ; jects should do the same. Hoveden,
and the whole story is inconsistent p. 471.

40 DEATH OF THE PRIMATE HUBERT.
Merits such as these might easily outweigh the vice of
a petulant self-will in a sovereign whose obstinacy
and capacity for mischief were probably under-rated.
He was no doubt considered at Rome, to quote the
quaint panegyric on an earlier English king, as a man
who honoured God's law, but was fond of foreign vices.
The primate Hubert had died suddenly at Lenham,
(July 13, 1205), a few days only after the memor
able scene at Porchester, in which he had persuaded
his master to a disastrous act of cowardice, and by
which, it is said, he had irretrievably forfeited his con
fidence. But John's satisfaction at the death of his
too powerful counsellor was ill-justified by the event.
It had been for some time past a disputed question
who was to elect to the primacy, as indeed there
was some difficulty about the nomination to most
English sees. The king, properly speaking, had no
voice in the matter, and could not even refuse to invest
with the temporalities which he was supposed to confer,
but, practically his recommendation had the weight of
command, and he had great legal power of annoying an
obnoxious nominee. All depended, therefore, on whe
ther the electing body would wait to receive his re
commendation. But the constitution of the elective
body was uncertain. In Anglo-Saxon times the elec
tion had been made by the witan, which then had an
ecclesiastical side. Since the Conquest the practice
seems to have been for royal commissioners, a few
bishops, and the chapter of the cathedral, to elect con
currently.1 But the chapter, who in this case were the

1 Gervase, cc. 1348, 1382, 1423-5, the bishopswho had instructions from
1468-74, 1583-4. In 1173 the prior the king, till they agreed to elect an
of Christ Church held out against ecclesiastic of the diocese.

ELECTION OF A SUCCESSOR. 41
prior and monks of Christ Church, claimed an ill-defined
right to elect the primate as their peculiar head. Ge
nerally the popes supported the monks, on whose alle
giance they could count; and the king, for the same
reason, vindicated the claims of the bishops. The right
of the prelates, as practical men and administrators,
would perhaps seem to be the better grounded on
reason, while the chapter derived a certain advantage
from the constitutional precedents of corporations
generally in England. On this occasion a party among
the younger monks met by night, before the late pri
mate was even buried, and elected Reginald their sub-
prior in his place, chanting a muffled Te Deum, and
enthroning him on the altar and in the chair of state.
It would have been eminently unsafe to let their pro
ceedings transpire. The primate elect was accordingly
sent off hurriedly to Rome, under oath not to divulge
the fact of his election till the pope's consent had been
obtained. But vanity overpowered prudence and honour.
As soon as he landed in Flanders, Reginald displayed
his credentials from the convent, and the rumour of his
indiscretion rolled back upon the guilty and alarmed
brotherhood. It is pretty certain that the elder bre
thren had consented to the stolen election, as, in fact,
special leave of absence must have been granted to
Reginald and his companions.1 But there was now no
question of facing the king's anger, in the long interval
before news from Rome could arrive. A deputation
was sent to deprecate John's indignation, and it found
him more placable than might have been feared. He
1 Not only this, but by the con- receive a public benediction, after
stitutions of Christ Church, given it divine service. Lanfranci pro Or
by Lanfranc, any monk going on a dine S. Benedicti, cap. xiv.
journey of more than a day had to

42 THE KING NOMINATES JOHN DE GREY.
probably expected to carry his plans through all the
better for the momentary check. In fact, he easily per
suaded the monks to elect John de Grey, bishop of
Norwich, whose erudition and wit had recommended
him to the royal intimacy,1 and who was now one of
the justiciaries. The new primate was solemnly en
throned, and the king, in testimony of his satisfaction,
invested him at once with all the revenues of the see.
But this last error, as a chronicler says, was even
worse than the first. It was necessary to send envoys
to Rome to plead the cause of the king's nominee
against the sub-prior, and the right of the chapter to
elect, which John had incautiously conceded, against
the claims of the suffragan bishops, who were roused
to action and sent proctors to assert their privileges.
John believed that it was only a question of bribery,
and supplied his envoys with gold accordingly; but
they soon found that a pope, who trampled on princes,
was inaccessible to the basest form of corruption. The
verdict when it came was undoubtedly intended as an
assertion of the highest papal claims. Reginald's elec
tion was quashed as hurried and informal ; and John de
Grey's, as having been made before the throne had
been declared vacant on authority. The monks pre
sent were ordered to proceed to a fresh election at
Rome. John had anticipated this combination, and
had arranged with the monks to renew their last
choice. But the pope did not care to have his sentence
eluded, and did not desire to add another precedent to
the list of royal nominees who had been law-officers of
the crown. He admonished the monks, under threat of
excommunication, to regard their promise to the king
1 Foss, vol. ii. p. 76..

THE POPE RECOMMENDS STEPHEN LANGTON. 43
as void, and elect Stephen Langton, whom he recom
mended. With one exception the reluctant monks
complied.1 There could be no question that the pope
had chosen a ripe scholar, and a man of piety and
ability. Stephen Langton had risen by simple merit
to be chancellor of the university of Paris, and cardinal
at Rome. The issue showed that he was even greater
as a statesman and a patriot than as a clerk. Never
theless, the equity of Innocent's proceedings is very
questionable, even from the mediaeval point of view.
He may have been right in objecting to John de Grey,
whose appointment would have been the pure act of
the crown; but in forcing his own nominee, however
excellent, upon a free elective body, however corrupt,
he was certainly violating the privileges of a national
Church. As John's lay-commissioners positively refused their
assent to the election, Innocent prepared from the first
for extremities, and in his bull to the convent o£ Christ
Church recalled the deeds of St. Thomas of Canterbury
to their remembrance, and declared his intention of main
taining his appointment. John was just engaged, under
pretext of an approaching campaign in Normandy, in
enforcing a tax of one-thirteenth upon all lands and
chattels, which had been unanimously refused by the
clergy in two assemblies. Geoffrey of York actually
went into exile sooner than pay it, and excommunicated
the royal collectors ; the rest of the clergy murmured
and submitted.2 The king's anger now turned against

1 Wendover (iii. p. 213) gives his convenerunt." Wilkins, i. p. 515.
name Magister Helias de Branbe- 2 Wendover, iii. pp. 209, 210. An-
feld. Innocent, however, says in his nal de Waverleia, pp. 258, 259. New
bull, " licet in principio discordave- Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 96. The ac-
rint novissime tamen . . . unanimiter counts seem a little contradictory ;

44 THE KING AND POPE CONTEND
the monks of Christ Church. Their first election, he
said, had been against the rights of his crown; the
second, a dishonest trick to evade his anger ; they had
taken his money to go to Rome, and had there elected
an alien and enemy. Two royal commissioners, Fulk
of Canterbury and Henry of Cornhill, were sent to
expel the monks from their convent. The trembling
brothers, forgetting the splendid precedent of Becket,
which the pope had so lately recalled, departed at the
first order, without waiting to have violent hands laid
on them, and fled to Flanders without even the aureola
of confessor ship. Their convent was given up to their
rivals of St. Augustine's, and the stock of their estates
and of the see-lands was carried off; the estates them
selves were farmed to Flemish merchants.1 (July 14).
Meanwhile John had commenced an angry corres
pondence with Innocent, dwelling on the wealth which
Rome derived from England, and threatening to forbid
all pilgrimages, and stop all supplies, if the election of
Stephen Langton were not annulled. Innocent was
inaccessible to the vulgar love of money, and, in fact,
would be little affected by an order which chiefly con
cerned the interests of his courtiers. He answered
(May 26), in a style of imperious courtesy, that his own
alliance was as well worth keeping to England as

but, apparently, John at first wished the Brabant merchants is in Heming-
to levy the tax on their benefices ; burgh, i. p. 237, and is at variance
they objected successfully to this with Wendover, iii. p. 215, and
as unprecedented and too severe ; the Annalist of Waverley, p. 259,
and he then substituted a tax on who agree that the lands were left
their realty and personalty. Rot. untitled. Possibly, however, this
Litt. Patent., p. 72. may merely have been for a time,
1 A few of the monks took the or the expression may only mean un-
opportunity of deserting the brother- stocked, which would make a great
hood. Hoveden, contin. Bouquet, difference in the value at which they
xviii. p. 165 The statement about were leased.

FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE NOMINEES. 45
England's to him. He had consulted John's dignity
by sending envoys who had been detained at Dover,
and he was not prepared to make any further con
cessions. The choice of Stephen Langton was excellent,
and the right of the Holy See to appoint indisputable!
Let John beware how he opposed God and the Church.
Meanwhile, before despatching his letter, Innocent had
already consecrated his nominee. (May 25). He soon
learned that John was determined to resist, and the
rest of the year was spent in preparing for battle. Now
the pope exhorted the English barons not to let their
sovereign reject the counsel of piety; now it was
Stephen Langton who admonished the faithful in Eng
land to avert and to expect the terrible calamity of the
last church censures upon their king. Once the
bishops of London, Ely, and Worcester, who had been
selected as papal commissioners, partly perhaps because
they had never been royal employes, were deputed to
remonstrate in person with John. The king answered,
with curses on the pope and cardinals, that, ifthey dared
place his kingdom under an interdict, he would banish
all the clergy and put out the eyes and cut off the nose
of every Roman he could seize. He was more tem
perate, however, in writing, and even promised, in a
letter after Becket's old fashion, that he would obey
the pope, " saving the royal dignity and franchises."1
In Lent of the next year (1208) the storm burst.
The three prelates published the interdict and fled the
kingdom, followed by their brothers of Bath and of
Hereford. By this the celebration of mass— the great
perpetual miracle of the Church and witness to Christ's
incarnation — was absolutely suspended. The host, if
1 Rot. Litt. Patent., p. 78. " Salvis jure nostro et libertatibus nostris."

46 ENGLAND UNDER INTERDICT.
it could be procured, might be administered to the
dying, but a fresh one might not be consecrated; in
such cases the prayer of faith would be sufficient.
Baptism and confession must take place privately, and
nobody might be laid in consecrated ground. The
minor services of the Church, the hours and reading the
gospel, were to be performed by the priest in solitude.
Only on Sundays he might go out into the churchyard
and proclaim the mournful list of unobserved fasts and
festivals, sprinkle the people with holy water, distribute
the consecrated bread, and preach. On Passion day he
might bring out the crucifix to be adored.1 At first,
different religious bodies, such as the Templars and the
Cistercians, evaded full performance of the interdict
under plea of their peculiar privileges. But gradually
the strong will of the pope triumphed over all opposi
tion. England lay not indeed under a curse, for its
people were innocent, but under a sentence of almost
total exclusion from visible communion with God, all
form formless, all order orderless, the living debarred
their merry-making of processions and mysteries, the
dead cast like dogs into the nearest ditch, the voice of
prayer and praise hushed, the church-bells silent, the
pageantry of a joyous ceremonial exchanged for mourn
ing, the stillness and. sadness around bearing daily and
awful witness against the king's sin. But the king had
the spirit of his father, and acted vigorously. The
estates of all who observed the interdict were confis
cated, and the concubines of the clergy, a numerous
class, were held to heavy ransom. It was, in fact, a
declaration of war against men who acted as the sub-

1 The best statement of these matters is to be found in Innocent's
explanatory bull. Wilkins, i. p. 526.

ITS RESULTS. 47
jects of an alien power. In the same spirit there was
large licence for all who had a grudge against the clergy
if they handled them roughly, or robbed them on the
king's highway. When a Welshman who had mur
dered a priest was once brought before John for punish
ment, the king observed, with grim humour, " He hath
killed my enemy, loose him and let him go." But it
was not safe to presume on this indulgence. John in his
serious moments could not contemplate letting murder
loose upon the land. The bishops who chose to remain
in their monasteries were unmolested, even though they
observed the inderdict. The clergy and monks were
allowed "a reasonable support" out of their confiscated
revenues : and a proclamation announced that whoever
insulted them by word or deed should be hanged on the
nearest oak. When Robert Fitz -Walter besieged the
prior and monks of Binham on a private quarrel, the king,
who happened to love the noble less than the priest,
asked with an oath whether such things had ever been
heard of in time of peace among Christians, and vindi
cated the majesty of law at the head of an army.1 Half
the complaints ofthe chroniclers probably arise from the
fact, which one of them incidentally divulges, that all
clerical pleas of exemption from lay jurisdiction were
now sternly annulled, and the clergy visited with the
axe and gallows like common men for their misdeeds.2
But as John well knew that the graver sentence of
excommunication, involving deposition from his crown,
would sooner or later follow that of interdict on the
realm, he resolved to secure himself against the nobles,
whose fidelity he suspected, by demanding hostages.
1 Gesta Abb. Mon. S. Albani, Cf. Annales Burton, p. 217, and Rot.
pp. 226, 227, Litt. Pat., 99, b, for delivery of some
2 Chron. Petroburg., a.d. 1209. prisoners at Pandulph's demand.

48 JOHN AND THE NOBLES.
There were so few great barons, that, when deduction
was made of royal favourites and safe men, the remain
der might easily be dealt with, and their best chance
of effectual resistance was when all were assembled in
council or in camp. Most of them accordingly complied
with the king's orders, which were backed by troops,
and gave their sons or nephews into the messengers'
hands. But when the wife of William de Braose, Ma
tilda de Haye, heard the royal message, she answered
haughtily, that she would never entrust her children to
the king who had murdered his nephew. William de
Braose himself reproved his wife for her rash words,
but evaded compliance with the demand for hostages;
saying, that he was ready, if he had offended the king in
anything, to answer it before his peers. The womanly
taunt was reported, and John, startled and furious, re
solved on exacting satisfaction. In fact, the matter could
not safely be overlooked. William de Braose, though he
had not risen to be an earl, was descended from one ofthe
Conqueror's most powerful lords ; his mother had been
co-heiress to the third earl of Hereford ; his aunt, wife
to the fourth; he had shared the Totness inheritance;
the earl of Derby was his nephew : Adam de Port, his
brother-in-law; his son had married the daughter of
the earl De Clare; and his two daughters were married
into the Lacy and Mortimer families. A devout man
in the estimation of monks, he was bloody and violent
beyond most soldiers of the day ; as a young man he
had treacherously murdered several hundred Welsh ; as
an older man he had driven away the royal officers,
vowing that neither king, nor justiciary, nor sheriff
should meddle with his liberties.1 His name is frequent

1 Wendover, ii. p. 384. Rotuli Curia Regis, vol. i. p. 426.

WILLIAM DE BRAOSE. 49
in the law-courts for lifting cattle or seizing his neigh
bours' lands.1 His best title with posterity, if it be his
indeed, is that he had apparently declined to act as
John's agent in the murder of Arthur. Nevertheless,
he had for several years stood high in the royal favour.
He had been the zealous promoter of John's election to
the crown, and seems to have served him faithfully and
well through his Norman wars. He had been rewarded
accordingly with large estates in Ireland, the escheated
property of his uncle and cousin, and with the custody
of several castles in Wales. During the last few months,
however, his favour seems to have declined. The cus
tody of two castles in Wales had been taken from him
and committed to Fawkes de Breaute, a royal leader of
mercenaries. De Braose was still in arrears for almost
all the fine due for his Irish property, and he cleared all
the stock off his lands when the time came for the ex
chequer to distrain. He was suspected of having con
nived at the capture of Limerick, which had been
committed to his custody, and surprised by Geoffrey de
Marsh who was then in rebellion.2 Giles de Braose, a
brother, was among the bishops who had gone into
banishment. Under these irritating circumstances,
John marched to Hereford, and forced his refractory
vassal to give the hostages demanded, and surrender his
three castles. The conditions cannot be called extreme.
Probably the hostages escaped, for in the summer we
find William de Braose at the head of a small army

1 E. g. William deFurch complains Oliver Tracy complains that William
that William de Braose has deprived de Braose has carried off his cattle.
him of half a knight's fee at Kings- Rotuli de Oblatis et Fioribus, pp. 77,
ton wrongfully. Matthew of Here- 385. Rotuli CuriaeRegis, vol. ii. p. 179.
ford applies to have his church 2 Annales Ecc. Wig., Anglia Sa-
quietly against William de Braose. era, vol. i. p. 480.
E

50 john's pursuit of de braose to Ireland.
attempting unsuccessfully to recover his castles, and
burning half the town of Leominster by way of reprisals
on the crown property. The royal troops were speedily
put in motion, and De Braose fled with his family to
Ireland. A rebel, more or less, might seem of little
moment in a country whose chronic condition was
feudal anarchy, and De Braose's powerful friends, the
earl Marshal and the De Lacys, were accordingly able
to shelter him for a year, the more so as John was occu
pied on the Scotch borders. But in the spring of 1210
the king set out for Ireland, De Braose in vain offering
40,000 marks for a peace, and receiving the contemp
tuous answer that the king would prefer to treat with
the real principal, his wife, in Ireland.1 It soon ap
peared that John had not over-estimated his power.
His army swept through Ireland, reducing the castles of
the revolted lords from Waterford to Carrickfergus.
The English pale was divided into counties with sheriffs
to administer English law, and with John de Grey, the
unlucky favourite, for viceroy. Matilda de Braose at
tempted to fly into Scotland. Unhappily, she was
taken on the way with one of her daughters and with
her eldest son William, and his wife and two sons. They
were sent first to Bristol, where the king, on his return
in September, allowed William de Braose to have an
interview with his wife. It was agreed that he should
pay 40,000 marks for their ransom, and he was sent
about England with an exchequer officer to collect the
first instalment among his friends. Probably he found
the attempt hopeless, as indeed the sum was enormous,

i n -

: Et nos ei respondimus quod tate uxoris suae quse fuit in Hiber-
bene novimus quod non erat omnino nil" New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p.
in potestate sua sed magis in potes- 107.

HIS VENGEANCE ON DE BRAOSE's FAMILY. 51
for he fled the country before the term for payment
arrived. He was cried through every county of England,
and outlawed. His son, then captive in Windsor, was
forthwith starved to death by the king's orders x
and a gloomy suspicion prevailed that the countess and
her grand-children had shared the same fate. The
wretched baron died soon afterwards in France, where
his turbulent friends, the De Lacys, were earning
their bread as garden labourers. His second son, Giles
de Braose, returned as bishop of Hereford when the in
terdict was removed, and was presently admitted to
compound for his share of his father's estates. Possibly,
by this time the two sons of William the younger, who
had been alive in 1214, and were then kept as hostages
in France, were dead. Anyhow, when the barons' war
had begun, and allies were valuable, Reginald, the third
brother, was admitted to fine for his portion of the in
heritance on the same terms as his brother, and appears
henceforth as the representative of the line. His mar
riage to a daughter of William Briwer had doubtless
promoted his restoration. Almost the last act of John's
life was to grant Margaret de Lacy a piece of land for a
religious house, in which the souls of William and
Matilda de Braose and of their murdered son were
to be commemorated.2

1 It is noticeable that John in the he calls her, is elsewhere called Ma-
document he published in 1212, set- tilda de St. Waleri. Giraldus Cam -
ting forth his quarrel with De brensis speaks ofher as " mulier mu-
Braose, steadily puts forth his money lierum perpaucarum." Symbolum,
claims against him as the principal Electorum, p. 208.
cause, and enumerates, with ludicrous 2 The common story that Matil-
and sordid precision, the 24 marks, da de Braose and William the
24 besants, and 15 ounces of gold, younger's two sons, Philip and Wal-
which were all De Braose's family ter, were starved also, will not bear
could muster when the first term of examination. In July, 1214, the
payment came. Matilda de Haye, as king orders the seneschal of Engos-

52 ALLIANCES AGAINST FRANCE.
There were others who thought, like William ^ de
Braose, that a time of papal interdict was a safe time
for defying the crown of England, and who were
roughly disenchanted. The king of Scotland had
meditated marrying one of his daughters to the earl of
Boulogne, then an enemy of the realm, and declined, on
the plea of ill-health, to appear before his suzerain's
court. John marched rapidly northwards, and William
was glad to buy peace by the promise of 15,000 marks,
and by giving up both his daughters for John to marry
(1209). They actually became the wives of two loyal
Englishmen, the earl Marshal and Hubert de Burgh.
Three years later the heir apparent, Alexander, was
similarly given up to be married, and father and son
pledged themselves to accept John's successor. Llewel
lyn of Wales was reduced to submission at the fort of
Snowdon, and only obtained tolerable terms by the
intercession of his wife Jane, John's natural daughter,
and at the price of numerous hostages. The king was
even able to threaten his enemies on the Continent.
Savari de Mauleon waged a border war in the south of
France, and, fortunately for the interests of humanity,
was defeated decisively (1208). English soldiers were

lesme to receive Philip and Walter, 1216. Lastly, in 1220, Pandulpb,
the sons of William de Braose, from then virtual regent of England,
the mayor of St. Jean d'Angeli. speaks of a suit as pending between
Rot. Litt. Glaus., p. 164. It is Reginald de Braose and his mother
scarcely likely that they would be Matilda. Royal Letters, vol. i. p.
starved six years after the first 136. It need scarcely be said that
quarrel, at a time when hostages were Margaret de Lacy's foundation (Rot.
specially valuable, and when the Litt. Pat., p. 199) might perfectly
king was weaker than he had been, well be intended to include a living
or that they would be transferred person. The Continuator of Hoveden
for that purpose from a meaner tb a says that Giles de Braose fined in
higher officer. Again, such an act 9000 marks for his restoration^
in 1214 would go far to preclude Bouquet, vol. xviii. p. 177.
reconciliation with the family in

EXCOMMUNICATION OF JOHN. 53
thrown into the castle of Guarplic, in Brittany, and
ravaged the adjacent territory1 (1209). Above all,
John aimed at renewing the old European league against
France which he had found existing at his accession.
He drew closer to Otho, in proportion as the emperor's
relations with the pope were uncertain or hostile, and
in the spring of 1212, England was in active league
with Germany and Flanders. In France itself the count
of Boulogne, whom a contemporary describes as "a man
of many praiseworthy qualities," but " blood-thirsty,
sacrilegious, a robber of widows and orphans, and an
adulterer," in fact, a Christian after John's own heart,
was in open feud with Philip, who had seized his for
tresses, and transferred his allegiance to the king of
England (1212). It is even said that John sent a secret
embassy to the Emir al Moumenim, who was then
threatening Spain, and offered to turn Mussulman, and
hold England of him as a fief, as the price of his alliance.
But the emir suspected that so dishonourable an offer
must be made in mere desperation, inquired privately
into John's character, and ended by rejecting the whole
proposal contemptuously.2 The count of Toulouse,
another open enemy of the Church, proved more prac
ticable, and concluded a treaty of alliance.
1 Armoricus, Bouquet, xvii. p. 82. one of the envoys named, was a
2 Matthew Paris professes to have likely person to be employed. He
heard this story from Robert of Lon- had been sent to Rome in 1207, and
don, one of the three envoys who in the spring of 1210, (Rotuli de
was afterwards royal commissioner Literate, pp. 151, 152), and was
at St. Alban's, to administer it again sent in November, 1212,
during the interdict. The embassy, when, by arrangement with the king,
as Dr. Lingard observes, must have he and two others remained behind,
been sent before July, 1212, when so that their companions could do
the emir sustained a crushing defeat. nothing. Matthew Paris, Hist.
In the absence of almost all official Major, A. 1213. Vit® Abb. S.
documents for the years 1210, 1211, Alb., p. 109. Rot. Litt. Patent., p.
1212, tbe truth of the story cannot 69. Rot. Litt. Claus., p. 126. Ann.
be tested, but Thomas of Erdington, Mon. Burton, p. 2 1 8 .

54 EFFECTS OF THE KING'S EXCOMMUNICATION.
Meanwhile, the pope had not been idle. Some two
years after the sentence of interdict had been pro
mulgated, he excommunicated the king of England by
name. But the coasts were watched so that no papal
commissioner might enter ; the bishops still resident in
England, at most only seven in number, declined to
publish the sentence ; and courtly theologians were found
to argue that until published it was of no effect. When
John held his Christmas at Windsor, the English barons
made a point of being present and communicating with
him, lest they should alarm his vindictive suspicions of
disaffection. Nevertheless, it was matter of common
talk in the streets, and wherever men met, that the
king was under church ban. One officer of the ex
chequer, a churchman and archdeacon of Norwich, was
actually rash enough to absent himself without leave
from the service of his excommunicate master. He
was quickly taken into custody and partly starved,
partly crushed to death under a heavy mantle of lead,
devised apparently as a legal subterfuge that the canons
forbidding a clerk's blood to be shed might not be vio
lated. The one half-hearted martyr stands out in
strange prominence from the ranks of his more com
pliant brethren, who were at least careful to propitiate
the king if they would not rebel against the pope.1 In
deed, it seems marvellous that these years of church
censure were precisely those during which John ap
peared to retrieve his ruined authority. The statement
1 Trivet, indeed, takes away Bouquet, xviii. p. 105. Paris tells
almost all the religious colouring of the story twice, once of 1210, and
his death by a statement that he was once of 1213. Hist. Major, pp. 228,
acting in concert with Robert Fitz- 233. But the Annalist of Dunstaple,
Walter and Stephen Ridel, " capi- (p. 34), who appears to have local
tanei factionis contra regem." An- knowledge on the point, fixes the
nales, p. 185. Cf. Coggeshale, date at 1210.

FAILURE OF THE INTERDICT. 55
of an old chronicler, that almost all the laity turned
away from the observance of Christianity,1 is probably a
highly coloured version of the fact that the upper classes
were indifferent to the sentences passed against kingdom
and king. As Innocent bitterly told the barons after
wards, they were for John as long as the Church was
against him.2 Several reasons, besides fear of a man
whose dormant ability had been roused, and who had
troops under him, will account for this. The first year
of the interdict was one of unusual plenty in England,
which came the more gratefully after years of scarcity.
A season of comparative peace was always popular. The
heavy fines levied on the clergy, and some irregular
exactions from the Jews, probably enabled John to
abstain from much extraordinary taxation.3 The nation,
although devout and prodigal of money for religious
purposes, had an instinct of aversion to the foreign
capital of the Church, and might with some reason re
gard Stephen Langton as an alien by training forced
upon the country by an Italian. But, above all, the most
solemn sentence of the Church had been so recklessly
abused by the Church's ministers that it had lost much
ofthe terrors which a sentence of exclusion from Christ's
fold ought to have carried to the mind of every believer.
Every county, perhaps every parish, had its excommu
nicates. Here it was an archdeacon going out with
bell, book, and candle, against an encroaching bishop;
there an abbot excommunicating a township for a scuffle
with his servants;4 now a primate avenging an injury

1 Annales Ecc. Wig., Anglia Sacra, who had not attended the Welsh ex-
vol. i. p. 480. pedition, Wendover, iii. p. 236.
2 Wendover, iii. p. 336. 4 Gir. Cam. de Rebus a se ges-
3 In 1211, however, there was tis, lib. i. c. 6. Chron. Joe. de
a fine of two marks the fee, on all Brakelonde, p. 68.

56 INDIFFERENCE TO CHURCH CENSURES.
to his horse's tail. At John's own court every member
of his late brother's council of regency, and every man
opposing William Longchamp, had been excommuni
cated with the pope's sanction ; his new ally, the count
of Boulogne, was almost always in that state ; the great
earl Marshal lived many years, and died finally with the
curse of a rancorous prelate clinging to him ; and Robert
Fitz-Walter, later on constable of the army of God
against John, started in the war in which he defied
Innocent, under sentence from the abbot of St. Alban's,
whom he had besieged.1 Probably no man wished or
intended to die, denied the host and supreme unction.
But a man may sin consciously and continuously under
temptation, while he yet retains an unquestioning be
lief in religion. It is scarcely wonderful if the Norman
barons found it convenient to incur church censures
occasionally, and postpone reconciliation to their death
beds, or if they were slow to quarrel with their king,
because he acted in his public relations as most of them
found it convenient to do in private life ; as half Ger
many under the orthodox Otho, and a great province of
France under the more doubtful count of Toulouse were
acting. It is noteworthy that royal commissioners were
sent at the beginning ofthe quarrel to explain the matters
in dispute to the different counties, and to canvass public
opinion for the crown.2 Even after years of suspended

1 William Longchamp's excom- story in Thorne how the sheriff of
munication, coupled with an attempt Kent and his officers were exconi-
to put the whole land under inter- municated by the primate and the
diet, fell utterly dead, in part, no pope for asserting the king's right of
doubt, from its very universality, patronage to Faversham church by
Hoveden, p. 412. Cf. Armoricus, forcible entry. An Index Excom-
Bouquet, xvii. p. 86, Paris, Hist. municatorum would be very like a
Maj., A. 1245, p. 687, Vitae Abb. peerage.
S. Alb., pp. 106, 107, and the 2 Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 80.

John's exactions and licentiousness. 57
worship the religious sentiment of the people, though it
had never been stronger, would not have troubled
John's repose, if his government had been tolerable.
John's passions and baseness were the real avenging
furies of the Church. His illegal taxes, his rigid en
forcement of the forest laws, the constant preference
given to foreigners over natives, the demand of hostages
from the nobles, the incessant taking of castles into his
own hand, were enough to irritate a more long-suffering
people than the English. The murder of the younger
William de Braose, and the severities against the family,
provoked so much horror that the king thought it neces
sary to explain his grievances against them in a state
document, which dwells with vulgar emphasis on their
debts to the crown, and omits all mention of the death
in prison. But, above all, John indulged in the one in
tolerable licence against which even the most degraded
societies have rebelled. He was sated with his young
queen, who revenged herself by criminal intrigues for
her husband's indifference;1 and he made his court a
place where it was unsafe for any modest woman to
appear.2 The husbands and fathers of his victims were
often doomed to hear their dishonour published with a
brutal jest from the king's own lips. An opportunity
for revenge now offered itself. The pope, acting on
the counsels of Stephen Langton, had declared the king
of England deprived of his crown, and proclaimed a
crusade against him, with Philip Augustus for its
general. A commissioner, the deacon Pandulph, had
obtained entrance (August, 1211) into England as a
1 Hardy's Introduction to the Pa- self a former sufferer, is said to have
tent Rolls, pp. x. xi. protested in curia against the king's
2 Hemingburgh, vol. i. pp. 247, licence. Dugdale's Baronage, i. p.
249. Earl Ranulph of Chester, him- 42.

58 DIFFICULT POSITION OF JOHN.
commissioner, to treat of terms, and had the courage to
declare a provisional sentence of deposition to John
himself in council at Northampton.1 "We call God to
witness," said the resolute Italian, " that we have come
with no other thought than to die for the Church, and
expect that wage of thee." The king with grotesque
barbarity responded by ordering certain prisoners in
hand to be brought out and hanged or mutilated.
Among them was a clerk found guilty of forging..
Pandulph at once declared he would excommunicate
any one who laid hands on a churchman ; and John gave
way and set the prisoner at liberty. The term allowed
the king to reconsider the question of resistance, expired
in the summer of 1212, and thenceforward he was an
outlaw to all Christendom, whose life and crown any
man that would might attempt. Several of the English
barons were in correspondence with France. The three
princes of North Wales were informed that they were
absolved from their allegiance, and their land, no longer
English territory, was in consequence freed from the
interdict.2 John for a moment was careless and con
fident. He hanged the Welsh hostages, and resolved
to march an army into the principality. But while he
was at table at Nottingham, returned apparently from
a foray in the north against the lands of Eustace de
Vesci, whom he had tried to outrage, and who was
then in revolt, he received despatches from several
parts of the kingdom, which left no doubt that treason
was in the air. The king of Scotland, De Vesci's brother-

1 Annales de Waverleia, pp. 268- 2 Brut y Tywysogion, A. 1212, p.
271; Annales de Burton, pp. 209- 293. Llewellyn allied himself with
217. These are the only authorities Philip. Bouquet, xviii. p. 168, note
that give a full account ofthe synod ; a.
but it seems probable.

ENGLAND AND FRANCE PREPARE FOR WAR. 59
in-law, Llewellyn of Wales, the king's own son-in-law,
were preparing, in concert with most of the great barons,
to throw off their allegiance. One account said that
Simon de Montfort had been elected king.1 It was
doubtful how far the men then serving under the king
could be trusted. John was panic-struck, disbanded his
forces, and for seven days shut himself up in the castle of
Nottingham, expecting the worst.2 As no actual out
break occurred, he recovered some confidence and
moved south. But from that day his arrogant self-
reliance, which had never been based on a strong cha
racter, was broken.
The spring of 1213 was passed by the kings of
France and England in making great preparations,
Philip to invade, and John to repel invasion. In a
council held at Soissons the preceding autumn, the
French nobles, with the single exception of Ferrand
of Flanders, who was in secret league with the enemy,
had all welcomed the project of a second Norman con
quest under the papal banner; and even Ferrand did
not venture to refuse attendance. Nor was the English
1 Annales de Dunstaplia, p. 33. mingburgh's detailed story of Eustace
2 Itinerary of King John. The de Vesci's quarrel, followed by his
chronology of these events is very being driven into Scotland, can only
difficult. Most accounts agree that be placed in the month of June,
John remained some time at the when John advanced, apparently on
castle of Nottingham, (the Annals of a military expedition to the borders.
Margan say fifteen days), and then Lastly, we know that the quarrel
retreated upon London and de- with Robert Fitz-Walter was osten-
manded hostages. Wendover ap- sibly on account of his laying siege
parently refers the quarrel with to the Abbey of St. Alban's. (Paris.
Eustace de Vesci and Robert Fitz- VitaeAbbatum S. Alb., pp. 106, 107).
Walter to this date, as do the Annals Probably, therefore, his fortunes
of Waverley and the Continuation of ought not to be connected immedi-
Hoveden and Trivet. But the re- ately with those of Eustace de Vesci,
sidence in Nottingham, followed by though they may have been in cor-
a retreat upon London, must belong respondence. John was at St. Al
to the month of September. He- ban's, Sept. 19, 20.

60 JOHN RECONCILED TO THE POPE,
government remiss. Every ship large enough to trans
port six horses was pressed into the royal service ; and
every free-man who could bear arms was ordered to
attend at Dover, Faversham, or Ipswich, under pain
of the penalties of a deserter, forfeiture of estate and
servitude. The crowd that answered the summons
was so enormous that the king's generals sent back all
who were not soldiers, military tenants or their ser
vants, archers or sling-men. There still remained sixty
thousand men on Barham Down alone, including, how
ever, fourteen thousand Flemings and Welshmen, and
five hundred soldiers from Ireland under John de Grey.
The fleet actually crossed the channel and destroyed or
captured a part of the French navy, and burned Dieppe.
But John's fatal irresolution returned as ever at the
prospect of staking everything on the issue of a few
days. He distrusted every one around him, not with
out reason ; and he was haunted with superstitious fears
from the prophecy of a vagrant hermit, Peter of Wake
field, that he would lose his crown before Ascension-
day. On the other hand, the agents of Rome had no
reason for pushing matters to extremity. The chance
of Philip's success against a large army on its own soil
was a little more than problematical to those who re
membered the issue of Henry II.'s and Richard Cceur
de Lion's wars. Should Philip and his army be de
stroyed, the pope would be exposed single-handed to
cope with Germany and England; should Philip suc
ceed, the sovereign of France and England would be a
more dangerous rival than any emperor. Pandulph
watched his opportunity and crossed over. The man
who had certainly courted martyrdom for his Church,
and who had almost suffered it two years before,
when John's power was unbroken, approached the

AND SUBMITS TO HOMAGE AND FEALTY. 61
trembling king now in this season of doubt and danger
with irresistible ascendancy. He told John that Philip
was coming over with a matchless army, with the exiles
in his train, and with letters of invitation from the
whole baronage of England. Let the king delay no
longer to make his peace with God. There was still a
day for repentance, and the Church would absolve the
penitent and restore his kingdom to him. John faltered
and gave way ; the prophecy of Peter the hermit terri
fying him more, it is said, than the dread of France, or
of his faithless barons, or of hell. He promised to re
ceive Stephen Langton and the outlawed bishops and
barons to an honourable peace and full restitution; to
give up the right of outlawry against all churchmen
. for the future, and to submit all questions of compensa
tion to papal commissioners. In return for this the
interdict was to be remitted. These concessions, at
such a moment, ignominious if the king had been in
the right, were perhaps not very excessive, if he had
been in the wrong. But there was more behind. John
had now made peace with the pope ; but he was still in
the same danger as before of a French invasion. To
avert this a new expedient' was devised. On the
vigil of the Ascension, the king and his council met
Pandulph in the Templars' house near Dover, and
John solemnly resigned his crown, with the kingdoms
of England and Ireland, into the pope's hands, to be
held henceforth by fealty and homage by John and the
heirs of his body of pope Innocent and his successors.
In token of the service due seven hundred marks
tribute was to be paid yearly for England, and three
hundred for Ireland. In extorting sums, of money from
the clergy, John had been accustomed to make them
give quittances, declaring that they gave the money of

62 EXASPERATION AGAINST ROME.
their own free will.1 The fraud was now retorted upon
himself, and he was obliged to declare, in the preamble
of this charter, that he resigned the kingdom not by
constraint of the interdict, or from any fear, but of his
own free will, and by counsel of his barons, to make
satisfaction for the sins of himself and his family.2 The
Plantagenets had indeed fallen low.
On John's share in this transaction little need be said.
Had it been the mere act of a devotee anxious to endow
the mother Church of Christendom, a gift like Matilda's
to Hildebrand, it would have passed unblamed or ap
plauded by monkish historians. But the writers of that
and the next century, strong churchmen, who censure
John for his defiance of the interdict, are almost unani
mous when they express any opinion in their contempt
for his cowardly capitulation, and in execrating " the de
testable charter of England's tribute."3 His act was, in
fact, high treason against the liberties of Europe. But
the exaction was, perhaps, as infamous to the pope as
the concession to the sovereign. For John's vassalage
carried with it no aggrandizement to the papacy, so far
as that could be distinguished from individual popes.
Innocent had added a new ornament to his regalia ; but
he had won no battle of principle, and his triumph left
the Church weaker by all that unutterable hatred which
a degraded nation feels to the author of its humiliation.

1 Annal. de Waverleia, p. 268. Continuator of Hoveden, p. 167, and
2 New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. the Hist. Croyland, Gale, i. p. 473,
115. say, however, "rex ut creditur in-
3 Paris, Hist. Major, p. 658. "De spiratus ab eo in cujus manu corda
libero fecit se servum et de domi- regum consistunt." This certainly
nante servientem." Hemingburgh, was not the opinion of the English
vol. i. p. 238. "Rex . . . nondumin- barons, either in 1245, when they
telligens se nomen regium et pristinse tried to get the charter annulled, or
dignitatis honorem amisisse." Chron. when they refused to continue the
de Mailros, Gale, i. p. 187. The tribute under Edward III.

INNOCENTS CONDUCT IMPOLITIC. 63
From that day forward it became progressively more
and more unsafe for a papal commissioner to set foot in
England ; the number of monasteries built steadily de
clined;1 Parliament and Oxford quietly defied the papal
rescripts ; and while the clergy retained and increased
their old ascendancy the feeling against Rome grew to
a pitch which could gain little increase from the Re
formation. But Innocent's act was dishonourable, as well
as impolitic. On the strength of the papal sentence of
deposition, Philip had assembled a large army incurring
heavy expenses to no purpose, and the princes of Wales
and the English barons had provoked the resentment
of a man who never forgave. All found themselves
suddenly deserted by an ally who reaped the whole
profit of the transaction. It is not easy to calculate
how much the after-diplomacy of the popes must have
suffered from this treachery, or what deeper traditions
of resentment must have been handed down in families
whose ancestors had suffered in the barons' war. In
nocent's character had a greatness of its own, a states
man-like grandeur of conception, a churchman's in
flexible resolve, the versatility of a man of the world ;
but withal there was that strange taint of vulgarity,
which clings to so many old Roman memories — the lust
to seem great, the hankering after purple and diadem.
The immediate effects of John's baseness were as he
had calculated. The fatal feast of the Ascension passed
safely, and he was able to order that Peter the hermit

1 From the accession of Henry I. the rise of the mendicant orders, the
to John's death, five hundred and average diminished to 3.67 ; by the
eighty-five monasteries were founded, end of the next century it had sunk
or at the rate of five a year; in to one a year. Raumer's Political
Henry III.'s long and peaceful reign, History of England, vol. i. p. 110.
under a superstitious king, and during

64 DISASTROUS FRENCH EXPEDITION TO FLANDERS.
should be dragged at a horse's tail and hanged as a
false prophet, though men whispered that his prophecy
had come true. A more important result was that
Pandulph leaving England with eightthousand pounds,
the earnest-money of the promised restitution,1 per
suaded the. English bishops to accept it, and return.
But the king of France was less tractable when he
learned that John was guaranteed his throne by Inno
cent, and swore that he had spent sixty thousand livres
at the pope's instigation, and would not now recede
from his enterprise. Neither would he have done so, if
the count of Flanders had not been emboldened to re
fuse serving a king with whom he had a quarrel against
one with whom he was in secret league. This diverted
Philip's wrath, and he turned the whole strength of his
expedition against Flanders. But shortly after the
French fleet had anchored in Swinemiinde, and while
the fighting men of the crews, expecting nothing less
than an enemy, had gone out to plunder, an English
fleet of five hundred ships under William, earl of Salis
bury, the count of Boulogne, and the count of Holland,2
arrived to succour their ally. The work of havoc was
easy. Three hundred ships were cut adrift to be pur
sued and captured afterwards, while a hundred that had
been drawn up high and dry were burned. Philip and
his barons lost all, it is quaintly said, that they had

1 The story in Paris (Hist. Major, submission. Wendover, iii. p. 275,
p. 237,) — almost certainly a fable, as The whole policy of Rome, however,
it only rests on his authority — that was to conciliate the king.
Pandulph trampled the money given 2 Wendover, iii. p. 257. Armori-
him " in arrham subjectionis" under cus and the chronicler of St. Denys
his feet, probably refers to this sum, do not mention the count of Hol-
the first payment of tribute being in land ; but Brito-Armoricus speaks
fact not due till the next Michael- of him soon after the action at Swi-
mas, when the legate came to claim nemiinde as in John's service. Bou-
it, and complete the ceremony of quet, xvii. pp. 238, 239.

John's humiliation. 65
most pleasant in life. The success was a little marred
by the over-confidence of the commanders, who disem
barked their men and horses to pursue the fugitives,
and were themselves driven back with loss as reinforce
ments came up. None the less was Philip compelled
to break up his army and return home foiled, and all
hope of invading England had to be adjourned till an
other navy could be built, or till the aid of native allies
should make the command of the sea less indispensable.
When John heard of the brilliant success his fleet had
achieved, he dismissed the militia of the country, which
was no longer needed to defend its shores, and sum
moned his barons to assist in an expedition against
Poitou, where Savary de Mauleon's defection had lately
shaken the English power.1 But the nobles, dissatisfied
with John's submission, and dreading any increase of his
power, refused to follow him till the sentence of excom
munication was removed. The king was thus forced to
meet Langton and the bishops, and the hope of avoiding
one last humiliation, perhaps of evading full perform
ance of his compact, had to be abandoned. Characteris
tically enough, he now paraded the ostentation of his
disgrace before the kingdom. When the prelates
arrived at Winchester (July 20), John went out to
meet them, grovelled at their feet, and implored them
with tears to have pity on himself and the kingdom.
He swore, as he had promised, to restore to the Church
its rights and its plundered property ; he swore at the
archbishop's bidding to observe the good laws of king
Edward and his predecessors, and to give every man
even-handed justice; ofhis own accord he renewed the

1 See John's letter of Aug. 22, part in the campaign of Flanders.
concerning a reconciliation. Rymer, Philippidos, Bouquet, xvii. p. 234.
vol. i. part i. p. 175. He had taken

66 JOHN'S EXCOMMUNICATION REMOVED.
oath of homage to the pope," the disgusted primate in
vain protesting against the needless dishonour to English
liberty. The sentence of excommunication was then
removed, the magnates, we are told, weeping for joy,
and mass was celebrated. Next day orders were issued
to the sheriffs to hold inquests into the losses sustained
by the clergy. But the king had not yet attained the
object he had at heart. When he reached Portsmouth
to embark he was greeted with loud complaints from
the men-at-arms that they had spent their money while
Avaiting for the king to come, and could not now embark
unless supplied with means for their support from the
royal treasury. John furiously refused. The North
umbrian barons had not even answered the summons,
declaring that by their tenures they were only bound to
do duty on the marches.1 It was evident that the king
would get no service, except on constraint, from English
men. He set sail with his own retinue, apparently
hoping to be followed, but neither shame nor loyalty
could conquer the just spirit of disaffection. The army
melted away, every man to his own home. The king
now determined on revenge, and writing word to his
ally, Raymond of Toulouse, that he had been detained
by contrary winds, set out for the north, resolved
to call the recusants to account. But at Northampton
(August 31) he was visited by the primate, who re
minded him of the oath he had taken to execute justice,
and warned him that if he dared to infringe it by
making war on his peers, without due sentence of law,2
1 Coggeshale, Bouquet, xviii. p. rat). Even then if the baron offered
106. They also put forward the to submit to the judgment of his
plea of exhausted resources. peers, the king had no right to at-
2 The king was bound before tack him. Stephen was justly blamed
making war upon a vassal to give for violating the first principle
him formal notice that he had put in his attempt to surprise the earl
him out ofhis protection (diffidave- of Chester; (Malmesbury, Hist. Nov.,

SYNOD OF CLERGY AT ST. PAUL'S. 67
every man who followed him should be excommuni
cated. John was obliged to submit sulkily to the slow
and unwonted process of summoning his barons to ap
pear and answer before his court.
The primate's audacity was no isolated act or hasty
impulse. In forcing John to swear at Winchester that
he would observe the laws of king Edward, Stephen
Langton had in fact indicated a programme of political
action which he never afterwards lost sight of. One of
his first cares had been to convene a synod of the clergy
in the church of St. Paul's, London1 (August 25), to
assess the damages they had suffered during the inter
dict, and the meeting was attended by many lay lords,
who probably had similar wrongs to redress. In a pri
vate assembly of the more important, the archbishop
produced a copy of the charter granted by Henry I. at
his coronation, which not only confirmed the Saxon
laws, but specially abolished the principal grievances
with which William Rufus had afflicted his barons, and
which of late years had been revived by the Plantage-
nets. Arbitrary taxation, heavy dues of succession,
oppressive fines, and interference with wardships and
marriages, are the principal wrongs enumerated and
annulled in this charter. It may seem incredible that
Stephen Langton should speak of having discovered so
important a document, and announce its contents, as a

p. 740), and the second earl Marshal, claimed, '' per mortem Dei menti-
a little later, renounced his homage to ris, nunquam cor tuum speravit in
Henry III. for breach of the second. Deo nee refloruit caro tup." The
Paris, Hist. Major, pp. 338, 398. offender was instantly seized and
1 The AnnalsofWaverley,p.277, roughly handled, but it does not
give a curious glimpse of the divided seem to have been known, or at
state of public feeling. When the least published, at whose instigation
archbishop gave out his text, "In he spoke. Probably he was some
Deo speravit cor meum et adjutus monk, with royalist tendencies, or
sum et refloruit caro mea," a loud indignant at the promotion of a
voice from the congregation ex- foreigner.

68 CHARTER OF HENRY I.
novelty, to the men whose immediate ancestors, at most
three generations back, were contemporary with the
grant, and whose fathers in Henry II.'s time had
assisted at its confirmation in general terms.1 It is
possible that the primate, who had lived long abroad,
confounded his own ignorance of the English constitu
tion with general oblivion. But it is just intelligible
also that in the interval of terrible anarchy under
Stephen the substance of the charter may have escaped
the remembrance of all but a few clerks in the royal
courts, who had no interest in making its contents pub
lic. Jealous as the Norman barons were of their local
franchises, their conceptions of national right, unless
stimulated by some universal wrong, were apt to be
tardy and imperfect, and they even had a prejudice in
favour of customs2 over a written code, perhaps as
the more elastic of the two, perhaps as the less likely
to be interpolated, which told terribly against re
forms in legislation. The parchment records of their
liberties were disregarded and cast aside till some crisis
like the present occurred, in which evidence of an actual
compact was required against a king who disregarded
mere customs. Anyhow, the reading of the charter was
greeted on this occasion with an applause and joy which
seem to show that all felt it to supply a watch-word
and a want, and the primate and nobles parted, having
exchanged pledges of mutual assistance, prepared for the
present to watch the issue of events.
1 Carta Regis Henrici II. Statutes Vitae Becket, p. 216. He adds very
at Large, vol. i. p. 4. justly that a custom could not over-
2 Thus Matilda, though generally rule a law. In this lay the weakness
supporting Henry IL, disapproved of of a cause which rested on unwritten
the Constitutions of Clarendon, " quod franchises. Compare Bracton, cap.
in scripturam redacta essent," (Epist. i., on the want of written laws and
Becket,346), and Fitz- Stephen makes the prevalence of customs in Eng-
the same point, " scriptae nunquam land.
prius fuerant . . . hae consuetudines."

THE PAPAL LEGATE AND THE PRIMATE. 69
At Michaelmas the new legate, Nicholas, bishop of
Tusculum, arrived. Although Stephen Langton had
slightly mitigated the severity of the interdict, the pope
did not care to remove it till the claims of the clergy
had been satisfied and the vacant sees and benefices
filled up. Before long the legate's conduct gave great
offence to the English clergy. The train of seven horse
men with which he entered the country swelled to
fifty. In the conferences for assessing damages, it was
evident that the pope's envoy leant to the king's side
instead of arbitrating impartially. While the sees were
kept vacant because the king persisted in recommend
ing his favourites,1 and applied for the support of Rome
against the English Church, the legate openly carried
out the royal wishes in nominations to minor pieces of
preferment. The indignant primate first forbade the ap
pointments, and then, finding his authority disregarded,
appealed to Rome. But his envoys were unsuccessful.
Pandulph had just arrived, bringing with him the formal
charter of John's subjection with a golden seal appended ;
and while he exhibited this evidence of royal devotion,
declared that the whole quarrel of the bishops with the
king was a question of money. Innocent skilfully avoided
deciding on his legate's conduct, and contented himself

1 Note i. to Wendover, iii. p. 277. pare Rotuli de Literate, pp. 148, 170),
In the case of Durham, John's nomi- Richard le Poor was consecrated in
nation was confirmed by the Pope Jan. 1215; but the circumstances of
(Fast. Ecc. Ang.) ; in the case of the election are unknown. The ap-
Lichfield, Pandulph is said to have pointment of Simon of Apulia to Ex-
annulled it, and a new candidate eter was nominally royal, but pro-
was chosen. Anglia Sacra, i. p. bably, as an Italian, he was favoured
437. In the case of St. David's by Rome. On the other hand, the
there was a free election, the king nomination of Walter de Gray to
vainly recommending Hugh Fo- Worcester was probably crown pa-
liot. At Chichester, where Godwin tronage. He was the nephew of Ste-
and Sir Harris Nicholas place Nicho- phen Langton's unsuccessful rival.
las de Aquila, from 1209-1215, (com-

70 REMOVAL OF THE INTERDICT.
with issuing a bull, which the representatives of either
side agreed in desiring for the relaxation of the inter
dict. John was absent in Poitou when the joyful news
arrived, but his viceroy, William, earl Marshal, and the
legate lost no time in convening a great council of the
realm in London. Security was there given, to the
primate and exiled bishops, that the forty thousand
marks which had been agreed on as the compensation
due to them should be paid up in full. Then the inter
dict, which had lasted six years, three months, and four
teen days, was solemnly removed, while the church bells
pealed, and the Te Deum was chanted. Amid the
general joy there was a sound of shrill and deep lamen
tation from abbots and priors, knights templar and
hospitaller, clergy and laymen, who had endured insult
and spoliation at the hands of the king's officers during
the quarrel with Rome. It had probably been part
of the papal policy to ignore very much the claims of
these half-hearted brethren, " without infamy and with
out praise," who had done Rome reluctant service,
though they had not dared to disobey. The legate,
however, dismissed them with fair words. He himself
had been bound not to exceed the apostolical mandate,
which made no mention of their claims, but he coun
selled them to apply to Rome and demand full justice.
The answer was sufficient, and they went sadly to their
homes, giving up all hope of redress. No further notice
Avas ever taken of their claims. John had, indeed, pur
chased his release cheaply in buying the spoils of the
Church for five years, at the price of forty thousand
marks, with perhaps a bribe to the legate, a light tribute,
and inappreciable infamy.

71

Chapter III.
MAGNA CHARTA.
Campaign in France Battle of Bouvines. Peace with France.
Confederacy of Barons. Beginnings of Civil War. Runnimede.
General and Special Provisions of Magna Charta. Its Con
stitutional Importance.
JOHN'S campaign in the south of France opened
brilliantly. As soon as he arrived at Rochelle, the
barons of Poitou, by this time weary of their stern native
master, flocked to his standard. Within a week after he
had crossed the borders, he had stormed the castle of
Miravent and reduced Geoffrey of Lezinan to extre
mities in his other fortress of Novent. The count of
Marche now interposed, cast the old feud into oblivion,
and concluded a treaty of alliance with the English king,
by which John's daughter, Jane, was to marry the son
of her mother's old lover. Backed now by the whole
power of the south-west, and triumphantly calling the
English baronage to bis standard, John crossed the
Loire, attempted Nantes unsuccessfully, and then,
having captured Angers, sat down before Roche-aux-
Moines. But, while the courage of the garrison, who
defied the threat to give no quarter, detained him,
Louis, who had at first been unable to meet the English
in the field, succeeded in collecting an army and ad
vanced to raise the siege. John, at first, misinformed
of the numbers of the enemy, prepared to meet them

72 PERILOUS POSITION OF FRANCE.
in the field. But the barons of Poitou, already sick of
their new service, or having only joined it for the sake
of plunder, declared that they were in no condition to
fight a pitched battle ; and John, unnerved by the fear
of treachery, retreated in confusion across the Loire.
Curiously enough, Louis had already renounced the
idea of an engagement as impracticable, and had
marched some miles away from the flying enemy, when
he learnt the true position of affairs in time to come up
with the rear-guard and cut a portion of it to pieces1
(July 3). John still lingered in Poitou; but the tide
of success had turned, and the rout of his ally at Bou-
vines made it impossible for the English king to think
of anything but peace and the ransom of his allies.
.While John, however ingloriously, had occupied a
French army in the west, his nephew Otho, at the head
of the forces of the empire, strengthened by all the
Flemish nobles and by a large contingent in the
English pay, under William, earl of Salisbury,2 had
crossed the frontiers of France and reduced Tournai.
Formidable as his attack would have been at any time,
it was doubly dangerous at this moment, from the dis
affection of the French nobles to their king ; so that not
only the counts of Flanders and Boulogne were in open
revolt, but many of less name were prepared to desert.
Nothing less, indeed, than the destruction ofthe French

1 Armoricus represents Louis as had obtained any signal success, es-
diivingjohn in disorder across the pecially as his army was a strong one
Loire. Bouquet, xvii. 93. But Ar- — 2000 horse and 7000 men-at-arms.
moricus was not present. Wendover Philippidos, Bouquet, xvii. p. 245.
mentions no action at all; and allow- 2 Brito- Armoricus says that the
ing for English reticence concerning earl of Salisbury commanded 30,000
a defeat, we must also allow for an English. Bouquet, xvii. p. 249. But
inclination on the French side to the estimate seems excessive, and
exaggerate it. It seems improbable the nationality of the contingent
that Louis would have wasted his more than doubtful. See p. 74.
time in reducing small forts if he

BATTLE -OF BOUVINES. 73
monarchy was contemplated, and France reduced,
in imagination, to the condition of a province of the
empire, was already divided, on paper, among Otho's
captains, Paris being the destined lot of Ferrand, count
of Flanders, while the Vermandois was assigned to
Reginald of Boulogne. Philip met the emergency
with the whole strength of his kingdom, except the
little army under his son, and the communes whom it
had been his policy to encourage did good service, and
even furnished a mounted militia. But the king per
haps owed most to the faulty generalship of his enemy,
who allowed him to cross the little bridge of Bouvines
unopposed and draw up his whole army on the plain
facing his foe. Yet Philip's own strategy in destroying
the bridge, which was his one road in defeat, although
justified by the event, has a certain unsoldierly impress
of desperation. The battle itself seems to have been a
mere meUe, in which the day was decided by sheer
hard fighting. The right wing of the French first
drove back the Flemings opposed to them, the count of
Flanders being himself captured; the French centre,
thus reinforced after three hours doubtful fighting, and
further strengthened by a reserve of communal militias,
which came up opportunely, overwhelmed the German
centre under Otho ; and the English on the right, who
maintained their ground longest, were at last driven
back by a charge of the fighting bishop of Beauvais,
who smote their leader, William of Salisbury, to the
ground with his own hands and with his canonical
weapon — the mace. Both the sovereigns commanding
had been in personal danger. Philip had been dis
mounted, it is said, by the count of Boulogne, and owed
his life only to the loyalty of a few squires who fought
over his body. Otho had three horses killed under him.
Almost every great lord or bishop had some hair-

74 DEFEAT OF THE ALLIES.
breadth escape of the same kind. Yet so far were the
arts of defence superior in those days to the weapons of
attack, that, even when a seigneur was dismounted and
in the hands of his enemies, it was no easy matter for
them to kill him; and the count of Boulogne actually
escaped with his life in this way, because no crevice
could be found in his armour in which a dagger could
be inserted. Meaner men were, of course, easier vic
tims. Yet, except in the case of seven hundred Bra-
bangons, who remained fighting on the field and were
cut to pieces, there does not seem to have been any
great slaughter; and one French lord, who had done
his duty in the thick of the fight, had only one soldier
seriously wounded out of two thousand and fifty whom
he took into the field. The results in prisoners were
more important, the heavy-armed cavaliers being, of
course, proportionately unfit for flight. A hundred
and sixty-five prisoners of noble rank are enumerated
by Philip's chaplain as taken in the battle, and a few
were captured afterwards, as the pursuit was followed
up. Among all, only three names occur which can
be identified with any certainty as English,1 and it is
probable, therefore, that John's contingent was chiefly
composed of mercenaries or of the retainers of the
count of Boulogne, who was now an English vassal.
Yet the importance of the battle of Bouvines for Eng
land and Europe can hardly be over-estimated. It
consummated the separation of France and Germany
which had first been established at Fontenoy, and gave

1 The earl of Salisbury and his xvii. p. 101. Anselm de Riparia,
brother, Raoul Bigot, and, perhaps, (Rivers) is, however, mentioned in
Hugo deBellolio(Balliol?) mentioned the Patent Rolls, p. 127, as a pri-
as an English subject. Rot. Litt. soner in the king of France's cus-
Pat., p. 135. Armoricus, Bouquet, tody a few months later.

TREATY OF PEACE. 75
the weight of prestige to the Latinized nationality. It
was the triumph of monarchy — tending to a centralized
government in Paris — over feudalism and provincial
rights. Lastly, it destroyed John's troops and ruined
his reviving authority at a moment when it was most
important for England that her tyrant should be weak.
His superstition for once took a healthy turn when he
exclaimed that nothing had gone right with him since
he had become the vassal of the Church. It would be
indeed curious to speculate what the state of Europe
might now be if the real power of England under a
popular monarch had been thrown into the balance
against France at the battle of Bouvines.
The news of their sovereign's success quickly brought
back the Poitevin barons to their allegiance. Philip,
however, was not contented with mere promises of sub
mission. He marched an army into the province, and
the news of his arrival at once induced the viscount
of Thouars, the most eminent of the rebels, to procure a
formal reconciliation. Yet the terms that Philip granted
to John are so ample, considering the contracting par
ties ahd the issue of the late battles, as to show that the
power of England was still formidable, and perhaps,
also, that Philip was unnerved by the discovery of his
subjects' disaffection. A truce for five years was con
cluded on the basis ofthe status quo to both contracting
parties, and a commission was appointed to enforce the
conditions of the treaty. Politically, the arrangement
was most beneficial to the French, who were certain
to gain by any interval of quiet that restrained the
English from resuming their unnatural dominion in a
foreign country. But diplomatically, the English king
had for the first time treated on equal terms with one
who was now the most powerful sovereign in Europe.

76 JOHN OPPOSED BY THE BARONS.
It must be added, to John's credit, that he showed an
honourable desire to support his allies. His Poitevin
adherents, who had not deserved very well of him, were
considered in the treaty, and he refused for a time
to redeem his brother and stanchest adherent the
earl of Salisbury, because it was believed that, if he
exchanged the count of Dreux for him, Philip, unde
terred by any fear of reprisals, would at once put the
counts of Flanders and Boulogne to death.1 Unhappily,
John was less rigid when the claims of the Church came
to be urged against his late supporter, count Raymond
of Toulouse ; and one of his first official acts, after his
return to England (November 4), was to issue a
persecuting edict against the Albigenses of Gascony
(November 22).
Although John had been able to keep an army and
a contingent in the field, many of his barons had
remained behind in England, and those of the north
especially had again put forward their plea of exemption
from all service except on the marches. As it was
certain from the first that the king would try on his
return to revenge himself, and as the government of
Peter des Roches, bishop of Winchester, Avho had
succeeded Geoffrey Fitz-Petre as justiciary, was found
intolerably oppressive, the nobles resolved on resistance,
and within a few days after John had landed and begun
to levy scutage on all who had neglected to follow him,
a meeting of nobles was held at Bury St. Edmund's,
under pretext of celebrating the saint's festival (Nov.

1 New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 191. Boulogneinparticularbeingsoshack-
The report of Philip's intentions led that he literally could not move
derives some confirmation from the a step. Armoricus, Bouquet, xvii.
rigorous imprisonment to which both p. 100.
counts were subjected ; the count of

THEIR MEETING AT BURY ST. EDMUND'S. 77
20).1 The charter of Henry I. and the laws of Edward
the Confessor were read aloud, and the barons swore,
one by one, on the high altar, to demand the observance
of these liberties from the king, and to constrain him
by arms and withdrawal of fealty if he refused a peace
able consent. As men, however, who knew the risk
of their enterprise, at a time when every fortress in
England was garrisoned by royal mercenaries, they
ao-reed to collect men and arms, and to meet after the
approaching Christmas and urge their petition with an
army at their back. The precaution was the more
necessary, as John, vaguely sensible that there was
thunder in the air, and alarmed by the recall of his
partisan, the legate, tried to detach the clergy from the
national cause by granting them absolute liberty of
election. This remarkable charter was issued the very
day after the barons' meeting at Bury St. Edmund's,
and it reflects the highest credit on Stephen Langton
and his followers that the enormous bribe to their
feelings as churchmen, backed, as it was, in many
cases, by restitution of honour and estates, failed to
make them forget that they were citizens.2 To the
barons, of course, the new charter was of no interest,

1 The date ofthe day is conjectural Hoveden says, "eis (sc. episcopis)
from the saint's feast. Wendover super omnibus damnis et injurus
only says, " sub eidem tempestate," satisfecit, aliis pecuniam, aliis hber-
vol iii p 293. tates et honores, aliis manena m re-
2 The date of this charter is Nov. compensationem largiens," Bouquet,
21, or the day after the barons' xviii. p. 173. The Patent Rolls for
meeting, and the fact that Stephen Nov. 22 record a grant to Simon
Langton does not appear as witness Langton, two grants to the bishop
to it rather confirms the report that of Ely, a promise of reparation to
he received tbe barons' oath at Bury the b.shop of London and a grant
St. Edmund's. Statutes at Large, of the patronage of the see of
vol i p 5. Concerning John's Rochester to Stephen Langton and
anxiety to be reconciled to the his successors.
Church, the continuator of Roger

78 DEMANDS OF THE BARONS.
except as an item in John's degradation and a declara
tion of war against themselves. Accordingly, as soon
as John came from Worcester, where he had held his
Christmas court, to London, the confederates, in un
wonted military array, waited upon him, and claimed
that he should perform the oath which he had sworn at
Stephen Langton's bidding in Winchester, and confirm
the constitution defined by the charter of Henry I. The
king feared to refuse compliance with the demand of
armed men, ready for action, and begged for time, that
he might think the matter over and give his answer at
Easter. The barons reluctantly consented, their cause
being as yet espoused only by about half of the nobility,
and the primate, the bishop of Ely, and the earl Marshal
were persuaded to become sponsors for the king's good
faith. The pledge was a perilous one, for John medi
tated nothing less than observance of his word. He
was singularly destitute of counsellors and supporters,
for the legate had left the country in disgrace for
maladministration, and Geoffrey Fitz-Petre and the
bishop of Norwich were dead; but he took instant
steps to procure the release of the earl of Salisbury,1
abstained for a time from any gross act of oppression,
and sent commissioners to the different counties to
explain his quarrel with the lords,2 and enforce new
oaths of homage on the free tenants. But he counted
too much, in a time of popular excitement, on the silent
unceasing feuds between gentry and baronage. Men
generally refused to take the oath with the new clause
inserted, that they would support the king against

1 Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 128. exponenda vobis negotia nostra, &c.
2 " Rex comitibus, &c. de comitatu Teste me ipso x°. die Feb." Similar
Hertford. Mittimus ad vos dilectos et writs were issued for other counties.
fideles Walterum de ,Lacy, &c, ad Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 128.

THE POPE SIDES WITH THE KING. 79
" the now talked-of charter,"1 and John was obliged to
desist from the attempt. He had thought of bringing
over troops from Poitou, but the tidings of general dis
affection alarmed him, and he hastily recalled his
orders.2 Nothing now remained but to claim the
protection of the Church, and hold his castles till the
barons were wearied out, or till a royal party arose.
That no precaution might be omitted he assumed the
white cross, in the hope of investing himself with the
inviolable character of a crusader. But his chief trust
was in Innocent. The pope had been applied to by
Eustace de Vesci, as the barons' agent, in the preceding
autumn, and had sternly admonished them not to dis
turb the course of royal justice. The cruel irony fell
upon deaf ears. Both parties now sent commissioners
to Rome, and Innocent unhesitatingly supported his
vassal. He blamed the barons, who demanded, sword
in hand, the rights they ought to have, prayed humbly
and devoutly of " our dearest son in Christ, the illus
trious king John," and he blamed the bishops who had
sympathized with the barons. But the apostolical
counsels reached England3 when the whole nation was
in revolt.
By Easter the party of reform, numbering four earls
and forty great barons, had assembled a large and well-
appointed army. They halted at Brackley, in North
amptonshire, to receive the primate and earl Marshal,
who came as royal commissioners to learn their demands.
1 ¦ " Contra chartam jam dictam." there is no historical record of any
Contin. Rog. Hoveden, Bouquet, negotiations for a compromise at this
xviii. p. 173. time.
2 The writs annulling the sum- 3 Innocent's letters are dated
mons state that the business for March 18. New Rymer, vol. i. part
which they were called over was ter- i.pp. 196, 197. They would naturally
minated. Rot. Litt. Pat., 130. But reach England in about six weeks.

80 ENTRY OF THE BARONS INTO LONDON.
When these were reported to John, who was then^at
Oxford, he asked, with a bitter laugh, why the barons did
not at once ask for the kingdom, and swore that he would
never yield liberties which would leave himself in the
position of a slave. As soon as his answer was known,
the barons declared Robert Fitz-Walter " Marshal of
the Army of God and of Holy Church," and proceeded
to invest Northampton. But, wanting all engines of
war, they could effect nothing, and accordingly marched
on London, receiving admittance, by the way, into Bed
ford from the governor, William Beauchamp. London
was opened to their advance-guard by a friendly party
among the citizens (May 24), and the royal troops were
easily overpowered, though the garrison of the Tower
held out to the last. The soldiers of the Church filled
their purses with the spoil of royal partisans and of the
Jews, who always suffered in time of civil commotion,
and who saw the very stones of their houses taken
away to strengthen the city walls.1 The metropolis
became the centre of operations ; but the whole country
was in rebellion. Alexander of Scotland and Llew
ellyn of Wales were said to favour the revolt, and it
often happened that where the father was royalist the
son was in the camp of the insurgents. Presently one
party seized Exeter, another Lincoln, and a riot took
place in the streets of Northampton, in which many of
the king's garrison were slain, the remainder retaliating
by burning part of the town. As always happened in
civil wars, the royal parks and forests were among the
first objects of attack. John had tried in vain to induce
the primate to excommunicate the rebels, and the letters
of Innocent were mere waste paper. In his extremity
1 Coggeshall, Bouquet, xvii. p. 107.

MAGNA CHARTA. 81
the king reverted to his favourite expedient, and called
over his mercenaries from Poitou and other parts.1
The unpopular act probably contributed to detach the
remainder of his adherents, and he found himself by
the beginning of June with scarcely seven horsemen in
his train. Even the bishops, who were nominally on
his side, except the deeply injured Giles de Braose of
Hereford, were of doubtful loyalty, and the earl Mar
shal himself had a son, his eldest, among the insur
gents.2 In this extremity, fearing to be overpowered,
and dreading the arrival of the northern barons, who
were known to be on their way, and who were his
bitterest foes, John consented to a conference between
Staines and Windsor. The army of the barons en
camped on the broad plain of Runnimede, on the
southern bank; the royal forces were on the north,
and negotiations were carried on in an island. John
came prepared to concede everything, and the great
charter was agreed to and received the royal seal in a
day. Probably the king's warmest adherents were not
greatly averse to its stipulations.
PC The Charter opened with the customary declaration
that the Church was to have her rights and liberties
inviolate, and with a protest that the late grant of free
elections should be so maintained as to show that the
king had granted it of his own free will. The re
maining articles turn mainly on the rights of person
and property — the first as affected by John's perversion
1 See the writs concerning Savary ciumsuum." Rot. Litt. Pat, pp. 135,
de Mauleon and his Poitevins, May 11; 137.
the safe conduct to Henry of BallioL 2 William Marshal. Curiously
a foreign subject, to come with arms enough the earl's nephew, John Mar-
and horses, May 12; and the writ shal, remained faithful to the king.
of May 20, " Rex omnibus illis qui Wendover, iii. p. 302 ; Thomson's
venturi sunt in Angliam in servi- Magna Charta, p. 289.

82

ARTICLES OF

of justice, the second by his irregular taxation.^ The
thirty-ninth article, that " no freeman shall be seized or
imprisoned, or dispossessed, or outlawed, or in any way
brought to ruin ; we will not go against any man, nor
send against him, except by legal judgment of his
peers, or by the law of the land,'" is a broad statement
of personal liberty against the servile doctrine which
lawyers were then importing from Roman codes, that
"the precepts of the king were the bonds of law."'
The next article, " we will sell,3 we will deny, we will
delay to no man justice or right," contains the principle
of the Habeas Corpus Act, which is practically guaran
teed by the thirty-sixth — that the writ of inquisition of
life or limb was to be given without charge, and not
denied.4 But as the abuses of practice were almost as

1 Compare Henry L's charter,
" Legem Edwardi regis vobis reddo
cum illis emendationibus quibus pa
ter meus illam emendavit consilio
baronum suorum," and Stephen's,
" Pacem et justitiam me in omnibus
facturum et pro posse meo observa-
turum eis promitto." Statutes at
Large, vol. i. pp. 2, 3.
2 " Praecepta regis sunt nobis vin-
cula legis." Piers Plowman, vol. i.
p. 9. The quotation is probably not
much older than the poem ; but it is
only another form of Bracton's law :
" Nemo quidem de factis suis (sc.
regis) praesumat disputare, multo
fortius contra factum venire." It is
true Bracton's theory was that the
king ought to be at harmony with
the law. But John had advisers of
another kind : Master Alexander
Caementarius told him that he was
appointed by God to bind his nobles
in chains, and his princes in links of
iron. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 230.
John of Salisbury (Polycrat., iv.

c. i.) says much the same, though
with practical abatements ; cf. cap. 7.
The precedent for all this- servility
is to be fouud in Ulpian's famous
dictum, " quod principi placuit legis
habet vigorem."
3 The brief of inquisition was to
see whether persons accused on a
charge for which bail could not be
taken had been accused on good
grounds or maliciously. Bracton,
fol. 122. It is, of course, anterior to
Magna Charta, which only provides
that it shall be issued at once and
gratis. 4 The venality of judges was an
early abuse. " Plebiscite continetur
ne quis praesidum munus donumve
caperet nisi esculentum poculen-
tumve." Joan. Sarisb., Polycrat., v.
15. The fines frequently mentioned
as a part of legal proceedings were
not necessarily or perhaps commonly
bribes. They are said, however, to
have decreased after this enactment.
Madox's Exchequer, vol. i. p. 455.

MAGNA CHARTA. §3
flagrant as those of theory, separate Articles provided
that the great Court of Common Pleas was to be held
in a fixed place, and no longer -to follow the royal pro
gresses (17)— that judges of assize were to make re
gular circuits four times a year (19), and to be assisted
by four knights (18) of the county visited at their
sessions1— that the justiciaries were to be chosen from
among men well versed in law2 (45)— that royal officers,
such as sheriffs and coroners, were not to hold pleas
(24),— and that royal bailiffs were not to bring men to
trial at their own pleasure without credible witnesses3
(38). The germ of the great principle, that the ad
ministration of justice is independent of the political
administration of the county, is to be seen in all these
provisions. Important practical additions were the
enactments that the penalties of law were to be assessed
by the delinquent's peers, and were not to affect his
means of livelihood4 (20-22),— regulations which re
asserted the principle first affirmed by William the
Conqueror, that correction not vengeance was the ob-

This enactment differed from the famatur aut certus apparet accusator
regulation of the Council of North- aut non. Si nullus appareat certus
ampton in multiplying the number accusator sed fama solummodo pub-
of assizes, and in adding a popular lica accusat, tunc ab initio salvo accu-
element to the royal commissioners. satus attachiabitur vel per plegios
Moreover, in 1179, Henry II. had idoneos, vel per carceris inclusio-
replaced the circuits by a central nem." Glanville, lib. xiv. cap. 1.
court ; and when this was given up, i Compare Dial, de Scac, ii. 14,
two years later, the country was di- where it is said, that in a distraint
vided into districts under permanent by the crown, enough food must be
commissions. Benedictus Abbas., ii. left to satisfy the wants of the debtor
p. 266. Hoveden, pp. 337, 338. and his family. Similarly, the mili-
3 John of Salisbury speaks of the tary tenant's arms and horse were to
ignorance frequently found among be left him. The author adds, how-
the judges of his day. Polycrat., v. ever, that he had known this rule
11. violated in former years, probably
3 " Cum quis itaque de morte re- before Henry II.'s accession.
gis vel seditione regni vel exercitus in-

84 ARTICLES OF
ject of punishment. In immediate importance these
reforms in the judicial system, affecting as they did the
morality and the self-respect of the whole country,
perhaps deserve to rank first among the benefits which
the Charter conferred. But to Englishmen all other
interests are overpowered by the transcendent constitu
tional results of the articles limiting the king's power
to tax. Hitherto there had been a vague principle,
that the sovereign ought to follow the advice of the
curia, and had no right to demand his subjects' money,
except in emergencies or at intervals of unfrequent
occurrence. It was now declared in express terms that
the crown had no right to any taxes, except three
reasonable or moderate aids when the king was in cap
tivity, when his eldest son was knighted, or when his
eldest daughter was married (15). Purveyance and
impressments by bailiffs of cattle or timber were
abolished1 (23, 30, 31); the royal rents of districts and
towns, as distinguished from estates, were not to be
increased2 (13, 25); and scutage for castle-guard was

\ l Anything so monstrous as a ge- annual value of the hyde being then
neral right of taxing had never been about 20*. (Morgan's England un
claimed by any English monarch, der the Normans, pp. 42, 43). Un-
But the feudal system gave many der Edward I. a reasonable aid was
opportunities for vexatious fines, as defined to be 20s. the fee, (3rd of
John had shown in his late levying Edward I., c. 36), the value of the
of scutage ; and William Rufus in his knight's fee capitalized being in that
sale of licences for marriage, and century 400 marks. Modus Tenendi
other abuses. Carta Henrici Imi. Pari., p. 7. This did not affect the
A. S. Laws, i. p. 499. Again, a ra- king's right of support in royal pro-
pacious king might revive an old tax, gresses, which was affirmed as late
as Henry I. is said to have done with as 13 Charles II. c. i. (1661). But
Danegeld. Madox's Exchequer, i. first his messengers and envoys,
p. 685. An aid for a king's ransom gradually the royal bailiffs and in-
must of course be of uncertain ferior officers, had come to claim the
amount. When Henry l.'s daughter right of taking food and timber,* and
was married, he raised an aid of 3*. impressing horses at a fixed rate.
the hyde (Hen. Hunt.), p. 218 ; the 2 This refers to the practice of

MAGNA CHARTA. 85
not to be demanded from any man who proffered per
sonal service1 (29). The . succession duties were fixed
at an invariable rate2 (2). The service of knights'
fees was not to be increased (16). Every precaution
to assure the individual having thus been taken, the
question of a general taxation remained to be grappled
with. The most usual form of this was scutage, as
the king had an undoubted right to demand his sub
jects' service in'war; and, practically, many thousands
would always be forced to commute in money for at
tendance. Apart from the grievance of this it was no
slight evil that a king like John supplied their places
with foreign mercenaries. Moreover, the assessment of
this due was always more or less arbitrary, as circum
stances had to be taken into account.8 It was there
fore now enacted that the prelates, abbots, earls, and
great barons should henceforth be summoned indi
vidually, and the other tenants-in-chief by a more
general form, at least forty days before the day of
farming out cities and counties to ward II. we find Thomas deFurnivall
corporations or individuals who re- claiming not to be a baron, that he
paid themselves out of the fines and might avoid the dues. Report on the
tolls. Dignity of a Peer, iii. p. 235. It is a
1 This only related to ser vice with- little curious that the reliefs for an
in the realm. earldom and a barony should be the
2 They had already been fixed at same. The fourth charter of Henry
certain dues in armour and horses III. reads 100 marks instead of £100
by William the Conqueror ; (Leges, for a barony ; and in the Modus
i. 20; A. S. Laws, i. p. 475) ; and he Tenendi Pari., p. 7, the ratio of a
had also fixed the knight's commuta- barony to an earldom is estimated
tion at 100s., but had specified no- at 13J- to 20, or as a mark to a,
thing about earldoms and baronies, pound.
probably because they were of un- 3 E.g. the Prior of Coventry was
certain value. It would seem that assessed at £10 for ten knights' fees
they had been disproportionally tax- in the 8th and 9th of Richard I. ; at
ed in consequence. The effect of 20 marks in the 1st and 3rd of John ;
this regulation was to make more rigid at 15 marks in the 15th of John ; and
the line already drawn between the at £5 in the 5th of Henry III.
greater and less nobility. Under Ed- Madox's Exchequer, i. pp. 637-639.

86 ARTICLES OF
meeting, to assess any extraordinary aids in common
council.1 The representative theory was guarded by
the provision that the council's proceedings should be
valid, in spite of the absence of any of its members (14).
Parliament was thus established, without the local divi
sions of the French estates, or the anarchical rights of a
minority in a Polish diet. An admirable provision ex
tended the rights that had been guaranteed to the lords
to the lords' vassals, who were only to pay regular
aids in future to their seigneurs (15).2 A few minor
provisions completed the legislation on the rights of
property. Among these the stipulations that debts
owed to Jews were not to accrue during minorities, or
to affect the widow's dower (10, 11), must be con
strued as provisions against the crown, which collected
Jews' debts. The first provision seems unjust ; but it
must be remembered that the crown was the guardian
of minors, and derived a large benefit from wardships,
which two articles in the Charter (4, 5), endeavoured
to reduce within reasonable limits. At a time when
the rate of interest constantly exceeded fifty per cent.
an estate farmed by royal officers would soon be swal
lowed up by even a moderate mortgage. In cases of
debt to the crown, the realty was not to be distrained

1 This representation fell below sheriffs should send to Oxford four
that of former years. At the coun- approved knights from each county,
cii of Winchester (1141) deputies m order to consider with us the
from the Londoners were present, affairs of our kingdom." Parry's
"quasi optimates." (Malmesbury, Parliaments, pp.22, 23. New Rymer,
Hist. Nov., p. 747). Again, the citi- vol. i. part i. p. 117.
zens of London took part, in folk 2 Accordingly, in 1258, Richard,
mote, in the deliberations of the king of the Romans, was obliged to
council for deposing Longchamps, obtain special leave to tallage his
Oct. 1191. Hoveden, p. 401. Pal- burghs and manors, the reason as-
grave's Rot. Cur. Regis, i. p. 58. signed being that he was incurring
" In November, 1213, John convoked expenses to the honour and profit of
a general assembly at Oxford," and the realm. New Rymer, vol. i. part
" ordered" (Nov. 15, 1213) "that the i. p. 377 ; cf. p. 391.

MAGNA CHARTA. 87
on where the personalty was sufficient to answer all
claims1 (9). On the other hand, the crown was to
have the first lien on all personal property (26).
There remain a few cases in which grievances affecting
the dignity and feudal rights of the barons were re
dressed. The provision that widows were not to be
distrained to marry while they were willing to live
single, points to an odious and common abuse of power
by our early kings;2 only six months later, John, in
violation of his pledge, gave the dowager countess of
Albemarle in marriage to a worthless and ferocious
adventurer, Faukes de Breaute. On the other hand,
widows were not to marry again Avithout the consent
of their seigneur, were he king or lord3 (8). Similarly,
heirs were to be married without disparagement to their
rank, and their lands were to be properly cared for
during the crown's guardianship4 (4, 5). In cases
where sub-tenants had been convicted of felony, the
crown was not to keep their lands in its hands more
than a year and a day5 (32). In cases where lands
escheated to the crown, so as to become part of the de
mesne, the heirs of the sub-tenants were to pay no

1 " Debitorum . . . catalla quae li- ... Et terrae et liberorum custos
cite venduntur sunt eorum mobilia erit sive uxor sive alius propinquo-
ac sese moventia." Dial, de Scac, ii. rum, qui Justus esse debebit." Carta
14. Henrici Irai., s. 3, 4.
2 It had been provided against by 5 Thomson says that this provision
a law of Canute, " And let no man exists also in the French and Danish
compel either woman or maiden to laws ; the custom being that the
him whom she herself mislikes." A. S. felon's property was destroyed, and
Laws, vol. i. p. 417, confirmed by the waste belonging to the king for
Henry I., Carta, s. 3. the term specified. Essay on Magna
3 " Et si quis baronum vel homi- Charta, p. 213. Curiously enough,
num meorum filiam suam nubitum the Book of Feuds states, lib. ii. tit.
tradere voluerit sive sororem sive 47, that by the better opinion the
nepotem sive cognatam mecum inde lord lost his fief by all felony of his
loquatur." Carta Henrici Imi., s. 3. vassals. But by Anglo-Saxon cus-
4 " Et si filia haeres remanserit il- torn, (Cod. Dip., 328,) the lord re-
lam dabo consilio baronum meorum. covered his land.

88 ARTICLES OF
other reliefs than they would have paid to their original
lords1 (43). Wardships were to follow the major te
nure, so that a lord was not to be deprived of his
guardianship over a military tenant because the ward
held by socage tenure of the crown (37). The writ,
" praecipe in capite," by which tenants had been wont to
transfer themselves from the service of some lord to
the king's, was to be abolished2 (34); a provision of
some importance, as the crown under an able adminis
trator might easily have attracted half the kingdom
into its service. Lastly, in the vacancies of abbeys
their guardianship was to rest with the families of their
founders (46).
Scattered here and there through the Charter are
isolated provisions of great importance. It is difficult
to understand why women were restricted from ap
pealing for the death of any other man than a husband
(54), unless we can assume that they had often been
used as tools in vexatious prosecutions.3 The article
1 The distinction of demesne land, lands of some other lord besides the
" dominium regis," from escheated king, and trying to deprive that lord
land held " in dominio," was ascertain- of his jurisdiction.
ed by reference to Domesday book, 3 The difficulty of understanding
which showed whether the land was this enactment is a little diminished
classed as Terra Regis, or under a if we regard it as part of the general
private name, in the Conqueror's tendency derived from the analogies
time. If the latter, the tenants had of Roman law (patria potestas), to
also a right to be assessed for tallages treat women as increasingly under
in common with the men of the the tutorship of a husband or a father,
county. Madox, Firma Burgi, p. 5. thus modifying, though not directly
2 ''Also,whenoneoftheking'sim- contradicting, earlier practice, by
mediate tenants, in capite, is deforced, which even a wife could possess and
his writ of right is called a writ of transfer property by ber own single
'praecipe in capite,' the improper act during the husband's lifetime ; a
use of which so as to oust the lord power which certainly seems to im-
of his jurisdiction is restrained by ply separate accountability to the law.
MagnaCarta" Blackstone, book iii. (Codex Dip., i. p. ex.) Still it is
chap. 10. p. 220. The case seems to difficult to understand in the cases
be that of a tenant-in-chief holding of an unmarried orphan daughter, of

MAGNA CHARTA.

89

guaranteeing free trade and passage through the country
to foreign merchants,1 with the reserve of ancient and
right customs, and without liability to damage in time
of war, except for reprisals (41), indicates the great
extension our commerce was taking; and the next ar
ticle (42), in even -wider terms, gives a general liberty
of leaving the kingdom, except " in time of war, for
some short space," which we may quote as a signal
protest against the passport system. The enactment
that there shall be uniform weights and measures
throughout the kingdom2 (35) was so much in advance
of possibilities that it has never yet been carried out.
The provision for removing all wears in rivers was an
assertion of general utility against individual profit3 (33).

a widow, or of a mistress, how, in the
absence of a public prosecutor, they
could obtain justice for the death of
a brother or a son. Perhaps the
suzerain, king or noble, was bound
to take up the case. A case quoted
by Kelham (Britton, iv. 7, note 9)
proves apparently that the country
might do it.
1 Hitherto merchants, wishing to
avoid the operation of the frank
pledge system, (see vol. i. p. 572,)
had applied for special protection,
" Rex omnibus ballivis et fideli-
bus suis, etc. Sciatis quod susce-
pimus in protectionem nostram et
salvum conduGtum nostrum Johan-
nem Wika de Duway et Jacob de
Duway cum navi sua, et omnibus
catallis et mercandisis suis a festo
Scli. Michaelis, anno i. n. 17, us
que in unum annum sequentem fa-
ciendo inde rectas et debitas consue-
tudines." (April 14th, 1215). Rot.
Litt. Pat., p. 133. After this pro
vision in Magna Charta, which was
probably in the interest of consumers

against retailers, John issued a writ,
Sept. 13th, (Rot. Litt. Pat., 155), an
nouncing to the king of France that
all his subjects might traverse Eng
land freely. The article, however,
must be understood as giving right
of passage, not right of free trade in
the modern sense, which was limited
by numerous restrictions. Cf. Leges
Edv. Conf., Libertas Civitatum, viii.
ix. ; A. S. Laws, i. pp. 463, 464.
Three years later we find the first
corn-law provision, in a writ to the
sheriff of Waterford, to prevent Ge
rard of Camville and other barons
from importing Irish corn into Eng
land, " ad emendacionem regni nostri
Angliae." Rot. Litt. Claus., p. 359.
2 It was, however, no new enact
ment. Leges Edgar, ii. 8 ; Leges
Gul. Conq., iii. 7 ; A. S. Laws, vol.
i. pp. 269, 271, 491 ; and under
Richard I., Hoveden, p. 441.
3 It is perhaps doubtful whether
these kidels werepurprestures : Glan-
ville, lib. ix. cap. 11, "dicitur pur-
prestura ... in aquis publicis obstruc-

90 ARTICLES OF
The obnoxious forest laws were to be the subject of a
separate charter. But Magna Charta restricted their
operation to parties living within the forest boundaries
(44), and provided for their reform (47, 48, 53). The
towns had always been favoured by John as his natural
bulwark against the nobility,1 and had latterly deserved
well of the lords. It was ordered that they should not
be distrained in future to build any new bridges or
embankments (23), and generally, their liberties and
free customs were confirmed — the city of London being
mentioned with special honour (13).
It remained only to remedy actual disorders. All
hostages and charters that had lately been taken into
the king's custody, as guarantees for his subjects' loy
alty, were to be given back in England, Scotland, and
Wales (49, 58, 59). All foreign mercenaries were to
be sent out of the kingdom ; and the relations of Gerard
of Athy, whose ignoble parentage2 had perhaps made
them specially odious, were to be removed from their
bailiwicks (50, 51). In all cases where subjects, Eng
lish or Welsh, had been dispossessed or fined unjustly
in the last two reigns, or in the present, immediate re
stitution was to be made to them ; or, if there were any
controversy, it was to be decided by the verdict of the
twenty-five barons who were appointed guardians of

tio," where the question seems rather Caen, Domfront, and Falaise. (Ma-
to be of right of transit. But Richard dox's Exchequer, i. pp. 524, 525).
I. had directed them to be removed In 1 1 92 he had granted one to Dub-
from the Thames and Medway, 1197, lin, (Moore's Irelaud, iii. p. 7), and
(Thomson's Magna Charta, p. 214), in 1199 he gave one to London,
and John had confirmed this regula- (Liber Custuinarum, p. 249), allow-
tion at his accession. Maitland's ing them to elect their own sheriffs.
London, i. 73-75 ; Liber Abbas., pp. 2 He was " servus et a servis ori-
131-133. undus utroque parente." Philippi-
1 Thus, in 1203, he gave charters dos, Bouquet, xvii. p. 217.
of corporation during pleasure to

MAGNA CHARTA. 91
the Charter. The only exception allowed was in the
case of wrongs committed by John since he had assumed
the white cross, for which the usual respite allowed to
crusaders, the term of their expedition, was to be
granted him (52, 55, 56, 57). The same rule was to
apply to all cases of forests, wardships, and disputed
guardianships of abbeys (53). Whatever the Charter
enacted as due from the king to his subjects, the clergy
as well as the laity were to observe towards their
tenants1 (60), a general principle of wide and salutary
application. Lastly, twenty-five barons were to be
elected by their peers guardians of the kingdom. Any
four of these had power to hear a complaint against the
crown, and to apply to the justiciary for redress ; if they
failed to obtain it, the twenty-five and the community
of the realm received a general right of war against the
royal castles, lands, and possessions, till they should
esteem the wrong redressed ; only saving the persons of
the royal family, and with the reservation that the war
should end when satisfaction had been secured. The
barons might even receive or constrain an oath of alle
giance to their authority in this matter. Provision was
made for filling up vacancies in their number; and it
was declared that the vote of a majority at any meetmg
should be valid. A clause, directly aimed at the Pope,
stipulated that John should obtain no permission from
any one to revoke or diminish these liberties, and
should not use it, if it were already obtained (61).

1 The principle of this is contained and more general form it was also
in the charter of Henry I., s. 2. " Si- included in the rough draught of the
militer et homines baronum meorum barons' demands. Statutes at Large,
legitima et justS, relevacione releva- vol. i. p. 8. Probably, therefore, it
bunt terras suas, dedominis suis." A. was not inserted at the king's sug-
S. Laws, vol. i. p. 449. In its present gestion.

92 THE MERITS AND DEFECTS
The Charter ended by declaring that the king freely
remitted all men any ill-will that the late troubles
might have caused; and that both contracting parties
swore to observe the articles contracted in good faith,
and without malicious intent (62, 63).
In a certain sense it may be thought that the patriotic
regard of Englishmen has attached an undue value to
Magna Charta. The statement of an old historian, that
it was derived from the laws of Edward the Confessor
and from the charter of Henry I., is mainly true. The
principles of fixed dues and voluntary taxation were not
only implied in the laws of William the Conqueror, but
affirmed by the care which all our kings, even John,
constantly took to procure the consent of the nobles and
clergy to imposts. The right of the curia to decide
matters of supreme national importance, the right of
the large towns to assist in council are anterior to
Magna Charta, and, had it been an isolated act, would
have derived little confirmation from it. The reforms
in justice which it enacts, where they are not statements
of existing principles, are mostly matters of detail. The
whole Charter bears the traces of confused and hasty
compilation, its articles having evidently been written
down as they occurred severally to the minds of the ne
gotiators, and the whole being rather a bundle of pro
tests against actual wrongs than a statement of abstract
right. Nevertheless, the instinct of a nation is seldom
far wrong in its gratitude. Magna Charta came at a
time when the depression of the nobles, the power of the
crown, and the servility of lawyers were tending to
overlay the English constitution with state maxims from
the rotten imperialism of Rome in its decadence. Magna
Charta renewed the habit of self-government, which the
difficulties of a conquest, the supineness of a privileged

OF MAGNA CHARTA. 93
order, and the embarrassment of foreign dominion had
in great measure suspended for a century and a half.
It gave a visible standard, around which freemen might
rally with a sense of right ; a something which could
not be explained away like a custom or a tradition.
Where it innovated on old precedent its changes were
commonly for the better; and the spirit of fair dealing
that animates its provisions for the lower orders fitted
it to be a national memory. Its. gravest, perhaps its
only real defect, was the provision which allowed a
council of barons to wage war upon the crown. Civil
war is not so light a matter that it ought to be incor
porated in our laws as a constitutional remedy. Judged
merely by the event, the provision failed of its intended
effect, and was rescinded in a year, the right of rebellion
under bad government being, in fact, at once indefea
sible and better not expressed. The peculiar causes of
this mistake, the sense of John's faithlessness, and the
knowledge that the pope would support him, are suffi
ciently obvious, but these evils were in no wise obviated
by the enactment. Probably since the feeling of the
times would scarcely have acquiesced in the king's de
position or death, it would have been better to insist on
the surrender of the royal castles, and the dismissal of
all mercenaries without the interval of the smallest
delay. Yet it was perhaps as well for the future of
English liberty that its first beginnings were contested
sword in hand.

94

Chapter IV.
THE BARONS' WAR.
Preparations for Civil War. Siege of Rochester. Triumph of
the Royal Forces. Ravage of the Country and Desperate
Position of the Barons. French Aid implored and promised.
Louis and Gualo land in England. Doubtful issue of the
Campaign, and Suspicion of French Treachery. Illness,
Death, and Last Will of John. His Character. Coronation
of Prince Henry. Battle of Lincoln. Naval Victory off
Sandwich. Treaty with Louis. Gualo's Conduct.
THE evidence of the royal writs that were issued in
the weeks succeeding the interview at Runnimede
would seem to prove that John for the time felt himself
overpowered, and put on the semblance at least of un
conditional submission.1 Several of the castles he gar
risoned were committed to claimants of the barons'
party; some of the foreign mercenaries were sent back;2
prisoners were set at liberty ; and commissioners were
sent into every county to inquire into the abuses of the
forest laws.3 The Charter itself was sent down into the

1 Thus Hertford was given back primate's hands, and Rochester,
to Robert Fitz- Walter ; Rockingham which the see of Canterbury claimed,
was entrusted to William Mauduit ; was given up to it. Wendover, iii. p.
and York handed over to William 319. Contin. Hoveden, Bouquet,
Mowbray till his right to it should be xviii. p. 175.
decided. Rot. Litt. Pat., pp. 143-4. 2 Hugh de Boves is ordered to
Wendover, iii. p. 297. Even the Tower send away the (foreign?) soldiers at
of London, to which Geoffrey of Dover to their own country. Rot.
MandeviUe advanced a claim of Litt. Pat., p. 144.
wardenship, was sequestered in the 3 Rot. Litt. Pat., 145.

PREPARATIONS FOR CIVIL WAR. 95
country, and sworn to at hundred-motes and town-motes
under order from the king. Nevertheless, the barons did
not feel safe. It had been a mistake in their policy to
conclude, as it were, a private peace at Runnimede, in
which the baronage of the north had taken no part, so that
some of its members, professing not to accept it, retired
behind the Humber and continued to waste the lands of
the king, and doubtless to settle any private feuds that
were in hand.1 Generally every man, apprehending that
troubles were imminent, put his castle in a state of de
fence. The main body of the lords, who saw the import
ance of keeping their forces together, and heard that a
plan was on foot for seizing London to the king's use as
soon as they should leave it, could devise no better expe
dient than to proclaim a tournament for the 6th of July,
and invite their partisans to attend and break a lance for
the prize of a bear, which a patriotic lady offered. There
can be little doubt that this military occupation of the
capital, and the warlike preparations everywhere, gave
a colour of justice to the king's meditated protests, and
moderate men might well be dismayed at finding that
some of the lords were capturing or driving away the
royal sheriffs and taking all jurisdiction into their own
hands. Between a tyrant, who only oppressed the
powerful, and lords, who were an universal danger,
the people might well incline to the cause of the
former. Stephen Langton saw the danger immi
nent, and tried ineffectually to mediate. He pro
cured the calling of a council at Oxford (August 17),
with no better result than that the assembled prelates
and barons heard a royal letter read out, in which John
recalled his promise to attend, on the ground that his

1 Cont. Hoveden, Bouquet, xviii. p. 175.

96 EXCOMMUNICATION OF THE BARONS.
loyal efforts to observe the Charter had not been met
frankly, and that he apprehended violence. It was re-.
solved that the bishops should use their influence with
the crown for another council. But the king had pro
cured letters from the pope solemnly annulling the
Charter, and commissioning the bishop of Winchester,
the abbot of Reading, and Pandulph, to excommunicate
all who should trouble the peace of the kingdom, and
prevent the king, who had taken the cross, from proceed
ing to wage the holy war in Palestine. The sentence
was duly published at Staines, the bishops not daring to
suppress it ; but the barons conceived themselves bound
in orthodoxy to interpret it in the manner most con
formable with justice, and so to regard it as directed
against the king himself. They proceeded quietly to
divide England into districts, each of which was to be
placed under one of themselves as justiciary and as
general. John, on his part, remained about the southern
coast, being probably not unpopular in the district of
the Cinque Ports, whose privileges he had favoured,
and collecting troops for war. When the term arrived
on which the sentence of excommunication was to be
definitively pronounced, the papal commissioners issued
it, to preclude all disloyal interpretations, with the
names of the most eminent partisans of the barons. But
church censures were less regarded than ever after the
kingdom's late abundant experience of them; and the
barons contented themselves with appealing to the
general council, which was then about to meet. The
bishops and abbots, thinking themselves safer anywhere
than in England, took the same excuse of the council
for leaving the country. Stephen Langton, who could
not well avoid attending it, before he went did a last
service to the constitutional cause by entrusting his
castle of Rochester to the barons, and taking their

THE barons' war. 97
deputies to the pope in his train. For these reasons, and
because he had communicated with the lords, Pandulph
followed him, and, in virtue of the legatine authority,
suspended him from the primacy. The great man —
true citizen and loyal churchman — boAved reverently to
his superior's sentence, and went on his way to Rome.
Both sides in England were now preparing for war.
The barons, whom the veteran William d'Albiney had at
last joined, gave him the command of Rochester', with the
view of detaining the king in case he should march upon
London. They themselves besieged Oxford and North
ampton. It was ominous of coming events that they had
now procured French engineers. In fact, they were in
treaty with the dauphin Louis, to come over and take
the kingdom. This desperate expedient was no doubt
caused by their growing unpopularity, many of the
barons, who for a time had held with them, now joining
the king, on the ground that he had been harshly and
unfairly dealt with. Moreover, as Philip Augustus
could not openly take part against the pope, John was
able to bring over a host of foreign mercenaries, Gas
cons, Flemings, and Bretons, whom the usual promises
of spoil attracted to his standard.1 In spite of a fortu
nate storm which wrecked many of their transports off
Yarmouth, these men enabled the king to take the
field with overpowering force, and send detachments to
raise the sieges of the two towns invested, while he him-

1 It was said that Hugh de Boves, unknown counsellor, had resolved to
who fortunately perished in the destroy the whole English nation
storm, had been promised the coun- and give over the country to bar-
ties of Norfolk and Suffolk. Wend- barians. He probably intended to
over, iii. p. 333. The chronicle of replace all the native barons who
Lanercost (p. 16) declares that the had opposed him, by foreign depend
ing, following the suggestion of some ants.
H

98 SIEGE AND CAPTURE OF ROCHESTER.
self sate down before Rochester (October 13). In a
first attempt to burn the bridge over the Medway, that
no relief might reach the town from London, the royal
troops were repulsed with some loss by Robert Fitz-
Walter. The barons even drew out their forces with
the intention of raising the siege; but Avhen John
accepted the challenge, and prepared to give battle, their
hearts failed them at the sight of his overwhelmingly
numerous infantry, and they withdrew ingloriously.1
Their only hope now lay in France. John, with charac
teristic craft, sent a forged letter in their name to Philip
Augustus, purporting to declare that they were noAV
reconciled to the king. But the device failed, Saher
de Quincy, the barons' envoy, offering to pledge his head
that the news Avas false,2 and seven thousand men-at-
arms Avere sent over to the Suffolk coast in anticipa
tion of the dauphin's coming. But the castle of
Rochester could not be saved, and its gallant defence
only served to protract the misery of Kent, Avhich John's
troops ravaged, and the sufferings of the episcopal city,
Avhere the soldiers of the pope's ATassal stabled their
horses and celebrated wild orgies in the cathedral.
After two months William d'Albiney Avas starved into
a surrender at discretion (December 6). The tyrant
Avould have put all his captives to death, had not Savary
de MauMon declared that, if such an occasion for repri
sals Avere given, neither he nor any of his men would
dare to serve any longer. Accordingly, the barons and
gentlemen were imprisoned,3 the men-at-arms ransomed

1 Wendover tells an absurd story Continuator of Hoveden.
that the barons turned back because 2 Coggeshale, Bouquet, xviii. p.
the east wind was unpleasant, and 110.
returned to dice and drink in Lon- 3 It seems, however, that they
don (iii. p. 333). I have followed the were hardly treated in prison. An-

SUCCESSES OF THE KING. 99
to the profit of the royal soldiery, and John only vented
his anger by hanging a few ofthe cross-bowmen who had
plied their shafts against his troops with fatal efficiency.
If the barons are indeed guilty, as their indignant
partisans declared, of having diced and drunk away
the time for raising the siege of Rochester, they were
destined to pay a heavy penalty for their supineness.
John was now master of the position, and leaving behind
a strong body of men, under the earl of Salisbury and
Savary de Mauleon and Faukes de Breaute, to watch
London and the eastern counties, he himself marched
inland to Northampton and Nottingham. Although
he met with little or no opposition, the castellans
generally deserting the castles confided to them, which
Avere probably not capable of standing a siege, the king
ravaged the country mercilessly, carrying off the cattle
and burning the very hedges. The mercenaries he had
left behind did their work as ruthlessly. Christmas-
day was marked by the plunder of Tilly church; Ely
monastery, which had been the refuge of many noble
women, Avas stormed by a party Avho crossed the frozen
marshes, and neither sex nor age spared, the men of
Walter Buc, a Flemish mercenary, being specially
infamous by their cruelties, while the earl of Salisbury
did his best to rescue his country-women. Every day
brought the news of a fresh disaster to the constitu
tional party; de Clare's castle of Tonbridge, William
d'Albini's of Belvoir, John de Lacy's of Darlington, fell

nal. Ecc. Roff. Anglia Sacra, i. p. yond his strength, now supported
347. The chronicle of Lanercost, p. life, for three years I on a single hard
20, tells an amusing story, founded egg a-day, which his wife fined in
on the- primary misconception that 100s. for leave to give him. One
John actually starved them, of a Reginald Basset was actually among
knight, one of the Basset family, who Johns prisoners during this war.
having found church penances be- Rot. Litt. Pat., p. lbO.

100 SUSPENSION OF THE PRIMATE.
successively; the very Lowlands of Scotland were
ravaged, the king firing Berwick with his own hand;
and in March (1216) John was able to turn south
wards and renew the siege of Colchester, from which
the barons, by an isolated act of vigour, had driven
Savary de Mauleon. In a few days Colchester sur
rendered, it was said, through the treachery of the
French soldiers in the garrison, who stipulated a safe-
conduct for themselves, while John, violating the terms
given by his general, would not even permit the English
to ransom themselves, but committed them to prison.
The barons were left with no town but London, and no
ally but Louis. Their representatives . at Rome had
been dismissed angrily and contemptuously by Innocent,
who had lately written (Dec. 14) telling them that they
were Avorse than Saracens, and excommunicating the
foremost among them by name. But the greatest blow
of all was the confirmation of Stephen Langton' s sus
pension. The primate, it is said, lost heart when he
found himself in the pope's presence, and made no
defence of his conduct, only pleading to be restored.1
It is at least equally certain that he made no retract
ation and promised no change. Even when his sentence
Avas provisionally removed, three months later, he was
not allowed to enter England till peace should be re
established. But the pope had overestimated his power. When
the papal commissioners issued the bull of special
excommunication, with the names of later and smaller
offenders added, the constitutional party in London,
nobles, clergy, and citizens, quietly resolved to dis-
1 Wendover, iii. p. 345. Cf.Contin. himself to be out of favour, and the
Hoveden, Bouquet, xviii. p. 179, pope's refusal to hear the barons'
where it is said that he took scarcely envoys is noted at the same time.
any part in the council, knowing

ATROCITIES OF JOHN'S MERCENARIES. 101
regard it on the ground that it had been obtained under
false pretences. Service Avent on, bells were tolled, and
lauds chanted as usual. A second sentence, confirming
the first anathema and extending it to some French
recruits Avho had lately come over, was set aside as
calmly as the first. In fact, Innocent's guilty policy,
though, in charity, we may well believe that he did not
knoAV the measure of his vassal's crimes, had committed
him to the support of a government based on the worst
horrors of war. John's soldiers had spread over the
rich land they came to subdue, and where AATar had
been almost unknown for sixty years, searching houses,
churches, the very graves, for spoil. The priest was
struck down at the altar that his vestments and chalice
might be taken; soldiers and rich men Avere tortured
Avith every refinement of ingenious devilry till they
gave up their Avealth. Houses were burned down,
parks and vivaries ruined, orchards desolated ; it
seemed to be the king's object to make the land un
inhabitable. But this policy overreached itself. Men
Avho fought Avith halters round their necks, and who
could not hope for John's mercy or trust his faith,
might be exterminated, but could not be subdued.
While the king was animating his troops, by liberal
promises, to attack London, its defenders threw open the
gates and prepared to give battle if an enemy appeared.
Savary de Mauleon, having attempted to surprise
the city, was beaten back and desperately wounded.
The king's ships were defeated in the Thames.
Presently it became apparent that every place which
was not garrisoned for the king was hostile to him.
The barons' partisans retorted rapine on their enemies ;
the Yorkshire-men invested York and compelled its
defenders to purchase a brief truce.
But the country's real chance of salvation lay in

102 THE BARONS SEEK FRENCH AID.
France. The English barons had so repeatedly re
fused to follow their king into Normandy or Poitou,
and the general relations of the country had been so
pacific elsewhere since the death of Richard, that the
native forces generally were a mere militia, unequal in
the field to John's foreign veterans, and incapable of
carrying on a siege successfully. The king had num
bers, discipline, and generalship on his side, and held
the strong places of the country. It was felt that the
arrival of Louis would not only be a reinforcement to
the barons, but would draw away many of John's fol
lowers, who would not dare to fight against their native
lord. Disgraceful as it might seem to seek the aid
of foreigners, and of Frenchmen, it was really only
resorting to the same desperate expedient the king
had tried from the first, and England under a foreign
prince would have better guarantees for liberty than
England under a foreign army. Philip Augustus well
understood that the barons only resorted to him in
the last extremity, and offered his son nothing but a
constitutional croAvn. When he finally resolved to let
the dauphin, accept the proffered crown, and go over to
assist the insurgents in the spring of 1216, it was not
till they were reduced to the last extremity, and he
took twenty-four hostages, for their good faith, from.
the first families of the kingdom.1 Then he allowed
his son to engage, at all hazards, in the expedition.
The envoys whom John sent to protest Avere not even
allowed a hearing. The pope's legate, Gualo, could
not be dismissed thus summarily. But he was told,
in effect, that the king could not interfere with the
1 Wendover, iii. p. 360. Cogges- p. 110), and of these the former at
hale only mentions the earls of Glou- least did not remain in France.
cester and Hereford (Bouquet, xviii.

LANDING OF THE FRENCH. 103
right of a vassal to wage foreign Avar for his own
advantage; that John had forfeited the kingdom by
repeated misdeeds; and that the privilege of a cru
sader could not shelter one who was already at war
with Louis before he assumed the cross. Especially
it was laid down, as a universal principle of law, that
monarchy Avas a trust, not a property ; and that,
although John might divest himself of his crown, he
could not transfer it to any one without the consent
of his barons, Avhose rights might suffer from the
transaction. Gualo could not even obtain the pro
mise of a safe-conduct into England, the king de
claring that he could only guarantee his safety on
land, and Avould not be responsible if he were taken
at sea by the dauphin's partisans.1 The last, and
unhappily the usual, threat of excommunication was
then denounced against Louis if he should enter Eng
land, and against Philip if he should suffer him to do
so. Next day (April 26) father and son arranged the
details of the expedition, and Louis set out for England
with all haste, that he might arrive there before the
legate. In sign of filial respect to the pope, he, how
ever, sent envoys to Rome to justify his conduct.
The French preparations had been some time in
course, and Louis, in less than a month, was able to
disembark at Stonar in Thanet (May 22), under
convoy of six hundred ships and eighty transports.
His arrival at once turned the balance. John, who
had been waiting at Folkestone and Canterbury2 to
oppose the disembarcation, when he found that it was

1 Wendover, iii. pp. 365-367. Itinerary shows that he was at Folke-
2 Wendover says (iii. p. 368), stone on the 20th, when he left for
"Erat tunc rex Johannes apud Do- Canterbury, and stayed there two
veram cum exercitu suo." But the days.

104 PROGRESS OF THE FRENCH.
effected, lost heart, and, distrusting the fidelity of his
troops, marched rapidly AvestAvards, not halting till he
came to Winchester, and presently, having set fire to
the royal city,1 as he heard that Louis was advancing
(July 21), fell still further back upon Corfe and
Gloucester. There Gualo met him, having at last
effected a passage, and the king and legate enjoyed
the gloomy satisfaction of issuing a fresh sentence of
excommunication against Louis and all his adherents,
especially master Simon Langton, the primate's worthy
brother, and Gervase, chancellor of London. But no
sentences could arrest the progress of the enemy.
Louis had marched to London, reducing Rochester
by the way, and Avas received rapturously by the
nobles and citizens. He swore on the gospels to
give them good laws and restore them their confis
cated lands ; and not only the first barons confederated
proffered him homage and fealty, but several of John's
staunchest adherents, the earl of Salisbury, the earl
Warren, and the earl of Arundel, were emboldened by
the opportune death of Innocent to espouse the national
cause against king and Pope.2 All the mercenaries,
except a few of the Poitevins, who might be called
John's subjects, either joined Louis or went back to
their own country. In the course of three months the

1 " Inflammata prius urbe per because they now thought it safe
quatuor partes." Coggeshale, Bou- to do so (iii. p. 369) ; and the Chro-
quet, xviii. p. 111. nicle of Lanercost (p. 19) declares
2 Coggeshale says almost all the they did it " plus doli quam dilec-
earls and barons who had hitherto tionis intuitu." Probably they went
been on John's side now went over. over in a hasty impulse of disgust at
The Continuator of Hoveden says, John's conduct, and were soon dis-
of some of them at least, that they contented with their reception and
did it more for fear of Louis than alarmed for their prospects if Louis
for his love. Bouquet, xviii. pp. 112, should triumph.
180. Wendover says tliey did it

THEIR ULTIMATE DESIGNS SUSPECTED. 105
whole of the north, south, and west of England, except
a few castles, was held by the troops of the confederates.
The chief exceptions were Barnard Castle and one or
two minor places in Northumbria, the castle of Lin
coln, Newark and Nottingham in the midland districts,
Windsor and Dover in the south. In Dover, left
almost soldierless by John's flight, Hubert de Burgh,
who had throAvn himself in almost as a forlorn hope,
displayed a heroism worthy of a better master, and
inflicted such loss upon the assailants that Louis threat
ened to hang the whole garrison, and invested the hill
with a rigorous blockade. He might well calculate
on success, when Alexander of Scotland was able to
march, Avith a large army, through the whole length
of England, and do homage to his new suzerain at
Canterbury.1 Yet it cannot be said that John was
careless of his fortunes. He made the country on the
borders of Wales a desert, and marched rapidly across
England, raising the siege of Windsor, where the barons
broke off to pursue him, and terrifying the besiegers of
Lincoln castle, the Scotch king, and the Norman nobles,
Avho did not dare to meet him in the field (Sept. 28).
The tide of popular opinion was already turning not so
much in favour of John as against Louis. From the
first, a certain William of Coningham,2 at the head of a
thousand archers, had held the woods of Sussex against
the French, animated, it would seem, by mere hatred
of foreigners. It Avas now generally remarked, with
suspicion, that the French prince committed the castles
he took to the care of his own countrymen. It Avas
said that the count of Nevers had taken bribes from
1 At Canterbury. Coggeshale, 2 Called Wilkin in the Annales de
Bouquet, xviii. p. 112. At Dover. Dunstaplia, p. 46.
Wendover, iii. p. 382.

106 ILLNESS OF THE KING.
John to give false counsel. It Avas said, and confidently
believed, that the viscount De Melun, on his death
bed, had confessed to a secret agreement between Louis
and sixteen French barons to expel all their own allies
as traitors to their natural king, and divide the spoil
among themselves. Men began to ask whether it were
not possible to make terms with the sovereign, who
had no foreign interest, and, at the moment, scarcely
any foreign troops ; they began to remember, with sor
row, that they were excommunicated. Forty barons
at last agreed to send and ask the king if he would
suffer them to renew their allegiance.1
But the letters found the tyrant on his death-bed.
As soon as he had effected the object of relieving Lin
coln and learned that the barons were not in pursuit of
him, John decided to march southwards again. In
passing over the Wash, between the Cross-keys and the
Foss-dike, he marched too near the sea at a time when
the tide was still high, and lost many of his sumpter-
mules and household retinue, with his jewels, including
the crown, and a shrine containing relics which he
especially prized. At the abbey of Swineshead, where
he passed the night, he is said, by the more credible
account, to have eaten peaches in excess; vexation,
fatigue, and the surfeit bringing on a dysentery. Later
) legends declared that a monk, who heard him boast he
' would raise the price of the loaf from a half-penny to a
\ shilling, devoted himself for his country and poisoned the
\ fruit he presented, eating of it himself, to inspire confi-
' dence, and dying.2 The illness, however caused, did not

1 Wendover, iii. p. 386. 544) it appears that Wendover, fol-
s From Mr. Thompson's summary lowed by Paris, and Matthew of
ofthe evidence about John's death Westminster, Coggeshale, the Annals
(Essay on Magna Churla, pp. 540- of Dunstable, Margan, Winchester,

HIS WILL. 107
hinder John from proceeding, the next day, to Sleaford,
where he learned that Dover still held out and had
obtained a truce till Easter, but was probably 'bound
to surrender if it were not relieved by that date. The
news was bad medicine for a sick spirit, and the king's
next stage, to Newark, Avas his last. His last acts
were to write a letter to pope Honorius (Oct. 15),
recommending his young son to him, and to dictate a
short will by which he constituted what may be called
a council of regency, Avith the legate Gualo at its head.
But its provisions are chiefly the Avork of a craven
conscience, desiring to purchase pardon of heaven by
alms to the poor, and to religious houses, by " aid to
the land of Jerusalem," and "by making satisfaction
to God and holy Church for the damage and injury
done them." The sacrilege Avrought in Croyland
monastery, where Savary de Mauleon's men had car
ried off spoil and captives in mid-mass not three weeks
before, may perhaps have risen up accusingly before
the king's fevered fancy. On whom the furies should
wait, if not on John, may indeed well be questioned.
We seem to trace his gradual depravation in his history.
The fair boy, his father's darling, who lets his courtiers
pull the beards of his Irish lords, in the very wanton-

Waverley and Burton, the Chronicles by Wikes, whose history ends in 1307.
of Melrose, Croyland, and Lanercost, The story is further told in different
and the histories of Trivet and Rud- ways, and often with circumstances
borne either refer the illness to na- that can be proved inaccurate or im-
tural causes or make no mention of possible. Its two most dramatic
' poisoning. ( The legend that he was-i forms are in Hemingburgh and Hig-
poisoned is told first at length in den, and are quite different from
Hemingburgh's history, written in one another. The first finds the
the fourteenth century, though its 1 motive of the king's murder in his
I existence is noticed in the Chronicle I intention of debauching the abbot
i of Peterborough, which perhaps be- \ of Swineshead's sister; the second,
longs to the thirteenth century, and inhisthreattoraisethepriceofbread.

108 john's character.
ness of youthful arrogance,1 and bandies rough jokes
with Giraldus Cambrensis,2 grows up reckless of all
self-restraint, of all honourable sentiment, false to his
father, false to his brother, false to his associates' in
treason, casting off the wife who has made his fortunes,
slaying the nepheAV whom he has sworn to spare. He
has all the lower talent of his family, is a pleasant
boon companion, fond of books and of learned men,3
irresistible among women. A few friends hold by him
to the last, with more of what seems personal regard
than Edward II. or Richard II. conciliated. He has
partisans in London at the time of his deepest humilia
tion,4 and is welcomed rapturously in Lynne a few days
before his death.5 The Cinque Ports seem to have been
steadily faithful to his interests. It is evident, that,
while his clergy and his nobles hated him, a portion
of the towns were with him, either grateful for past
favours or liking his enemies less. The loss of
Normandy was chiefly due to his quarrel with his
English subjects; he held England against the pope
Avith singular success; and his last campaigns prove
that he had organized his tyranny till he Avas an
overmatch for half the realm, and could still do some
thing when France had succoured the rebellion. Yet,
allowing all this, Avhich has perhaps been too often
overlooked, it may be doubted if it be not an aggrava
tion of the infamy that clings to John's name. He

1 Gir. Camb., Hib. Exp., lib. ii. in Ireland and one in Wales. De
c- 35- Rebus a se gestis, lib. ii. c. 13, 24.
2 Gir. Camb.,de Rebus a se gestis, John de Grey, another favourite,
lib. ii. c. 24. Cf. the Preface by was a witty and learned man.
Professor Brewer, p. liii. " See p. 67, note 1.
3 Pliny was one book by which 5 " Ab urbanis cum gaudio sus-
he seems to have set store. Rot. ceptus est et magnis donariis hono-
Litt. Claus., p. 108. He offered ratus." Wendover, iii. p. 384.
Giraldus Cambrensis two bishoprics

HIS DEATH. 109
favoured the cities not in the interest of freedom, but
to gain money by the sale of charters or to set class
against class. His poAver was based on the systematic
employment of foreign mercenaries; he tortured to
extort Avealth, and murdered freely when his avarice
Avas disappointed. His great struggle against Innocent
began in the attempt to usurp the rights of a corporate
body, and Avas carried on by confiscations and violence.
Lastly, like all voluptuaries, John perpetually broke
down at the critical moment of his fortunes. He
scoffed at religion, and was cowed by a strolling pro
phet's utterances.1 Bearing to be excommunicated for
years, giving churches freely to be plundered, he yet
attached a superstitious reverence to the relics he car
ried with him.2 Perhaps the best summary of his life
is the simple record of the great facts of his reign, that
he lost Normandy, that he became the pope's vassal,
and that he died fighting against Magna Charta. Never,
probably, Avas there an English king Avho Avould more
cordially have endorsed the Roman tyrant's wish:
" When I am dead let the earth be consumed in fire;"
never one of whom the poet might have said with
greater truth, that " he wearied God."
The death of John, by which the .crown devolved
upon a boy in his tenth year, appeared at first to in
cline the balance in favour of Louis. Disheartened by
the difficulties of his enterprise, and especially by the
many castles to be reduced, and distrusting the fidelity
of his English partisans, he had lately fallen back upon

1 Giraldus Cambrensis notices his to conciliate the clergy, he neglected
impiety as early as the visit to Ire- to communicate at Easter or on his
land, 1185. "Deo et ecclesise suse coronation day. Vita S. Hugoms,
nullum in partibus honorem facere p. 293.
disponebat." De Rebus a se gestis, "- Coggeshale, Bouquet, xvm.
lib. ii. c. 10. Even at the time of p. 112.
his accession, when it was his object

110 John's successor.
the southern coast, to keep his communications with
France and the road of flight clear. He now advanced
again upon London, and succeeded in occupying the
Tower,1 which was held in deposit by a mixed garrison,
and which its officers by a breach of trust gave up to
him. The seizure at a later period enabled him to
desert his enterprise upon honourable terms; but for
the moment the advantage of it was balanced by other
circumstances. John's death, and the withdrawal of his
army into the west, had left the road into the north
clear ; and the king of Scotland and the north country
lords were now able to return to their homes, and
either abandon the war or perhaps go over to the
enemy. Above all, it soon appeared that a large part
of the nation would prefer an English prince, under all
disadvantages of birth and age, to a foreigner. The
earl Marshal, as head of the royalist party, called to
gether an informal assembly of adherents, and even of
enemies, who it was thought might be won over. Pre
senting the young prince to them with the words, " Be
hold our king ! " he observed that, even if they had
fought against John, it wordd be unjust to make " the
son bear the iniquity of the father;" let them rather
cast out the stranger and free the land from its dis
grace. An objection from the earl of Gloucester,2 that
they could not in honour renounce the homage they
had sworn to a prince who had come over by invita
tion, was met by the answer, that Louis by his treach-

1 " Cepitque terram Londonien- the name has any value (vol. i. p.
sem," ought undoubtedly to be " tur- 258). He was not carried away by
rem." Contin. Hoveden, Bouquet, the general feeling, and was after-
xviii. p. 181. wards made prisoner at the fair of
2 This must have been Gilbert de Lincoln. Hypodigma Neustria}, p.
Clare, earl of Gloucester and Hert- 463. Trivet, p. 201.
ford, if Hemingburgh's authority for

ELECTION OF HENRY III. Ill
ery had, in fact, freed his followers from their engage
ments; and that, if he were allowed to conquer, he
would reduce the Avhole people to shame and slavery.
Men's minds probably did not need much exhortation,
for a thrill now ran through the assembly ; and all, as
if with one voice, cried out, pointing to the royal boy,
" Be it so; let him be king!" The day of the corona
tion was fixed for the feast of St. Simon and St. Jude
(Oct. 28), and it took place at Gloucester. In the
absence of the primate no one dared to consecrate the
neAV king ; but the legate, and the bishop of Winchester,
and the primate of Ireland, pronounced an irregular
benediction. In the utter want of treasure, the regalia
being lost, no crown could be procured, but a simple
circlet of gold was substituted, and an order issued
that, for a month to come, all who acknowledged
Henry's title should wear a garland on their heads.1
The usual prefatory oaths to protect the liberties of the
Church and of the realm were taken on this occasion
before Jocelyn, bishop of Bath. The degrading oath
of fealty to the pope was renewed before his legate —
the need of papal support overpowering all considera
tions of national honour in the royalists. In fact, a
synod was presently held at Bristol, in which the
clergy, under Gualo's guidance, pronounced unani
mously for their young king ; and the sentences of ex
communication, which Avere now thundered in every
church on every Sunday against Louis and his ad
herents, did much to rouse the courage of Henry's
followers. The earl Marshal, at once guardian and
regent, wielded almost sovereign power, and, fortu
nately, pursued a policy of conciliation. Magna Charta

1 Wikes, Gale, ii. p. 38.

112 ARMISTICE WITH LOUIS.
was re-enacted with some improvements in matters of
detail, but, unfortunately, Avith the reservation that
some of the most important points — the guarantees
against arbitrary taxation, the right of free travel in the
country, and some abolitions of vexatious customs —
were only confirmed provisionally till a council could
meet and debate on their expediency. A better sign
was that, by another instrument, the charter was ex
tended to Ireland.' Letters were sent to the nobles,
and the seneschals of castles everywhere, promising to
confirm them in their possessions and offices, without
respect to the part they had lately taken, if they would
only embrace the king's side. One letter to Gilbert de
1' Aigle suggests, with curious casuistry, that he shall at
once surrender his castle of Pevensey to Henry's
officers, that he may not be called upon by Louis, in
performance of the homage sworn, to admit French
troops into it.2 The respect for the letter of a cove
nant, and the disregard for its spirit, are singularly
characteristic of mediaeval England.
It is some evidence of John's real ability that his
death inflicted such severe loss on his party, in spite of
their hearty union among themselves and the leader
ship of such men as the earl Marshal and Hubert de
Burg. Hertford, Ely, and Lincoln had already fallen
into Louis's hands, before Christmas, when the regent
agreed to purchase a three weeks' truce by the sur
render of Berkhampstead and Hedingham. Colchester,
Norwich, and Oxford were not thought too great a
price for a prolongation of the armistice till Easter.3
Louis profited by the opportunity to visit France and

1 Parry's Parliaments, p. 24. 2 Royal Letters, i. p. 2.
3 Contin. Hoveden, Bouquet, xviii. p. 182.

MILITARY TACTICS OF EARL MARSHAL. 113
recruit his forces. As the great lords gradually fell
away from him, and only those remained who had
offended beyond hope of pardon, or who had little to
lose if the country were resettled; he abused his posi
tion as master of the whole east of England by com
mitting all his conquests to foreign soldiers. His
opponents were as unscrupulous as himself; and, at the
instigation of the legate, besieged and demolished se
veral of the hostile strongholds during the armistice.
Even sworn crusaders were allowed to exchange their
vows of warfare in Palestine, for the easier task of free
ing England from, the alien; and the cross was gene
rally worn as if in war against the infidel. ' When Louis
returned, about mid-Lent, he found the war concen
trated around Mount-Sorel, where the royalist army
lay, and Lincoln, where the barons Avere in the town,
and invested the castle, gallantly defended by the lady
Nicola de Haye. A force from London raised the
siege of Mount-Sorel, and Louis resumed operations
against Dover, when he was recalled to London by the
tidings of an overwhelming defeat. The earl Marshal
had resolved on finishing the war by a final blow. He
drew the garrisons out of all the midland castles, and
marched at the head of a numerous and well-appointed
army to raise the siege of Lincoln. Undervaluing his
power, the barons resolved to proceed with their opera
tions before the castle, and to reduce it before they
gave battle. But their lines within the town did not
enclose a postern-gate through which Faukes de Breaute
and the whole English corps of cross-bow men found
admittance into the castle. The effect of a storm of
stones suddenly volleyed from the ramparts upon the

Contin. Hoveden, Bouquet, xviii. p. 183.
I

114 CAPTURE AND SACK OF LINCOLN.
narrow streets of the town was tremendous ; horses and
men fell confusedly in the streets ; a vigorous charge
from Faukes completed the general disorder; and be
fore numbers could re-assert their superiority, the city
gates were burst by the main army of the royalists.
The battle speedily became a mere butchery ; and the
young count de Perche, refusing to surrender to any
" English traitor," was among the slain. The number of
prisoners was especially large, as the gate through
which the fugitives fled would only allow one to pass
at a time. Four earls, eleven barons, and three hundred
knights are known to have been taken.1 As the canons
and town of Lincoln had sided against the king, churches
and houses were plundered ruthlessly, and many women
perished on the waters as they crowded precipitately
into boats to escape the worst calamity of the weak.
Seldom has so fruitful a victory been won with so little
bloodshed as at this "fair of Lincoln" (May 19). Next
day tidings came that the garrison of Mount-Sorel had
evacuated it. Before long the English army invested
London, and Louis, cooped up in the last stronghold he
possessed, appeared to be little more than a prisoner
with a city given him for bounds.
There was yet one chance of retrieving fortunes which
were rather jeopardized than ruined, while Louis still
counted so many soldiers and so many adherents in
England. A last appeal was made to the French no
bility and no doubt secretly supported by the court.
A new expedition was hastily prepared under the com
mand of Robert de Courtenai,2 a prince of the blood,

1 The four earls were Winchester, 24 ; Trivet, p. 201 ; Hypodigma Neu-
Lincoln, Hereford, and Gloucester ; striae, p. 463.
and Robert Fitz-Walter was among 2 Armoricus, Bouquet, xvii. p.
the barons. Wendover, iv. pp. 23, 111.

A NEW FRENCH EXPEDITION. 115
and with the aid of Eustace le Moine, an almost mythi
cal hero of French maritime annals. A native of the
Boulonnais, he had left the cloister to claim his family
heritage on the death of his elder brothers, had risen to
be seneschal of the count of Boulogne, and had quar
relled with his master in the critical period preceding
the battle of Bouvines. As a renegade monk he was
regarded with general horror; his frequent changes of
allegiance discredited him in the eyes of estated gentle
men; and his piracies in the channel on English and
Flemish ships made his name a byword and a terror to
merchants.1 Philip Augustus had lately warned the
legate that he could not protect him against Eustace
the monk. All the more was he qualified to conduct a
tumultuary expedition like the present; and no other
man probably could have taken the sea in a few days
with eighty ships or more. Hubert de Burgh appre
ciated the importance of the crisis. He saw that if
these reinforcements set foot in England, the siege of
London would be raised, and the war recommence with
fresh fury. Although his men-at-arms, with a few noble
exceptions, refused to follow him, he quietly took the
eucharist, left orders that if he Avere made prisoner
they were to see him hanged sooner than surrender
Dover, and put out to sea with thirty-six light ships
hastily impressed. He came up with the enemy's fleet

1 It is curious that the brother and also he owned land at Swaffham, in
uncle of Eustace were in John's Feb. 1216. Rot. Claus., i. p. 248.
hands as prisoners in 1214 and 1215, For the statement of his quarrel with
and that his daughter, who is spoken the count of Boulogne (1211), see
of as a hostage in the hands of the Annal. de Dunstaplia, p. 34. M.
abbess of Wilton, was set free im- Michel has collected the evidence
mediately after the passing of Magna about him in his valuable preface to
Charta. Rot. Litt. Claus., i. p. 177 ; the Roman d'Eustache le Moine.
Rot. Litt. Pat., 126, 144. Apparently

116 ENGLISH NAVAL VICTORY.
within sight of Sandwich. Robert de Courtenai, de
spising the inferior force of his antagonist, sailed out
from the line of the fleet to begin the attack. Sea
manship and speed asserted their own as effectually
here as nearly four hundred years later with the Ar
mada. Almost in a moment the admiral's ship was
boarded by the English mariners, the shrouds cut so
that the sails flapped down upon the crew, and the
helpless French cut down or stabbed with the sailors'
knives. Eustace le Moine was dragged out of the hold
and slain by Richard, a bastard son of king John, though
the pirate offered to purchase his life. The rest of the
fleet was then attacked and discomfited, the English,
it is said, blinding the enemy by scattering quick-lime
upon the wind; the cross-bows and bows did terrible
service; and several galleys had been fitted with iron
beaks, and now tore open the sides of the heavy French
transports, and sank them instantaneously. Only fifteen
ships of the enemy's whole fleet escaped, and ten of the
great French nobles were among the prisoners (Aug.
24). Between the " fair of Lincoln " and the victory off
SandAvich there had been a truce which had given Louis
breathing time, but which had also been employed by
many of the barons in making terms with the crown.
It was now evident that the French prince had little to
hope from prosecuting the war, and the extreme
eagerness of the council to see the soil of England free
from the alien, and the sense of Louis's real strength in
the occupation of the capital and the command of a still
powerful army, combined to procure him honourable
terms, though London was now invested by land and
water. By the treaty of Lambeth (September 11) it
was agreed that all the ' adherents of Louis should be

THE TREATY OF LAMBETH. 117
restored to their possessions : that the liberties of the
city of London and all other corporate towns should be
confirmed, and that all prisoners taken on either side
since Louis set foot in England, should be set at liberty.
Whatever instalments of their ransoms were not yet
due or paid, were to be cancelled. All the barons and
their adherents were to take the oath of homage to the
young king, and to be released by Louis from the en
gagements taken to him. The French prince was to give
up all the hostages in his hands, and all the towns gar
risoned by his troops, and to force the brothers of
Eustace le Moine to give up the isles they had occupied.
The king of Scotland and the princes of Wales were to
be allowed to profit by the conditions of the treaty on
equal terms. Lastly, Louis was to receive payment of
all sums due to him. It is doubtful what these debts
were, and whether or not the crown guaranteed them
by inserting this article in the treaty; but it is certain
that payments were made to Louis out of the English
treasury down to four years later,1 amounting altogether,
it would seem, to ten thousand marks, and given
avowedly on account of this peace. Perhaps there was
a secret article, which neither party wished to publish,
and by which Louis stipulated for a bribe as the
price of his departure. If so, the condition probably
had some influence on the observance of the treaty, and
the complaints made at a later period in France that the
barons and cities had not been honourably dealt with,
may be due to the mercenary covenant, which would
naturally lead the regency to regard the treaty more or
less as an imposture, and the money bargain between
the two powers as the reality. By another not less
1 Rot. Litt. Claus., i. pp. 376, 465. Chron. Mailros, Gale, i. p. 195.

118 DEPARTURE OF THE FRENCH.
disgraceful article Louis agreed to cede Normandy, and
the other provinces wrested from England as soon as
he should come to the throne. He probably never in
tended to observe this stipulation. But the mere fact
that he made it proves the straits to which he was re
duced, and suggests a suspicion that the good terms
granted to his English supporters were dictated as much
by the regent's wisdom as by any loyal insistance on the
part of the French prince.
Before Louis left the kingdom he and all his fol
lowers were freed by the legate from the interdict, with
the preliminary penance that the prince walked un-
girded and barefoot from his own tent to that of the
cardinal; and under the obligation that Louis himself
should devote a tenth of his revenues for two years to
the crusades, and his followers a twentieth.1 The city
of London, drained by the late war, made a last effort,
and contributed a loan of five thousand pounds to facili
tate the departure of its ally.2 A letter of safe-conduct
was even issued to secure his passage through the town
in which for more than a year his will had been
paramount. His lay partisans in England were speedily
reconciled to the church and to the king, and entered
again on their lands, though the prisoners of Lincoln
were compelled, in violation of the treaty, to pay heavy
ransoms for their liberty and court favour, and the
prizes of office were reserved for those who had been
steadily faithful or early penitent. After events showed
that the offences of London in particular were still
destined to be remembered. Alexander of Scotland
and Llewellyn of Wales came and did homage, and
1 Chron. Mailros, Gale, i. p. 195. (p. 204) says that he afterwards re-
Paris, Hist. Major, p. 299. paid £1000 " of his mere liberality."
3 The Liber de Antiquis Legibus

THE LEGATE AND THE CLERGY.

119

were easily reconciled to the new government. The
clergy, whom Gualo had refused to include in the
treaty,1 whose offence against church discipline had been
aggravated by their position, were deprived of their
benefices and compelled, unless they made terms with
the legate, to implore pardon at Rome. As the crime
of complicity in the rebellion had been easily incurred,
and was now lightly imputed, the number of sufferers
was enormous ; the legate's retinue were enriched with
fat benefices, and Gualo himself, it was said, drained for
the time the whole wealth of the spiritualty.2 England
could scarcely need a stronger lesson that the first
duties of the citizen and of the priest were incompatible.

1 Such seems to be the real import
ofthe report made to Rome probably
by Gualo's secretary. The legate,
it appears, first objected to allowing
four clergymen, of whom Simon
Langton and Gervase de Horbragge
were two, any benefit of the treaty.
The commissioners agreed to ex
clude them, professedly without
Louis's privity, with an understand
ing that the barons should subscribe
to compensate them for their bene
fices. The legate then [added that
"caeteros (? clericos) in praedietaa
pacis forma noluit contineri," unless
it were approved at Rome. Then
the French commissioners declared
that negotiations were at an end.
Nevertheless, the copy of the treaty
sent is described as "pax facta."
Bouquet, xix. pp. 635-637. In

the copy inserted in Rymer there
appears an article expressly con
firming the clergy in their property
and apparently directed against this
pretension of the legate's, and yet
signed by him. Rymer, vol. i. part i.
pp. 221, 222. As the legate's con
duct afterwards certainly agreed best
with his own statement to Honorius,
there was probably a secret under
standing that he signed the treaty
with the reservation he had indi
cated. 2 Scotland did not escape the papal
commissioners on this occasion, and
the church of Sant' Andrea at Ver-
celli was raised with the money
wrung from its clergy. Robertson's
Scotland under her Early Kings, ii.
p. 8.

120

Chapter V.
HUBERT DE BURGH.
Guardianship of the Pope. Re-enactment of the Charters. Conj
stitution and First Measures of the Government. Abuses of
Papal Vice-royalty. Riot in London. Relations with France.
Henry's Majority. Increased Power of the Crown. Revolt
and Banishment of Faukes de Breaute\ His Statement of
Grievances. War in France. Relations of the English Church
with Rome. Ascendancy of Hubert de Burgh. Campaign in
France. Fresh Difficulties with Rome. Fall of Hubert de
Burgh. His Character.
BY John's will the pope had been left guardian to
his young son, and Honorius readily accepted the
trust which, perhaps in any case, must have devolved
upon him as suzerain. In his first letter on the sub
ject he is already answering proposals for an advan
tageous marriage for his ward.1 His assistance and
interest during the war had been unremitting, and had
largely contributed to the success of the royal arms.
Under these circumstances, and inasmuch as the queen
dowager had returned to France, where she professed
to be watching over the English interest, it is scarcely
wonderful if Gualo's position overshadowed that of the
regent and almost seemed to overshadow royalty itself.
He even ventured to consult the pope, not many months
1 Honorius, lib. i. epist. 167 ; Bouquet, xix. pp. 623, 624.

COUNCIL AT ST. PAUL'S. 121
after order had been restored, on the propriety of ap
pointing a colleague to the great earl Marshal, and
recommended one of the worst men of the day, the
earl of Chester, for the post.1 Honorius fortunately
discouraged the suggestion, though he would not with
hold the legate from carrying it out if he should still
think it advisable on further consideration. England
therefore was, in theory at least, under a papal prefect,
and its native rulers were probably regarded at Rome
as possessing nothing more than a very wide right of
remonstrance. Among the first acts of the government was to hold
a council at St. Paul's (Nov. 6, 1217), and publish the
great charter in a new form. The spirit of compromise
asserted itself in the revision now made, yet the result,
if it fell short of what was achieved at first, yielded
more than might have been looked for from the lan
guage held by Henry's ministers on his accession.
Concerning scutage, it was decreed that it should be
taken from henceforth, as had been the custom in the
time of Henry II, the crown being thus in theory
reduced to the levying of fixed dues, while the country
was deprived of the germ of representative institu
tions. Free passage about the kingdom was allowed
to merchants, while the silence concerning other per
sons virtually re-enacted the obligation of safe-conducts.
Instead of the damnatory clause against John's alien
partisans, an order was inserted that all castles built
or rebuilt since the beginning of the war should be
demolished. The position of. widows was improved
by a regulation which fixed their dower at a third
1 Honorius, lib. i. epist. 493 ; Bouquet, xix. p. 532.

122 RE-ENACTMENT OF THE CHARTER.
of the husband's lands.' The barons were conciliated
by an enactment that no man should so alienate his
lands as to deprive his lord of the service due from the
fee, and the yet more dangerous abuse of transferring
service to a religious foundation was forbidden, under
penalty of the estate transferred. Regulations to limit
the number of county and hundred courts to once a
month and twice a year respectively read curiously at
first sight, but, like a similar appointment about the
view of frank-pledge (which was to take place at
Michaelmas only), were intended to save trouble and
expense to the freeman. A few minor clauses defined
the new rights with greater precision, or provided for
the further expediting of justice, as in the direction
that assizes of last presentation should be taken directly
before the royal justiciaries, without the need of pre
vious application to the crown. Lastly, a separate
forest charter was now first published. By this all
enclosures that had been made since king Henry's
death, unless they were on the royal demesne, were
to be disforested. A general right of pannage in the
royal woods was conceded, and freemen owning land
within the forest bounds were henceforward to be suf
fered to plough their lands, to erect mills, and to make
warrens, ponds, marl-pits, or ditches. Above all, no
man for the time to come was " to lose life or limb for
taking our venison," all other penalties being com
muted for fine or imprisonment. Probably to a large
number of Englishmen this simple concession of the

1 The widow had probably a cus- a third to the Church, a third to the
tomary right to a third in parts of widow, and a third to the children.
England before. Cf. Osbert de Clare, So, too, a return in Calend. Geneal.,
epist. 28, for the case of a man dying i. p. 160.
intestate, whose property is divided,

EFFECTS OF THE CIVIL WAR. 123
most common rights of humanity appeared at the time
a more solid gain than the great charter itself.
Although the meeting, before it separated, granted
Henry a fifteenth, the treasury was in such penury,
from the exhaustion of the late war and the sums due
to Louis and other crown creditors, that even the
trifling due of a thousand marks could not be paid to
the papal treasury.1 In fact, the very existence of the
government was precarious. The quarrel of the last
two years still rankled in many hearts, and tourna
ments were held as the excuse of civil feud.2 Natu
rally, too, there were questions of disputed possession,
where lands had been given away or left lordless for a
time, and the processes of forcible entry and ejectment
soon grew to be undistinguishable from the right of
private war, hitherto unknown in England except
during Stephen's anarchy. It is curious to read letters
in which the earl of Salisbury informs the justiciary,
that he is no longer accountable for any misdeeds
which the earl of Albemarle, his old ally, may commit,
or in which terms of peace are gravely negotiated
between two county magnates, as though they were
sovereign, princes.3 The king's writ had come to be
of very doubtful value in the counties, and the king's
justices were liable at any moment to see their decisions
against a powerful lord overruled by private interest in
the council.4 Not the least dangerous feature of the

1 Royal Letters, vol. i. pp. 6, 7. time.
2 Hoveden, Contin. Bouquet, 4 Royal Letters, vol. i. pp. 20-22.
xviii. p. 185. Cf. Chron. de Lanercost, pp. 441,
3 Royal Letters, vol. i. pp. 19, 20. 442, for two letters from Faukes de
Compare the truce between the earl Breaute, the second of which, as
Marshal and the earl of Gloucester addressed to Pandulph, elect of Nor-
(Madox, Formulare, no. 155), which wich, must be prior to his consecra-
must probably be referred to this tion, May, 1222.
II.

124 ASCENDANCY OF PANDULPH.
times was that barons and bishops were seizing the
royal castles and demense lands in their neighbour
hood, under the pretence Of guarding them during the
minority. Newark castle was thus occupied by Robert
de Gaugi and held against a royal army, only nominal
submission being made.1 It was some abatement of
the cares of the government, when the weak and
unprincipled Gualo was recalled (Nov. 30, 1218) and
replaced by Pandulph, whose unscrupulous ambition
was at least tempered by ability. By the death of the
earl Marshal, a few months after this appointment
(May, 1219), the legate was left incontestably the
first man in the country. It was true Stephen
Langton had returned and claimed authority over
the legate as bishop elect of Norwich, but the claim
was disallowed at Rome till such time as Pandulph
should be consecrated, and the Italian, of course, post
poned the ceremony indefinitely. Besides the legate
and primate only two men exercised any steady in
fluence on the conduct of government. Of these the
justiciary Hubert de Burgh was, unfortunately, not
a member of the old nobility,2 and, in spite of his
1 Wendover, vol. iv. pp. 35, 36. have been absurd in the widow of a
2 I can find no sufficient proof for royal bastard to the legitimate de-
the surmise accepted by Mr. Foss scendant of William the Conqueror's
(Judges, vol. ii. p. 272), that Hubert nephew. It is true Hubert himself
de Burgh was descended from Wil- married John's divorced wife, Isabel,
liam, count of Mortain, temp. Hen. I. countess of Gloucester, after the death
Count William, as Dugdale observes, of her second husband (Paris, Addi-
(Baronage, i. p. 25), probably left no tamenta, p. 152); but in this case,
children, and the silence of a ge- though the lady's lands had been
nealogist like William of Jumieux committed to Hubert's custody (Rot.
seems to me in itself conclusive on Claus., i. p. 319), a fact which may
this point. The taunt of Ela, coun- have had some influence on her
tessof Salisbury, to Hubert's nephew, actions, she was legally her own
Reimund (Wendover, iv. 115, 116), mistress. When he profited by his
that under no circumstances could position to marry a Scotch princess
she marry him, "quia generis ejus it occasioned great jealousy, and was
nobilitas id fieri prohibebat," would brought as a charge against him at

HIS POLICY COMMENDABLE. 125
prestige as a soldier, had all the unpopularity of a new
man. Peter des Roches, bishop of Winchester and the
king's tutor, was a foreigner, detested for his mal
administration in the late reign, who could not, had
he desired it, have opposed the legate successfully.
The chancellor, Richard de Marisco, was a worthless
nominee of John's, charged with every possible crime,
and practically superseded in his functions by a vice-
chancellor.1 The earl of Salisbury, the king's uncle,
and the second earl Marshal had both taken part with
the barons against the crown, and the former was for
some time absent on the third crusade. Under these
circumstances it was scarcely possible that Pandulph's
ascendancy should be disputed ; and it may be granted
that for a time he used it on the whole, wisely and well,
though perhaps imperiously. Under papal influence the
court of France was induced to renew the existing
truce (1219) for four years, and the defenceless
southern provinces were thus respited from invasion.
The differences with Scotland were arranged, and it
Avas agreed that Alexander should marry one of Henry's
sisters. When the elder of these, the princess Jane,
was detained in France by the count De la Marehe,
whom the queen dowager had married " for the good
of the realm,"2 a series of papal interdicts forced the
refractory stepfather to resign his valuable hostage.
Neither were the home interests of the kingdom put
out of sight. Care was taken that no fresh castles
should be fortified, and two bulls were procured, one

his downfall. That his father was a ' Wendover, iv. pp. 68, 69. Royal
royal employe and one of the first Letters, vol. i. pp. 112, 113.
adventurers in Ireland quite ac- 2 Lettres des Rois ; Champollion-
counts for Hubert's good intro- Figeac, i. pp. 27, 28.
ductions at court.

126 TWO IMPOSING CEREMONIALS.
ordering the restitution of royal castles and demesne
lands, the other enacting that no man should have the
custody of more than two castles. Tfie earl of Albe
marle, refusing to acknowledge this order, was put
under ban and his two castles seized into the king's
hands. The revenue was increased, and a grant of ten
shillings the fee obtained from clergy and laity. The
superstitious practice of the ordeal by fire and water
was abolished, as forbidden by the Roman Church.1
To crown all, the second year, so to speak, of Pan
dulph' s regency was illustrated by two ceremonials
of a magnificence never before witnessed, which might
seem to symbolize the relations of Church and State.
The first was the second coronation of the young king
at Westminster, the pope holding that his first anoint
ment over a divided people had been incomplete. The
second was the translation of the bones of St. Thomas
of Canterbury, from their first resting-place to a more
honourable shrine. It was indeed a singular destiny
that associated Pandulph and Langton in such a
function.2 Nevertheless, with all allowance for the benefits of
papal protection, which had indeed been fruitful of
good since the death of John, the legate's position in
the English government was felt by all associated with
him to be intolerable. His claim of exemption from
the primate's jurisdiction ; his bestowal of an English
benefice on his brother, the archdeacon of Thessalonica,
an alien and a non-resident ; the arrogant language of

1 New Rymer, vol. i. part i. Shirley (Royal Letters, vol. i.), who
p. 154. has first called attention to the cu-
2 See generally, for an account of rious relations between the papacy
Pandulph's government and down- and the crown at this period.
fall, the excellent preface of Professor

PANDULPH'S INFLUENCE THWARTED. 127
his communications with the ministers ; his alliance
with Peter des Roches against the English members
of the council, were so many outrages upon national
self-respect. A comparatively small matter brought
on a political crisis. The seneschal of Poitou, Geoffrey
Neville, resigned his difficult post in the autumn of
1219, and a question arose who should succeed him.
The earl of Albemarle put forward claims which were
seemingly first allowed, and then revoked on the strong
objections of his enemy the earl of Salisbury, the re
sult being that the discontented baron took the usual
remedy of private war till a royal army reduced him
to order. Then the dispute in the council turned on
whether an English or a native noble should be ap
pointed. A petition from the town of Niort against
the viscount of Thouars, whose appointment had been
rumoured, expresses strongly and clearly the great
reasons the cities had to dread the government of a
neighbour whose interests were certainly not their own,
and who might, as in this case, be a deadly enemy.1
Langton, De Burgh, and the council generally appear
to have regarded this objection as fatal to the claims
of any but an Englishman. On the other hand, Pan
dulph and Peter des Roches, the latter perhaps for
private reasons, advocated the appointment of a native
as the less expensive measure. The council carried
the day, and an English justice itinerant, Philip de
Ulecote, who had fallen under Pandulph's censure
only a short time before, was made seneschal of the
whole English dominion. But it was apparently felt
that relations had been strained to the uttermost and

1 Royal Letters, vol. i. pp. 126-128.

128 TRIUMPH OF PRIMATE OVER LEGATE.
that one or other party in the government must give
way. Accordingly, Stephen Langton repaired in person
to Rome, where he represented the state of affairs to
the pope, the abuses that had sprung up from the fre
quent bestowal of benefices on non-residents, and the
incongruity of Pandulph's position, above the natural
head of the English Church. Honorius, a mild well-
meaning man, had not the vigour of character to
break absolutely with a vicious policy and initiate
a better. He could not bring himself to renounce
John's fatal donation, or to cut off the resource of
English preferment from the needy dependants of the
curia. But he temporized and conceded a partial re
form. The gross abuse of treating a grant of the pre
sentation as a grant of the advowson was to be re
formed, and every benefice was to revert, on the death
of its actual occupant, to its original proprietor. More
important still, during Langton' s life no resident legate
was again to be appointed in England.1 It is difficult
to resist the suspicion that this favour must have been
obtained by money. But it was decisive. Pandulph
yielded the contest, resigned his office, was inducted
into his bishopric, and left the country under cover
of an honourable and useless mission to Poitou.
Henceforth it was understood that for all ordinary
occasions the primate was the pope's representative
in England.
Nevertheless, the situation was terribly precarious,
and the legate's defeat, if it removed an obstacle from
the government, removed a valuable ally. A good
proof of the disrepute into which the central govern
ment had fallen was to be found in the refusal of the

1 Wilkins' Concilia, vol. i. p. 584.

FORMATION OF TWO GREAT PARTIES. 129
Yorkshire seneschals and bailiffs to pay the tallage
granted by the baronage on the ground that their lords
were absent from the shire-mote at which the king's
writ was read out.1 Although the earl of Albemarle
had been reduced to submission by the prompt mea
sures taken against him, it was known that a party of
the nobility had been prepared to support him.
Gradually, two great parties formed in the kingdom.
At the head of the first or native were the primate,
Hubert de Burgh, who was now married to the king of
Scotland's sister, the earl of Salisbury, and the earl
Marshal, who had literally been bought over with the
hand of the princess Eleanor.2 Never was alliance
better planned. The earl was one of the ablest men of
the day, and he carried with him the Bigod, Braose,
Ferrars, and De Clare families, with their numerous
connections.3 The "foreign faction or opposition was
naturally recruited from all who had more to gain by
civil war or from a change of government than by push
ing their interest quietly at court. Its chief by posi
tion, the earl of Chester, had been a stanch royalist, but
having intrigued with Gualo for a share of the regency,
had probably found himself in consequence out of
favour with the government. Faukes de Breaute, who
had an intermittent feud with the earl of Salisbury, and
indeed, with his English neighbours generally, and
Llewellyn of Wales, as the neighbour and natural

1 Royal Letters, i. pp. 151, 152. de Braose, who was hanged for
2 Royal Letters, i. pp. 244, 245. adultery, 1229. Dugdale's Baron-
3 Of his five sisters one was mar- age, i. p. 602. Mr. Blaauw has,
ried to Hugh Bigod, earl of Norfolk; I think, confounded mother and
one to Gilbert de Clare, earl of daughter in marrying this Eva to
Gloucester; one to William de Fer- William de Cantilupe. Barons'
rars, earl of Derby ; and Eva to War, p. 9. See Calend. Geneal., i.
William de Braose, son of Reginald p. 227.
K

130 EMEUTE IN LONDON.
enemy of the earl Marshal, were the two other most
powerful members. It added to the perplexities of the
situation that Ranulph Blundevill and Faukes de
Breaute had contributed more than most men to the
success of the royal arms, and Faukes could never un
learn the habit of regarding and terming the English
"traitors and rebels." Fortunately Faukes was not
yet seriously discontented with the government, when,
in 1222, a riot broke out in London which might easily
have set the kingdom in a flame. The tenants of West
minster abbey were at that time accustomed to chal
lenge the Londoners to wrestling matches; and at one
of these the seneschal of the abbey contrived foul play
against his opponents, and drove them back to London
by the help of hired bullies. The citizens, under one
Constantine, a man of substance and influence, sallied
out tumultuously and destroyed a number of the abbey
buildings. The fray had a dangerous complexion, as
Constantine had formerly been a partisan of Louis, and
now answered the justiciary haughtily that everything
had been done by his warrant and that he would abide
the consequences. Hubert de Burgh had already
brought up troops to the Tower. He now sent Faukes
by the river into the city, caused Constantine to be ap
prehended, and hanged him summarily with two other
of the chief rioters, though he offered to fine in 15,000
marks for his life. The city was then occupied by an
armed force, and all who could be convicted of a share
in the late disorders were barbarously mutilated. Fur
ther, as the civic magistrates had proved unequal to
maintain order they were deposed, and others appointed
by the king's commission. Order was restored in Lon
don; and disproportionate as the punishment inflicted
may seem to the offence, it can scarcely be doubted

ENGLISH EMBASSY TO LOUIS. 131
that the matter was one of urgency; and it is notice
able that among the charges afterwards brought freely
against Hubert de Burgh, his conduct on this occasion
was never questioned by men in authority.1
It soon became apparent, however, that Louis re
tained an interest in English affairs, and sympathized
with the opposition. When he ascended the French
throne, on his father's death, in the summer of the next
year, (Aug. 1, 1223), an English embassy waited upon
him to claim performance of his engagement to sur
render Normandy. Louis answered that he was pre
pared to prove his superior right to that province at
law, if Henry would plead before the proper tribunal —
the French peers. Setting this consideration aside, he
could not esteem himself bound by a treaty every
article of which had been violated in England. The
French partisans had been held to ransom; and a late
instance in London showed that not only had the pro
mised reforms not been maintained, but that the liber
ties of the realm were in greater jeopardy than ever.2
The envoys retired, baffled and brow-beaten, from a
mission in which the right of compact was unquestion
ably on their side, and to which, notwithstanding, they
could scarcely have expected any better issue. Next
year (1224), at Easter, the truce between the two
countries expired. Forbidden by the pope to continue
a projected expedition against the Albigenses, whose
patron, count Raymond of Toulouse, had promised abso
lute submission, Louis turned his warlike energy against
the English provinces. The viscount De Thouars ob-
1 The feeling of the Londoners was hanged, and without trial." Li-
may be gleaned from the pithy notice ber de Ant. Legibus, p. 5.
in the Chronicle ofthe Mayors : " In 2 Wendover, iv. p. 86.
this year Constantine Fitz-Athulf

132 ROCHELLE CAPTURED BY LOUIS.
tained a year's truce on condition of transferring his
allegiance, in case he were not reinforced from England
within that term, and his neutrality left the Rochellers
defenceless. Niort and St. Jean d'Angeli were easily
reduced, and Rochelle was then invested. The sene
schal of the province was now Savari de MauleVm, a
veteran whose services to the crown had been great
and richly rewarded, but whose loyalty had not been
without stain. The English account is that he neglected
to put Rochelle in a proper state of defence. His own
story was that he wrote in vain to the royal council for
support — that the chests they sent him contained stones
and chaff, not money — and that when he prepared to
set sail himself for England, to urge his necessities, he
was almost murdered by his English soldiers, who pro
bably thought that he was deserting them.1 All that
is known certainly is, that the city was vigorously at
tacked and defended itself long enough to cover its
honour. Then, in despair of succour, and under pro
mise that its franchises should be preserved — the gar
rison also, as it was said, being bribed — the citizens
gave up the key of the English territory. A military
parade, a little further south, and a few unimportant
surrenders of towns that consented to acknowledge
Louis, but not to receive his garrisons, completed the
prestige of the French campaign.2 England retained
nothing on the Continent except Bordeaux and Gas
cony. The causes of the supineness of the English govern-

1 Close Rolls, p. 552 ; Trivet, p. that the French did not garrison any
213; Auct. Anon. S. Mart. Tur. Can., of their new acquisitions, must be
Bouquet, xviii. pp. 305, 307. understood only of Poitou, as they
2 Royal Letters, i. p. 237. The certainly garrisoned Rochelle. Nich.
statement of Hugh de Vivonia, de Braia, Bouquet, xvii. p. 327.

HENRY III.'S MAJORITY. 133
ment lay in the difficulties by which it was beset at
home. As the young king attained his sixteenth year,
it became the interest of all parties to proclaim that his
minority was at an end ; the opposition probably hoping
to overthrow Hubert de Burgh's influence, and the
party in power not daring to be outbid. The pope's
formal sanction to the change was applied for and ob
tained; though, it would seem, not waited for1 — the
bishop of Winchester taking the initiative in the move
ment. But the ashes of old questions blazed up fiercely
again. The first demand made upon Henry was rea
sonable and right, as, in fact, all parties agreed in
urging it, and Stephen Langton was spokesman. They
called upon the young king to renew, by his own free
act, the great Charter of the liberties of the realm ; the
primate giving, as his strongest argument — one which
would grate a little on the ears of later generations —
that the king was bound to do it by his treaty with
Louis, In spite of the experience of the last twenty
years, there were not wanting men who were for the
crown against the law; and William Briwere, taking
upon himself to answer, observed that the Charter Avas
invalid, as it had been extorted by violence. The
primate's anger at this impudent speech of an upstart
employe was so undisguised, that Henry hastily inter
fered, and declared that he had himself sworn to the
1 In May, 1222, Honorius speaks the castles in their custody, becomes
of the king as a minor. Jan. 13, the subject of a diplomatic corres-
1223, Henry promises to confirm the pondence. New Rymer, vol. i. part
charter; and Jan. 30, 1223, the in- i. pp. 167, 168, 171. The Annals of
quest into local liberties is ordered. Dunstaple, however (p. 83), refer the
It is not till April, 1223, that the declaration of the king's majority to
pope's bull closing the minority was a council held in London after the
issued, (Royal Letters, i. p. 430), war with Llewellyn and the arrival
or till the end of that year that the of the pope's bull.
pope's order to the nobles to give up

134 RENEWAL OF THE CHARTER.
Charter, and was prepared to keep his oath. Letters
were accordingly sent to the viscounts of the different
shires directing them to make inquiry, by juries of
twelve sufficient men in every county, as to the fran
chises it had enjoyed in the time of Henry II, and
report the result to the king. But the crown was not
rewarded for its good faith by any surrender of their
usurped power from the nobles. The bull of pope
Honorius (May, 1220) had never yet been carried out;1
and when a fresh one was issued, apparently at the
instigation of Hubert de Burgh, ordering himself and
his three great rivals, the bishop of Winchester, the
earl of Chester, and Faukes de Breaute to surrender all
their castles, the opposition of the baronage was so
menacing that Henry was compelled to solicit leave for
postponing the execution of the papal ordinance (1223).
It was unnecessary, he said, to enforce obedience which
all were prepared to yield, and to take the strong places
of the kingdom from the charge of those who were best
fitted to keep them. It was a curious commentary
upon this correspondence that Llewellyn of Wrales, the
ally and friend of the two last-mentioned lords, had
been employing the summer in an internecine war with
the earl Marshal. Taking advantage of that noble
man's absence in Ireland, he had stormed two of his

1 In 1221, W. Marshall the Hugh de Vivonia refusing to give up
younger was urged by the king's some lands to the rightful owner,
council to give up the castle of Marl- unless he receive a provision to main-
borough. He surrendered it con- tain Bristol castle. Royal Letters,
ditionally that it should be restored i. p. 90. The matter seems to have
to him if others did not follow his been compromised by the crown
example. Corfeand Windsor castles buying Bristol of him, and making
were, however, recovered soon after him seneschal of Poitou and Gascony
by force from their governors. Ann. (Dec. 1220). Rot. Litt. Claus., p.
de Dunstaplia, p. 68. Compare a 445.
letter of somewhat earlier date from

CONTUMACIOUS BARONS. 135
castles, and beheaded all the prisoners. But earl Wil
liam was not a man to be trifled with. He hurried
back to England, obtained succours from the king, and
letters forbidding all intercourse with the enemy, re
covered his castles, beheading the Welsh garrison, and
finally, having provoked Llewellyn by the ravage of
his lands to accept battle, defeated him, with the
slaughter or capture, it was said, of nine thousand
men. A sentence of interdict from the pope found
Llewellyn already discomfited and glad to be admitted
to terms at the primate's discretion (Sept. 1223). *
This success probably emboldened the government
to take stronger measures for the recovery of the royal
castles ; and in the winter of this year matters came to
a crisis — the barons, after an unsuccessful attempt to
surprise the Tower of London,2 sending envoys to Rome
to state their case and win over the pope, while the earl
of Chester held a separate court at Leicester in the midst
of an armed rebellion. He had miscalculated his power.
The nation was with the Crown and Stephen Langton ;
and the force that rallied round the king at Northamp
ton (Dec. 25, 1223), was so large that the primate's
threat of excommunication, if the earl did not surrender
everything he held of the crown within twenty-four
hours, carried with it much more than the usual church
terrors. Ranulph quailed and gave way. There now
only remained one man, Faukes de Breaute, whose au
dacity and power enabled him to head the discontented
baronage against the man whom all the disorderly

1 New Rymer, vol. i. part i. pp. war an equal one, and represents
168-170 ; Wendover, iv. pp. 84, 85 ; the king and council as unable to
Royal Letters, i. p. 212. The Welsh adjust a peace. Brut y Tywysogion,
account is silent as to the provoca- pp. 313-315.
tion on Llewellyn's part, makes the 2 Ann. de Dunstaplia, p. 83.

136 FAUKES AND WILLIAM DE BREAUTE.
marked as their worst enemy, the justiciary, Hubert
de Burgh. The continuance of the French war pro
bably emboldened him to attempt the daring outrage
which brought matters to a crisis. It had long been
his wont to remove his neighbours' landmark; and in
the spring of 1224 he seized some property of John
Marshal, a cousin of the earl's, imprisoned his bailiff,
and told the sen^ant who was sent to complain, that
he cared not though thirty writs were issued against
him ; and that, if the English traitors wished for war,
he would give them so much as should make the island
too strait for them. Presently the royal judges came
on circuit to Dunstaple, and no fewer than sixteen
writs of novel disseisin were actually issued against
Faukes. His brother, William de Breaute, retaliated
by sending an armed force to seize the judges. Three
of them having timely warning escaped; but one,
Henry de Braybroke, Avas taken and carried prisoner
to Bedford castle, where he was roughly handled and
closely confined.
Faukes, for once, had miscalculated his power. The
wife of the captive judge lost no time in appearing be
fore the king at Northampton, and demanded with
tears that her husband should be set free. Messengers
were at once sent, backed by the " posse comitatus," to
order the garrison of Bedford castle to throw the gates
open, and received the insulting answer from William
de Breaute, that he had never done homage to the
king, and would take no orders except from his bro
ther. Then the whole forces of the kingdom, already
in motion for the French Avar, were summoned under
the royal standard, and the primate pronounced the
rebels excommunicated. But so well was the castle
fortified, and so vigorously defended, that the royal
troops Avere two months (June 16— Aug. 14) before

THEIR DOWNFALL. 137
their engines could silence the artillery of the garrison,
or effect a breach in the walls. When the place was
at last stormed, the twenty-four knights who had de
fended it, and every one of whom was wounded, were
hanged between their men-at-arms and servants, eighty-
three in all, with only time given them to be reconciled
to the Church. The excuse for this severity was, that
no quarter had been given during the siege,1 and little
pity need be wasted on men, however gallant, who were
trying to kindle a civil war in the interests of sheer
anarchy. Their captive, Henry de Braybroke, Avas
found unscathed. Faukes's apparent inaction during
the critical weeks that decided his fate is remarkable.
The sheriff of six counties, with six royal castles in his
hands, with the ownership of two hundred plough-
lands,2 and the domains of the Rivers family in his
wardship, with Llewellyn of Wales and the earl of
Chester for allies, he might fairly have been expected
to die hard. Evidently the nation had been roused;
and he found himself suddenly companionless and a
fugitive. His friends pleaded for him that he was
quite innocent of his brother's act, and only anxious
to explain himself to the Council ; they urged his in
action during the siege as a proof of his innocence. It
is doubtful whether he was taken prisoner, or whether,
as seems more likely, he gave himself up at discretion,
in the hope of obtaining terms.3 But his escort, it is
said, took him out of the way to see his brother's body

1 So Wendover says ; but ten roy- up, iv. p. 98. The Annals of Wa-
alists taken at the third assault were verley (p. 300) say that he was cap-
found alive. Ann. de DunstapM, tured in Coventry church. A letter
p. 88. is extant from the bishop of Coventry
2 Rad. de Coggeshale, (Bouquet, saying that he had excommunicated
xviii. p. 119), who also makes him Faukes and was going after him.
sheriff of seven counties. New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 175.
3 Wendover says he gave himself

138 FAUKES DE BREAUTE EXILED.
on the gibbet. He professed, falsely, as it afterwards
appeared, to resign everything he possessed into the
king's hands,1 and was then relieved from the church
ban, and committed to prison in St. Paul's church,
under the charge of the bishop of London. His wife
now appeared before the king, and declared that she
had been married to him without her consent, and
prayed for a divorce. The question was referred to
the primate; but she and her son were confirmed in
the family possessions, the nobles and prelates, with
singular moderation, preferring to tax themselves for
the late campaign to indemnifying the treasury with
the confiscated estates of an old family.2 The numerous
lands Faukes had seized wrongfully were gradually
restored to their rightful owners. He himself, after
some months' imprisonment, was sentenced to exile
from the realm; his life being spared in remembrance
of his old services to the crown, and on condition of
his swearing to abjure the realm for ever. Before
embarking, he assured the earl Warren, who escorted
him to the shore, that he had been the tool of English
nobles in all the troubles he had caused the country;
and he attested the declaration with oaths and tears.
His sentence was no slight one, for not only was he
now a beggar comparatively, but his life was in danger
in France, where the king had an old grudge against
him ; and he only saved himself by assuming the white
cross. Thus protected he passed on at last to Rome.
In a memorial which some clever legist drew up for
1 New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 175 ; barons seem to have given two marks
Royal Letters, i. p. 313. the fee, (cf. Wendover, iv. p. 99, and
2 The clergy granted the king Cont. Flor. Wig., ii. p. 188), and in
half a mark from every carucate return they obtained leave to levy a
(hide) of demesne, and 2s. from every scutage of two marks on every fee
carucate of their tenants. (New for their own use. The fee was prob-
Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 175). The ably estimated at five carucates.

HIS CHARGES AGAINST HUBERT DE BURGH. 139
Faukes while he was intriguing abroad, the opposition
statement of grievances against Hubert de Burgh's
government is skilfully and, in all likelihood, unscru
pulously given. The justiciary is charged with an
insatiate love of power, and constant machinations
against all the nobles who were not of his own party.
In this spirit, it is said, he accused the bishop of Win
chester, who had gone on a pilgrimage to St. James's,
with intriguing to give up Eleanor of Brittany to the
French king, and forced the pious prelate to surrender
all his castles to the king, though Henry was still a
minor. Later on he exacted similar compliances from
Walter de Lacy and Ralf Musard; and when the earls
of Chester, Gloucester, and Albemarle came up to court
to remonstrate, the young king was induced to fortify
himself in Gloucester as though they meditated seizing
his person (Nov. 16-23, 1223).1 Finally, the earl of
Chester and others had been compelled to give up their
castles under threat of excommunication from the pri
mate ; and the strongholds thus surrendered were after
wards redistributed unequally, with preferences to the
justiciary and his partisans. All this Avhile the arch
bishop reported to Rome that the country was quiet, for
fear a legate should be sent. When one came over,
notwithstanding, Hubert de Burgh had reconciled him-

1 The Close Rolls show that Henry their castles, is dated Nov. 20, and
was at Gloucester between these must therefore have been applied for
dates, and that he issued there two some weeks before ; (Royal Letters,
precepts, one ordering all suits in vol. i. p. 539) ; while a letter to the
Ireland against Walter de Lacy, de- pope, reporting the country quiet, is
tained in England on the king's ser- dated, Westminster, Dec. 19 ; (New
vice, to be stayed; and another, re- Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 171) ; and
mitting certain arrearages to him transfers of castles in the interest of
from the time when he was sheriff of the government were in fact going
Hereford. Rot. Litt. Claus., pp. 575, on between Nov. 15, 1223, and March
576. The letter of Honorius, per- 21,1224. Royal Letters, i. pp. 538-
mitting the chief nobles not to resign 576.

140 FAUKES DE BREAUTE's DOCUMENT.
self with tears to his chief opponents, while he sent an
envoy to Rome raking up a charge of eight years'
standing against Faukes. In the affair of the judges,
Henry de Braybroke, an austere man, had a private feud
against William de Breaute, and gave sentence against
him without trial." Nevertheless, William had been so
well aware of his brother's regard for order that he fled
with his captive into the woods, and Faukes was making
diligent search for them when the great expedition
under Hubert surprised him. On receiving the sum
mons to surrender, the garrison had exhibited the papal
privilege or commission, and demanded that the matter
should be referred to Rome.1 The English bishops had
especially pressed the siege. Even then Faukes was
willing to stand trial, if his three chief enemies might
not sit among his judges. His overtures were disre
garded ; and, finding himself excommunicated, a yearn
ing for absolution had induced him to accept the arch
bishop's safe-conduct. Nevertheless, he was kept ten
days without spiritual privileges; and, finally, chiefly
by advice of the primate and the bishop of Bath, the
garrison of Biham was hanged while the lay lords
had gone away to dinner.2 Faukes himself had been
induced to make public penance; and the archbishop
had preached over and at him, though he had assumed
1 According to Ralf de Cogges- taken by a royal army, but the gar-
hale, Faukes had been before sum- rison, by an injudicious lenity, were
moned to give up Bedford, and had set free without ransom. Other par-
refused on the ground that he held ticularsseemto be inaccurate. Wend-
it as his own by special charter from over states (iv. pp. 97, 98) that the
king John. Bouquet, xviii. p. 119. garrison of Bedford were hanged
2 In this part of the letter the next day after the capture, Aug. 15,
facts of two different years are the first on which the safe-conduct
confounded. In 1221, William, earl given to Faukes was valid; (Royal
of Albemarle, seized Biham, a royal Letters, i. p. 235) ; so that he can
castle in Lincolnshire, it was thought hardly have surrendered himself ten
at the instigation of Faukes de days previously.
Breaute. The castle was speedily

WAR IN GASCONY. 141
the white cross and appealed to Rome. He was next
forced, against all canonical precedent, to resign all he
held even out of England, as damages for diverting the
expedition that had been destined to Poitou. But
Faukes believes that it was always aimed at himself;
both because it assembled at Northampton, rather than
at Portsmouth, and because the English baronage had
always disputed their obligation to serve in Poitou.
Lastly, the primate and bishop of Bath had wounded
his feelings, as he was leaving the country, by taunting
him with having sent to Rome for a legate, as if it were
wrong, or anything but right, to have appealed to the
pope. From this impudent document we at least glean
some particulars of the struggle of the crown with its
turbulent magnates, a little further evidence of Stephen
Langton's sturdy patriotism, and abundant proof of the
intolerable nature of the claims that Rome set up, or
suffered to be set up, of a right to interfere with the
home government.
Probably it was some feeling that a vigorous govern
ment was at last established, and a just suspicion of
royal commissions that had lately been issued for as
certaining and enforcing the rights of the crown, which
induced the barons, in the Christmas meetmg at West
minster (1224), to make the re-enactment of the last
edition of the charters a condition of their grant of a
fifteenth for the war in Gascony. Henry easily con
sented, and commissions were issued in every county to
ascertain the proper limits of the royal forests. So
strong was the popular feeling on this point that for
once not one iota of a royal ordinance was left uncom-
plied with. Meanwhile Henry had despatched his
young brother, Richard, earl of Cornwall, whom he
had lately knighted, and named earl of Poitou, to learn
war in France under his uncle William of Salisbury

142 DEATH OF LOUIS.
With an armament of three hundred ships, and backed
by the native nobles who flocked to his standard,
Richard easily overran Gascony, reduced St. Macaire,
and had invested La Reole, which the townsmen de
fended obstinately, when a French army crossed the
Dordogne, reinforced by the troops of the faithless
count de la Marche. The English chroniclers claim a
victory in the engagement that ensued ; but the advan
tage cannot have been great, as the French, though
driven back over the Dordogne, were able to reduce
Bergerac and Limeuil, while Richard's army seems to
have suspended operations for the year.1 Want of
funds may have been the reason of this, for the prestige
of the campaign seems on the whole to have rested
with the English; and Louis relinquished his attempts
on Gascony for the fairer prospects of another Albigen-
sian crusade. It was ominous of his intentions, how
ever, that -he refused to treat for peace. For a time
Henry was anxious to cross over in person and share
his brother's glory. But the pope forbade him to
thwart the operations of a crusader ; his council recom
mended inaction, and an astrologer in whom he trusted
predicted that the king of France would certainly fail
or die in his expedition. Fortunately, in the autumn
of the next year (Nov. 1226), the prediction was ful
filled, Louis dying of a fever at the moment when his
successes in Provence were threatening to lay the whole
of the south at his feet. Savari de Mauleon improved
the occasion by returning to his old allegiance, and
bought a reconciliation by the surrender of Rochelle.
The English had nothing to gain by prolonging the war,
and the French regency, as the new king Avas a minor,
were naturally glad to conclude a truce which soon

; Totam sibi Wasconiam subjugavit." Wendover, iv. p. 102.

MONETARY RELATIONS WITH ROME. 143
ripened into a short peace under mutual guarantees of
free trade.
The state of England after the siege of Bedford was
for some years uneventful, though not without its little
anxieties. Faukes de Breaute was evidently well sup
plied with money by his old associates, for he contrived
to obtain letters from the pope commanding that his
wife and lands should be restored to him. The ponti
fical conscience had been especially pained by the pri
mate's setting aside the sacrament of marriage in Mar
garet de Rivers' favour. The English government was,
however, firmly resolved to hear of no compromise that
would admit back into England the chosen soldier of
the party of rebellion ; and between embassies to Rome,
intrigues with the papal legate in France, and the lucky
accident that Faukes was again captured as he passed
through France, this time by a former prisoner of his
own, the difficulty was staved off till the interesting exile
died, it was said, of poison (1226). Neither was Hono
rius more fortunate in an attempt to codify, so to speak,
the irregular exactions of the papal curia in England.
His chaplain, Otho, after some minor exactions, and
having partly conciliated the court by admitting the
badness of Faukes de Breaute's case, took advantage
of a great council at Westminster, in which the king
was declared of full age, (Jan. 13, 1226),1 to propose a
scheme for settling the money relations of the country
with Rome. It was in effect, that whereas now large
bribes were paid to individual members of the papal
court, England should compound by assigning a certain
proportion of her prebends and church revenues to the
pope himself, who would thus be able to place his

1 Since Jan. 1223, he had been and wards; but could not be un
allowed to dispose of castles, lands, pleaded. Annal. de Dunstaplia, p. 83.

144 ASCENDANCY OF HUBERT DE BURGH.
officials beyond the need of corruption. The French
proctors, to whom this scheme was submitted about
the same time, objected that they would still require
patrons at Rome, and would be compelled to fee them ;
so that the proposed change would only add to their
burdens, while it would further involve the residence of
a papal commissioner in every diocese. Nevertheless,
so great was the dependence of the English clergy on
Rome, that Stephen Langton despaired of defeating the
ill-advised project, if Otho should stay in the country.
He contrived to adjourn the decision of the question,
on the ground that a fuller meeting must be summoned
to determine so weighty a matter; and in the interval
procured letters from Rome recalling Otho. In the
absence of the papal commissioner his proposal was
easily disposed of. A diplomatic answer was given
that the concessions required concerned the whole of
Christendom, and that England, placed on the world's
verge, would wait and observe how other kingdoms
comported themselves.1
The ascendancy of Hubert de Burgh was by this
time becoming paramount in England. His long pos
session ofthe office of chief justiciary, and his marriage
to a princess of Scotland, had already put him on a
level with the old nobility, when, in 1227, he was raised
to the earldom of Kent. Inheriting from three wives
whom he had survived, and having the custody of four
royal castles, he seems further to have drawn largely
from the royal exchequer, and had thus added many
manors by purchase to his possessions. His appetite
for wealth had once betrayed him into a strangely un
dignified act. On a report of the earl of Salisbury's
death at sea he had begged the countess dowager

1 Wendover, iv. pp. 117-124.

ARBITRARY MEASURES OF HENRY." 145
who had been near thirty years a wife, in marriage
for one of his nepheAvs. The indignant lady told
her suitor that she had just received tidings of her
husband's safe return, but that in no case would she
have given her hand to one so far below her. The
earl took up the matter more seriously, and would
only be pacified by a public apology and large gifts,
which were, unhappily, succeeded by a banquet of re
conciliation, soon after which William Longespee died,
it was thought, of poison. Surrounded by men who
hated him as a parvenu, or, like Faukes de Breaute's
party, because he repressed disorder, it is scarcely won
derful if Hubert de Burgh came to guard his power
jealously, and to court the king's favour by taking part
with the crown against the people. He cannot be
blamed perhaps for persuading the king to break abso
lutely with his old tutor, the bishop of Winchester,
Hubert's rival for power, and certainly a less worthy
favourite, who quitted the scene of his defeat on a
pilgrimage to the Holy Land. But it was currently
imputed to the earl of Kent's counsels that the king,
who had hitherto only reigned in form, notwithstanding
the pope's bull four years before, now declared himself
of age (Feb. 1227), called in all charters of lands and all
franchises for renewal under the great seal, and caused
the fines to be assessed by an arbitrary estimate of the
tenants' wealth. The large sum of £100,000 was col
lected in this way.1 Nor could the king's chief minister
escape the suspicion of having counselled the monstrous
measure of cancelling the forest charters, on the ground
that they had been extorted from Henry during his
1 Hardy's Preface to Rot. Chart. 89,000 marks. Paris, Additamenta,
in Turr. Lond., p. vi. Another esti- p. 150.
mate, however, places it only at L

146 HENRY SUCCUMBS TO THE BARONS.
minority. Presently the indignant nobles found a
leader and an opportunity for resistance. Richard
of Cornwall had taken into his own hands a castle
alienated from his demesne by his father, to the use
of a German mercenary, Waleran.1 The ejected knight
complained to the king, and Henry tried to intimidate
his brother into immediate restitution. Richard angrily
refused, and declared he would only submit to a verdict
from the peers. Then, as was reported, Hubert re
commended that the earl of Cornwall should be seized
in the night, and Richard scarcely escaped through a
chance warning. The baronage at once sprung to arms,
and it was significant of a change of parties that the
king's brother-in-law, the earl Marshal, headed them.
Henry bowed before the storm, and agreed in council,
at Northampton (August 3, 1227), to endow his brother
with all the lands that had been in his mother's dower,
and with other estates. Probably Waleran was restored
in consequence. The barons had spoken warmly about
reviving the forest charters, but on this matter the
royal will seems to have triumphed.
Every succeeding year saw Hubert grow in honours
and wealth, and in enemies. In 1228 the barons, it
was said, secretly conspired Avith LleAvellyn of North
Wales to procure a disastrous defeat of the king's
forces, that the justiciary's credit might be impaired,
and a castle which he had commenced founding to
bridle the Welsh was dishonourably razed by agree
ment. Next year the discontented barons of Nor-
1 I cannot find any notice of a a thorough partisan leader in the
castle in Cornwall given to Waleran civil war. There is extant a precept
Tyes by John, but he inherited se- from John, ordering him to give a
veral manors there from Theodoric fifth part of his booty to his soldiers.
Tyes, in 1223. (Rot. Litt. Claus., p. (Rot. Litt. Claus., p. 233.)
555). Waleran seems to have been

EXPEDITION TO FRANCE. 147
mandy sent envoys to the king, inviting him to come
over and retrieve his inheritance. The nobles generally
were in favour of war. Hubert, who knew better than
any what the chances of a campaign in France were,
and who had more to lose than to gain by any fresh
adventure, dissuaded the king, for a time successfully,
from embarking in an enterprise which he was quite
unfitted to conduct. But a few months later the war
party prevailed, and Henry assembled an army, such as
England had never yet seen, at Portsmouth (Michael
mas, 1229). It then appeared that the justiciary, either
believing to the last that Henry's purpose would fail
him, or determined to thwart the expedition at all
risks, or perhaps really unequal to the occasion, as
writs were certainly issued to the sea-board counties
two months before the day of rendezvous,1 had failed
to provide any adequate shipping or commissariat. The
petulant king called him " hoary traitor," told him that
he had taken money from the French queen, and was
only restrained by the bystanders from rushing on him
with his drawn sword. The arrival of the king's ally,
the count of Brittany, who pointed out the unfitness of
the season for the expedition, pacified Henry, and be
fore long he received his justiciary into favour again.
Next year the king actually sailed. The magnitude
of his preparations seems to show that the people were
with him and had begun to regard the recovery of the
lost provinces as a point of national honour. But no
army could effect much under such a general as Henry.
Favoured by the quarrel of the French barons with the-
queen regent, he besieged Nantes without serious op
position, though also without success, and made a
1 Royal Letters, vol. i. pp. 356, 357.

148 DEATH OF STEPHEN LANGTON.
brilliant military promenade into Poitou and Gascony.
But there his successes ended. A party among the
Norman barons invited him to enter the duchy and ¦
promised active co-operation. It was imputed to Hu
bert de Burgh's counsels that the king declined the
proposal, and left his partisans to be deprived of lands
and honours by the French government. Late in the
year Henry returned to England (Oct. 26), leaving
behind him the main body of his troops under the
count of Chester, who continued a marauding war in
Anjou and on the borders of Normandy. When re
sults were reckoned up, it appeared that no substantial
success had been achieved, while many English gentle
men were ruined by the expenses of the campaign.
The odium of all fell upon Hubert de Burgh. Yet
it is difficult to see that he could have acted more
wisely than he did in withholding the king from all
desperate hazards, and the one great mistake of making
the war was certainly not chargeable to the justiciary.1
But Hubert's position at home was now complicated
with fresh difficulties, from the connection of the Eng
lish Church with Rome. The great Stephen Langton
had died — too soon for his country — in 1228, and the
nominee of the Christ Church monks had been so ob
jectionable, from family, personal, and political ante
cedents, that the king had refused to ratify the election.'2
The case Avas, of course, referred to Rome, and the royal
proctors, despairing of success by legal means, offered
the pope a tithe from all England as the price of the

1 Wendover, iv. p. 209-217. been hanged for theft, and he him-
2 The reasons given for Henry's self had given the king's father trou-
dislike are curious. Walter de ble in the time of the interdict. He
Hemisham was useless to himself was also charged with immorality.
and the kingdom, his father had Wendover, iv. pp. 170, 171.

PAPAL EXACTIONS OPPOSED. 149
desired decision. Gregory, then in the full heat of his
contest with the emperor, caught eagerly at the offer,
annulled the monks' election, and, without even the
ceremony of a new one, such as Innocent had directed,
appointed Richard, chancellor of Lincoln, to the pri
macy. It was a fresh encroachment on the corporate
rights of the Anglican Church. Even before the pall
had been received, a papal legate appeared (April, 1229 )
to enforce the bond. In a great synod at Westminster
he expounded the reasons which had constrained the
father of the visible Church to curse the most illus
trious of his sons, the head of the Roman empire, and
arm one half his children against the other half. He
ended by demanding speedy and sufficient aid. The
king, to whom all looked, was bound by his plighted
word to offer no opposition ; the clergy, after four days'
debate, gave a reluctant consent under fear of excom
munication; but the baronage and gentry declared
stoutly that they Avere no vassals of Rome and would
pay no tithes out of their possessions. The earl of
Chester even forbade the clergy on his lands to con
tribute anything to the impost. In fact the laity
had an immediate interest in the question, for the
sudden levying of a tax which could only be exported
in gold, and which included even the future harvest,
must have drained the country of its specie and affected
the rents of all landed proprietors; and interference
with lay presentations to benefices Avas becoming in
creasingly common. The opposition, however, did not
hinder the legate on this occasion from carrying out
his purpose, and he did it in the most offensive manner,
refusing the composition offered him by the clergy.
But two years later a Committee of Public Defence
was formed, which sent circular letters to the leading

150 PAPAL COMMISSIONERS MALTREATED.
bishops and convents, recapitulating the notorious
abuses of papal misgovernment ; how presentations in
blank for five lives of benefices not less than £100 in
value were reserved from the English livings that
should fall vacant, without regard to the claims of
patrons or of the native clergy ; and stating that it was
resolved to rescue the Church and realm from these
exactions by sharp measures. The parties addressed,
therefore, were directed to have all the first-fruits and
tithes destined for Rome ready by a certain day, when
the committee would have them collected under penalty
that the houses of the defaulters should be burned.
These briefs were given in by soldiers, and the seal
bore the device of two swords, common to cathedral
citations. For some months they Avere generally
obeyed. When the " posse comitatus" was called in on
one occasion at Wingham in Kent to a rescue, the officers
of the commission exhibited letters patent under the
royal seal, whether forged or not is uncertain, and
easily persuaded the guardians of order to disperse.
The corn and hay seized were either given or sold
cheap to the poor, who blessed the movement. The
papal commissioners were roughly handled and their
bulls trampled under foot ; one man was cut in pieces,
another left half dead ; most were wise enough to hide
in monasteries. At last the indignant letters of the
pope forced the English government to inquire into
disorders which were only not legalized by publicity
and the impunity of their agents. It appeared that
bishops and deans, sheriffs and reeAres of all kinds
Avere consenting parties to what had been done.1 The

1 The pope especially charged the with complicity, but hinted that the
English bishops and state officials king was not himself innocent. "Non

PAPAL PRETENSIONS MODERATED. 151
chief actor, or perhaps rather the boldest, whom others
agreed to put forward as their scapegoat, Avas a York
shire knight, one Robert Twenge, who declared that
his right of nomination to the one benefice he possessed,
that of Luton, had been taken from him, and that he
would sooner be excommunicated for a time than lose
his property. The council agreed that he should go
to Rome, and the king furnished him with letters testi
fying to the truth of his statements and claiming a fair
hearing for him. For some unexplained reason he did
not trouble himself to make the journey for seven
years, and then appeared as bearer of a letter from
sundry English nobles aggrieved like himself. By this
time Gregory's anger had cooled, or he had acquired a
more thorough knowledge of the English laity. He
dismissed the gallant petitioner with a bull declaring
that he had never meant to invade the rights of lay
proprietors of advowsons. He reserved his oppressions
¦ — as a chronicler remarks — for the unarmed and the
clergy.1 Hubert de Burgh, who was said to have privately
issued the royal warrants by Avhich the commission
had justified themselves, paid the penalty of his patriotic
opposition to a tyrannical pontiff and a weak master.
It so happened that at this moment Peter des Roches,
the king's old tutor, returned to England with all the

sine tua, ut dicitur, conniventia." Twenge fell, a little later on, under
New Rymer, vol. i. part i. pp.203, theking's displeasure, as his lands and
204. Afterwards, by the influence chattels are assigned in 1244 to John
of the bishop of Winchester, all le Fraunceys. He, or another Robert
was laid upon Hubert de Burgh. Twenge, was, however, concerned as
Wendover, iv. p. 245 ; New Rymer, plaintiff in a suit in 1267 (Abbrev.,
vol. i. part i. p. 208. Placit., p. 160), and the family re-
1 Paris, Hist. Major, p. 513. From tained lands in Yorkshire for many
a notice in the Excerpta e Rot. Fi- years.
nium, i. p. 427, it seems as if Robert

152 CHARGES AGAINST HUBERT DE BURGH.
prestige of a pilgrim from the Holy Land. He found
Henry weary of his minister, disgusted with his own ill-
success in kingship, and complaining that he had barely
means to defray the expense of his household, much
less to raise an army against the incursions of the rest
less Llewellyn. Considering the enormous cost of
almost a whole year's campaigning in France, it is
perhaps no wonder if the royal treasury was exhausted,
but it seems equally certain that Hubert and many in
office were over rich. Corruption was, in fact, the
crying vice of the times, and men Avho had to purchase
every step on in life, and who held their offices by the
tenure of royal favour, might almost be forgiven if
they took freely in in order not to fall. But the bishop
of Winchester's advice that the king should reclaim his
own from his dishonest servants was too tempting not
to be followed by a weak and unscrupulous man ; the
lesser officials were first squeezed; and then Hubert
Avas deprived of his justiciarship and summoned to
give in an account of all the sums he had received in
discharge of his several offices, and of all moneys due
to the crown through his own laches in administering
the royal demesnes, or in allowing private wars or dis
orders. He was even cited to give in accounts of all
trusts held during the late reign, and a quittance given
by king John himself Avas contemptuously disallowed as
invalid under a new king. As if all this were not suf
ficient for his ruin, other counts, some of which seem
absurd beyond belief, were accumulated against him.
He had married the king of Scotland's daughter against
canon law, and to the prejudice of the crown, if his heir
should thus acquire the Scotch succession ; he had dis
suaded the duke of Austria from marrying his daughter

HIS ALARM AT THE ROYAL PROCLAMATION. 153
to Henry ; he had counselled the king against invading
Normandy ; he had captivated the king's affections by
sorcery ; he had given the wonderful stone, which made
its wearer invincible, out of the treasury, to Llewellyn
of Wales ; he had procured the death of William de
Braose, whom Llewellyn caught in his wife's bed
chamber and hanged. The most probable charges
accused him of making money by unjust confiscations
or by intercepting ransoms that were due to other men,
but it does not seem that any of these were proved, and
the foul rumours that he had poisoned several rivals1
Avere never brought into a court of justice, and one
of them at least seems to have been emphatically dis
believed by the dead man's relatives. Accusers, in
deed, were not wanting, but they were men whose dis
orders Hubert had repressed; and the charge finally
put forward against him in the royal writ for his
custody was only that he had encouraged the violences
against the papal proctors.
Nevertheless, with a strange disregard of judicial
decency, Henry caused a proclamation to be made in
the streets of London, inviting all Avho had any com
plaint against the late justiciary to bring it forward.
Hubert might Avell anticipate with alarm that some
false witnesses would be found in a large city, where he
had been unpopular ever since he suppressed the riots
and hanged Constantine, and shortly before the day fixed

1 The earl of Salisbury, the earl Faukes de Breaute died in France ;
Marshal, Faukes de Breaute, and the only quarrel Hubert had with
Richard, archbishop of Canterbury, the primate (about Tonbridge castle)
were the victims specified. As the was decided in the earl of Kent's
earl of Salisbury was seventy-three favour ; and the third earl Marshal
when he died, it is perhaps needless delivered him from Devizes prison.
to assume foul play in his case ;

154 Hubert's flight to evade trial.
for his trial he fled to the church of Merton for security.
Henry, when he learned of the flight, angrily ordered
out the whole civic. force of London to bring back the fu
gitive in custody, and twenty thousand men had actually
started with banners when the earl of Chester convinced
the king of the great danger of legalizing mob-law.
Presently, on the intercession of Lucas, archbishop of
Dublin, the one friend who was still true to him, and
who could approach the king, Hubert received an ex
tension of time till the 15 th of January, to prepare his
accounts. Understanding this respite to imply general
liberty, he set out to join his wife at Edmondsbury.
But being at Brentwood, on his way through Essex, he
learned that royal soldiers had arrived to apprehend
him, the king suspecting that he intended to ship from
the coast. He had just time to start from bed and rush
naked into a neighbouring chapel, where, holding the
cross in one hand and the host in another, he stationed
himself at the altar. As he would not quit the asylum,
Geoffrey de Cravecombe, who commanded the party of
arrest, took him out by force and ordered a smith to
shackle him. The stout Englishman refused. " As God
lives, I will die any death before I fasten iron on him
who freed England from the alien, and saved Dover, the
key of the realm, from France." The captors were fain
to bind their prisoner with bridles. But his release was
speedy, for the bishop of London threatened to excom
municate every man concerned in the sacrilegious out
rage if Hubert were not replaced in the chapel. Yet the
issue of events could not be doubtful. Watched unremit
tingly lest he should escape, his servants at last expelled
the chapel and forbidden to supply his wants, the
doomed man lost heart, and though he might apparently
have appealed to the right of asylum and abjured the

SEIZURE OF HIS WEALTH. 155
realm,1 consented to surrender and stand his trial. He
added that he implored the king's mercy.
During the interval between Hubert's flight and his
surrender, Henry's anger had had time to cool, the
fallen man's enemies were able to assure themselves
that he was without a party in the governing classes,
and the most rancorous foe of all, Ranulph, earl of
Chester, had just died. Henry, too, was probably ap
peased by the completeness of his triumph, and by the
seizure of the vast wealth which the ex-justiciary had
deposited with the Master of the Temple, and noAv
agreed to surrender. There were not wanting men who
sought the king's ear with demonstrations that eight
thousand pounds of silver and a profusion of jewels and
gold plate could not have been amassed honestly, and
that their possessor deserved to die as a felon. But
Henry answered, with some nobleness, that he had
rather be thought a fool and slow to exercise his just
rights, than cruel and ungrateful toAvards one who had
done his father and his uncle good ser\Tice. As in con
sequence of Hubert's resolve to throw himself on the
king's mercy, there was no need of a trial, it remained
only to determine his fate. A party of the nobles were
by this time willing to intercede for him, either from
genuine good-feeling or from dislike of his successor, or
from a natural aversion to sweeping sentences upon
1 Cf. Bracton (fol. 136). This, this case Hubert seems to have re-
however, would have been a confes- mained the whole term (Annales de
sion that he was guilty of a felony. Dunstaplia, p. 129). If he had stayed
Britton seems to imply (cap. 16) that longer he would have become a felon
a fugitive had an unconditional at law (Britton, cap. xvi). But, in
right to remain forty days in the fact, Henry treated him as one, and
asylum, but Bracton appears to granted away some of his lands for
limit it to " unam noctem ad plus." the legal period of waste in a felony,
Then, if the ordinary refused to ex- a year and a day. Excerpta e Rot.
pel him, he might be starved out. In Finium, p. 249.

156 Hubert's exploits and character.
fallen men. All the lands he had acquired at any time
from the crown, and his whole personalty, were confis
cated. The remainder of his property, acquired by in
heritance, by dower, or by purchase, might remain to
him and his heirs, with reservation of any claims that
might hereafter be set up against it in a court of justice.1
It was understood of Hubert himself that he was willing
to withdraw from the world whenever his wife's death
should permit him, and become a Templar.2 Meantime,
he was committed to the strict custody of four great
nobles. Two of these had lately headed an armed
opposition to the earl of Kent's government, and a
rumour was afloat that he had caused the brother of one
of them, the second earl Marshal, to be poisoned. Yet
the event showed that in a year's time these men were
reconciled to their prisoner, and procured his partial
restoration. Thrown upon difficult times, and retained
in the crown's service, Hubert may have governed too
harshly, and having his fortune to make, may sometimes
have stooped and soiled his hands in gathering it, but
it is hard to see that he was below the morality of his
age, and the smith's speech for him- at Brentwood is
after all only half his apology, as the gallant defence of
Dover, and the splendid leading of the forlorn hope

1 New Rymer, vol. i. part i. pp. staplia, p. 128. He was also said to
207, 208. have encouraged the attacks on the
2 An attempt had been made to clergy by the men called Lewytheil,
upset this marriage, on the ground that he might revenge an actual sen-
of consanguinity between the princess tence of divorce. Paris, Addita-
Margaret and Hubert's third wife, menta, p. 152. Nevertheless, the
the countess of Gloucester. The evidence of the deed of pardon is
earl of Kent was accused of having explicit, that he cannot become a
interposed wanton delays in the law- templar at present, "quia uxoratus
proceedings by appointing the court est." Probably the account in the
to consist of three judges in different Additamenta is wrong in assuming
parts of England. Annal. de Dun- that judgment had been given.

ORDER RESTORED IN ENGLAND. 157
against Eustace le Moine's fleet, were rather the opening
than the consummation of a patriotic career. The
soldier who won his spurs by saving England from the
French baron and Flemish mercenary, lived to rescue
her by vigorous statesmanship from the tyranny of an
Italian viceroy and the anarchy of her OAvn nobles. His
enemies were the worst men of the day, Faukes de
Breaute and Peter des Roches; his friends the earls
Marshal and Stephen Langton. Under him, England
passed from civil war to comparative order ; under
every other minister of that reign, from comparative
order to civil war or its beginnings. The immediate
occasion of his downfall was that he supported the com
mons of England against the pope, and a king who had
sold himself to the pope. There have been Englishmen
of larger statesmanship, of more spotless reputation and
more commanding personality than Hubert de Burgh,
but few whom courage, patriotism, common sense, and
opportunity have enabled to do more abiding service to
the commonwealth.

158

Chapter VI.
GOVERNMENT BY FAVOURITES.
Aliens in Office. Opposition of the Great Nobles. Civil War.
Ruin of Grosmont. Murder of Earl Marshal. Amnesty and
Change of Ministry. Henry's Marriage. Foreign Influences
at Court. Simon de Montfort. Council of Merton. The Papal
Nuncio. Papal Collectors driven from England. Inglorious
Campaign in France. De Montfort's Government of Gascony.
Corruption of the Judicature. Henry's Taxation, Prodigality,
and Unpopularity.
THE ascendancy of Peter des Roches soon became
unfortunately patent. His nephew, whom scandal
called his son, Peter des Rivaux, was within three
months invested with the command of Dover, Odiham,
and Marlborough castles, in spite of the papal bull,
which forbade any man to have more than two in his
hands. The royal treasurership, the keepership of
wards and escheats, the royal purveyorship at fairs, and
the guardianship of the young John de Braose, were
further evidences of royal favour in England, whilst in
Ireland he almost absorbed the patronage of the crown,
having a life-grant of the treasurership, the custody of
ports and ofthe navy, of wards and escheats, of all vacant
sees, of several castles, and of the cities of Cork and
Limerick.1 Stephen de Segrave, a renegade clerk, who
1 Royal Letters, i. pp. 517-522.

WHOLESALE APPOINTMENTS TO ALIENS. 159
had secretly promoted the exactions of the Roman le
gate, andwho had lately swelled the cry against his early
patron, Hubert de Burgh, recommending that he should
be hanged, was made chief justiciary, and succeeded to
the guardianship of the castles from which Hubert had
been removed. Robert Passelewe, who had earned dis
tinction as chaplain to the God-fearing Faukes de
Breaute, was made deputy-treasurer, with the custody
of the earl of Kent's forfeits, and appears to have
stood high in the royal councils. Aliens or upstarts,
and churchmen, these men could not even claim to re
present the faction of feudal disorder, of which the late
earl of Chester had been a consistent member. Their
chief, the bishop of Winchester, had grown up in the
traditions of John's reign, and desired to repeat the
tyrant's policy of governing by foreign ministers and
soldiers. A herd of hungry Poitevins and Bretons, to
the number, it was said, of two thousand, came over
with their followers to accept places under government
and garrison royal castles. Men like Richard, earl
Marshal, and the bishop of Carlisle, saw themselves or
their friends displaced to make way for these hirelings.
They perverted judgment in the courts by venal or
ignorant decisions, and degraded the blue blood of the
Anglo-Norman nobility by forcing their high-born
wards into marriage with themselves and their kindred.
It was a second conquest without a battle of Hastings.
Richard, third earl Marshal, was put forward by the
native nobles as their spokesman to remonstrate with
the king for his misrule, and threaten that his barons
would cease to attend the council if aliens sate in it.
The bishop of Winchester answered that the king was
exercising an undoubted right in taking foreigners into
his service, and would find men enough to bridle his

160 RESOLUTE OPPOSITION OF THE NOBLES.
mutinous baronage. The nobles Avithdrew indignantly,
and exchanged mutual promises of support. Being
summoned soon afterwards to attend the king at Oxford
(June 24, 1233), they returned a formal refusal. The
judges being consulted, advised the king that they
could not be considered contumacious till they had de
clined a third summons. But as troops were daily
coming into the kingdom the barons again refused, and
sent back word that, if the king did not rid himself of
his foreign ministers and soldiers, they would send him
and them out of the country and elect a new king. It
was resolved in the royal councils to adopt a vigorous
policy. An obnoxious baron, Gilbert Basset, was de
prived of a crown manor, and his brother-in-law, Richard
Siward, was sought for to be imprisoned, while the other
nobles were directed to give in hostages Avithin three
weeks' time, to purge themselves of all suspicion of re
bellion. At last a meeting of all military tenants-in-
chief was convened for the 14th of August at Gloucester,
the idea probably being that as the barons might attend
this in arms they would not scruple to do so. With
what reason we cannot certainly say, the earl Marshal
and some others still withheld their attendance, in the
belief that they would be treacherously seized. This
default of duty to their military suzerain gave at least
an excuse to the king for acting against them, and par
tially broke up their party. Richard of Cornwall had
already been reconciled to his brother ; the counts of
Chester and Lincoln were bought over at the cheap
rate of a thousand marks a-piece. An informal sen
tence was pronounced, declaring the absentees exiles
and outlaws, and assigning their lands to the king's
Poitevin followers. This was soon followed by a
declaration of war against the earl Marshal, the king, as

WAR BETWEEN KING AND BARONS. 161
in law bound, renouncing his suzerainty over him before
he took up arms (August).
The hostilities, of which England was the theatre
during the next six months, are more memorable for
their constitutional aspect than for their military im
portance. Badly served by his foreign followers, and in
the midst of a hostile nation, Henry broke down as signally
as his father, in the very similar wars against William
de Braose and the barons, had succeeded. The first in
cident of the campaign was the failure of the royal
army to reduce a castle of the earl Marshal's. Diplo
macy was called in, and the earl was induced to sur
render it under pledge of restitution within fifteen
days, that he might save the king's honour. Earl
Richard and his party no doubt anticipated that the
concession would furnish opening for negotiations. But
the ministry broke faith shamelessly, and the earl was
compelled to recover his own by force. He next re
solved to deliver Hubert de Burgh, whose name was
still a tower of strength, and whom Peter des Roches,
it was said, intended to put to death. A midnight
escape from Devizes ¦ castle was contrived, and Hubert
renewed his experiences of church sanctuary — being
again brutally dragged from the altar by his old
gaolers, and replaced at the intervention of the bishop
of the ' diocese. The issue, however, was this time
different, earl Richard's partisans carrying him off
before the sheriff had time to starve him out. Stung,
perhaps, by this insult, the king, in spite of the lateness
of the season (November), marched into South Wales,
and fixed his head quarters at Grosmont castle, in Mon
mouthshire. He woke one morning (Nov. 11) to find
his army a confused rout, and his camp in possession of
earl Marshal's followers. With a lofty spirit, half
M

162 DEFEAT OF THE ROYAL FORCES.
knightly, half loyal, the earl himself had refused to take
any part in the expedition against his sovereign, and
had ordered his followers to shed no blood if they could
avoid it. Only two lives were lost in Grosmont Run;
but the disgrace and loss of treasure were incalculable,
earls, bishops, and justiciaries, flying almost naked from
the field. In a brilliant skirmish at Monmouth soon
afterwards, the victory again rested with the earl, who
fought like a paladin, saved himself by sheer audacity
and strength from a capture by overwhelming numbers,
and slew nearly a thousand of the enemy who had
sallied out from the castle. Another defeat of a Poi
tevin force who were marching to surprise him, and
who fell themselves into an ambush, completed the de
moralization of the royalists. The king remained at
Gloucester, a powerless spectator of the war, and owing
his own safety to the forbearance of his enemies. They
now organized a series of attacks on the royal lands,
and the estates of the obnoxious ministers, sparing the
country generally; but burning, rooting up, and de
stroying on all the lands of their enemies. Llewellyn
of North Wales joined the earl in a foray of this sort in
the North, which only stopped with the burning of
Shrewsbury. Even in a progress through the eastern
counties the king saw from a distance the flames that
consumed the property of his justiciary. It is scarcely
wonderful if Henry swore, when he was once asked to
admit the earl to terms, that he would never pardon
him unless he implored mercy on his knees, and with a
halter round his neck.
The constitutional party had meanwhile been well
represented at court by the English bishops. The
insult offered to Walter, bishop of Carlisle, who, having
been deprived of all his offices, was taken forcibly out

THE PRELATES AND THE KING. 163
of the ship he had already entered, and forbidden to go
abroad, might have irritated a more long-suffering race
than our mediaeval prelates. They excommunicated
the royal officers at Dover to the king's face, and added
a general sentence on all who had caused the present
troubles in the realm. But they had another very
actual grievance against the party in power. It was
Stephen de Segrave who had counselled the legate
two years before not to accept the composition offered
him by the English clergy, but to enforce it in
full, to their infinite loss; and Peter des Roches had
come into power on the distinct ground of supporting
the papal collectors. Yet, with singular maladroitness,
he had contrived to alienate the pope. Having made
acquaintance Avith the German emperor in the east, and
enjoying his favour at the price, it was said, of plotting
to make England vassal to him, the bishop of Win
chester applied to him to secure the primacy of England
for a partisan.1 The mistake was a fatal one. Gregory's
hatred of his old antagonist had not been appeased by
their apparent reconciliation, and neither interest nor
gold could induce him to comply. His actual nominee,
Edmund Rich, was a man of high character, certain,
from his saintliness of life, to obtain influence over the
king, and certain also to use it against the unworthy
minister. In a council at Westminster (Oct. 9) the
bishops admonished the king to make peace on the
ground that his proceedings against his barons had
been irregular. Peter des Roches answered, calling
them traitors, and saying, that in England there were
no peers as in France, and that the king might there
fore give whatever sentence he chose. The speech was
\ Matt. West., p. 293. Compare Wendover, iv. -p. 267.

164 THE BISHOPS' REMONSTRANCE TO THE KING.
a curious proof of the influence exerted by Roman law,
and by its conception of royal power as necessarily un
limited over all inferiors. An Englishman might of
course plead, putting the Charter out of question, that
every English tenant-in-chief had the privileges of a
French peer. Whether they used this argument or
not, the bishops expressed their indignation at the
reply, and renewed a general sentence of excommuni
cation on all who troubled the peace of the realm — ab
staining only from special mention of the offenders,
because Peter des Roches, the principal, having been
consecrated at Rome, was not under their jurisdiction.
The favourite was so far sensible of his weakness that
he opened private negotiations with the earl Marshal in
the winter, which came to nothing, because Richard
persisted in maintaining that he was justified in making
war when he could not obtain justice, and refused to
put any trust in the king while he kept his present
counsellors about him. Early in the next year (Feb.
2, 1234) the king came to a conference with the
bishops at Westminster, and complained of several of
them, especially the bishop of Chester, for taking part
with his enemies. That prelate having made his peace
by the cheap expedient of excommunicating on the
spot all who were plotting evil against the king, the
assembly, headed by the primate elect, addressed a
general remonstrance to Henry on the subject of his
misgovernment. They told him that Peter des Roches
had ruined John by his counsels, had supported Faukes
de Breaute against himself, and had provoked the pre
sent rebellion. They pointed out the folly of com
mitting his castles, his wardships, his revenues, and the
administration of justice to foreigners. They warned
him, that, if he did not amend his government, they

HENRY ACCEPTS THEIR COUNSELS. 165
would pass the last sentence of the Church upon him as
soon as the primate was consecrated. The king asked
time for consideration, relapsed into his old tutelage
under the bishop of Winchester, and then suddenly,
when the term allowed him had expired, when the
primate was consecrated, and a new council of the
realm met at Westminster, announced his intention of
obeying the counsels of his bishops. Peter des Roches
was sent back to his diocese : Peter des Rivauxs sum
moned to give an account of his stewardship, and told
that if he were not a clerk the king would have had
him blinded. Above all, the primate and two bishops
were sent to treat with earl Richard and Llewellyn.
Unhappily, the earl Marshal had now gone to answer
before a higher court. It is said that the bishop of
Winchester and his party had procured the king's seal
to letters patent, of which he knew not the tenour,
granting away the earl's lands in Ireland to a number
of the chief barons there, some of his own liegemen,
on condition that they should seize him, dead or alive,
if he came into the country. Whether Henry did not
really know what had been written is perhaps doubt
ful,1 as there is an obvious tendency on the part of our
chroniclers to excuse his worst acts in favour of his
superstitious imbecility; his carelessness in any case
was criminal; and the letters were the actual cause of
a foul murder. The earl, as his party in England
could afford his absence, crossed the seas at once when
he heard that his lands were ravaged, and appeared at

1 Wendover's language is at least sellors, he had ordered his seal to be
suspicious : " But the king confessed affixed to certain briefs set before
in truth that under compulsion of him ; but he declared with an oath
the bishop of Winchester and Peter that he had never heard their te-
des Rivaux, and others, his coun- nour ;" iv. p. 311.

166 DEATH OF RICHARD, EARL MARSHAL.
first to carry everything before him. But there were
traitors in his camp. To Geoffrey de Marsh belongs
the singular infamy of having persuaded his lord to
reject terms of accommodation against his better judg
ment, and then deserted him in the hour of battle.1
Surrounded and alone, on that last battle-field on the
curragh of Kildare, Richard cleared a circle round him
with his sword, which none of his craven antagonists
dared enter. They drove the wretched kernes of the
country before them, and the earl's horse was cut and
pushed down. The fallen man was, of course, easily
secured; but his captors knew that his life would be
the best conveyance of his estates, and they wounded
him as they seized him. He might even yet have re
covered, but unskilful or treacherous surgery brought
on an inflammation of his wound, and he died, the six
teenth day after his capture (April 16). He had first
been persuaded to surrender all his castles and lands to
the crown. The first gentleman of his day, with as
much learning as a knight needed, and with all his
father's loyalty of nature, it was indeed a cruel fate
that struck him down on an obscure Irish battle-field,
fighting for law and liberty against the crown.
The news of the earl Marshal's death reached Henry
at Woodstock, on his way to Gloucester, where the

1 So says Wendover, whose ac- people, and himself taken prisoner.
count I have followed (iv. pp. 300- Their account has several inaccura-
308). But it is open to doubt. In eies; they call him Geoffrey Mares-
August, 1235, the king restores his chal ; and imply that the earl was
confiscated lands to Geoffrey de killed in battle. On the whole the
Marsh, but only with great reserva- words applied to Geoffrey, " who
tions, and his son is apparently ex- had stood alone fighting on the field
cepted from pardon. Excerpta e of battle," look as if they had con-
Rot. Fin., i. p. 286. See p. 205, founded him in fact, as well as in
note 1. The Four Masters make name, with the earl. Annals, A. 1234.
Geoffrey Marsh deserted by his

A GENERAL AMNESTY. 167
meeting for a final accommodation was to be held. As
excessive in his good impulses as in his bad, the king
burst into tears, declaring that the dead man had not
left his like behind him, and at once ordered masses to
, be said, and alms distributed, for the repose of his soul.
The terms of peace were now easy to arrange : the
more so as Llewellyn, whose audacity and self-assertion
might have done credit to a Csesar, announced that the
sovereign of North Wales was willing to make peace
with his brother of England whenever the nobles, his
allies, were reconciled to the crown.1 The rebels
made submission, and received complete pardon and
restitution to all their forfeited lands. Gilbert Marshal
was invested with his late brother's honours and do
mains in England and Ireland — the murderers thus
losing the prize of their treason.2 Hubert de Burgh
was not only replaced in the possession of the estates
which the king's first pardon had confirmed to his
family, but allowed to recover at law the royal grants
which the king had reserved for himself and since
granted away, the treasury indemnifying the ousted
possessors. Henry further offered to let the sheriffs of
every county in England proclaim a solemn reversal of
the sentence of outlawry lately issued against him, but
the earl refused the reparation on the ground that the
condemnation had never been valid at law.3 The

1 Compare Wendover, iv. p. 309, " Reddidimus omnes terras et tene-
and New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. menta sua."
212. 3 Matt. Paris, Additamenta, p.
2 The castles of Striguil and Du- 153. Wendover says he was ad-
mas were to be given into the cus- mitted again on the council, (iv. p.
tody ofthe archbishops of Canter- 311); and Henry's patent of pardon
bury and Dublin respectively. Royal contains a curious clause that he
Letters, i. p. 439. The surrender, shall not claim the justiciarship, or
however, was probably only for show. cause it to be claimed by any one
Cf. New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 212. else.. Royal Letters, i. p. 440.

168 HENRY'S MARRIAGE.
answer, worthy of an English gentleman, was brought
up rancorously against him in later days. A two
years' truce with Llewellyn completed the general
settlement. Yengeance was next taken upon the late
troublers of the kingdom's peace. Unhappily their ¦
tenure protected them from the proper punishment of
their misdeeds ; but their own precedent in Hubert de
Burgh's case was retorted against them; they were
shorn of all their offices and estates, and summoned to
render accounts of all moneys they had received.
A long interval of inactive misrule succeeded. One
of the first cares of the council, when tranquillity was
restored, was to arrange a marriage for the king. Never
perhaps has any monarch betrothed or sought to be
troth himself so often as Henry. As early as 1226 he
swore to marry Iolenta, of Brittany.1 Later on he be-.
gan negotiations with the dukes of Austria and Bavaria,
the king of Bohemia, and the counts of Bigorre and
Ponthieu.2 Why nothing came of these projects is diffi
cult to decide. The charge against Hubert de Burgh,
of having slandered the king in the matter of the
Austrian alliance, is perhaps some proof that Henry's
credit was not very high on the continent. By one
account the king desired to lead a life of monastic con
tinence.3 A naive expression, in a letter from the queen
of France, that she will not detain her sister whom

1 New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. ander IL, but the nobles objected
180; Paris, Hist. Major, p. 337, because Hubert de Burgh had mar-
Another account says that the count ried the eldest sister, and the earl of
of Brittany wished to marry his Brittany succeeded in setting the
daughter to earl Richard, Mouskes, match aside. Wendover, iv. p. 227.
vers. 27,589, cited in Tillemont, The lady afterwards married Gilbert,
Hist, de S. Louis, tome i. p. 432. fourth earl Marshal.
2 He also wished (1231) to marry 3 Chron. de Lanercost, A. 1236.
Marjory, the youngest sister of Alex-

COURT FAVOURITES. 169
Henry actually married, lest he should change his
mind, perhaps gives the truest reason that the king's
policy and impulses were liable to sudden variations.1
In fact, he had withdrawn his proposals for the count
of Bigorre's daughter under threat of Avar from Louis,2
who apparently did not wish to see the English dominion
in France cemented by fresh alliances. Eleanor of
Provence, the king's present choice, was the second of
a family famed for beauty and accomplishments, and
herself a poetess. Besides the dower, which had been
matter of careful stipulation, she brought with her a
train of relatives whose foreign graces and refinement
endeared them to the weak and uxorious prince. With
in four months after the splendid wedding (January 14,
1236), when London had been too small to contain the
crowds who flocked to do honour to their king, the nobles
were so indignant at the ascendancy ofthe queen's uncle,
William, bishop elect of Valence, that they refused to
attend the court in the Tower. Nevertheless, the fee of
Richmond and all the lands once enjoyed by the duke
of Brittany Avere bestowed on the favourite, and when
he last left England he carried with him treasure suffi
cient for the loading of several horses, and when he re
turned presently to the golden land, he at once resumed
his influence over the king. Only his untimely death,
by poison in Italy (1239), where he was retained on the
pope's side against Henry's brother-in-law, Frederick
II. , saved the chapter of Winchester from the necessity of
electing him. Two years later, another uncle, Peter
of Savoy, was raised to the chief place in council, and
largely endowed with royal castles and wardships.

1 Champollion-Figeac, Lettres de Rois, i. pp. 42, 43.
2 Paris, Hist. Major, p. 417.

170 GIFTS TO FOREIGNERS.
Wiser than the king, and perceiving the odium he had
incurred, he resigned much of his preferment within a
year (1242). But the gravest scandal of all was the
election of a third, Boniface, to succeed Edmund, of
sainted memory, as primate (1241). It was a lament
able proof that Henry's only substitute for principle,
superstition, had no power to restrain him where his
feelings were interested. Boniface was ignorant and
overbearing, generally a non-resident, and at heart a sol
dier. He signalized one ofhis few visitations in England
by a disgraceful scuffle at St. Bartholomew's convent,
where his right to enter was disputed, beating the aged
sub-prior with his own hands, and showing a coat of mail
under his robes. The king refused to listen to the monk's
complaints, but the indignant citizens of London forced
the primate to take boat hastily for Lambeth.1 Count
Thomas, a fourth uncle, visited England twice (1248,
1258), and received large gifts; only the patriotism of
Simon Norman, who refused to affix the king's seal to
the deed, and was dismissed office in consequence, hin
dered him from obtaining a toll of a groat on every
sack of wool exported. These favours might have been
endured if the queen's relatives had been their only re
cipients. But the princes of Sa\"oy were well-minded
towards their countrymen. Count Peter, on one occa
sion, brought over a train of young ladies from Savoy to
be provided with husbands, and three English earls, at a
time when there were less than thirty in the kingdom,
were married without the power of choice, being royal
wards, to foreigners.2 Foreign dependants of low birth
were enriched in the same way with the hands of English

1 Paris, Hist. Major, pp. 780-783. made. Liber de Ant. Leg., p. 17.
The citizens prevented any further 2 Paris, Hist. Major, p. 519.
inquiry into the tumult from being

WILLIAM DE VALENCE. 171
heiresses, or provided with wardships or benefices. It
added to the influence of the Savoy party that the earl
of Cornwall had married Sanchia, the queen's younger
sister, and was thus attached to the foreign interest.
But there were " king's men proper," in the language
of the times, as well as " queen's men," about the court.
On the death of the queen dowager (1246), her three
sons1 and a daughter finding that their connection with
England had ruined their fortunes in France, where
Poitou was overrun by the enemy, came over, not un
naturally, to their half-brother's court (1247). They
were speedily and well cared for. Alicia was married
to the earl Warren (1247) ; Guy's daughter found a hus
band in the young earl of Gloucester ( 1253) ; and Aymer
was made bishop of Winchester on the first vacancy
(1250), and enjoyed the revenues for ten years before he
was consecrated. Greater favours still were reserved for
William de Valence, who received, besides other emolu
ments, the hand of an heiress and the earldom of Pem
broke.2 Guy, the eldest of the family, was not unpopu
lar in England, having done good service to the English
army in Poitou. But William de Valence was noted
for his overbearing insolence and his unconstitutional
counsels. He was twice driven out of the country, and
at the time of the barons' war it was no secret that his
life was not worth a day's purchase if he were taken.
In default of other means the English nobles tried to
revenge themselves on their rivals in tournaments.
William de Valence was soundly basted at one of these,
and the king forbade another lest the less obnoxious

1 The earls of Lincoln, Devon, Warine de Munchensi, and after-
and Kent. Blaauw's Barons' War, wards ofher brother William. Paris,
p. 14. Hist. Major, p. 732. Dugdale's Ba-
2 He married Joan, heiress of ronage, i. p. 774.

172 SIMON DE MONTFORT
Guy should be cut to pieces at it. Nor was it only the
great who suffered from these men's insolence. Foreign
favourites at court meant a system of government by
foreign officials in preference to native sheriffs and sene
schals. The new men openly professed to know nothing
and seek nothing of English customs or laws. In one in
stance the earl of Pembroke's servants actually killed a
man by rigorous imprisonment, and gibbeted his body,
for killing a hen by a chance cast of a stone.1 It was a
curious feature in the king's character that he seemed
to prefer foreigners for their own sake to his country
men. Whatever crumbs of royal favour remained from
the banquet of Savoyards and Poitevins, were lavished
on Italian clergy or on foreign artists and cooks. Even
the king's jester was a Poitevin, and was rewarded
with a benefice. It is true he was also chaplain to
Henry's half-brother, Geoffrey of Lusignan.2
But among the many favourites whose alien birth
recommended them to the royal caprice, there was for
tunately one of the noblest temper and mould. Simon
de Montfort was the representative of a French family
which had acquired a moiety of the earldom of Leicester
by intermarriage with the Fitzparnels. When England
was laid under interdict, the fourth earl De Montfort
disobeyed the king, perhaps declared in favour of the
pope, and was in consequence heavily fined, with
sequestration of his lands and honours, the guardian
ship of which was bestowed a few years later on his
nephew, Ranulph of Chester.3 Occupation in the Albi-
1 Rishanger, pp. 4, 5. only Knighton, says he adhered to
2 Paris, Hist. Major, p. 850. the French. Baronage, i. p. 752.
3 Knighton (Twysden, p. 2347) Taking official documents, we find
says, " propter inobedientiam suam all the earl's lands committed, in
erga regem exheredatus et exlegatus Feb. 1207, to Robert of Ropeley's
cum filiis suis." Dugdale, quoting care, " till we have had thence the

CLAIMS THE ENGLISH POSSESSIONS.

173

gensian crusades perhaps withheld the family at first
from pushing their claim to the estreated estates, Avhich
a powerful kinsman enjoyed, and it was not till 1230,
that Simon, the second surviving son, obtained a pen
sion of 400 marks from the English treasury, until he
should receive the earldom of Leicester. Probably it
was understood that an English earldom would never
be granted to a vassal of the French crown, for
the brothers entered into a family compact by which
Almeric was to renounce all claims on the English
possessions if Simon were admitted to do homage
for them, while Simon was to give up any claims he
might have against the French property.' It speaks

moneys the same earl owes us."
Patent Rolls, p. 68. Aug. 27, 1214,
the king orders a quittance to be
given to the archbishop of Bordeaux
for the 20,000 solidi he had be
come surety for in behalf of Simon
de Montfort. Close Rolls, i. p. 171.
July 21, 1215, John commits the
charge of all count Simon's lands to
Ranulph of Chester, " custodiendam
ad opus ejusdem Simoni." Patent
Rolls, p. 150. Cf. Close Rolls, i. p.
326. In October, 1217, Ranulph is
ordered to transfer ten knights' fees
of property to the dowager countess
of Leicester, earl Simon's mother-in-
law. Close Rolls, i. p. 339. In July,
1218, the death of earl Simon being
heard of, William de Cantelupe is
ordered to let Stephen de Segrave
have full seisin of his hereditary
lands, the said Stephen being further
to answer for the revenue of those
lands to the exchequer. Close Rolls,
i. p. 366. Probably, the importance
of the trust to such a man excited
jealousy. In August 26, 1218, the
bishop of Winchester receives the
custody of " the land which was

earl Simon de Montfort's." Close
Rolls, i. p. 369. In the Testa
de Nevill (temp. Hen. IIL, date un
certain, but before 1226, and pro
bably before 1219) the honour of
Leicester in behalf of Simon de
Montfort is mentioned as a ward in
the king's hands (p. 36), and we
learn incidentally that earl Simon
had received some of the Norman
escheats (p. 81). Whether the earl
of Chester had been deprived of the
custody of the estate, or merely gave
it up during his pilgrimage to Pales
tine, 1218-1220, I cannot ascertain,
but the younger Simon seems to have
done homage for the honour of
Leicester in August, 1231 (Excerpta
e Rot. Finium, i. p. 217), more than
a year before the earl of Chester's
death, Oct. 28, 1232. Wendover,
iv. p. 256. It results, anyhow, that
the elder Simon was never considered
to have lost his dignity of earl, and
that a heavy fine was the immediate
cause ofhis absence.
1 Almeric's petition rehearsing this
compact was dated February, 1232 ;
but the matter must have been sub-

174 de montfort's marriage.
well for the justice then done in the king's council, that
a young stranger, with no better claims than right, and
perhaps that he had espoused the English interest in
France, was easily admitted to an inheritance1 which
many must have coveted, and which might have been
refused on colourable grounds. Earl and high steward
by ancestral right, though the honours seem to have
been withheld for a time, De Montfort presently aspired
to an alliance with the throne, and won the affections of
Eleanor the king's sister, and relict of the second earl
Marshal. Although the lady had taken a vow of chastity,
the king's favour removed every obstacle, and Henry
himself gave her away at the altar of St. Stephen's chapel
(Jan. 7, 1238), keeping the marriage secret lest the
Church or the baronage should object. In fact, the cry of
sacrilege was at once raised, and the earl of Cornwall, at
the head of the angry baronage, coupled his indignation

ject of negotiation before, as Henry and Wilts was restored at the same
speaks, in April, 1230, of an under- time. Royal Letters, i. p. 401. Ap-
standing with Simon. Royal Letters, parently Simon's homage was taken
i. p. 362. Nangis (vol. i. p. 192) in behalf of his brother who formally
ascribes Simon's going over to Eng- resigned his claims to the earldom at
land to a quarrel with the queen dow- Westminster in April, 1232. New
ager Blanche. But a passage quoted Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 203. Mat-
by Dr. Pauli (Simon von Montfort, thew Paris, it is true (Hist. Major,
s.30) from Alber. de Trois Font., 1237 p. 483), followed by Dr. Pauli, dates
(Bouquet, xxi. p. 619), seems to this resignation 1239, but the deed
show that Simon's disfavour at the itself declares that it was in the six-
French court arose from his position teenth year of the reign ; the signa-
in England as a noble and court fa- ture of Richard, earl of Cornwall,
vourite. Accordingly, he was for- would have included the title of
bidden two marriages— one with a Poitou in 1239, and in that year Al-
daughter of the count of Boulogne, meric was absent on a crusade. That
and another, in 1237, with a daughter investiture with the earldom was de-
of the count of Flanders. layed till February, 1239, after the
1 The honour of Leicester, that is, legitimation of his marriage, is not
the lordship or fee of the earldom, very wonderful. Quarterly Review,
was granted in August, 1231 ; and No. 237, p. 30.
the inheritance in Hampshire, Dorset,

HIS CHARACTER. 175
against this last insult to himself with a demand for the
redress of public grievances. The king, deserted by all
but the aged earl of Kent, whose loyalty no injustice
could shake, was compelled to temporise, and agreed to
submit to the decision of a committee of the barons. It
was thought generally in England that some great con
stitutional compact, such as Magna Charta had been,
might have been ratified; but before anything was
effected, Simon de Montfort made his peace with the earl
of Cornwall, and this and another like transaction with
the earl of Lincoln, who had procured his daughter's
marriage to Richard de Clare by royal favour, threw
suspicions of underhand dealing on the chief of
the opposition which were never obliterated. The
question of reform died quietly away. It was other
wise with the marriage of Simon de Montfort, which
was generally looked upon as cancelled. In this ex
tremity the earl went in person to Rome and solicited
a dispensation from the pope. As he had procured the
emperor's interest and spent money freely, making the
king surety for part of the sums promised, he was
able, after a few months, to return in triumph and
claim his wife. Theologians were not wanting in
England to regard the marriage as not legitimated
even by a papal dispensation; but they were gradually
silenced by De Montfort's reputation for sanctity.1
He was, indeed, the model gentleman of a crusading
and scholastic age ; he fought with credit in Palestine
(1240, 1241), his hand was heavy upon the Jews ofhis
estate, and he was the friend of Grosseteste, under whom
he placed his children for education, and of the learned
1 Paris,Hist.Major,p.47l. Grosse- Montfort's high character even at
teste wrote to console him, and his that time. Grosseteste, Epistolas, pp.
letter bears incidental evidence to De 243, 244.

176 DE MONTFORT IN DISFAVOUR.
Franciscan, Adam de Marsh.1 The fault of his nature
was an impatience of all opposition, that betrayed him
at times into violence or cruelty,2 but it was coupled
with a stern hatred of disorder in king or baronage.
Never man was more instinctively accepted by his fel
lows as a born ruler ; in Palestine his brother crusaders
petitioned that he might be made governor of Jerusa
lem; the French lords offered him the regency of their
kingdom ; and having rejected the proposal, he lived to
have even ampler powers thrust upon him a little
later by the English baronage. The large-minded
statesmanship which discerned and developed the germ
of popular rights has obscured the more vulgar merits
of the general, but he had the instincts of war and the
eye of a tactician. Such a man, devout and loyal, might
have seemed the natural support of his kinsman, the
king, whose superstition and weak affectionateness were
the sole virtues that even flatterers could praise. For
tunately for England, Henry was capricious in his loves,
and not two years after he had risked his kingdom to
promote De Montfort's marriage, took offence that the
money promised to Rome, and for which his name had
been pledged, remained unpaid, and expressed his anger
so roughly that the earl left the kingdom.3 A few
months later the easy prince had forgotten his anger,
and was ready to receive De Montfort again into his in
timacy, but the earl had learned the value of the royal

1 Grosseteste, Epistolas, p. 33. unbefitting conduct disgracing her
Monumenta Franciscana, p. 110, et position," which made Adam de
passim. From an amusing letter of Marsh blush. Mon. Fran., pp. 294,
Adam de Marsh's we learn that the 295, 299.
countess did not always live peace- 2 Compare Grosseteste, Epistolas,
ably with her husband, and was pp. 141-143. Political Songs, pp. 61,
immoderately fond of dress. She 66, 70.
also gave occasion for scandal, " by 3 Paris, Hist. Mnjor, pp. 497, 498.

.COUNCIL OF MERTON. 177
favour, and took up his position henceforth apart from
the court.
Yet, were we to test Henry's government only by
its laws and by the state of trade and agriculture, we
should assign it a high place in the annals of English
history. In the council held at Merton, shortly after the
king's marriage (Jan. 23, 1236), several substantial re
forms were carried or discussed in a way that speaks
well for the intelligence and fair dealing ofthe baronage.
Widows deforced of their dower were allowed to re
cover -to the full extent of their loss against the deforcer,
who was further to be in the king's mercy, that is, liable
to redeem all his personalty by a customary fine ; and
by another provision their right of bequest was ex
tended to the year's harvest. Any man guilty of
violent disseisin after judgment in court against him
was to be imprisoned till he could agree with the
crown on a composition. These were provisions for the
weak against the strong. Another enactment shows
that the rights of the weak might sometimes be en
forced to the public detriment. It was complained that
the under-tenants of great lords objected to the consti
tution of new fees on the ground that their rights of
commonage were thereby impaired. This, if maintained,
would practically have kept all England in the status
quo, the waste to remain waste to all time. It was
enacted that new fees might be constituted wher
ever it could be done without depriving the tenant of
his right of way, or of sufficient commonage. An in
quest was to decide what was sufficient in all cases of
dispute. On the game-laws no decision was arrived at,
the lords wishing for the right to imprison poachers,
and the crown very properly refusing. A regulation
that interest on a debt should not accrue during a
N

178 SUBSTITUTION OF CANON FOR COMMON LAW.
minority, and another against marriages to the heir's
4isparagement, are renewed from Magna Charta. It
was now, however, recognized that the heir might de
cline a marriage offered by bis guardian. Only in this
case, on ceasing to be a minor, and receiving his estates,
he must pay damages to the amount of the sum offered
for his marriage.1 But the most momentous question
of the time, in its remoter consequences, was the king's
proposal that the practice of canon law, by which
marriage at any time legitimated the children, should
be substituted for the practice of common law, by
which only children born in wedlock were legitimate.
The narrow practical point on which this turned was
whether writs of bastardy should be special to in
quire whether the child was born before or after mar
riage, or general, to ask whether bastard or not.2 If
the latter formula were adopted the ordinary would
of course be guided in his answer -by canon law. The
bishops had proposed the change. It was for their in
terest to avoid the clash of rival jurisdictions and to
introduce the law of which they were the authoritative
expounders. But all the earls and barons answered
with one voice, "We will not change the laws of
England, which have been used and approved down to
this day." The victory was decisive, and fifty years

1 " For the marriage of him that court to enquire into bastardy, I
is within age of mere right pertaineth send them unto you." Glanville.
to the lord of the fee." Statutes of repudiates the canon law heartily,
the Realm, i. p. 3. but it is easy to see that a bishop
2 In Glanville's time the writ, like Grosseteste might have an-
while it asserted the common law, swered such a writ, " born before the
was clumsily bifurcate. " R," claim- marriage, and not a bastard," or
ing land, " has no right, as W. says, simply " not a bastard," in spite of
because he is a bastard born be- . the prenuptial birth. Glanville,
fore the marriage of their mother, lib. vii. cap. 14.
And since it does not belong to my

OTHO, THE PAPAL NUNCIO. 179
later the danger of any change Romewards had passed
away with the growth of national self-respect. But
for the moment the clergy were furious. Even the
apostolical Grostete so far forgot himself as to declare
that any princes or judges who obeyed the law would
do so "in open rebellion to God the Father, and holy
mother Church, to their own perpetual damnation, and
even to the temporal ruin of their office."1
But nobles and prelates were united in indignation
when the king next year petitioned privately for a visit
from a papal legate, in the hope of partly retrieving his
authority, and of setting aside the influence of his
brother and Gilbert Marshal. The request was granted,
and Henry went down in person to receive the nuncio,
cardinal Otho, when he landed (June, 1227), bowed
down to his very knee, and reverently escorted him to
London. Otho soon acquired an absolute ascendancy
over the devout monarch's mind, and the king seemed
to glory in accepting the worst incidents of John's vas
salage, and professing to do nothing without the legate's
consent. Simon de Montfort, then a royal favourite, in
curred much of the unpopularity that had nearly ruined
him a few months later, by seeming to support the
cardinal.2 But in many respects Otho acted moderately
and well. He refused many of the gifts offered him ;
appeased the feud of North and South, which had lately
turned a tournament of barons into a battle-field ; and
arranged some difficulties with the king of Scotland.
His constitutions for the English Church were sensible
and temperate; and his attempt to abolish pluralities,
which were chiefly enjoyed by bastards of noble blood,
1 Grosseteste, Epistolse, p. 94. The high churchman of consummate
whole letter, pp. 76-94, is most inter- ability on the subject.
esting, as containing the views of a 2 Paris, Hist. Major, p. 446.

180 OTHO IN PERIL AT OXFORD.
was deserving of all praise, though it did not succeed.
The evil was, in fact, too rank to be remedied; the
threatened beneficiaries were said to meditate assas
sinating the legate ; and the bishop of Worcester told
him openly that it would be hard to deprive old men
of the means of giving hospitality, and dangerous to
meddle with the young. Otho agreed to refer the
matter to the pope. It was so effectually reported by
those who disliked taxation and dreaded reform, that
Gregory in alarm recalled his legate, who only obtained
leave to stay on by procuring a royal letter, with
the signatures of earl Richard and all the bishops,
requesting that he should remain. He contributed
largely to the re-establishment of peace (1238), when
the barons took up arms upon Simon de Montfort's
marriage, working upon the king's mind by threats,
-counsels, and prayers. An untoward accident at Ox
ford had nearly cost him his life. Dreading poison on
his unpopular mission he had made his own brother
cook; and the Italian, whom the scoffing Oxford
masters nicknamed Nabuzardan,1 provoked by the dis
orderly rush of a crowd of students into his kitchen,
emptied his saucepan in the face of one of them, a poor
Irish chaplain, who was asking charity. A Welshman
in the crowd instantly shot the insolent foreigner down,
and the legate, fearing for his own life, fled, first to a
church tower and then by night out of the city. He
was not timid without cause, for a mob of infuriated
clerks was searching for him with angry cries of
" usurer," and " simoniac." The outrage received
prompt punishment. The chief rioters were carted off
like felons to London; and Oxford was laid under an
1 Paris, Hist. Major, p. 470.

HE COLLECTS FUNDS FOR ROME. 181
interdict, which was only removed by all its scholars
going barefoot to the legate's residence in London to
implore pardon. A little later we find Otho holding a
chapter of the Dominicans in London, and reforming
their statutes. But no pastoral cares obscured the
great duty of collecting funds for Rome. Now he ab
solved crusaders from their vows; now he taxed the
clergy from a tenth to a third of their revenue; his
agent, Rubeo, the pope's kinsman (1240), did not even
spare fraud, and procured money by exhibiting false
lists of subscriptions received. Appeals to the king
were dismissed with angry threats. Appeals to Rome
were tried and were ineffectual, as Gregory was in the
crisis of his struggle against the emperor. All the
more did sympathy grow up in England for the great
prince, their king's brother-in-law, in whose ranks Eng
lishmen were fighting, and whom English gold was yet
taken to destroy. The documents in which Frederic
answered the papal sentence of excommunication were
eagerly circulated. Otho was sensible of the bitter
feeling against his cause, and himself as its representa
tive, and only consented to stay in the country at the
urgent request of the king, who feared to lose his
support. The bishops refused him any allowance for
his expenses, and he was compelled to impose a tax by
virtue of his legatine authority. It was only after one
refusal, and through the fault of the primate, who
wanted to win a cause against the monks, that Con
vocation at last agreed to give the pope himself a fifth.
Edmund presently expiated his mistake by quitting
the kingdom in disgust and going into voluntary exile,
from which he never returned. At last, when the
clergy declared they were almost beggared, the legate
announced his summons to a general council, and de-

182 MARTIN, THE POPE'S MONEY-COLLECTOR,
manded a viaticum (1240). A groaning synod con
sented to a fresh tax, and the legate stayed on. When
he actually departed, in the next year, escorted by
the king and court, with trumpets, to the coast, it was
said he had drained England of more money than he
left in it.
For a short time there was a respite. But in 1244
Innocent IV. sent over a new collector, one Martin, a
cousin of his own, without the title of legate, but with
greater powers than even legates were accustomed to
wield. He could excommunicate and suspend, and
stop all promotion to benefices, till his orders were
complied with; and it was said that he brought with
him blank forms of censure or presentation to be filled
up at his will. He was doubly hated in the country,
inasmuch as he grasped and gathered with both hands
for himself. Even the king, who till now had been in
partnership with the pope to plunder the Anglican
Church, was startled at the complaints that arose from
every side ; and his indignation did not diminish when
he learned, by inquiry in every county, that the pope
derived 60,000 marks a year, or as much as the whole
royal revenue from the kingdom.1 Perhaps, too, he
was a little stung by the remonstrances his brother-in-
law, Frederic II. , had lately addressed to him : bidding
him stop the degrading export of treasure, and let the
emperor release England from its tribute. Henry, ac
cordingly, sent Fulk Fitz-Warenne to hint to the ob
noxious collector that he had better leave the kingdom.
Fulk discharged his mission in the spirit of the baron
age and sternly bade the Italian " begone out of Eng
land." The startled collector asking if he spoke in his
1 Matt. West., p. 320. Cf. Paris, Hist. Major, p. 859, and see Appendix A.

DRIVEN FROM ENGLAND. 183
own name, was answered that he spoke in the name of
all the armed lords at Luton and Dunstaple. " Be well
advised : if you tarry till the third day, you and all
your company will be cut in pieces." From the pre
sence of the blaspheming baron, Martin hurried to take
counsel of the king, who characteristically denied any
part in the message ; but expressed his belief that the
barons would keep their word. He even answered a
request for a safe-conduct and convoy with an impre
cation that the devil might escort him to hell. The
council interposed, and one of the marshals of the palace
was assigned to conduct the trembling man to Dover
(July 15, 1245). He left a sting behind in the shape
of a deputy; but for a time his Italian nominees and
the French usurers, who attended every papal collector
to advance money to his victims, went into hiding, or
stole out of the kingdom. It was not the first check
the pope had received. He had lately hinted, through
some of his counsellors, that he was well disposed to
visit his faithful English, and see London and West
minster. Henry would have answered with an invita
tion, but his council persuaded or forced him to reply,
that the country suffered too much from the pope's
emissaries to endure his presence.1 Nay, more, at the
council of Lyons, in this year, the English proctors
made a spirited speech denouncing the oppressions of
the realm, and demanding redress. From the im
portance they attached to procuring a surrender of
John's charter of vassalage, it is evident that they
ascribed a great part of their present evils to the deed
which gave the pope a perpetual right of interference
in temporal matters. Unhappily they were not allowed

1 Paris, Hist. Major, p. 655.

184 REFUSAL TO SEND MONEY TO ROME.
to make common cause with the emperor, and so in
timidate the curia. In default of this Innocent de
ferred answering them till the council had excommuni
cated his enemy, and then forced the English bishops
to subscribe a new copy of the charter, the old one
having lately been burned by accident. The lay proc
tors were less pliant, and answered the refusal of
reforms by a threat that no more money should leave
the kingdom. Even Henry flushed up for once with
the spirit of a king, and vowed he would never again
pay tribute under that name to Rome.
Accordingly, in 1246, the king, the baronage, the
bishops, and the abbots addressed separate letters to
the pope complaining of the intolerable oppressions that
went on daily. " And unless," the nobles said, " king
and realm be speedily released from the burdens laid
on them it will behove us to place a wall before the
lord's house and the franchises of the kingdom 
Yea, unless the evils aforesaid be speedily redressed,
let your Holiness be assured, that such danger impends
as well over the Roman Church as over our lord the
king, that it may be hard to remedy it." 1 Nay more,
the king ordered by public proclamation that no money
should be subscribed or sent to the pope. But a threat
of interdict, and, it was said, the evil influence of his
brother, induced him speedily to recall this resolution.2
As, however, in the state of public feeling it was out of
the question to send legates, two mendicant friars, in
1247, procured a licence from the king to wander

1 New Rymer, vol. i. part i. pp. elusion of the natural heirs andof the
265,266. crown. It is one proof among many
2 Paris, Hist. Major, pp. 708-715. how incompatible the binary juris-
Paris mentions a monstrous rescript dictions were. The pope, however,
from the pope, about this time, con- was speedily forced to recall it. Paris,
ferring on himself all the property of Hist. Major, 707, 710, 724.
clergymen dying intestate, to the ex-

PAPAL EXPEDIENTS TO OBTAIN IT. 185
through England and collect alms for the pope. Under
this safe-conduct they traversed the country with sump
tuous equipages, exhibiting papal briefs and demanding
money. They found opposition where they probably
least expected it. Grostete, the zealous, church
man and special patron of the minor friars, had a just
view of his duty to his diocese and the state, and flatly
refused to contribute the enormous sum of 6000 marks
demanded of him without authority. Both here and
at St. Alban's, where they received a similar answer,
the collectors seem to have given way sullenly, but at
once before resolute opposition. Yet a few years later
(1252) Grostete calculated the amount drained from
England at 70,000 marks, or even more than the esti
mate given in at the council of Lyons. He himself
was troubled in his diocese by the consequences of this
money-getting. He desired to abolish the impropria
tions by which monastic and even military orders en
joyed the profits of benefices and discharged their
duties by non-resident deputies. The offenders pur
chased charters of confirmation from the pope, and
Grostete was dismissed with angry words, by one ac
count, with illusory promises by another, when he
pleaded his cause in Lyons before the assembled con
clave.1 He held that all men enjoying benefices or
teaching in schools ought to receive priests' orders, and
tried to compel them ( 1252) ; they answered by clubbing
their money and purchasing a dispensation from the
pope.2 Next year the bishop was required to present

1 Paris, Hist. Major, p. 773, re- a very cheerful account of the recep-
presents the pope as giving way to a tion given him by the pope, and of
burst of passion ; but this writer is their hopes of reform. Monumenta
not quite reliable when he discusses Franciscana, pp. 376, 627.
the court of Rome. AdamdeMarisco, 2 Paris, Hist. Major, p. 833.
who accompanied Grosseteste, wrote

186 DEATH OF GROSTETE.
a nephew of Innocent's to a canonry in Lincoln cathe
dral. He wrote back, positively refusing to comply;
but softening his letter by an explanation that his con
tradiction was not a rebellion, but an act of filial reve
rence.1 The pope was furious when he received his
son's letter, comparing the late appointment to the sin of
Lucifer; but Grostete' s reputation was such that the
cardinals advised that the matter should be let drop.
Unhappily, a few months later, the great Englishman
died. His last hours were occupied with lamenting
the disorders of the kingdom and the sufferings of
the Church; he broadly coupled the pope with Anti-
Christ,2 and the comparison was treasured and accepted
by men who like himself would have thought schism
damnation. The mediaeval belief in the omnipotence
of the papacy was curiously contrasted with the keen
observation and bitter censure that branded an un
worthy pontiff.
Henry's foreign policy, if his impulses can be dig
nified with that name, was not more glorious than his
government at home. In 1241 the king of France in
vested his brother Alfonso with the countship of Poitou.
There was no question that Poitou was mostly in the
hands of the French ; but as the title in question was
among those borne by Richard of Cornwall, its assump
tion might be regarded in England with some natural
displeasure. As, however, the earl was absent in Pales
tine, and the English baronage disinclined to foreign
expeditions, the matter would, in all likelihood, have
been passed by quietly, had not the queen dowager
taken it up as an insult to her dignity. Although the
count De la Marche had actually performed homage to
1 Grosseteste, Epistolas, pp. 432-437. 2 Paris, Hist. Major, p. 875.

FRENCH PRETENSIONS RESISTED. , 187
the new count of the province, she persuaded him to
renounce it with injurious words, and at the head of an
armed and menacing escort. He even burned down
the house which had been assigned as his quarters in
the town where the count of Poitou was holding his
Christmas court. Louis, of course, could not overlook
this insult to the royal dignity; and the count De la
Marche accordingly applied for succours against the
overwhelming power of France to the king of England
and earl Richard, who returned about this time. But
the request for aid was limited to the king and his
brother's presence, and a subsidy: the count thought,
perhaps not unjustly, that the English troops would be
of more hurt than use — their courage being more than
balanced by the offence they always gave their allies.
The English barons assembled in parliament at London
(Jan. 28, 1242) of course viewed the matter differently.
They were furious at the apparent slur on their warlike
efficiency ; and they must have seen that if the provinces
and England were no match for France, the provinces
alone would be even less capable to resist. They com
plained of the heavy burdens under which the state
groaned ; and since the king pleaded that he had sworn
to assist his father-in-law, they denied positively that the
crown had any right to make treaties without the assent
of the baronage. Above all, they distrusted the Poite
vin promises of support, and utterly disbelieved in the
possibility of conquering any part of the French pro
vinces. They even committed their opinion to writing
as a constitutional document. Nor did they fail to
recapitulate the many taxes already raised, some of
them upon conditions still unfulfilled, and the frequent
violations of the great Charter. They recommended
that an envoy should be sent to the king of France,

188 WAR PREPARATIONS.
and would only promise assistance if he should appear
to have broken the truce and to refuse satisfaction.
At last, being plied separately by the king and his
brother with entreaties, many of them gave way, and
an aid, irregular or not, was levied,1 perhaps on the
understanding that diplomacy should be tried,2 which
enabled Henry to set sail for France with thirty casks
of silver. The archbishop of York was left regent of
the kingdom.
France and England now prepared for war; and it
was remarked upon as an unheard-of aggravation of
hostilities in France, that the English merchants who
were quietly trading in that kingdom were seized, and
their goods confiscated, before war was formally pro
claimed.3 Reprisals were of course taken in England,
where the practice, condemned by Magna Charta, had,
however, been naturalized by John. The unusual se
verity displayed by Louis was no doubt partly a result
of changed times, and more extended commerce, pre
senting greater temptations to the spoiler; but it may
also have arisen from the fear he seems to have enter
tained lest Henry should become the chief of a league
uniting the sovereigns of Arragon and Castile, and the

1 Paris seems to imply (Hist. good faith not to infringe the truce
Major, pp. 582, 583) that Henry with France, except for just cause ;
only obtained benevolences ; but the and that if it is broken Richard may
Continuer of Florence of Worcester return to England without fear ofthe
(ii. pp. 178,179) says that he imposed king's displeasure. In June Henry
a scutage of 40s. the fee ; and Pauli writes to the barons and says, that at
quotes the Patent Rolls (26 Pat., i. the time ofhis sailing over he thought
7) about, an " auxilium regi ad pas- war might be avoided. New Rymer,
sagium." (Gesch. v. England., iii. s. vol. i. part i. pp. 244, 246.
647). 3 " Laedens enormiter in hoc facto
2 March 8th, the very time when antiquam Galliae dignitatem, quae om-
the king was soliciting an aid he nibus profugis etiam et exulibus prae-
issues letters to the barons, declaring cipue pacificis tutum asylum prae-
that he has promised his brother in buit." Paris, Hist. Major, p. 585.

FRENCH OFFERS FOR PEACE. 189
count of Toulouse, against their powerful neighbour.1
For the same reason he pushed on operations and rer
duced Frontenay, near Niort, the chief fortress of De la
Marche, while he yet offered Henry's envoys an exten
sion of the existing truce for three or even six years,
without the usual fine. It was even said that, under
the influence of respect for his father's covenant at
London (1217), he offered to restore Normandy and
Poitou, with reservation of his own suzerain rights;2
but so vast an offer is scarcely credible, even of the.
most righteous of kings, or its refusal, of the most
foolish. It is certain that, on the question of punishing
De la Marche's rebellion, Louis would hear of no com
promise, and Henry accordingly declared the armistice
at an end. The hostile armies confronted one another
on opposite banks of the Charente at Taillebourg.
Henry had wasted six days there in inactivity, and lost
heart when he saw the town on the north bank occupied
by a far more numerous host than his own. After an
angry altercation with the count De la Marche, who
denied that he had ever declined the support of English
troops, the earl Richard, habited as a pilgrim, was deputed
to demand an armistice of a day (July 20). The request
was readily granted, partly because it was Sunday, and
Louis shrunk from desecrating the day ; but chiefly be
cause the earl had ransomed so many French captives in
Palestine, that the generous French barons welcomed him
as a brother. During night the English army broke up
in a disgraceful flight, and the king never drew rein till
he reached Saintes. The French followed hard on his
traces, and were only driven back by a desperate and

1 Paris, Hist. Major, p. 387. Cf. 2 Matthew Paris is the only au-
Political Songs, pp. 36-41. thority for this ; Hist. Major, p. 587.

190 ROUT OF HENRY'S ARMY.
very even skirmish from completing the royal rout on
the same day. The count De la Marche had headed the
action, and exposed himself freely in it, to clear his re
putation from the stain of treachery. But he saw that
the English fortunes were hopeless, and made terms
privately with the king, on condition of giving up all
claim to the castles already taken from him, and holding
the rest of his estates by favour of the crown. He was
at once sent southwards to occupy the count of Tou
louse. Henry now retreated hastily upon Blaye, fearing
to be invested at a distance from the sea in a hostile or
doubtful country. For nearly fifty miles the roads were
strewn with the baggage of the English army, and the
very ornaments of the royal chapel were lost, though the
relics were saved. Seldom had rout been more igno
minious; and but for a sudden illness which arrested
Louis, he might probably have swept the invaders into
the sea. As it was, Henry took an early opportunity
of falling back upon Bordeaux. He himself declared
afterwards that he had waited a fortnight vainly offering
battle ; and the story is not incredible, if he knew that
Louis was in no position to attack him. In fact, the
French army gradually wasted away, its numbers and
imperfect commissariat intensifying the diseases com
mon in camps to pestilence. It was said, too, that the
men of the country had poisoned the wells; and we
may easily believe that they withheld supplies which
would not be paid for. Altogether eighty nobles and
twenty thousand nameless men were computed to have
died in their host. But the reduction of Poitou had
been accomplished none the less. The archbishop of
Bordeaux having first drained the king's coffers by pro
testations of fidelity, deserted to the stronger side, and
was scornfully nicknamed " Cain " by his new allies.

DESERTED BY HIS NOBLES. 191
Hertold, the governor of Mirabel, finding that his castle
could not sustain a siege, applied to the king of Eng
land to know if he might expect support. Henry
mournfully confessed his inability, and told his captain
to make what terms he could. Hertold bowed to
necessity, and surrendered his castles into the enemy's
hand, saying, with soldierly bluntness, that he regretted
the issue of the war. Louis respected his fidelity and
continued him in his seneschalship.
Henry did not profit by the breaking up of the
French army. The chief nobles, who from the first
had disliked the expedition, were now anxious to
secure a safe return while terms could be made, as the
sea was covered with French cruisers. Henry allowed
them to treat with the king of France; and Louis,
against the wishes of his court, who desired to follow
up their successes, gave free passage to all who wished
it through his dominions. Even Richard of Cornwall
was among those who left the camp in disgust — the
king having deprived him of the governorship of the
province with no better reason than that he now wished
to reserve it for his eldest born, Edward.1 The
northern barons incurred special disfavour, probably
because they would not promise to return, as their
money was exhausted; and the king found means to
punish them by fines and forfeitures. Simon de Mont
fort and the earl of Salisbury were the only men of
importance who stayed with the army ; and De Mont
fort's presence, however valuable in itself, endangered
the relations with the count of Toulouse, the ancestral
enemy of his house. A scutage was levied in England,
1 Paris, Hist. Major, pp. 595, 596. lish escheats for his interest in the
Later on Henry consented to in- government of Gascony. New Ry-
demnify his brother out of the Eng- mer, vol. i. part i. pp. 253, 254.

192 THE ENGLISH PROVINCES IN FRANCE.
and supplies of men, money, and provisions were sent
out, to the great loss of the realm ; but the men were
wasted in costly inactivity, and the gold only enriched
the French provincials, who exhausted every intrigue
to keep so valuable a sovereign among them. At last,
(April, 1243), just as the season for military operations
was beginning, a truce for six months was concluded
which ripened into a peace for five years, chiefly, no
doubt, through the strong desire of Louis to adjust all
difficulties that might keep him from his meditated
crusade. Thus the war between the two countries
virtually ended — the English baronage not caring to
renew the unpromising struggle, and Louis, from love
of justice, respecting the English rights, and shrinking
almost timidly from hostilities with a prince whose
masses and alms fought for him. Sixteen years, how
ever, elapsed before the conditions of a durable peace
could be adjusted— Henry demanding an equivalent for
the cession of Normandy, Maine, Anjou, and Poitou.
But in 1259 it had become the interest of all parties in
England to conciliate Louis, and De Montfort and his
associates held the reins of power. The English pro
vinces in the south were rounded off with the districts
of the Limousin, Perigord, and Querci; and Henry
renounced the obnoxious claims, and did homage to the
crown of France as duke of Guienne and peer.1
But even when there was no war on the side of
France the English provinces were a constant source
of expense, from the need of keeping order and quieting
the incessant feuds of nobles and towns. Besides this,
there was a special cause of complaint against the king.
When Henry, some years before, had deprived his
1 New Rymer, vol. i. part i. pp. 389, 390.

DE MONTFORT'S PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT. 193
brother of the earldom of Gascony, the barons and
knights of the province had at first refused to transfer
their homage, and had been bribed into acquiescence
by a promise of thirty thousand marks, which had
never been paid. In 1248 the situation became so
urgent that Henry summoned a full parliament to
London, and demanded extraordinary supplies. The
baronage answered by exposing the ruinous vices of
the government, especially the infringement of the
charter, and requesting that the king's council might
no longer be composed of foreigners. Henry resented
this as an outrage on his dignity, and having procured
a supply by the sale of his jewels, prevailed on Simon
de Montfort, who had been largely employed in his
service since the French campaign, to take the govern
orship of Gascony and Guienne for six years. The
earl displayed his wonted ability, reduced Fronziac and
Aigremont, and sent the chief rebel, Gaston de Beam,
prisoner to England, where, by the intercession of the
queen, whom he called cousin, he was speedily restored,
though on strict terms, to his possessions. De Mont
fort went on his way none the less, storming castles,
hanging disturbers of the peace, and depriving those
whom he .could not apprehend of their estates. His
zeal in the king's service is beyond dispute, and when
money was doled out insufficiently from England he
provided for the expenses of his campaigns by the sale
of his own timber. It was also remembered afterwards,
and it may well be believed of so good a soldier, that
he kept strict discipline, and allowed no unnecessary or
barbarous ravage. But for the time his severe govern
ment appeared intolerable, not only to the nobles,
whose licence he curbed, but to the very merchants of
Bordeaux, who thought peace and order dearly pur-

194 RECALL OF DE MONTFORT.
chased with the sacrifice of practical independence and
the enforcement of taxation. They had desired an
ally, not a governor. A deputation headed by their
archbishop, a notorious traitor, accused De Montfort of
extorting money from the province for his own emolu
ment. A graver charge was, that he had seized and
imprisoned men who, like William of Aigremont, had
come peacefully to a meeting of the estates ; but the earl's
answer to this is not known.1 Henry sent a commissioner
to report on the true state of affairs, and the earl, furious
at the implied distrust of his rule, collected a large
army of foreign mercenaries, and waged such vigorous
war throughout the province that, it was said, only the
profits of their English trade retained the Gascons in
their allegiance. They again appealed to the king, de
manding that their envoys might be confronted Avith
the earl ; and De Montfort was accordingly recalled to
answer for his conduct. The general feeling of the
country, represented by the earls of Cornwall, Glouces
ter, and Hereford, and by many bishops and barons of
less note, was strongly in favour of the brilliant, capable
man with no worse fault than that he had dealt a little
sternly with disloyal foreigners, whose misfortunes were
a source of secret pleasure to every true Englishman.
On the other hand, Henry, as king, had divided duties
and interests, and may be forgiven if he was influenced
by the declaration of the Gascon deputies, that they
would never again obey "the exterminating count."
His government, they said, was one long campaign

1 Raymond, viscount of Soule, how- a safe-conduct. He seems to have
ever, excused himself from having been treated in consequence as if in
attended the earl's court, on the open rebellion. Royal Letters, ii. pp.
ground that he, like many others in 74-76.
Gascony, was afraid to do so without

HIS QUARREL WITH THE KING. 195
against men who had been on friendly terms with
every former viceroy; and who now saw their castles
seized,- or were themselves imprisoned out of the pro
vince or hanged. De Montfort's answer was that of a
proud man and inexorable judge, conscious of his own
rectitude. If he punished men who had been admitted
to terms by former governors and had renewed their
old offences, he was only acting as God did, who was
juster than any man, and who avenged his honour on
all transgressors. But what need was there to argue
the matter against perjured traitors, whose falsehood
the king in his heart well knew. Finally, he professed
himself willing to give up the government, if Henry
would reimburse him the expenses which had ruined
his earldom. Henry was so irritated by this demand
on his empty treasury that he answered hastily, that
he was bound by no promise to a false traitor. The
earl gave him the lie to his face, and added, that if he
were not king he should pay dearly for the insult he
had uttered. He went on to taunt him with his super
stition, and asked how he could reconcile his shameless
breaches of faith with the penitence demanded from all
who confessed themselves. The king answered bitterly
that he had never repented any aet of his life so surely
as the favour he had shown to the earl of Leicester in
making his fortunes. At this point the friends of either
side interposed and the disgraceful scene terminated.1
Perplexed and helpless, Henry allowed his too power-
1 Paris is our most life-like and Montfort intimated to the king, " by
full authority for these matters, pp. letters patent," that he was prepared
836-839. His account is substan- to obey the king (i. e. probably to
tially confirmed by a long letter of carry out his wishes), as long as it
Adam de Marisco, (Monumenta was for the interest of his honour
Franciscana, pp. 122-130), who adds and profit. It is a curious instance
that after leaving the council De of an appeal to public opinion.

196 DE MONTFORT'S FALL AND FLIGHT TO FRANCE.
ful subject to return to Gascony, perhaps with an un
defined hope that something would occur to remove
him from life and politics. But we need not ascribe it
to treachery, or to any other causes than a weak
character, and even a wish to do well by his subjects,
that Henry presently declared his young son Edward,
earl of Gascony, ordered the natives to do homage to
him, and proclaimed a general armistice. The imme
diate result, however, had nearly been to cost De Mont
fort his life, as the prestige of royal authority was at
once withdrawn from him, and his enemies banded
together in overwhelming force to destroy him. He
succeeded, however, in escaping into France, where he
watched the course of events. It soon appeared that
Gaston de B^arn and his associates meditated transfer
ring the country and their allegiance to the king of Cas
tile. The alarmed towns implored Henry to assist them.
Under pretext of a crusade, and by again confirming
the charter, Henry succeeded in collecting money for
an expedition, and took the field with overpowering
force, and with the advantage of fighting, as it were, in
a holy war, all his enemies being excommunicated for
detaining a possible crusader from Palestine l (August
6, 1253). The castles were speedily reduced, but as
the chief offenders were readily pardoned, or only held
to ransom, while the soldiers destroyed the vineyards,
which were the great wealth of the province, the
Gascons were soon as discontented as ever, and withheld
all provisions from the royal camp. Henry's most solid
success was in contracting an alliance with his dangerous
neighbour the king of Castile, who promised his sister's
hand for prince Edward.2 A design to reconquer
—  .  -ife  .  . 
1 New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 2 Negotlations'on this subject had
292- been begun as early as May. New

HIS RECONCILIATION AND RETURN. 197
Poitou failed through the precautions of the French
government, who garrisoned the province with their
own troops. Before long he was glad to invite De
Montfort back into his service. The earl had lately
been offered the seneschalship of France, Louis being
then absent in the Holy Land, and the queen dowager
having died. Tempting as the offer was, especially to
a disgraced man, he had refused it, lest it should seem
evidence of disloyalty. He now, partly, it was said,
through Grostete' s influence, agreed on easy terms to
be reconciled to the king. His presence, and a vote of
men and money from the reluctant English parliament,
enabled Henry in the spring of the next year to pay a
costly visit to Paris, where his largesses and devotion
procured him as much respect as his character under
any circumstances could command.
Of what was possible in the kingdom during this
long period of misrule some idea may be gathered from
a single incident. In 1249, two merchants of Brabant
Complained to the king, who was then at Winchester,
that they had been robbed by men whom they recog
nized as in the king's household, and could obtain no
redress from the reluctance of English juries to convict
their countrymen. Indignant at a charge so nearly
affecting his honour, and fearing reprisals from the
duke of Brabant, Henry ordered a strict inquiry to be
made, and by condemning a first jury to the gallows for
withholding their verdict, obtained a full confession of
facts long since patent to the country from a second.
It appeared that the robbers were recruited from the
king's servants, and from men of substance in Winches-

Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 290. An the king of Aragon's eldest son,
alliance had also been projected but it came to nothing.
between the princess Beatrice and

198 CORRUPT STATE OF THE JUDICATURE.
ter and Southampton, some of them having fifty or
eighty pounds rental, and one, a cellar well stocked
with fifteen casks of wine. Altogether, from sixty to
seventy were apprehended, half of whom were hanged
forthwith, while some of the others seem to have
claimed and perished in the duel. The king's ser
vants, when they were taken out to the gallows, sent
word to Henry that their death was at his door for
withholding the wages due to them. The message was
delivered, and extorted a few sighs of unavailing com
punction.1 Of course this was a case of exceptional in
famy under strong temptation. But the justice ad
ministered by needy officials, anxious to make the most
of their opportunities, and certain to evade inquiry if
they only oppressed the weak and bribed the powerful,
could not in its very nature be good. The justiciary,
Henry of Bath, a man of letters and a profound lawyer,
was unfortunately induced, it was said by his wife, a
woman of good family, to take bribes largely, and
adjudge himself estates when he went on circuit. In
this way he at last provoked an appeal to the king in
council. Henry at first took the matter up warmly,
forced the offender to enter into heavy bail, and when
he appeared on the day of trial surrounded by a retinue
of armed friends, declared him outlawed on the spot.
The injured men who had come on invitation to implead
the justiciary would at once have taken brutal adATan-
tage of the royal licence, had not Henry slunk away
from the curia, perhaps alarmed at the tumult his words
had provoked, and left matters to be arranged by John
Mansel, the justiciary's friend. All was compromised
for a fine of tAvo thousand marks, and two years later
1 Paris, Hist. Major, pp. 760, 761.

HENRY'S FINANCIAL EMBARRASSMENTS. 199
Henry of Bath was again justiciary.1 Yet the fact that
the gravest charge against him was that he had once let
a criminal out of prison untried for a bribe — a charge
which, as we know not the answer, may have been ex
aggerated — may serve to shoAV that corruption rather
than injustice was the crying vice of our judicature in
the thirteenth century.
The fiscal history of Henry III.'s reign acquires a dis
proportionate importance from the fact that almost all
the king's offences against law and liberty were occa
sioned by his perpetual need of money. A better
exemplar of all possible forms of mediaeval taxation, just
or unjust, can scarcely be found than in the twenty
years between his marriage and his second return from
Gascony. In 1237, he obtained a thirtieth on all person
alty from the baronage at the price of again confirming
Magna Charta, and on condition that it should be
disbursed by special commissioners. The compact was
of course violated, and the money lavished on foreign
favourites. Next year we find the king living at free
quarters on the manors of the see of Winchester, chiefly,
no doubt, to force the chapter into an improper election,
but yet, as we may infer from complaints afterwards,
partly with a view to relieve the royal treasury. In
1239, the birth of a son furnished a convenient pretext
for extorting gifts. In 1240, the justices itinerant col
lected " infinite money " for the king. In 1241, the
Jews were forced to pay an arbitrary fine of twenty
thousand marks. The unlucky expedition to Poitou
(1242) obliged the king to obtain money by alternate

1 Paris, Hist. Major, pp. 811-815. tirely paid at Henry de Bathonia's
Foss's Judges, ii. pp. 223-227. Mr. death in 1261, and that the arrears
Foss shows that the fine was not en- were remitted to his heir.

200 HENRY'S ARBITRARY EXACTIONS
threats and cajolery, from all who were known to
possess it; and as the situation of the army became
more and more desperate, other shifts were resorted to,
the Jews again fleeced, an arbitrary tallage enforced in
London, and personal application made to the religious
orders by the king's representatives. The Cistercians,
refusing, were punished next year with an unjust pro
hibition to export the wool which was the chief source
of their revenue. It might seem some gain that the
seven thousand pounds which had hitherto gone in
pensions to the Poitevin nobles were now discon
tinued, but Henry compensated the involuntary
economy by promising gratuities of twenty thousand
pounds to his clamorous and faithless Gascon sub
jects. Even his inglorious return was commemorated
by an absurd and costly pageant of welcome which
nobles and citizens were reluctantly forced to defray.
In 1244, all lands held by French subjects in England
were seized to the king's use on the plea that Louis had
forced his vassals to choose in like manner between
their allegiance to him and to Henry. The difference
was that Louis had facilitated family arrangements by
which estates were exchanged without material loss.
Further, Henry demanded an aid or extraordinary tax,
and though the Parliament refused it they consented to
pay in advance a scutage of twenty shillings a fee, as
the sum which would one day be due when the king's
eldest daughter should be married. In 1245, a strin
gent commission was issued to inquire into all encroach
ments on the royal forests, and many persons were
ruined by its operations. In 1248, all minor resources
having proved inadequate to defray the royal waste,
Parliament Avas again applied to. It answered, besides
urging the usual grievance of alien counsellors, by

AND SCHEMES TO. OBTAIN MONEY. 201
complaining that the purveyance exacted for the king's
household was so monstrous and unjust that it seriously
affected the home and foreign trade of the country, that
wax and silks were taken without payment for the king's
charities, and that sees and abbacies were kept vacant
while the crown enjoyed their revenues. It is curious
to think on what habitual injustice Henry's religion was
based, and to observe that, in spite of all wrong, the
people never quite lost their respect for a king whose
perjuries and robberies were united to a zeal for the
Lord's house. On this occasion, however, a grant was
refused unless the great officers of state were appointed
by the common council of the realm. The king
preferred to break up and sell his plate. He ob
served with indignation that the Londoners were
able to buy whatever he brought into the market,
and his piety and . his spirit of kingship found relief in
ordering a fair to be held at Westminster, to the great
detriment of London, where all shops were closed, and
of Ely, whose usual fair was ruined, but to the immense
gain of the rising structure of Westminster Abbey.
Next year (1249) new year's gifts were extorted from
the leading citizens. But as this could not discharge
' the crown debts, the king borrowed money, by personal
application, from the chief lords, spiritual and temporal,
alleging that thirty thousand marks would quit his lia
bilities. It is probable that he gained part of the money
by a promise that the chancellor, justiciary, and treasurer
should be appointed in Parliament, for a meetmg was
convened for that purpose and dismissed with its object
unattained, on the plea that the earl of Cornwall was
not present. In 1250, the Jews were again fleeced,
one of them being compelled to ransom himself with
fourteen thousand marks, making thirty thousand in

202 HENRY'S TREATMENT OF THE LONDONERS.
all that had been taken from him during the reign.
Benevolences were also freely extorted from Christians
on the plea that the king was going on the crusade, and
a convenient plan was adopted by which the king dined
with his chief subjects in turn. Once, indeed, Henry
played host and invited the Londoners to his table ; but
when he found that they would not surrender their
privileges, he abused them as " base-born tradesmen and
clownish citizens who called themselves barons." It
reads like irony after this to learn that next year Henry
caused a balance-sheet of all his revenues and outgoings
since the accession to be drawn up. Probably the re
sult was not satisfactory, for in 1252 he obtained a
grant of three years' tithes from the Pope, again on the
plea of his crusading intentions, and tried to persuade
the English synod to pay him the money in advance.
He was met with a resolute refusal; but next year,
favoured by the plea of rebellion in Gascony, he
carried through the proposal, and got further a vote of a
scutage of three marks from the baronage whenever he
should set out for Palestine. Courtly prelates seem to
have held that the condition was fulfilled when the king
landed at Bordeaux, as the rebels were excommuni
cated for hindering a crusader. The history of the last
grant for the war is a little curious. Henry wrote
home directing that a Parliament should be summoned
to give prompt aid, as he was in . urgent need, and his
commissioners exhibited the gigantic darts which were
launched from the Gascon ordnance (1254). But the
truth leaked out that instead of apprehending war with
the king of Castile, Henry had already concluded peace,
and had sent for his wife and son. Indignant as they were
at the subterfuge, the barons and clergy nevertheless
promised to aid their sovereign with men and money,

REVENUE OF THE KINGDOM. 203
only stipulating that both were to be applied to the
purpose specified, and demanding that this concession of
service in a foreign country should not be drawn into a
precedent.1 The ordinary revenue of the kingdom seems during
this period to have averaged about forty thousand
pounds.2 It would probably be wrong to assume that
Henry's unscrupulous expedients ever added in the
long run much more than ten thousand to his income.
However large this addition may have been relatively,
the sum total does not seem enormous, even if we mul
tiply it fifteen-fold to approximate to modern values,
as the contribution of a population of some two millions
and a half. We know that, in spite of famine and civil
war, numbers and wealth increased steadily during the
reign. Yet it was no ignorant impatience of taxation
that led our ancestors to refuse supplies perpetually,
and at last to appeal to the sword against their sove
reign. The amount paid annually into the exchequer
represented only a small portion of the burdens on
labour and property. The king was merely expected
to keep court, to pay his ministry, justiciaries, and am
bassadors, to keep his castles garrisoned and in repair,
and occasionally to reward a distinguished public ser
vant with a grant of crown lands. The expenses of
local justice and police were borne by the districts in
terested ; the national army was a militia that served at
its own expense ; and the national fleet in time of war
was composed of all the private ships that could be im
pressed. Roads, bridges, and walls were all charges
1 Paris, Hist. Major, pp. 445, 473, 812, 834, 865, 867, 881, 882. Liber
483, 488, 533, 550,595, 597,604, 605, de Ant. Leg., pp. 14, 15.
614, 615, 626, 643, 661, 743-4, 748-9, 2 See Appendix A, p. 208.
751, 758, 765, 773-4, 778, 785, 807,

204 THE NATIONAL EXPENSES.
on land; and half the burden of the royal household,
even in the best times, fell upon the countrymen who
lived within reach of the king's purveyors. The large
subsidies extorted by Rome from the clergy were, of
course, only a per centage of the much larger amount
that the nation paid in tithes and first-fruits, and fees
of all kinds, to the national Church. Yet the people
were so accustomed to contribute, and the uses of wealth
were so few then in comparison with what they now
are, that, as experience showed afterwards, a brilliant
and successful king might count on almost unlimited
sacrifices from the devotion of his people. The de
spondent feeling that the power of France was never to
be matched could never have possessed the minds of
Englishmen as it did in the thirteenth century, had
Philip Augustus and Louis IX. changed thrones with
John and Henry. As it was, the nation felt, after
Henry's first campaign in Brittany and Poitou, that it
was leaderless; its king only the creature of foreign
parasites; itself a mere geographical name in Europe.
It retained its French possessions by sufferance or ac
cident; and if the Welsh princes were at last reduced
to do homage by an exterminating campaign (1245), the
early successes of Llewellyn showed that the English
arms could only triumph over a divided people. Neither
was Henry's the tranquil inoffensive misrule of a prince
like Edward the Confessor, who said his beads and left
policy to his nobles. The croAvn was now as strong as
it had been weak formerly, and Henry's superstition
was prodigal where the Confessor's had been scru
pulous. He loved justice for its fines, and religion for
its capabilities of ostentation. If the gold wrung from
the people's misery did not go to the Virgin and the
saints, it enriched the foreign adventurer, the evil

UNPOPULARITY OF THE ROYAL FAMILY. 205
counsellor, or the secret traitor. Perhaps no history
affords a parallel of a sixth of the whole royal revenue
disbursed in yearly pensions to the nobility of a single
foreign province. Nor would it be easy to match the
prodigality of a king who, after draining the country
by taxes and forced loans, was in debt £200,000, or
four times his income for the year, with no other re
sults to show than a feAv months' campaign in Gascony
and a visit to Paris.1
That the king and his family were unpopular need
scarcely be said. In 1238 a daring attempt was made
to assassinate Henry and his queen by a man who
simulated folly, got himself naturalized about court,
and then tried to make his way by night into the royal
bed-chamber. Being put to the " peine forte et dure,"
the mediaeval equivalent for torture,2 he declared him
self the agent of a conspiracy in which one William de
Marsh was prime mover.3 The wretched tool suffered
the death of a felon, and William de Marsh, after some
years of outlawry, during part of which he lived as a
1 Paris, Hist. Major, pp. 604, 901, mentions this punishment, however,
913. and it is doubtful how far it was
2 " Vinculis astringunt, arctant • known before the reign of Edward
angustiis," says Matthew Paris I., there being instances on record
(Hist. Major, p. 474), language that where a man who stood mute was
seems to imply something like hanged. Kelham's note.
what Britton describes as the 3 William de Marsh seems to
penance of prisoners who will not have suffered as a partisan of the
plead, " that they be barefooted, earl Marshal in 1234, when he
ungirded and bareheaded, in their fines to recover the king's grace,
coat only, in prison upon the bare while in August, 1235, he is appa-
ground continually night and day; rently exempted from the terms
that they eat only bread made of granted to his father Geoffrey, as if
barley and bran, and that they drink he had been again in arms. Excerpta
not the day they eat, nor eat the day e Rot. Fin. i. pp. 267, 286. It is
they drink, nor drink anything but noticeable that Paris speaks in one
water the day they do not eat, and place of Geoffrey de Marsh as first
that they be fasten down with irons." promoter of the conspiracy. Hist.
Britton, iv. 7. Bracton nowhere Major, p. 584.

206 EDWARD, PRINCE OF WALES;
pirate on Lundy island, was captured and hanged at
London (1242), professing his innocence. In 1241,
Henry strengthened the fortifications of the Tower;
but, to the great joy of the citizens, the new walls,
being badly built, fell down suddenly. Unpopular
with the clergy for always joining with the pope
to oppress them, Henry, in spite of his piety, was
assailed with all the literary Anrulence of the times,
in songs and lays, as " the bitter king," " the enemy
of the whole realm, of the Church, and of God."1
The nobles, besides their graver reasons for dislike,
despised the weak braggart who could not manage a
horse or order a battalion, yet who, as a French satire
expressed it, would boast confidently in council of his
intention to take Paris, set fire to the Seine, and roll
away the Sainte Chapelle.2 The young countess of
Arundel once silenced the king by telling him to his
face that he was perjured by his repeated breaches of
the charter, and that she appealed to the judgment-seat
of the most high God against him. But Henry was
not shamed into granting her redress. The queen was
even more unpopular than her husband, inasmuch as
his great crime of foreign favouritism was chiefly in
curred through her. When the civil war broke out,
she and the earl of Cornwall, who had inclined more
and more with advancing years to the cause of royal
prerogative, were among the first and the most savagely
attacked. Even the prince of Wales, young, handsome,
and able, had few friends. The honours and estates
unwisely heaped upon him had disgusted all who hoped
for them; the earldoms of Gascony and Chester, with

1 Political Songs, p. 90.
2 Political Songs, pp. 37, 67 ; Paris, Hist. Major, pp. 852, 853.

HIS CHARACTER. 207
ten thousand a year, were large endowments even for
the heir apparent. Moreover, the imperious unbending
character which marked him in later life was repul
sively prominent in youth ; he quarrelled with his father
to redress the wrongs done to some Gascon merchants
by the court purveyors, while he alienated the people
by the licence in which his body-guard of two hundred
foreign mercenaries were indulged. The prospects of
liberty in England were never perhaps so dark as under
a king who was just good enough to conciliate some
sentiment, just weak enough to yield at times, and
withal as strong a hater of charters and liberty as his
father had been.

208

APPENDIX A.
THE amount of the royal revenue under John and Henry
III. is difficult to fix with precision. As the estimate
I have adopted, of £40,000 to £50,000 a-year in all, is very
different from that apparently implied in some loose statements
of chroniclers, I will give briefly the facts and arguments on
which my calculation is based.
Giraldus Cambrensis says that the yearly revenue of Edward
the Confessor had been 60,000 marks, and that Henry II. only
received 12,00c.1 As, however, he gives as one reason for this
decline that so many manors had been granted away by Stephen,
and says that Henry II. and his sons made up in accidental
sources of revenue what they wanted in substantial income, he
is evidently thinking only of the rental from crown lands, and
is contrasting this in his own times with the whole income of
the crown under the Confessor. Now the fines for the year
1204 under John amounted to £17,300,2 succession dues would
probably amount to about £2500,3 and £8000 more from lands,
would bring up the normal revenue to nearly £28,000. We
cannot ascertain with any precision the amount obtained from
extraordinary taxes, the offerings made at the king's accession,
compositions with towns, and confiscations, but it will be a
moderate estimate to take these at £12,000 or £15,000 a-year
more. With Henry III. we get to more definite, but withal con-

1 Gir. Camb., de Inst. Prine, p. 100 marks, and 100*. respectively as
167. reliefs, and taking twenty years for
2 Rotuli de Oblatis et Finibus, pp. the average tenure of estates. Of
197-240. course, with an increase in the num-
3 At an average 6f 21 earls,225 ba- ber of knights' fees the revenue from
rons, and 6400 knights, paying ,£100, succession dues would increase.

APPENDIX A. 209
tradictory statements. Matthew Paris says that in 1245 an
inquiry was made into the sums sent out ofthe kingdom to the
pope, and that (not reckoning accidental sources of emolument)
they were found to amount to 60,000 marks, a sum which the
whole revenue of the crown does not attain to. Matthew of
Westminster tells the same story, but says it was just the amount
of the royal revenue. Yet in 1252, Grosseteste is represented
as saying that the royal revenue was not a third of 70,000 marks.1
Sixteen years later Wikes speaks of the royal revenue as
less than the proceeds of three years tithes' from the clergy.2
The yearly value of these, if estimated simply on the taxation
of pope Nicholas under Edward I., would be about £15,500.3 The
value returned as collected in 1410 was about £10,222.4 These
differences may be easily explained by assuming that only spiri
tualities were taxed in 1410,5orthat exemptions had become
numerous ; and therefore, allowing for the difference betweenl245
and 1268, and putting aside Grosseteste's statement as either
exaggerated and wrong, or as applying only to crown lands and
rents from towns, we may perhaps fairly infer that the ordinary
revenue ofthe kingdom was believed in 1245 to be £40,000, or
a little less, and in 1268 to be about £40,000, but probably a
little more. This would agree very well with the estimate for
John's reign, if we add from 10 to 20 per cent, to it for the grow
ing wealth of the country in quiet times, allow for an increment
in succession dues from the increase in knights' fees, to which I
shall presently call attention, and also take account of the £4000
rent at which the customs were farmed out in 1265.6
Of the extraordinary aids granted during Henry III.'s reign
we have lists more or less perfect in several chronicles.7 Their
amount depends of course on the number of scuta or knights'
fees in the kingdom. The Annals of Burton tell us that accord-

1 Paris, Hist. Major, p. 859. and temporalities (see Prynne's Re-
2 Gale, ii. p. 86. cords, p. 335), but lands held by
3 The spiritualities by my calcula- barony might be excepted (Gesta
tion were £103,645 7*. 9|d. ; the Abbat. Mon. S. Alb., p. 368).
temporalities, £51,429 19*. Oirf. 6 Liber de Ant. Leg., p. 109.
4 Proceedings of Privy Council, i. 7 See Cont. Flor. Wig., ii. p. 188,
p. 342. and Paris, Hist. Major, p. 643.
5 Commonly, I think, spiritualities
II. P

210

APPENDIX A.

ing to Stephen de Segrave, who had been chief justiciary, there
were 32,000 fees, which would be doubled by a new assessment.1
I have shown elsewhere that tbe estimate of 32,000 fees is im
possible.2 But as the same tax which one chronicler estimates
at 10s. the scutum is spoken of by another as 2s. on the caru
cate or hide,3 1 think that Stephen de Segrave meant to speak
of 32,000 hides, and that five hides were currently assumed to
constitute a knight's fee.4 Apparently the old assessment was
in force up to 1235,5 when the new was added to it.6 Putting

1 Annales de Burton, p. 364.
2 Vol. i. p. 375.
3 Bart. Cotton., p. Ill, Cont. Flor.
Wig., ii. p. 188. At the same time
so loosely are words used by differ
ent writers that Wendover (iv. p.
99) speaks of two marks from the
carucate and two marks from the
scutum as corresponding amounts.
4 So, too, the Regis. Burg. S. Petr.,
f. 40, (Kemble's Saxons in England,
i. p. 493), " quinque hydae (fuerunt)
unum feodum ;" and the Liber Ni
ger (i. p. 278), " quinque carucata
faciunt I militem, et milites tenent
eas quidam plus quidam minus."
It is true, Sprott (p. 183), and a
MS. quoted by Mr. Kemble, make
the fee consist of four hides ; but as
Sprott values it at £1 5s. instead of
£1, and the MS. makes it consist of
160 instead of 100 or 120 acres, the
difference is more apparent than
real. Probably the same explanation
applies to the passage in Glanville
(lib. ii. c. 3), " Feodum dimidii mi-
litis vel duas carucatas terrse."
There is one recorded instance in
Dorsetshire where four carucates
appear to make up a fee ; but gene
rally the amount is in excess of five —
as six in Buckinghamshire, eighteen
in Northumberland, &c. Abbrev.
Plac, pp. 29, 50, 59.
5 On this assumption, if the Bur
ton chronicler is correct, the official

number must have remained at
6400 down to 1235, and then have
been nearly doubled. I suspect,
however, that the number was in fact
increased at different times, as, for
instance, when the returns recorded
in the Liber Niger were made. The
statement of Matthew Paris (Hist.
Major, p. 935) that in 1256 the king
fined the sheriffs five marks a-piece
for having neglected to make every
man having ten librates of land take
up his knighthood, seems to indicate
that a new method of keeping up
the number of knights' fees had been
adopted. The librate of land is said
by Mr. Elton to have varied from 20
to 40 acres (Tenures of Kent, p. 71).
As Paris a little earlier (p. 926),
speaks (I suspect more correctly) of
15 librates as the qualification, and
Matthew of Westminster (p. 352)
puts the value at £15 yearly rental,
I presume the librate was land of a
pound rental, which, at 6d. the acre,
Mr. HaUam's average for arable land
in the 1 3th century, might sometimes
amount to as much as 40 acres. On
the other hand, the Modus Tenendi
Parliamentum (p. 7) says that the
fee was computed at 20 librates, and
this seems to be confirmed by a royal
writ of 1254, ordering all who hold
20 librates in chief of the king, or
from minors being royal wards, to
attend Henry on his expedition into

APPENDIX A.

211

the addition at about 28,000 (so as to make up Sprott's esti
mate),1 we shall find that twelve scutages in the first forty-two
years of the reign (counting the three of 1224 as one,) amounted
to nearly £192,000, or about £4565 yearly addition.' Besides
these, Henry III. is said to have received £100,000 in 1227,
when he declared himself of age.2 He repeatedly obtained
tithes or twentieths from the clergy. He ransomed the cities at
heavy sums after the civil war.3 He was granted a fortieth on
all personalty in 1237,4 and a thirtieth in 1232. He obtained
£31,488 18s. 10£rf. from the twentieth granted him by the laity
for prince Edward's crusade. He was skilful in finding occa
sions for extorting money from the Jews. He farmed out a part
of Wales, first for 500, and afterwards for 1000 marks.6 It
seems impossible to estimate his entire income at less than
£50,000 a-year; a smaller sum probably than the Conqueror
received, below Henry l.'s income (£66,593) in the thirty-
first year of his reign, and less than Edward I. afterwards
obtained,6 but rather more than Henry II. attained to in the

Gascony (Report on the Dignity of
a Peer, Appendix I., p. 8). I can
only reconcile these differences by
assuming that Henry III. tried, in
1256, to diminish the qualification
for a knight's fee, and that the at
tempt was without permanent result.
Twenty librates can hardly be put
at less than five hides in extent.
6 Annales de Burton, p. 364.
1 60,215. Sprotti Chronica, p. 114.
2 Rot. Chart, in Turr. Lond., p. vi.
(Also estimated at 89,000 marks.
Paris, Additamenta, p. 850). Part
of this was obtained by a tax of one-
fifteenth (Wendover, iv. p. 138).
This might amount to about 42,000,
if Mr. Hudson Turner's statement
be correct that one-twentieth in
1269 produced £31,488 18*. lOitf.
(Archeol. Journal, vii. p. 45), and
if we may set the waste of the civil
wars against the increase of wealth
during the interval. The remainder
was made up by charters of inspexi-

mus and fines, London being forced
to pay 5000 marks, and Norwich
£1200. 3 London alone paid 20,000 marks.
Lib. de Ant. Legibus, p. 107. Bris
tol, in spite of a promise of forgive
ness, gave £1000. Proceedings of
Archeol. Inst., 1851, p. 24. Shrews
bury complained about this time that
it was tallaged beyond its ability, but
this may have referred to the ordi- "
nary rent. Royal Letters, ii. p. 310.
The cities were frequent sufferers in
times of peace. In 1252, Winches
ter presented Henry III. with the
materials for a feast, on his birthday,
and the king apparently not thinking
the gift sufficient, fined the citizens
200 marks.
4 Paris, Hist. Major, p. 445.
5 Paris, Hist. Major, p. 816.
s Edward L's revenue for the 28th
year of his reign amounted to
£58,155 16*. 2d. Liber Contrarot.
Garderobae, p. xi.

212

APPENDIX A.

last year ofhis reign (£48,781),' and sufficient to allow a large,
margin of waste in a prince whose foreign wars were insignifn
cant, and whose chief expenses were grants to favourites and
building. The monstrous dower of 15,000 marks granted to
prince Edward on his marriage, is perhaps unmatched in the
annals of royal prodigality.2 Accordingly, in 1271 the king was
forced to propound a last scheme of retrenchment by which
commissioners were to administer his estate, and his household
expenses were to be restricted to £120 a-year.3 There is no
reason to suppose that the project was ever carried out, and the
king died in debt.
I append a list of the principal scutages and aids granted to
Henry III. during his reign, so far as they can be estimated. I
reckon the fees at 6400 down to 1235, and at 12,043 afterwards.
I calculate the thirtieths, &c. at the rate of the assessment in
1271, though no doubt there were differences in every year.
For 1227, I have taken Mr. Hardy's estimate of £100,000 in
preference to the £59,666 mentioned by Matthew Paris, who,
perhaps, is not speaking of the whole sum raised.

1218. Scutage "in recessu Lodowici."
1221. Biham scutage
1224. Three scutages of Montgomery,
Bedford, and Kerry .
1227. Fifteenths and fines ' .
1230. Scutage of Brittany
1231. Scutage of Poitou .
1232, Scutage of Elweyn
Grant of a fortieth .
1235. Scutage for the king's marriage
1237. Grant of a thirtieth
1238. Scutage of Gascony
1244. Scutage of daughter's marriage
1 245. Scutage of Gannoc

£ s. d.
8566 13 4
3200 0 0

25,700
100,000 12,800 12,800 6,400
15,744 16,057
20,992 12
24,086 0
12,043 0
24,086 0

1 Benedictus Abbas, vol. ii.
Preface by Professor Stubbs, p. xxix.
2 New Rymer, vol. i. part i.

0 000
0 58 7 0
0 0

p. 296.
3 New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p.
488.

APPENDIX A. 213

1253.

Scutage of Westminster .
Three years' tenths from the

£
24,086

s. 0

d. 0

1257. 1270.

clergy ...
Scutage of Wales .
Grant of a twentieth
Three years' tenths from the

46,500 24,086
31,488

0 0
18

0 0
10$

clergy ....

46,500

0

0

£453,636 18 lOf
This would make an average of about £8200 a-year from
what may be called parliamentary grants. But I have no
doubt the sum derived from the clergy is under-estimated.
Taxes took so long to collect that the bull of pope Alexander,
dated Sept. 2, 1256,1 and ordering the bishops to pay in tithes
for the last two years as well as for the present, may partly
refer to arrears of the grant of 1253. But in 1257 mention
is made in a papal bull (dated Dec. 24)2 of a five years' grant of
the tenths to the king. The collection of this was probably
suspended by the constitutional crisis, till in 1266 the demand
of tenths was revived, and in 1268 conceded. Generally we
may, perhaps, assume that there was little extraordinary taxa
tion between the parliament of Oxford in 1258 and the final
settlement of the civil war. In 1264, however, when invasion
was apprehended, a tenth was levied upon the clergy, but
whether on their incomes or on their property I cannot cer
tainly decide. Wikes declares a tenth part of their goods was
extorted from them; the Annalist of Dunstaple says that it
was a tithe according to the whole valuing of their churches —
the vicars contributing nothing. The Liber de Antiquis
Legibus says that the clergy gave a tenth part of the revenues
of their churches; and this agrees with the language of the
writ in Rymer to the bishop of Norwich, though that addressed
to the archbishop of York speaks loosely of " all ecclesiastical
revenues." I think it is evident that there was some difference
between this and the tithe usually collected.

1 New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 346. 2 Ibid., p. 367.

214

Chapter VII.
THE SECOND BARONS' WAR.
Question or the Sicilian Succession. War in Wales. Great Famine.
Parliament of Oxford. Expulsion of Aliens. Council of Re
gency. Fluctuations of Public Opinion. Gradual Revival of
the King's Power. Civil War. The Award of Amiens. Re
newal of Civil War in England. Battle of Lewes, and
Triumph of the Barons.
AS the royal authority sunk lower and lower in
general estimation at home, the king grew more
reckless than ever in his policy and rule. With the
death of Frederic II. (1250), it became the natural and
main object of papal statecraft to dismember Naples
and Sicily from the Roman empire. Yet, as the
Ghibelline cause was well organized, it was difficult to
find a nominee at once powerful enough to conquer and
not strong enough to prove of doubtful allegiance. As
long as the young Henry, Frederic's son by his English
wife, was alive, no English prince could with any
decency accept the inheritance of a kinsman. But when
Henry died, the king of England could no longer resist
the attraction of a crown for his second son, Edmund,
enhanced by a dispensation for himself from the crusade
he had sworn to make in Palestine, if he would only aid
in subduing the pope's enemies in Italy. It was ar
ranged that Henry should pay the expenses of the war,
the pope assisting him to the full extent of his power,
and that Edmund should hold the Two Sicilies by a

THE SICILIAN SUCCESSION. 215
yearly payment of two thousand ounces of gold to the
pope, with the obligation of military service, and under
contract never to accept the imperial dignity. (April 9
1255).1 In the small circle of the English court this
arrangement gave the highest satisfaction. The young
prince was paraded in public in the Italian costume
and with the state of royalty. He was made to set his
child's ring to a deed by which the bishop of Hereford,
John d' Aigue-Blanche, received the investiture of Sicily
as his proxy. (June 22, 1259). But the English
barons and people were not careful about foreign crowns
for a dynasty whose chief dishonoured their own.
Their sense of right was outraged by the papal treaty,
which classed Ghibellines with Saracens as proper ob- ~~
jects of a crusade. Above all, they groaned under
royal demands for subsidies and papal enforcement of
tithes, first-fruits, and other spiritual spoils. When the
archbishop of York was excommunicated with candle
and bell throughout his diocese, by special order from
the pope, for opposing the unrighteous exactions, the
people, who knew why he suffered, "blessed him silently
the more the Church cursed him."2 Nor was English
vanity softened by any news of native victories or even
of success anyhow achieved. The pope, wisely no
doubt, preferred gold to recruits, who could be found
nearer the field of action, and Henry had pledged his
credit for four times his revenue, while large amounts
had been raised by taxes and other expedients, though
the English flag had not yet waved on a single Italian
field. Lastly, though all reports from the scene of action
were garbled, the truth at last transpired that native

1 New Rymer, vol. i. part i. pp. 316-318.
2 Paris, Hist. Major, p. 956.

216 INSURRECTION IN WALES.
independence was maintaining itself with tenacity and
success. Difficulties of another kind began to thicken about
the king of England. Scotland was in the hands of a
regency, and the presence of an English army on the
borders was required to watch the turbulent land, whose
nobles were always ready to pour down upon the south,
But Wales was a subject of more serious disquietude.
The young Edward, on his return from Gascony (1255),
had been invested with the right of the royal seal for
Ireland and for Wales. In an evil moment he visited
Chester and Dysarth to receive the homage of his
western vassals (1256). His strong sense of order was
outraged by the irregularities of the Welsh dominion,
and, with a young man's carelessness of the feelings of
the natives, he introduced the English divisions of shires
and hundreds, and the English law. His bailiff, Geof
frey de Langley, a violent and grasping man, promoted
the ferment of wounded patriotism by a capitation-tax
of fifteen-pence.1 The times were especially favourable
for a revolt, as Llewellyn, the chief native prince, had
lately established his authority over his insurgent bro
thers. He now placed himself at the head of a well-
appointed army, recruited from his own subjects and
from Edward's vassals, and even from South Wales, and
swept down upon the borders.2 During the winter,

1 Annales de Dunstaplist, pp. 200, law. Royal Letters, vol. ii. p. 353.
201. Annales de Theokesberia, 2 The war seems to have been at
p. 158. The Brut y Tywysogion first confined to the lands of prince
(A. 1255) represents the Welsh Edward, or at least not indiscrimi-
chiefs as thinking death " preferable nate. Compare Llewellyn's letter,
to being trodden down by strangers New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 340,
in bondage." But in South Wales and the words of Paris, " homines
at least there was a party formed Edwardi . . hostiliter invaserunt."
or growing up who desired English Hist. Major, p. 937.

DEFEAT OF THE ENGLISH. 217
which was wet and unfit for military operations, the
English could make no reprisals : in the spring (Feb
ruary, 1257) they crossed the Severn, and were de
feated. Sustained by the innate confidence of men who
regarded themselves as born superiors, they continued
the campaign, though the Welsh forces were now
said to number thirty thousand men,1 and received
a still more disastrous overthrow at Kemereu (June,
1257), where three thousand were left on the field.
The defeat was ascribed to the treachery of a na
tive, Rees Vaughan, who led the invaders into a
marshy ground where they could not act. Henry
had hitherto answered Edward's applications for help
with an angry taunt that he should show his young
strength and protect his own land. The urgent danger
for all England now forced the king to summon the
whole force of the country for a general invasion of
Wales from north and south (August 1, 1257). Yet
either the English barons were half-hearted, or the
Welsh were sterner enemies than they had yet proved,
for the whole power of England failed to reduce the
rebels or compel peace. Next year brought no better
prospects. An English army was defeated at Kenmeis
(April 1), prince Edward's Irish levies were not allowed
to land, a native chief who had deserted his country
men's cause was deprived of his lands and imprisoned,2
and Llewellyn began to treat of alliance with Scotland.
Fortunately at this critical moment the government of
England was wrested from the incapable hands of its

1 Matthew Paris, Hist. Major, p. wynwyn (called by Paris Griffin de
944# Berunt), is spoken of by the Brut
2 Maredut, son of Rees Crych. y Tywysogion (which, however, an-
Annales Cambrise, A. 1259. The tedates the rebellion by a year) as
expulsion of Griffith, son of Gwen- posterior to the battle of Kenmeis.

218 GENERAL DISAFFECTION.
king, and Wales, left to itself, subsided gradually into
order and an honourable peace (1260).
Different causes conspired to drive a long-exasperated
people to revolt. The heavy taxation and the inglo
rious Welsh campaign were no doubt the principal.
The old feud between the court and London had lately
been envenomed by the death of a swaggering squire
of William de Valence, whom the citizens had slain for
his insolence, and by the prevalence of a strong belief
among the lower orders that the city taxes were assessed
unfairly by the wealthy men whom the court kept in
office.1 The king had just lost the support of his bro
ther, whom the bait of an imperial crown had lured
into Germany, and who took with him such enormous
sums to subsidize his partisans as seriously to affect the
English exchanges. But above all, there was famine in
the land. The summer of the last year had been so
wet that nothing had ripened properly. Wheat had
risen from its normal price of one to four shillings the
quarter to fifteen or twenty, or even twenty-four shil
lings.2 The distress was especially great in Kent, and
in London it is said fifteen thousand persons died.3
1 One complaint was that the roll quarters) for 100*, the harvest that
of tallage-assessments was not read year being noted as good. In 1257
out publicly in the Guildhall. Liber there was a famine, and in 1258 corn
de Ant. Legibus, p. 33. sold for 20*. the quarter at North-
2 The average price of wheat is ampton, 17*. at Bedford, and 13*. id.
difficult to fix. In an Inquiry into atDunstaple. Nevertheless, the nio-
the Price of Wheat, it is put at nastery, in default of seed corn
£1 3s. 1\d. in modern values for the (bladum), was able to purchase grain
thirteenth century. But the fluctua- (frumentum) at 8*. 6d. and 6*. the
tions were enormous. The Assize of quarter. Annales de Dunstaplia,
Bread in 1256 begins, "When the pp. 188, 191, 205, 208. Compare
quarter of corn is sold for 12<t" An- Rishanger, pp. 112, 113, notes by
nales de Burton, p. 375. In 1253 the Halliwell. Gesta Mon. S. Albani,
Monastery of Dunstaple sold corn at p. 389.
5*. the quarter. In 1254 it bought 3 The Annales de Theokesberi&
fifty acres of wheat and oats (pro- (p. 166) say twenty thousand.
bably from seventy-five to a hundred

HENRY'S FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES. 219
Private charity did its best to succour the distressed,
and criers might be heard in the streets bidding the
needy to go to houses where alms would be bestowed.1
Richard of Cornwall, now king of the Romans, sent
over fifty ships from Germany, and saved many lives by
the seasonable relief. But amid the national misery
there was one man who looked only for an occasion of
money-making. As soon as the German ships arrived
in the Thames,2 the king, putting forward the obnoxious
claim of purveyance, against which Parliament had
already protested, seized the supplies and commenced
selling them at a large profit. The citizens of London
were aroused by the immediate importance of the claim
to bring it before the law courts, and obtained a deci
sion that the king could only buy in the open market
at two-pence a quarter below the market price.3 But
the crime of a king trading on his people's blood could
not be forgotten as easily as the encroachment was
repelled. It is probable that the sense of general hatred did
not weigh so much with Henry when he met his Par
liament at Woodstook (April 9, 1258) as a threat
from the pope to excommunicate him if he did not dis
charge the liabilities he had incurred to Rome. The
most solemn judgment of the Church had indeed come
to be of vile use when it was employed to enforce pay
ment of a bad debt. The barons probably did not

1 Chron. de Lanercost, A. 1257, the Parliament of Oxford.
p. 65. Paris, Hist. Major, pp. 969, 3 They also contended that he
970. could only buy for the supply of his
2 Paris appears to place the ar- own household. Judgment was re-
rival of the ships from Germany served, and seems never to have
before the Parliament of London been given, but the opposition did
(Hist. Major, p. 963), and the Liber its work. Liber de Antiquis Legi-
de Antiquis Legibus (p. 37) before bus, p. 52.

220 A REFORM COMMITTEE.
much care though the king fell under the sentence he
merited, but they were startled at the enormity of the
engagements contracted, and exasperated by the reck
less insolence of William de Valence, who called every
obnoxious baron "traitor" to his face in full council.
Simon de Montfort was not minded to bear abuse pa
tiently, and would have cut the speaker down where
he stood if the king had not interfered. At last it was
agreed that the barons should grant aid if the king
would give security for decent government, and that a
fuller Parliament should be held to arrange terms,
under the presidency of the papal legate — who was
then expected — if he should have arrived. Henry
agreed also that a committee of twenty-four should, be
appointed, of whom twelve should be named by the
barons and twelve by the crown, to draw up a scheme
of" reform. It was difficult, however, fully to trust a
prince who had sworn only five years before (1253)
as a man, a Christian, a knight, and a king crowned and
anointed, to keep the whole charter intact in all sim
plicity, under the most solemn sanctions that religion
could afford, and who had since then habitually broken
his oath, and was now trying to make it matter for a
fresh bargain. Accordingly, by common agreement,
the nobles repaired in military array to the critical
meeting at Oxford (June 11), the Welsh war furnishing
a convenient excuse. The committee was speedily
named. Henry chose his three half-brothers, a nephew,
a brother-in-law, the queen's brother, four officials, of
whom the brave and unscrupulous John Mansel was
the most prominent, the bishop of London, and the
earl of Warwick, who owed his fortunes to royal favour.
Among the barons, the most conspicuous were Simon
de Montfort, Roger Bigot, marshal and earl of Norfolk,

ELECTION OF A COUNCIL. 221
who had been grossly insulted by the king,1 and Rich
ard de Clare, earl of Gloucester, whom Henry had con
strained to put away his first wife, Hubert de Burgh's
daughter.2 Walter de Cantilupe, bishop of Worcester, a
crusader, and member of a noble English family, was
the only prelate openly on the side which the English
Church prayed for, and which the pope was soon to
curse. Having sworn to labour at the reformation of the
state to the honour of God, the faith due to the king
and the people's weal, without regard to loves or fears
or to personal gain, the members of the committee, by a
proceeding like that of an American caucus, nominated
four who were to select a new council for the king.
Either because the king's adherents feared to exasperate
the barons, or perhaps because it was really impossible to
select a body of Englishmen of rank who should not in
cline to the popular cause, ten out of the fifteen chosen
for the council were staunch members of the opposition.
It was now easy to replace the great ministers of state
and the sheriffs by new men sworn to obey the ordi
nances of the committee ; and a step of even greater im
portance was the replacement of foreigners or court
dependants by Englishmen mostly of the barons' party,
and always it may be assumed moderate men, in the go
vernorship of twenty-one royal castles. During twelve

1 In 1255, Henry had called him a and Hertford, as nominated by the
traitor, and threatened to thrash his king on the commission, and the
corn for him, to which the earl an- lords observe that the unofficial list
swered that he would send back the given by the Annalist of Burton
heads of the thrashers. Paris, Hist. mentions only eleven commissioners
Major, p. 917. of the king's appointment. Dr. Pauli,
2 The Report on the Dignity of a however, prefers the authority ofthe
Peer (I. p. 104) notices a writ ad- chronicler. Perhaps the earl was
dressed to the earl of Gloucester nominated by both sides.

222 REGULAR PARLIAMENTS INSTITUTED.
years the new seneschals were to hold their trust under
orders from the council ; at the end of that time they
were to resign it unconditionally to the king. As Par
liament had by this time come to be distinct from the
attendance of the baronage at court, so that a scanty
assemblage was constantly made an excuse for post
poning important business, it was enacted that three
regular Parliaments should be held every year in
February, June, and October, that the council should
attend these, summoned or not, and that twelve re
presentatives of the Commons, elected and paid by
them, should come up whenever the council deemed
their presence necessary, and should have power to
bind the nation by their consent. This would probably
content the fair demands of the nation to control taxa
tion. But as the mismanagement of the counties was a
much more actual grievance, it was decreed that the
sheriffs should in future be local officers, vavasors of
the respective counties, should give in annual accounts,
and should take no fees. Henceforth they were to be
checked by a sort of tribunitian board of four knights
elected in every county to hear complaints and report
grievances to Parliament.1
Sweeping as these changes were, they were known to
be only the prelude to a general reform of the chief
grievances affecting the baronage, and it was understood
that the realm was to be purged of aliens. An oath
more or less was no great matter to the king, but his
kinsmen and councillors were less practised in perjury,
and had more to lose by a new administration. Prince
Edward openly expressed his repugnance, and was ac
cordingly required to find four sureties. His cousin,
1 Annales de Burton, pp. 446-453.

SUCCESSES OF THE NATIONAL PARTY. 223
prince Henry, obtained a respite of forty days, on the
plea that he was not a baron in his own right, and that
his father was beyond seas ; but he was told openly that
his father would forfeit every furrow of English land if
he declined obedience to law. William de Valence and
his brothers swore that they would never surrender the
castles the king had entrusted to them. Simon de
Montfort, who had set the example by surrendering
Kenilworth and Odiham quietly, told the blustering earl
of Pembroke that he should either give up the castles
or lose his head. Next day it appeared that the bro
thers had fled to Winchester, where they hoped by the
bishop's support to maintain themselves against the
power of the kingdom. The barons at once proceeded
to nominate Hugh Bigod justiciary, and marched under
him with their whole forces in array to invest the rebels,
before foreign troops could be brought over. This
promptitude saved the country. Bishop Aymer saw
the hopelessness of resistance, especially as the " queen's
kinsmen" were sagaciously making common cause with
the nobles against the " king's men," and persuaded his
brothers to submit quietly to a general sentence of exile
against themselves and their adherents, only the bishop
himself and William de Valence, as earl of Pembroke,
obtaining leave to remain ¦ under surety for their good
behaviour. They did not care to profit by the permission,
and departed. Their lands and enormous personalty,
except six thousand marks which they took with them,
were sequestered till all complaints against them had
been answered.1 It was said that at a parting banquet
they poisoned several of their most eminent opponents ;

1 Annales de Burton, p. 445. New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 374.

224 IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES.
but the charge is doubly improbable, both inasmuch as
the abbot of Westminster, one of their own friends, was
among the deaths, and as similar rumours of poison in
the rivers and wells were soon current in the kingdom.
Disease was no doubt following in the train of famine.
But these gloomy suspicions added to the general panic
in the country, and increased the passionate longing for
reform. Favoured by this state of public opinion and by the
daily increase of the king's necessities, the barons gra
dually drew the whole power of the realm into their
hands. Prince Edward had intended to withdraw into
Ireland, secure himself in an independent dominion, and
watch the tide of events. He was checked by a peremp
tory writ withdrawing his powers (June 28). His deputy
in Gascony was removed (July 12).1 The viscounts
throughout the kingdom were ordered by royal letters
to empanel inquests for determining what breaches of law
had been committed of late years (July 28). The abuses
of royal purveyance were redressed by a stringent re
gulation adopted after conference with the citizens of
London (August 5), that all royal officers taking goods
without payment should be imprisoned, and the abuse
actually ceased for some time.2 Finally, the king was
induced to issue a declaration that the decision of a
majority of the council was to be regarded as law
(Oct. 18). This concession, the most extensive of any,
and amounting to a virtual resignation of royal autho
rity, was obtained apparently at the Parliament of
Westminster in the autumn, and shows that the move
ment for reform had only gathered strength with time.

1 New Rymer, vol. i. part i. pp. 2 .Liber de Ant. Legibus, p. 39.
373, 374.

GOVERNMENT OF THE COUNCIL. 225
It is noteworthy that the king's letter was issued in
English as well as in French.1
But the barons soon found that no powers, however
enormous, could satisfy the vague wants and conflicting
interests of a nation not yet trained to self-government.
The cry against foreigners was raised by tradesmen
jealous of competition and anxious to banish Lombards,
Gascons, and Germans, as loudly as by the noble who
wished to reserve wardships for Englishmen, or by the
priest who murmured at the patronage diverted to
aliens. The demand for justice in the noble's mouth
meant that he should be free from the interference of
crown officials, and responsible only to the king in
curia; while to freeholders generally, who only wished
that the king's justice should be cheap and even-
handed, the sheriff was perhaps a smaller danger than
the baron himself. The new rulers were expected to
reform extravagance in dress, and regulate the assize of
bread and the rates of usury,2 while the pope was
pressing them for payment of the king's debts, and the
king anxious to escape into France and negotiate for
his lost dominions. To crown all, prince Edward was
working among the gentry of the kingdom, and exhort
ing them to look to their own interests and see that
the barons did their duty by the country as honourably
as he and the king had fulfilled the compact entered
into at Oxford. Accordingly, in the spring Parliament
of the next year (Feb. 1259), the prince appeared as
promoter of a petition from the body of those who held
a knight's qualification,3 complaining that the barons

1 New Rymer, vol. i. part i. pp. 963 ; Annales de Burton, pp. 442,
377, 378. 486 ; Political Songs, p. 51.
2 For these minor grievances of 3 There is some difficulty about
the time, see Paris, Hist. Major, p. the date of this petition. The Annales

226 LANDLORD AND TENANT RIGHTS.
had only used their powers hitherto to the filling all
vacant places with their own adherents, and declaring
that the petitioners would reform the government in
some other way if there were any further shortcomings
in high quarters. Edward added protestations of. his
own intention to observe his oath loyally, and vowed
he would stand by the petitioners to the death in the
just assertion of their rights. The council responded
presently by a general declaration that they would
grant their tenants all the rights which they could
obtain from the king, thus throwing the blame of the
delay hitherto upon the court. A full Parliament met
after Easter, and agreed on the first project of reform.
Its ehief provisions were intended to stop the changes
in tenure that were going on in the silent progress of
society, and to stereotype the rights and properties of
landowners, small or great. An arbitrary date- was
fixed, the king's first campaign in France, about nine-
and-twenty years before (1230), and it was declared
that all service was to be paid according to the tenures
then existent, stringent remedies being given in case of
default. A few good regulations for restraining the
power of the crown officers to impose vexatious fines,
and for limiting the powers of the lower officials, were
followed by one exempting all earls and barons, bishops,
abbots, and members of religious orders from the juris
diction of the local courts, except in the case of the dis-

de Burton (p. 471) refer it to the dated Westminster, 28 March, A. R.
Parliament of Westminster, Oct. 13, 43." He accordingly refers it to
1259. Mr. Parry (Parliaments of the Parliament of Oct. 6, 1258. I
England, p. 40, note r) observes prefer the date Feb. 9, 1259, as by
" that the act of the bachelors was that time the royalists were gaining
not at Michaelmas in 1259 appears strength with the return ofthe king
from the publication of the ordi- of the Romans, and the barons had
nances as a consequence, which are begun to disappoint expectations.

A NEW DOMESDAY. 227
trict where they were domiciled, a regulation intended
to save landowners from vexatious fines and needless
attendances, but which tended to diminish the impor
tance of the assizes, and might make it difficult to
implead a powerful landowner. In compensation it
was enacted that no noble might implead a tenant
about his freehold, or put him on oath, except by
writ from the crown. Besides these ordinances, direc
tions were given for a new Domesday of the country,
in which particular inquiry was to be made " whether
any man whose father was a serf passes himself off as a
freeman, and by what right and warranty he is free."1
In the west of England it was believed to be part ofthe
new constitution that the justices in eyre should only
make their circuits once in seven years.2 As there is no
official record of the enactment, it is possible that it was
only discussed and not carried. Its object no doubt was
partly to free the nobles and religious houses from the
burdensome charge of entertaining the royal officers,
and to relieve the country from the fines which were
commonly enforced on a circuit for the benefit of the
crown. Practically, however, it would have thrown
the whole ordinary administration of justice into the
hands of the baronage, and have undone the legal pro
gress of a century. Altogether, it cannot be matter of
surprise if these changes did not satisfy the nation.
There was, however, no immediate reaction, and the
statutes of Westminster were ordered at Michaelmas to
be proclaimed a second time throughout the country.
Henry had bowed to circumstances. When his bro-

1 Annales de Burton, p. 480. cause seven years had not elapsed
2 "1261. The justices in eyre since they last sat there." Ann.
came to Worcester, and the whole Ecc. Wig., Anglia Sacra, i. p. 495.
county refused to receive them be-

228 NEGOTIATIONS WITH FRANCE.
ther Richard returned from the profitless German em
pire, the king hastened to meet him, probably with a
vague hope of being helped against his barons ; and the
king of the Romans did, in fact, swear that he would
never submit to ordinances that had been made without
his consent. But the sight of a fleet and army ready
to give him battle .calmed his courage,1 and he took an
oath under penalty of all his lands to assist the barons
loyally in reforming the kingdom (Jan. 10, 1259). A
fresh disappointment awaited the king, when he sent
over commissioners to France in the spring of this year,
hoping to procure the restoration of his lost provinces
by an appeal to the conscientious scruples of the king
of France. Louis IX. proved resolute in maintaining
his claims, and would only offer a few districts in the
south and a sum of money for the absolute renunciation
of the English title. Henry consented, under the in
fluence of the chief commissioner, Simon de Montfort,
and of the home administration, and afterwards, it is
said, bitterly repented his compliance. His sister, the
countess of Leicester, felt even more strongly on the
subject, and delayed the treaty some months by re
fusing to surrender the possible rights of herself and of
her children. This conduct, though she finally gave
way, was made use of to prejudice Simon de Montfort
by the king's partisans, and may have contributed to
the close union which sprang up a little later between
the courts of England and France. As the earl con
ducted the negotiations, he may fairly be acquitted of
any personal blame. For a time there was some ques
tion of satisfying the claims that had arisen on both
sides by confiscations, or otherwise, since the loss of

Paris, Hist. Major, p. 983.

HENRY AND PRINCE EDWARD. 229
Normandy under John. It was probably found im
practicable to carry it out ; and an article declared that
both kingdoms were quit towards one another. The
negotiations had latterly been conducted under Henry's
presidency. A visit to France in the autumn withdrew
him from the unpleasant spectacle of his ruined au
thority in England, and gave his queen an opportunity
for intriguing with her sister of France in the interests
of the English crown against the English state.
During his father's absence prince Edward had fol
lowed a steady policy, opposing the earl of Gloucester,
who headed the oligarchical party, while De Montfort
was away, and yet showing that he was prepared to
carry out his pledges of reform loyally. A distinct
royalist party began to form in consequence, for the
first time for years ; and there was talk of superseding
the unwise king and of making his son regent. Ru
mours of this reached Henry in France, and alarmed
him so much that he would not return till a letter,
signed by Edward and the principal nobles, assured
him that he had nothing to fear (April 23, 1260); and
even then he kept an escort of guards round him.
The difficulty was adjusted for a time by Edward's
going over to Gascony1 (Aug. 1260), after exculpating
himself to his father in full council and being recon
ciled. Nevertheless, even thus early there were signs
of division both in the royalist and in the constitutional
camp. Edward, from good sense and political tact rather

1 Edward seems to have been at not having heard from him. New
Westminster towards the end of July. Rymer, vol. i. part i. pp. 398,400,
In negotiations with Llewellyn, dated 481. His silence was probably due
August 15, he is not mentioned ; and to a misadventure at a tournament
in September the king writes to him where he was severely wounded.
in Gascony to express hi? surprise at Ann. de DunstapliS,, p. 216.

230 ROYALIST REACTION.
than from any want of the autocratic spirit, was inclined
to yield a just measure of the constitutional claims, and
to trust to himself for carrying out his objects. He
was, therefore, behind many of his partisans in apparent
zeal for the king's cause. The earl of Gloucester, on
the other hand, seems to have represented the high oli
garchical party, which regarded government as a compact
between the nobles and the crown, in which the people
at large had no voice. Hence, for a time at least, the
two statesmen, De Montfort and Edward, were drawn
towards one another,1 and a transient league formed
between Gloucester and the king. No man knew from
day to day what fresh combinations might not be at
tempted : the barons attended parliament with armed
retainers in their train, and Henry took measures to
introduce foreign troops. In October, however, the
earl of Leicester officiated by special appointment as
steward at the court festival of Edward.2
In the spring of the next year (Feb. 1261) the king
felt strong enough to strike the first blow. Having
called the council together, he told them that as they
had neither paid his debts, nor taken any measures, ex
cept for their own advantage, he considered the com
pact between them at an end.3 He proceeded to seize
and fortify the Tower, laying hands on all the treasure
deposited in it, ordered all the citizens of London to
renew the oaths of allegiance in folk-mote, and appointed
Philip Basset chief justiciary, though Hugh Despenser,
the barons' last nominee, was still exercising his func
tions. A bull of absolution from his vows was oh-

1 Perhaps it is some evidence of A. 1260, p. 375.
this that De Montfort's two sons 2 Blaauw, Barons' War, p. 76.
were knighted by Edward, and went '¦' Royal Letters, ii. p. 170.
with him to Gascony. Matt. West.,

POSITIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES. 231
tained from the pope ; and it was rumoured that Louis
had promised to support him with an army in a seven
years' war if necessary. But the worst of the situation
was that the earl of Gloucester was now an avowed
royalist, and that Simon de Montfort fled into France,
preferring exile to compromise or submission; and,
perhaps, as the event showed, believing that he could
best serve his country at this crisis by diplomacy.
Henry was alarmed, not without cause, lest he should
detach the king of France from the interests of the
crown, and wrote to his brother-in-law entreating him
not to listen to any exparte statement. At the same
time he issued letters in England stating that the earl
had agreed to this arbitration (March 14). Neverthe
less, two months later (May 18), the Cinque Ports were
warned against the foreign troops which Simon de Mont
fort was trying to introduce into England.1 Louis
seems to have declined the arbitration, and several
months passed by uneventfully, the barons spreading
reports of intended taxation, and of the king's foreign
troops; while Henry replied by a public justification
(August 16), and declared that he wished to free the
realm from the new customs and servitudes which the
sheriffs nominated by the barons had introduced. De
Montfort, who had returned for a time, now left the
kingdom again.2 But he seems merely to have passed
from country to country. In October the king issued
writs ordering the different counties to pay no regard
to the new sheriffs and bailiffs whom the barons' party
had appointed.3 The bishop of Worcester and earl of
Leicester responded by calling a parliament at St,

1 New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 406. 2 Ibid. p. 409,
3 Royal Letters, ii. p. 192,

232 ATTEMPTS TO EFFECT AN ARRANGEMENT
Alban's, to which three knights from every county
were summoned, to treat with them on the affairs of
the kingdom, while the king fixed the same day for a
meeting similarly constituted at Windsor. What passed
at these assemblies, if indeed they met, is unknown.
But at the parliament of London, in November, the
barons attended in such force that a civil war seemed
imminent. Mediators interposed, and against the will
of the more earnest reformers a compromise was partly
agreed to, by which the barons were to withdraw most
of their demands, while Henry published an amnesty
(Dec. 7) to all who had been in opposition, and to
fourteen by name — including De Montfort and De
spenser — as a proof of his desire to overlook the past.1
That the earl of Gloucester was not named seems to
prove that he was in no need of grace. Next, a com
mission of six was named — three on each side — to de
termine how the sheriffs were to be appointed next
Michaelmas. The whole constitutional quarrel, in fact,
turned for a long time on this. The barons wished all
nominations for the next ten years to be made by the
king in council, and confined strictly to landowners of
the respective shires. The king was resolved to be
absolutely free; and there were naturally many cour
tiers who were willing to support him in a question of
patronage. The commission accordingly could agree
on nothing; and when the question was referred (Jan.
29, 1262) to the king of the Romans, his decision in
favour of his brother's absolute right was incontinently
rejected by the opposition. It added to their confidence
that prince Edward, when he returned a little. later

1 Matt. West., A. 1261, p. 381 ; Wykes, Gale, ii. p. 55; New Rymer,
vol. i. part i. p. 411.

BETWEEN THE KING AND THE BARONS. 233
from Gascony (March, 1262), declared that, though he
had sworn against his will, he would not be false to his
oath.1 This spirited protest did not prevent his father
from publishing a fresh declaration that he considered
himself absolved, and ordering his officers to dissolve all
coalitions in defence of the constitution, and arrest their
members (May). The citizens of London responded
by driving out all the foreign soldiers and serving men
in the city, who were quartered in consequence at
Windsor, and by keeping knightly guard to prevent
their return, till the precaution was found worse than
the danger, as a mob accompanied the militia on their
rounds, and sacked the houses where foreigners were
supposed to be harboured.2 Henry quailed before the
storm he had provoked, and confirmed the barons'
nominee, Hugo le Despenser, in the post of justiciary,
and entrusted the custody of the Tower of London to
him. The death of the earl of Gloucester (July 15)
was a further and heavy blow to the royal cause, as the
young earl was entirely influenced by his mother,3 and
espoused De Montfort's interests.4 All now depended
on what award king Louis should give, as he had been
appointed final referee by the consent of both parties.
Louis was honourably sensible of the difficulties of the

1 Paris, Cont., p. 991 ; New Ry- occasioned great scandal, Richard
mer, vol. i. part i. p. 417. de Clare being already married to
2 Liber de Ant. Leg., pp. 54, 55. Hubert de Burgh's daughter. Matt.
3 Maud de Laci, countess dowager West., A. 1238, p. 298. Henry's
of Gloucester, was distantly con- persecution ofhis first great minister
nected with De Montfort, being was thus visited upon his head after
great granddaughter of Margaret more than twenty years.
Fitz-Parnell, whose sister, Amicia, 4 It is noticeable that Richard de
carried the honour of Leicester into Clare's castles were in the custody
the De Montfort family. Maud de of Humphry de Bohun, earl of Here-
Laci's marriage had been made by ford, seven months after his death.
De Montfort's influence, in 1238, and Royal Letters, i. p. 236.

234 PRINCE EDWARD DEFENDS THE KING.
task imposed on him, and perhaps aware that all de
pended on De Montfort's acquiescence. He delayed
giving his decision; and even a visit from Henry pro
duced no effect on the negotiations. But the English
king falling seriously ill, the autumn of 1262 passed off
quietly. With winter troubles began. There was a feud of
some standing between Roger de Mortimer, a fervid
royalist, who had openly renounced the provisions of
Oxford, and Llewellyn of Wales, whose interests made
him the natural ally of the barons. At the head of a
large army Llewellyn poured over and harried the lands
of his enemy, and advanced on Hereford.1 Henry
wrote urgently to his son, who was then at Bristol,
entreating him to march against the enemy,2 and
Edward consented, thus virtually changing sides. It
was said his mother's prayers influenced him ; but his
alliance with De Montfort had always "been insecure,
resting rather on honourable respect for his plighted
word and dislike to the earl of Gloucester, who was now
dead, than on steady principle. The future king was
pretty certain to be royalist at heart, and an honour
able man might well regard his compact with the
barons as at an end, if they were the first to take up
arms. His decision was rewarded by a writ to all the
sheriffs enjoining them to impose a new oath of alle
giance, and to join Edward's name with the king's as
heir to the crown (March). Simon de Montfort had
been in France as late as February, not, however, to

1 During the friendship between of the earl of Leicester. It seems
Edward and the De Montforts, the he was suspected of favouring Llew-
custody of the Welsh marches had ellyn. Royal Letters, ii. pp. 230,
been entrusted to Peter de Mont- 231.
fort, a partisan and distant kinsman 2 New Rymer, vol. i. parti, p. 423.

SUCCESSES OF THE BARONS. 235
negotiate, as he told Louis that treaties were useless,
while the king of England retained his present coun
sellors.1 The earl now put himself at the head of
the barons' forces to assist Llewellyn, and resist the
imposition of the oath. The barons were completely
successful. They captured Hereford with its alien
bishop, and Gloucester with its alien governor, who
probably owed his post as sheriff there to the favour of
the late earl, and who gave proof that he had deserved
it by his soldier-like defence. The army of the league
then swept on towards the south and east, ravaging the
lands of the royalists by the way. The people gene
rally were with them, and a man who could not speak
English ran risk of being roughly handled.2 Even the
earl Warenne and king Richard's son, Henry, joined their
ranks, the latter seemingly from a grudge against John
Mansel, whom he literally hunted across the channel.
Leaving London in the watch of the mayor and com
monalty, who kept the king a virtual prisoner in the
Tower, De Montfort besieged Dover.3 He was re
called to the capital by the news that Henry was pre
pared to make terms. The king and his family believed
themselves to be in actual danger. The queen, indig
nant at her husband's willingness to compromise, at
tempted to escape by water to Windsor (July 13), and
was stopped by an angry crowd on London bridge, who
assailed her with curses and bitter words, and with a
shower of dirt and stones, which made progress impos-

1 Royal Letters, ii. pp. 242, 243. Henry had issued orders (May 8)
2 Matt. West., A. 1263, p. 383. to all the ports between Ports-
¦* We know from a letter of Henry mouth and Yarmouth, directing them
that De Montfort marched from to arrest all horses and men coming
Reading to Guildford, and took Rei- from abroad. Royal Letters, ii. pp.
gate on the 30th of June. This 245, 246, 248.
was probably on his way to Dover.

236 CONTINUATION OF THE STRUGGLE.
sible. Fortunately, she found shelter in the bishop's
palace near St. Paul's. The insult sunk deeply into
the royal breast, and was bitterly avenged at a later
date. But the king saw that it was useless to protract
resistance, which prince Edward alone among the royal
counsellors was now found to advocate. Moreover, the
prince had forfeited his moral influence by a dishonest
seizure of some of the money deposited in the Temple,
where he gained admission under pretence of inspecting
his mother's jewels.1 A hollow truce was easily patched
up, Dover and the Tower of London being surrendered
to the barons, and the king and his partisans again
swearing to observe the provisions of Oxford as com
missioners on each side should modify them. A clause,
however, was inserted, stipulating that the consent of
Parliament should be obtained, and this ruined all, as
the passions of both sides were by this time so high that
two parliaments met without being able to agree on a
settlement. Prince Edward scarcely feigned to keep
the treaty, and gave great and just offence in seizing
Bristol by a dishonourable stratagem. He no doubt
regarded it as his personal property, but the deceit was
retorted on himself, and he was detained by De Mont
fort at a conference till he surrendered his prize
(August).2 The king, a few months later, tried to
obtain admittance into Dover (December 4). Foiled in
this he marched rapidly upon London, and had almost
surprised De Montfort and his small forces, who were
then quartered in Southwark, outside the city. The
soldiers of the earl found to their dismay that the

1

Chron. de Dunstaplia, p. 222. I taken was estimated at £10,000
observe Dr. Pauli reads "cum se Blaauw, Barons' War, p. 118.
ipsum dehonestare voluisset ;" Mr. 2 Rishanger, pp. 13, 14.
Luard, "noluisset." The amount

LOUIS CONSENTS TO ARBITRATE. 237
gates were locked against them, and had signed them
selves with the cross, expecting instant death, when the
Londoners burst the barriers and rescued them. It
appeared that four of the chief citizens had contrived
the surprise with the king, and thrown the keys into
the Thames. De Montfort, for the moment, inflicted
no heavier punishment on them than a fine. The inci
dent testifies to the strong feud which existed in those
times between the privileged city families and the
commonalty, who had been excluded from office till
these troubles began. Henry had been no easy task
master to the wealthy citizens, but as the enemy of their
enemies they were prepared to support him, even to
the ruin ofthe national cause.1
Throughout the autumn there had been an exchange
of diplomatic papers between England and France,
kmg and barons desiring Louis to act as final arbiter in
their quarrel, and the only question being to decide in
what way a binding verdict might be procured. Henry
evidently desired to be present at the deliberations that
should precede it, and his nobles were equally anxious
to keep him in the country, no doubt dreading his per
sonal influence, and perhaps fearing lest he should
return with an army. At last it was arranged that
the heads of both parties should repair to Amiens, a
solemn promise being given on both sides to abide
loyally by the decision there pronounced, whatever it
might be. But as Simon de Montfort was detained at
home by a fall from his horse, and the other heads of
the party were afraid to leave the kingdom, the barons

1 Henry's letter of December 8, this attempt by stating the king's
ordering the citizens and commons of grievances. Royal Letters, ii. p.
London to expel Simon de Mont- 250.
fort was probably intended to justify

238 THE MISE OF AMIENS.
were imperfectly represented by five of their own num
ber and three proctors, who had authority to accept
any verdict given between then (December 31) and
Easter, and to demand an explanation of any ambigui
ties. Louis is said to have disliked the task imposed
upon him, and only to have accepted it at the urgent
entreaties of the English primate, Boniface. He was
now as rapid in pronouncing judgment as he had been
cautious of accepting the responsibility. Within three
weeks he delivered the Mise of Amiens (Jan. 23, 1264),
which gave Henry all that the most ardent royalist
could desire, and more than the most sanguine could
have hoped. The Oxford statutes were annulled; all
castles were to be given up to the king; he might ap
point the justiciary and other great officers, the council,
and sheriffs, and remove them at pleasure; he might
call strangers into the kingdom and admit them to the
council, without regard to any provisions to the con
trary ; and as if all this were not sufficient to secure
arbitrary power, a special clause declared that he was to
have full power and free rule in his realm. A provision
that both parties were to lay aside all rancour, and to
abstain from annoying one another, was at least as much
in the interests of the crown as of the opposition. But
with a singularly illogical justice, Louis declared that
he did not intend by the present ordinance to derogate
in any way from the royal charters and liberties and
laudable customs of the kingdom of England, such as
were in existence before the statutes of Oxford. This,
in fact, would have restored things pretty much to their
former footing, abstract right on one side, and tyranni
cal power on the other, but there were passages of
Magna Charta inconsistent in spirit and wording with
government by aliens, so that the barons' envoys might

INTERFERENCE OF THE POPE. 239
fairly have demanded a further explanation of these
ambiguities. They do not seem to have done so, or to
have protested : and although angry voices at the time
impeached king Louis of dishonesty, opinion soon
swayed back to trust in the good king, and only a few
months later he was again appealed to to arbitrate.
Yet those who believe him to have been fair-minded
and sincere may none the less think that a worse umpire
among good men could hardly have been selected.
With a tendency not uncommon in scrupulous minds,
Louis regarded inherited right as of higher account
than abstract theories or expediency. Hating war,
except against the infidel, he would naturally lean
towards a restoration of the old system as a refuge
from actual difficulties which were being voided by the
sword. A better and an abler man than Henry, he yet
had a superstitious reverence for a faith more uncritical
and more ceremonial than his own, and he was the king
of England's kinsman by marriage. But above all, as
sovereign of France, where monarchy was based on
proprietorship, and king and nobles, each in their own
way above law, he was absolutely unfitted to under
stand that balance of even rights by which citizenship
limited monarchy in England. Whatever restricted
the king in his function of government must have
seemed to him anomalous and disorderly.
The advantage which Henry's cause derived from
the Mise of Amiens was incalculable. Coming at a
time when a party had already begun to form against
the barons, it determined all waverers, and several,
like prince Henry, the king's nephew, who had been
staunch members of the opposition, to desert to what
appeared the winning side. It gave Rome an excuse
for interfering. Urban III. had lately declared prince

240 RENEWAL OF HOSTILITIES.
Edmund dispossessed of the crown which he could
not win, and was anxious to make some amends to,
the king, and to restore peace to the rich granary
of Rome. He now issued a series of bulls confirm
ing the Mise, forbidding leagues among the barons,
and mitigating some of the more flagrant abuses en
tailed on the English Church by its connection with
Rome. But before these deeds could be transmitted
to England the country was again traversed by civil
war. As usual in such times, while the leaders hung
back, their partisans exchanged blows. Roger Mor
timer, on the Welsh marches, ravaged the estates of
the earl of Leicester,1 and was followed up by prince
Edward, who took several Welsh forts and threw
himself into Gloucester castle in the presence of a
superior force under De Montfort's sons.2 He be
guiled them, it was said, into a truce, by the pro
mise that he would obtain terms for them from the
king, and as soon as they marched off, violated his
engagements by taking hostages from the citizens and
firing the town.3 It speaks well for the leaders of
the barons that they had surrendered Dover loyally,4
and were negotiating about the meaning of the Mise
in the first weeks of March. But they could not

1 So says Rishanger (p. 20), and the bridges over the Severn except
his account is easily reconciled with at Gloucester, that the barons and
that of the annalist of Tewkesbury Llewellyn might not be able to bring
(p. 179), who says that the barons troops over. Royal Letters, ii. p.
in council (Jan. 1, 1264) sent John 253. They seem, however, to have
Gifford to ravage the lands and de- crossed at Gloucester and burned
stroy the castles of Roger de Morti- the bridge behind them. Rishanger,
mer, if we suppose that the order p. 21.
was given in retaliation. 3 Annales de Dunstapli^, p. 228.
2 As early as Feb. 4, we find A See the writ for surrendering it
Henry ordering Roger Clifford, again to Henry de Montfort. New
sheriff of Gloucester, to break down Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 441.

REJECTION OF THE FRENCH AWARD. 241
conjure the storm. The earl of Derby hoisted their
banner in a war of plunder and private feud; and
the clerks and scholars of Oxford were so unmistake-
ably anti-royalist that the king thought it well to clear
the city of them before he ventured into it. A short
interval of negotiation ensued. Four bishops were
deputed by the barons to offer acceptance of the French
award, if the king would remit the one article that
concerned the employment of aliens.1 But the march
of events was outstripping diplomacy. On the 20th of
March, Henry issued writs directing his followers to
appear armed in ten days' time at Oxford; and the
host can hardly have been mustered before it heard
that the citizens of London had rejected the award;
had rung the bell of St. Paul's, and imprisoned all
the royal judges and officials whom they could seize,
and destroyed the property of the king and his chief
adherents. The parks of king Richard and of Philip
Basset were especially marked for ravage, and the line
of devastation extended as far as Reigate and Roches
ter. The week before Palm Sunday (April 13 )2 was
marked by a worse crime. The Jews, who, it might
be thought, owed the king little love, were accused of
conspiring in his favour, and were almost all massacred.
" The incomparable treasure found in the Jewry " was
no doubt the motive and the reward of this crime. In
Northampton the outcast people saved themselves
from a similar fate by taking refuge in the castle.
These violent acts discredited the constitutional cause,

1 Blaauw, Barons' War, pp. 104,. annalist of Dunstaple, who sides
105. with the barons, says (p. 230) that
2 Liber de Antiquis Legibus, p. Greek fire was found in their houses
62. The Winchester Annals (p. 101) for setting the city on fire, and false
say that about 700 were killed. The keys for opening the gates,
II. R

242 DEFECTIONS FROM THE BARONS' RANKS.
already sufficiently weakened by the Mise of Amiens.
The envoys of the barons were dismissed contemptu
ously by the king with a warning not to return to talk
of peace till they were sent for. Hugh le Bigot, who
had been the barons' justiciary, and Henry de Percy,
whose estates had been confiscated only a year before
for taking part against the crown, now went over to
the royalist standard. Prince Henry asked De Mont
fort's leave to refrain from bearing arms against his
uncle and father, and received it with the contemptuous
assurance that he might go and return in arms; De
Montfort had only cherished him in the hope that he
would be staunch. For himself, having once sworn, the
earl would fight to the end even if he were left alone
with his four sons. In his privacy he said bitterly to
his friends, that he had been in many lands, Christian
and infidel, but had nowhere met with such treachery
as in England. As friends fell away new enemies ap
peared. The king of Scotland, Henry's son-in-law, sent
large reinforcements; and a Balliol, a Bruce, and a
Comyn were among the captains. It was perhaps to
receive this northern contingent that Henry loitered in
the midland counties, occupying himself with the cap
ture of Northampton, which the barons had appointed
as their head quarters in the north, and where the
younger Simon de Montfort commanded. By the
treachery of the prior the city walls were secretly un
dermined, and a gap opened for the king's troops when
they appeared. The young De Montfort was taken
prisoner in a sally, and the garrison of the castle was
panic-stricken and surrendered. Gifford, De Montfort's
lieutenant in Kenilworth, retaliated by seizing and de
molishing Warwick castle. But the news that Roches
ter, where De Warenne had thrown himself, was in-

PROPOSITIONS FOR PEACE. 243
vested (April 17) and nearly reduced,1 determined the
king to march southwards to the rescue. He easily
raised the siege, and De Monfort only fell back upon
London in time to save it from a surprise by prince
Edward. Both parties, however, avoided an immediate
trial of arms. The king resolved to reduce the Cinque
Ports, which were notoriously disaffected, and probably
desired to draw the enemy to a distance from the
capital. He flushed his troops with the spoils of battle
and the ransom of Robertsbridge abbey.2 De Mont
fort wished to consult with his party before committing
the issue of the war to a single battle. It was resolved
to offer the king satisfaction for the damage done
hitherto, and to propose peace on the basis of the sta
tutes of Oxford. It' could hardly be hoped that these
terms would be accepted. De Montfort accordingly
marched south, at the head of a large army, swelled by
fifteen thousand Londoners, and by volunteers from
every part of the country. Having arrived (Tuesday,
May 13) at the woods near Fletching, about nine miles
from the priory of Lewes, where Henry had established
his head-quarters, the earl halted and sent a letter
to the king, briefly declaring that the barons' whole
party was loyal and well affected, whatever false reports
might have been spread to the contrary. The barons'
envoys, the bishops of London and Worcester, then
offered thirty thousand pounds as a compensation for
the damage sustained by the royalists, and proposed
that a committee of churchmen, canonists, and divines,
should decide what statutes should remain in force, and

1 The annalist of the church of of St. Andrew's church, and horses
Rochester tells us that the city was stabled in the most sacred places.
stormed on the vigil of Good Fri- Anglia Sacra, i. p. 351.
day, fugitives dragged from the altar 2 Political Songs, pp. 74, 75.

244 FAILURE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS.
how far the oaths taken were to be accounted binding.
By this compromise the barons hoped to clear their
consciences from the load of perjury.1 The king an
swered by reproaching the earl with the troubles raised
in the realm, and the damage done, by his own admis
sion, to the estates of the crown followers, and con
cluded by giving that formal defiance or declaration of
war which the ceremonial of feudal law required before
bloodshed. The king of the Romans,, prince Edward,
and the royalist barons, added a separate defiance to
" the public enemy," and offered to prove the false
hood of De Montfort's imputation, that they had coun
selled the king ill, if the earl and Gilbert de Clare
would come under safe-conduct to trial in the king's
court. The failure of negotiations is partly referred
by some to the indignation of the royal counsellors at
a proposal that the arbiters should be clergymen,2 while
others ascribe it to the large sums demanded by the chiefs
of the royalists.3 But, in fact, an accommodation at that
moment was impossible; the causes of strife were too
great, the strength of the two parties too evenly ba
lanced. Prince Edward is reported to have said, " they
shall have no peace except with halters round their
necks." It was known that night in both camps that
1 Rishanger, p. 30. Stephen, bishop the Romans as a bribe to make peace,
of Chichester, is mentioned in the but that he refused it. Gale, ii. p.
Political Songs (p. 81) as the prin- 61. The story takes a different form
cipal envoy. The Chronicle of Dun- in the Political Songs, p. 69. " The
staple (p. 231) says that there were king of Alemaigne . . . Thritti
three deputations, the first of knights, thousand, pound asked he, For to
the" other two of bishops. make the pees in the countree." I
2 "En jam miles subitur dictis suspect the ground of the whole
clericorum, charge is that the compensation of-
Viluit militia clericis subjecta." fered by the barons for damage done
Political Songs, p. 84. was considered inadequate by the
3 Wikes, a royalist, says 50,000 sufferers.
marks were offered to the king of

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RIVAL HOSTS. 245
the quarrel was to be voided next morning by the
sword. If the barons, as seems probable, were inferior to the
king in numbers,1 and the civic part of their force in
average discipline, they had yet the great advantage of
a steady religious enthusiasm. Sustained by the almost
universal feeling of the clergy, recruited largely from
the quiet burgher classes, under the captainship of a
crusader eminent for his piety, they were leading the
forlorn hope of liberty for Church and State against a
perjured king, and a troop of courtiers and foreign ad
venturers. They had taken the white cross as their
badge ; they passed the night in confession of sins, and
the stern unrest of warriors ; and they kneeled in
prayer when they came in sight of the foe. " Let us
ask God," said De Montfort, " that we may do him
knightly service, if our cause be right; we commend
ourselves to him, body and soul."2 In the king's camp
there had been other vigils. The very altars were
desecrated with unholy orgies, and priory and church
aisles rang to the mad drinking-songs of men who re
garded war as a pastime or a trade, and who were
flushed with the thought of an easy victory on the
morrow.3 It was the struggle of cavalier and puritan
of the thirteenth century.4 In their general over-

1 The Annals of Waverley (p. 356) the Political Songs (p. 79) the num-
put the king's forces at 60,000 men ; ber of loose women in the royalist
the barons' at 50,000. The Worces- camp is put at 700.
ter Chronicle, quoted by Mr. Blaauw, * Matthew of Westminster says
puts the royalist army at 60,000; (p. 392) that the earl of Leicester
the barons' at 40,000. Barons' War, caused his chief adherents to be ton-
p. 167. These estimates are, no sured, probably as a protest against
doubt, excessive, but may indicate the long love-locks of the courtiers. ;
the proportions of the two forces. It curiously completes the parallel
2 Oxenedes, p. 201. with the Roundheads.
3 Chron. de Lanercost, p. 74. In

246 THE BATTLE OF LEWES.
confidence the royalists neglected to secure the heights
that lay between themselves and the enemy, and were
roused by learning that their outposts were driven in,
and their convoys of forage captured. De Montfort
thus gained the great advantage of crowning the brow
of the hill close to the town and awaiting attack.1 His
forces were arranged along three spurs separated by
deep hollows ; two of his own sons heading the right,
De Clare the centre, while the left, near Lewes castle,
was allotted to the Londoners under Nicholas de Se
grave. De Montfort himself took his post in the re
serve. The litter which his accident had constrained
him to use was left on a high ridge of the hill with a
banner to attract the enemy : it contained the four
citizens who had tried, five months before, to betray
London to the king. On the king's side, prince Ed
ward was the first to draw out his troops on the right,
and his impetuous charge easily broke the Londoners.
In his eagerness to avenge the insult once offered to
his mother, the prince forgot the first duties of a
general, and continued an impetuous pursuit over four
miles, slaughtering three thousand men. A part of his
knights hurried to the spot where they saw De Mont
fort's litter and flag, and slew the wretched men in
side — it was said, by one account, burning them —
without perceiving their mistake. When they at length
turned rein the main battle was already lost. The
royalist centre, under king Richard, was disordered by
De Montfort's artillery; the royalist left overwhelmed
— De Montfort bringing up his reserve — and driven back
confusedly on the priory and the town. The faults of

1 Throughout the account of the upon thorough knowledge of the lo-
battle of Lewes I have followed Mr. cality.
Blaauw's excellent description, based

DEFEAT OF THE ROYALISTS. 247
a position which left no room for manoeuvering, and
which had a river at the rear, were then fatally evident.
King Henry, who had fought gallantly, and whose horse
had been killed under him, was obliged to shelter him
self in the priory i1 king Richard, cut off from flight,
took refuge in a mill; hundreds of gentlemen and
common soldiers perished in the Ouse, and in the
marshes near it. Among the slain, it is said, were
many women who had followed their last night's lovers
into the field, and who were now mercilessly cut down.
When prince Edward at last returned from the pursuit,
the ruin of the royal cause was so evident that his sol
diers — victorious as they had been — quailed and fell
from him, and would not renew the fight. With an
honourable feeling he cut his way through the investing
forces into the priory, at a spot where their lines were
weakest, and joined his father. But by this time king
Richard was a prisoner, the mill having proved un
tenable. It was hopeless to continue the struggle,
though, desperate as it had been, the royalists who
could not fly were prepared to die sword in hand
sooner than surrender. They had some reason for fear,
as king Henry had hoisted the red dragon banner in
sign that no quarter was to be given.2 De Montfort
was more merciful. He had let the sword slay during
the day ; he now granted an armistice.
1 The Annales de Waverleia (p. priory. Hemingburghsays(i.p. 316),
357) say that the king surrendered " sui reduxerunt regem in abba-
to Gilbert de Clare ; Rishanger (p. tiam," and this account, which is con-
33), though his language is ambigu- firmed by Matthew of Westminster
ous, appears to say, in the Barons' (p. 393), appears to agree best with
War, that the king was brought in to the course of events afterwards.
the fugitives who had taken shelter 2 Rishanger, p. 32. It had already
in the priory. The Chronicles pub- been unfurled on the march to North-
lished as Rishanger's say (p. 27), that ampton. Annales de DunstapM, p.
the king surrendered, and was shut 229.
up by the earl of Leicester in the

248 TREATY OF PEACE.
Time could only convince the royalists of the hope
lessness of resistance. Even if they could escape, which
was more than doubtful from the lines drawn round
them, they could not expect to reorganize a broken
party. The numbers that had fallen on either side are
estimated at five thousand in all, and as pretty evenly
distributed between the two, by the best informed
among our chroniclers ; but on the barons' side the
victims had been obscure citizens and bad soldiers; on
the king's, the flower of the nobility and his best vete
rans. Two royal justiciaries and twenty-three barons
had been taken or slain, while the king's half-brothers,
the earl Warenne, and a crowd of minor men, had fled
beyond sea or to their homes. Under these circum
stances the terms granted by De Montfort were cer
tainly moderate. The prisoners on both sides, except
apparently the king of the Romans, were to be released
without ransom; the differences between the king and
barons were to be referred to French umpires named
by king Louis, and assisted by English counsellors :
the king was to observe Magna Charta and live mode
rately on his own means : prince Edward and prince
Henry were to be kept as hostages for the consent of
those royalists who had escaped the battle and were
not parties to the compact; and the barons and their
partisans were never to be called to account for their
share in the present war.1 It had been at first intended
to make the king himself hostage for the proper per
formance of this Mise of Lewes. Prince Edward saved
him from this disgrace, and retrieved his ruined popu-

1 So says Knyghton (c.^451), and dition, but says almost all the roy-
the Chronicle de Lanercost (p. 75) alist nobles were imprisoned, which
complains that they were held to is clearly an exaggeration. Gale, ii.
ransom in many cases. Wikes, how- p. 63.
ever, makes no mention of the con-

DISTURBED STATE OF THE COUNTRY. 249
larity by this generous surrender of his own liberty.1
He was at once committed to strict but honourable
confinement in Dover castle. De Montfort accompanied
the king, who was only not a captive in name, to London.
Writs were sent down into the counties announcing
that peace had been concluded, and ordering the cus
tody of all the royal castles to be transferred to the
barons. The course of law went on as usual in the
royal courts. But order was not re-established. The
garrison of Tonbridge, disregarding the royal com
mands to give up the castle, forced their way across
the country and held Bristol in the king's name against
the king's writ.2 The countess of Albemarle, refusing
to acknowledge De Montfort's authority, was sold for
five hundred marks to his second son, and only escaped
seizure and forcible marriage by flight into the marches
of Wales.3 Above all, private war afflicted every part
of the kingdom, and armed bands of horsemen traversed
the country, plundering in the name of the king or the
barons indifferently. Only a day before the decisive
battle a part of London about Westcheap had been
treacherously burned down.4 Right or wrong, De
Montfort had triumphed as the head of a party, and
that, perhaps, a minority among Englishmen. It re
mained to be seen if his government would establish a
firmer order than that against which his sword had re
corded a victorious protest.

1 New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. war by master Geoffrey Dinaunt,
456. and had by the said Geoffrey a daugh-
2 Knyghton, c. 2451. ter, who is 2i years old: but they
3 Placitorum Abbreviatio, p. 172. know not at all if the said Geoffrey
Compare a little anecdote in the married the said Rose."
Calend. Geheal., i. p. 142. " The 4 French Chronicle of London, p.
jurors say that Henry de Marke had 5. Compare, however, Matthew of
a sister, named Rose, who was car- Westminster, p. 388.

ried off in Tey church during the

250

Chapter VIII.
SIMON DE MONTFORT.
Parliament of London. Scheme of Government. Favour shown to
the Clergy. Legate's Sentence of Excommunication. Second
Parliament of London. Unpopularity of De Montfort as Re
gent. Quarrel with the Earl of Gloucester, and Escape of
Prince Edward. War in the Welsh Marches. Surprise of
Kenilworth. Battle of Evesham. Triumph of the Royalists
throughout England. Siege of Kenilworth. Dictum de Kenil
worth. Parliament of Marlborough. Last Years of the
Reign. Character of Henry III. Material Progress under
his Reign.
I^HE writs issued in the name of the captive king
bear the mark of that dignified respect for con
stitutional forms which seems native to every free people.
Without deviating into invective or apology, they cover
the king's defeat at the very moment of proclaiming the
barons' victory. " Whereas," it is said, " by the media
tion of divine grace, the trouble that lately was in our
realm is quieted, and peace ordained and confirmed be
tween us and our barons ; be it enacted, by the counsel
and assent of our barons," that the prisoners lately
made by the royalists be brought up to London, ap
parently to await the issue of events;1 that no man

1 Mr. Blaauw says some of the exchanged, and later on some may
prisoners on each side were certainly have been set at liberty by the earl
released without ransom. (Barons' of Gloucester to conciliate partisans.
War, p. 193). Probably some were But Rishanger (p. 43) speaks of the

PARLIAMENT OF LONDON. 251
presume to bear arms without special licence, under
peril of life and limb; and that all feuds, homicides,
robberies, and other incidents of war cease. The barons
did not even presume to take the appointment of sheriffs
into their hands for fear they should seem to be en
croaching on the powers of Parliament. But as the
counties could not be. left without sheriffs, or in the
hands of royal nominees, guardians of the peace were
appointed (June 4), one in each county, to repress dis
orders, or report offenders who were beyond control to
government. They were also to cause four qualified
and discreet knights of the county, elected by its free
holders, to be sent as its representatives to London on
the 22nd of June. It is noticeable that these writs
were not issued to ten counties, which are so variously
distributed that no probable reason can be assigned for
the omission, except that they were royalist.1 As, how
ever, there is no notice of the knights' share in the pro
ceedings of Parliament, it may be presumed that they
attended only as witnesses, or to report the public
opinion of their districts. There is certainly no trace
of any popular influence in the scheme of government

" incarceratorum amici " just before ' Cornwall would be influenced by
the summer campaign of 1265 ; the king Richard : Surrey and Sussex
Liber de Antiquis Legibus (p. 76) by the earl of Warenne, John Fitz-
speaks of prisoners in the tower and alan, and Henry de Percy : Hum-
at Windsor being set free after the phrey de Bohun, earl of Hereford,
battle of Evesham ; and the Chroni- was royalist i and the king's cause
ca Rishanger (p. 32) ascribe De was generally strongest in the West
Montfort's unpopularity to his claim- and North, the least civilized parts
ing " the prisoners' ransoms." The of the country, where Gloucester-
simplest explanation seems to be that shire, Worcestershire, Cheshire, and
the barons made a conditional pro- Lancashire lay. Cheshire and Dur-
mise of releasing without ransom, ham may, however, have been ex-
and considered themselves absolved cepted as counties palatine, and Mid-
from it by the conduct of the king's dlesex included in London.
partisans.

252 SCHEME OF GOVERNMENT.
promulgated by the Parliament of London and agreed
on, with a most suspicious celerity, within four-and-
twenty hours. Three persons, not aliens, were to be
elected, who were to nominate nine others as the king's
permanent council: and the king was to name all
officers of state, great or small, by the advice of these.
An obnoxious counsellor was only to be removed by
consent of the first triumvirate, and an obnoxious offi
cial by permission of the council. The three them
selves were to hold their office permanently, unless the
whole community of the realm should see fit to displace
them. A few minor enactments provided that the king
and his son were to lay aside all rancour; that the new
officials were to swear to serve the state faithfully, and
accept no presents except of eatables; that peaceful
merchants and travellers might circulate freely in the
kingdom ; and that aliens were to hold no offices. The
election for the three counsellors fell upon Simon de
Montfort, the young earl of Gloucester, and the bishop
of Chichester. While the general plan of government
adopted at Oxford six years before was renewed in this
scheme, its details are evidently more obligarchical. It
was no longer felt necessary to admit a royalist element.
The result was a strong government for the moment ;
but without the broad basis which alone can withstand
the shocks of a revolutionary epoch.
Among the resolutions passed by De Montfort's first
Parliament was one that the state of the English Church
be duly reformed. This does not seem to have had
reference to the old abuses of papal misgovernment,
and perhaps no prudent statesmen could be expected
to embroil himself with the head of the world's spiritu
alty at his first entrance upon power. Rather the
question seems to have been how far the clqim of the

FAVOURS TO THE CLERGY. 253
clergy to be exempt from lay jurisdiction was to be
maintained. The tendency of Henry III.'s government
had been to maintain the rights of the state with a
creditable and most anomalous vigour; and an attempt
had even been made, in 1247, to imitate the Gallican
liberties established by St. Louis- — an attempt which
proved abortive from the English king's character, but
which was destined to bear fruit in time.1 Accordingly,
only three years before an English council at Lambeth
had complained that men in orders were constantly
imprisoned by laymen, and banished or otherwise pun
ished by lay tribunals, and that the king's courts seized
every opportunity of deciding claims for property be
queathed against the Church. Spiritual censures were
freely threatened against all transgressions of this kind,
and fell seemingly without effect.2 During the late
disorders the clergy had been especial sufferers. A
commission of three bishops was appointed to sit for a
year or more, as the case might require, with or with
out lay assessors, and inflict appropriate fines on all
offenders. These were to be enforced by the civil
power ; and a body-guard of a hundred men was to be
granted if slighter measures should appear inoperative.
In the case of offences against churches something like
martial law was to be enforced. Those who had taken
clergymen captive were to be fined heavily. Priests
who had borne arms might be pardoned if it had been
on the side of justice, but if otherwise, might lose their
benefices or their orders ; and if they were resident in
another diocese from that in which the damage was
done might be tried by the local ordinary. These
1 Paris, Hist. Major, p. 727. church grievances at an earlier pe-
2 Wilkins' Concilia, i. pp. 747-753. riod of the reign. Annales de Burton,
Compare Grosseteste's statement of pp. 422-425.

254 THREATENED INVASION OF ENGLAND.
ordinances were never actually enforced. But their
spirit is so clearly in the interests of the Church against
crown and gentry, that they help to explain De Mont
fort's popularity with the clergy, his place among
miracle-workers after death, and his failure in govern
ment. In fact, his attempt to let the clergy collect
their own taxes was so hopeless from the first that
within three months' time he was compelled to threaten
a distraint by the secular arm.1
Whilst parliament was deliberating, England was
threatened with a foreign invasion. The queen had
begun collecting troops on the Continent, and was now
at Damme in Flanders with Breton, Gascon, and
Spanish mercenaries around her flag, recruited and
animated by the fugitives from the field of Lewes. A
peremptory letter, enjoining the archbishop of Canter
bury to return to England (June 25), mentions that
the English clergy — no doubt, if they belonged to the
barons' faction — were not able to traverse France safely.
A fortnight later a general levy was ordered through
out the kingdom for the first week in August to defend
the realm against the alien (July 8). Royal letters
were despatched to the king of France, the count of
Anjou, and the more eminent French prelates, assuring
them that Henry had accepted the Mise of Lewes, and
deprecating any preparations for war.2 Nevertheless,
either because the danger did not seem pressing, or
from the habit of legality imposing as it were an im
perial moderation, we find De Montfort, in the middle
of July (July 16), obtaining a royal writ for permission
to travel with an armed escort. There was, probably,

1 New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. s July 10, Aug. 2, and Aug. 4 ;
445. Royal Letters, ii. pp. 257, 264-269.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH LOUIS. 255
as much need of money as of men, for the tenth lately
voted by the clergy was collected in all haste under
threat of distraint. Thanks, however, to these strong
measures, and to the hearty good will of the people who
flocked by thousands to Barham Down, the country
was able to tide over the crisis. It was said that the
queen's fleet was prevented setting sail by contrary
winds. The contrary winds that lasted over a whole
summer must be explained rather by politics than by
climatology. The English ships, however, were keeping
careful watch as late as September.
Meanwhile Simon de Montfort did not neglect to
negotiate. He first selected his prisoner, prince Henry,
as an envoy to explain the peace of Lewes, probably
fearing lest Louis should refuse to receive an ambas
sador from the barons' ranks. In fact, the feeling in
France was so strong that the prince's suite was attacked
in Boulogne, and nine of his followers killed. The
French seem to have resented the non-acceptance of the
Mise of Amiens as a national insult, and the king's
captivity as an outrage on all monarchical sentiment.
Nevertheless the mission so far succeeded that the
peace was referred for examination to a committee of
five — two Englishmen nominated by De Montfort, and
three Frenchmen, one of whom, Charles of Anjou, was
notoriously favourable to the barons' cause.1 Only
on the article of aliens it was intimated that no com
promise was admissible ; and there seem to have been
private instructions that the question of the royal cap
tives and hostages was not to be discussed." An unex-

1 So says the Chronicon Roffense, Montfort, in exile, and married him
f. 175 (quoted by Mr. Blaauw) ; and to the daughter of an Italian count.
the Annals of Dunstaple (p. 259) re- He even continued his patronage
late that he entertained Guy de after the murder of prince Henry.

256 A LEGATINE EXCOMMUNICATION.
pected obstacle interrupted the negotiations. Guido of
Sabina, a man of high cultivation, to whom litera
ture owes the works of Roger Bacon, had been dis
patched by Urban IV. with a legatine commission to
arrange the English difficulty. Arrived at the coast of
France, the legate found to his indignation that De
Montfort had issued peremptory orders not to admit
him into the kingdom. Secure of the English Church,
the earl could defy Rome. Guido threatened church
censures if the prohibition were not taken off, and sum
moned the primate and four bishops known as partisans
of the barons to attend him at Boulogne. The four
prelates were forbidden, and for some time unable, to
cross the channel. When they at last succeeded (Sept.
8), stimulated by canonical penalties, they were directed
to take back with them bulls of excommunication against
the earl of Leicester and his family, the citizens of
London and of the Cinque Ports, and the earl of
Gloucester's followers. Their mission was reported,
and the barons' emissaries threw the bulls into the sea,
and forbade the prelates to publish them as they valued
their lives. Guido was compelled to content himself
with forbidding all trade in corn, wine, and other neces
saries of life, between France and England. It was a
paper blockade; but in the state of public feeling at
the time it worked with terrible efficiency. The chan
nel swarmed with pirates, who slew the crews of every
merchantman they captured ; and French merchandise
rose from two to three hundred per cent, in the English
market. It was, probably, in retaliation that Leicester
allowed his son to sequester all the wool intended for
export, and the manufactured stuffs sent over from
Flanders. The earl is even said to have talked of
England's ability to maintain itself without any reliance

SECOND PARLIAMENT OF LONDON. 257
on foreign trade. The sentiment was unwise and below
the intelligence of the times, unless we take it as the
expression of a resolute purpose to endure all. In the
excited state of public opinion it was caught up eagerly,
and men affected to show themselves in native fabrics
of undyed wool.1
How active and how unscrupulous the royalist exiles
were is shown by the fact that the government was
obliged to issue a formal protest against any alienation
of the transmarine provinces. At home the North,
under the influence of the king of Scotland and of John
Balliol, was in open rebellion. In the West it was even
worse. Hamo l'Estrange, a noted captain of banditti,2
ravaged the Welsh marches ; and the wardens of Bristol
made a raid as far as Wallingford castle, and assaulted
it in the vain hope of setting king Richard at liberty.
De Montfort's energy, and the rising of the whole
country, were required to drive them back beyond the
Severn : Llewellyn's appearance in arms against them,
and the feeling that they could do nothing until prince
Edward was set at liberty, constrained them to sue for
peace. A Parliament was summoned to debate its terms
at London (Jan. 20), and to this from an afterthought
apparently, by writs issued ten days after the first
summons to lords, bishops, and knights of the county,
representatives from the boroughs were called up. In
this sense it was the first perfect exemplar of a modern
English Parliament. The reason of the innovation may
probably be found in the need of filling up the gaps
that the absence of the royalist baronage would cause.
It is an instructive commentary on the war to know
1 The account in Wikes (Gale, ii. Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 447.
pp. 64, 65) agrees very well with 2 " Prasdo nominatissimus." Ri-
the legate's report to the pope. New shanger, p. 40.
II. S

258 PROCEEDINGS OF THE PARLIAMENT.
that only twenty-three earls and barons, (even including
those already in the council), were summoned to this
assembly,1 in which a hundred and twenty ecclesiastics
sat. The first proceedings of the assembly were to
ratify a late convention by which the leaders in the
late troubles on the marches were to go into exile in
Ireland for three years.2 But the point which the
royalists had most at heart, and which the barons most
dreaded, was the freeing of prince Edward. It was
almost equally dangerous to let him loose on the
country, and to keep him any longer in prison, an ob
ject of general sympathy. At last, after nearly two
months' deliberation (March ll),3 the articles of a
formal treatybetween the rival interests were agreed to.
The form of government established in the preceding
summer was re-enacted and recapitulated. All quar
rels between the two parties were to be mutually con
doned, and any offence against this article punished
with outlawry and disherison. The great charter and
the forest charter were to be sworn to by all officers of
state, great and small, and no obedience was due to
them till this oath had been taken. No aliens were to
be brought into the kingdom except by licence of the
council. Prince Edward in particular was pledged not
1 Nine northern lords were, how- i. p. 452) says it was agreed to the
ever, invited to attend under safe- last day of March, and adds in the
conduct. But this was probably next line that it was the vigil of St.
meant only as a summons to put Gregory, March 11. Matthew of
themselves on their trial. New Westminster says (p. 390) that after
Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 450. making the agreement, the king kept
2 Wikes, Gale, ii. p. 65. Rishanger Christmas at Woodstock. This is
(p. 41) says more generally that the clearly wrong. Probably some time
greater part of them were to go elapsed before the agreement was
abroad for a year. So Westminster, formally engrossed, and a second
p. 385. parliament seems to have been called
3 The exact date is difficult to fix. at Westminster for that purpose.
The document in Rymer (vol. i. part

DE MONTFORT'S DIFFICULTIES. 259
to introduce foreigners, or even to go abroad ; and his
castles, for better security, were to be given into the
hands of the council of state, or, in some instances, ex
changed for other lands with the earl of Leicester.
Lastly, king and prince were to pledge themselves not
to procure any absolution from the engagement now
entered into. After public signing and sealing by the
king, by his son and nephew, and by a number of
eminent witnesses, a copy of this compact was sent
down into every county in England to be read at the
sheriff's tourn twice a year.
De Montfort's real difficulties now began. His ac
quisition of prince Edward's castles was undoubtedly
justified by policy, as they commanded the turbulent
march districts, and was paid for in land of his own :
yet men murmured at it as proof of a grasping avarice.
In the same spirit it was said that he had sequestered
to his own use king Richard's property, which he really
administered in strict stewardship j1 and a vaguer charge
declared that he had seized eighteen baronies, which it
is known did not leave him a richer man at his death,
and whose names have never been ascertained.2 With

1 See the royal writ of December, Norwich. Calend. Geneal., i. p. 121.
1264, reciting that the earl has the It is certain there were some con-
custody of king Richard's lands, fiscations of land. " William de Laf-
whose bailiffs are to see that the earl ford, in the beginning of the pre-
does not incur any liability, in the ceding war, was ejected from his
event, I presume, of accounts being land in Aspel and Eye by the barons.
examined afterwards. New Rymer, And the same barons gave the afore-
vol. i. part i. p. 448. said land to Thomas de Bray." Ca-
2 Wikes, Gale, ii. p. 63. The lend. Geneal., i. p. 167. But the
charge acquires a partial confirma- forfeitures were probably confined to
tion from a return in the " Inquisi- the estates of those who refused to
tions after death," as to a tenement accept the Mise of Lewes, and who
in Sprouton, which is returned as were in fact rebels for the time
having been seized by Simon de being. De Montfort could hardly
Montfort on the ground that it was have refused to accept a share in
in the occupation of the bishop of these spoils without provoking a sus-

260

CHARGES AGAINST DE MONTFORT.

more truth it may be said that his sons seized a portion
of the spoils of office, and that the suspension of the
Flemish trade was aggravated by Henry de Montfort's
monopoly.1 But the earl's real offence was that he
could not brook disorder or tolerate a rival. He flung
the earl of Derby, who had taken up arms in the
barons' cause and used them for his own profit, into
prison.3 He refused to let the staunch veteran, John
Gifford, hold a prisoner to ransom against the Mise of
Lewes, and Gifford in disgust went over to the earl of
Gloucester's party.8 De Clare's grievances were, that
the earl of Leicester named all the wardens of castles

picion that he was playing a double
part. Possibly the eighteen baronies
alluded to are king Richard's, as he
held exactly that number. Nicholl's
Leicestershire, vol. i. p. 203.
1 Wikes accuses him of having
seized all the wool in transit at
Dover, and sold it for his own bene
fit. The charge in this shape is in
credible, but it seems likely that he
may have trafficked in permits to
send it out of the kingdom. The
Liber de Antiquis Legibus (p. 73)
accuses the De Montforts of having
allowed the Cinque Ports to practise
piracy, themselves receiving a third
of tlie plunder.
2 Rishanger says (pp. 20, 21) that
the earl was charged with wasting
the king's lands after peace had been
proclaimed, and with treasonable
correspondence with the lords of the
marches ; and this is not inconsistent
with the language of Wikes (p. 66),
who says that a heavy charge was
brought against him in the king's
name, though the royalist of course
asserts that it was to forward De
Montfort's private ambition. The
earl of Derby had in fact been treated

too well. He had refused to join the
march upon Lewes, and had sacked
Worcester for his own private gain ;
but having waged war at the head
of a large army, in Nov. 1264, against
the royalists of the marches (Ann.
de DunstapliS,, p. 233), these offences
had been overlooked, and he had
been summoned to the parliament at
Worcester. The fact that he was
practically ruined by the terms al
lowed him in the Dictum de Kenil
worth seems to show that he had
really been as violent against the
king as faithless to De Montfort. In
deed, the Annals of Waverley (p.
358) say that De Montfort imprison
ed him to save his life, the king de
manding that he should be put to
death " for the monstrous damages
and burnings which he inflicted after
and before the battle of Lewes."
3 Mr. Blaauw prefers this account
from Robert of Gloucester and Add.
MSS. 5444 (Barons' War, pp. 179,
227), but Wikes (p. 66) says that
the earl held Gifford to bail for hav
ing occupied lands without authority.
Probably there were several occa
sions of quarrel.

HIS CRITICAL SITUATION. 261
by his own authority, that he claimed king Richard's
ransom, and that he forbade a tournament at Dunstaple
which was meant to be a fight between De Clare and
the young De Montforts, and prepared to seize any
who should come there. The first charge, if it really
meant that De Montfort usurped the powers of the
council, was certainly not without cause; but the pro
bability is, that the earl of Leicester carried his col
leagues generally with him, and did not care to con
ciliate a single dissentient. To the second it might
fairly be answered, that De Clare had been already
repaid with the guardianship of the estates of Philip de
Savoy and William de Valence. But hot words passed
between the two earls, and De Montfort at last told De
Clare that he might be satisfied with having saved his
own lands.1 About the forbidding of the tournament,
allowed neither by canon nor common law, and doubly
dangerous in such times, there cannot be two opinions.2
Towards May the situation became critical. The
government, aware of its weakness, tried to push ne
gotiations in France and obtain an award from Louis
which might undo the effects of the Mise of Amiens
(May 18). But by this time De Clare's fidelity was so
openly suspected that it was thought necessary to
threaten all who doubted it with punishment (May 20).
He was, in fact, in secret correspondence with the chief
royalists and the lords of the marches who had either
never left England or were flocking back to the scent
1 A reply which would have been at Northampton, and again forbidden.
singularly inappropriate if De Mont- The Chronica Rishanger (p. 32) add
fort had not been so contented him- that'De Montfort threatened to put
self. his sons, if they disobeyed him, in a
2 Rishanger says (pp. 1, 2) that place where they should see neither
when the tournament at Dunstaple sun nor moon.
was forbidden another was appointed

262 ESCAPE OF PRINCE EDWARD.
of battle from Ireland and the Continent, and who
occupied Pembroke openly.1 De Montfort with the
king, whom he never left, was at Gloucester watching
events, and his treacherous colleague, De Clare, who
was at the head of an armed force in the forest of
Dean. Suddenly the news came that prince Edward
had escaped. Restored to nominal liberty, he had been
placed under the surveillance of Thomas de Clare, in
whom De Montfort placed undoubting confidence, and
was the less guarded as he was believed to be himself
favourable to peace. Having taken up his quarters at
Hereford, from which escape to the royalist camp was
easy, he tired out the horses of his escort in races, and
rode off on his own fresh steed from the bewildered
company (May 28). Then De Montfort knew that he
was again at war with the whole power of the Crown ;
and by a last exercise of the authority which the king's
presence gave him he summoned all the force of the
kingdom to arms. A week later (June 7) it was neces
sary to denounce the earl of Gloucester, who joined the
prince, taking, however, an oath from him that he
would obey the laws. Even the Church was called in,
and the bishop of London excommunicated the prince
and all his followers. But generalship was more needed
than the aid of Church or law.
By most unfortunate tactics De Montfort left the
main forces of his enemy between himself and his base
of operations, and crossed into south Wales,2 apparently
that he might close England against further royalist
recruits from that quarter, destroy De Clare's castle at
Monmouth, and place Edward between his own re-

1 See aletterdated May 10. Royal 2 He was at Monmouth, June 28.
Letters, ii. p. 282. New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 457.

TACTICS OF PRINCE EDWARD. 263
cruited army and the forces coming up from the south
and east. The earl probably relied on the garrison he
had placed at Gloucester, and on the friendship of the
Bristol townsmen to secure him a safe return.1 He
soon found that it was impossible to effect anything
with an English army moving over bad roads in a
barren country ; and his only success was in concluding
a treaty with Llewellyn, whose assistance was pur
chased by the surrender of all that had been wrested
from him during the reign for the nominal payment of
30,000 marks — a curious pendant to the royalist nego
tiations in France.2 Meanwhile the prince had marched
down from Chester and taken Gloucester3 (June 29),
destroyed the ships with which De Montfort attempted
to cross the Bristol channel, and broken down the
bridges over the Severn. His plan was to shut the
earl up in the principality, while he overwhelmed his
adherents elsewhere in detail. It succeeded admirably.
The recruits who flocked in small companies to the
earl's standard were cut off as they tried in vain to find
a passage across the Severn. The younger Simon de
Montfort, who had been besieging Pevensey, marched
across country, sacking Winchester by the way (July
14), and had reached Kenilworth4 (Aug. 1), at the
1 Mr. Blaauw, following Robert of against all but De Montfort, would
Gloucester, thinks that Bristol was otherwise be unintelligible.
held by a royalist garrison to the 2 Llewellyn levelled all the castles
last. (Barons' War, p. 238). Mr. of which he obtained possession.
Lucas quotes a precise statement Liber de Ant. Legibus, p. 74.
that Bristol castle had been given up 3 Annal. de Waverleia,.p. 362.
on the receipt of letters from prince 4 " In festo S. Petri ad Vincula.''
Edward, but does not give his au- Rishanger, p. 44. "In vigilia festi
thority. Proceedings of Archaeol. S. Petri ad Vincula.'' Wikes, Gale,
Inst., 1853. This seems the more ii. p. 69. The Annals of Waverley,
probable account as the writ in Ry- however, say (p. 363) that after the
mer of June 9, p. 20, directing the sack of Winchester, and three days'
townsmen to hold town and castle stay at Oxford, he had been six days

264 DEFEAT OF DE MONTFORT'S SON.
head of a considerable force, when he learned of his
father's difficulties. But for greater comfort, it is said
for the sake of the baths, he fixed his quarters in the
priory instead of the castle, and he and his men were
surprised next morning by the shout of the enemy's
troops in the streets and at their beds. The whole
force was routed or taken, and young De Montfort was
lucky in escaping almost naked with a few followers
into the castle. Flushed with victory, and their very
foot-boys mounted on knightly chargers, the royalists
turned back towards the Severn, over which De Mont
fort had at last thrown his troops, having found or
made boats. The earl's army, divided into two large
bodies, was marching from Kempsey, near Worcester,
on Kenilworth, to join his son, of whose defeat no
tidings had reached him. This ignorance, the more re
markable as it is said he had spies in prince Edward's
camp,1 goes far to show that the population of the line
of the Severn went heartily with their natural lords,
the earls of Chester and Gloucester, against the con
stitutional cause, whose chief adherents were in London
and the more civilized south-east. The same local
division is noticeable in the wars of the Roses, and in
those of the Commonwealth.
De Montfort and his army were just issuing from the
narrow tongue of land where the Avon winds round
Evesham, when they saw the soldiers of prince Edward
in the distance. The banners taken at Kenilworth

at Kenilworth. The Annals of Mel- feigned march ofthe royalists on the
rose say that he slept outside the Shrewsbury road ; but although Ed-
castle in order to begin his march ward was forced to act as if his ene-
early next day. Gale, ii. p. 230. my were apprised of his movements,
1 Wikes, who mentions this, as- it seems certain that De Montfort
cribes De Montfort's surprise to a knew nothing of what had happened.

THE BATTLE OF EVESHAM. 265
were flying in front of the royalist line, and at first gave
the idea that the force advancing was a friendly one.
When the error was discovered, the royalist advance,
covered by the hills in the neighbourhood, had already
interposed troops between the two wings of the barons'
army, and a third division under Roger Mortimer was
behind them, cutting off their retreat. Prince Edward's
forces were the more numerous, and he marshalled
them in a faultless battle-array ; " they come up well,"
said De Montfort, with a sort of bitter pride; "but
they have learned that ordering from me, not from
themselves ; let us now commend our souls to God, for
our bodies are undone." Yet, inasmuch as there was
still time for flight, he prayed the nobles round him to
quit the field and reserve themselves for better times,
when they might do the realm service. But his fol
lowers knew that their chief would never turn his back
upon the foe ; there was this in his blood, he told them
that he could not fly, or wish to fly from battle ; and,
with the spirit of English gentlemen, they resolved to
fall around him. And so in the light of death they
marched out into the open fields, lost men in a lost
cause, and awaited the furious charge of the royalists.
The light-armed Welsh troops were the first to scatter
before the shock of battle and hide among the corn
fields and gardens, where hundreds of them were fol
lowed up and cut to pieces. Even many of the earl's
English followers went over to the enemy and did duty
against their general. But the flower of his army, the
lords and gentlemen, gathered into a serried battalion
round their leader, and fought fiercely for two hours
against the troops who hemmed them in. De Montfort
himself, dismounted and wielding his sword with both
hands, stood at last like a tower among his few sur-

266 DEFEAT AND DEATH OF DE MONTFORT.
viving followers: Basset and Despenser lying dead
near him. Prince Edward wished to take his great
enemy alive ; but the battle was too hot for quarter to
be asked or given, and when De Montfort was at last
summoned with a "Traitor, yield thyself," he fell,
by a blow from behind, saying, " It is God's grace,"
overborne rather than conquered.1 His body was
shamefully mutilated, and his hands and head were
sent to Maud, the wife of Roger de Mortimer, a second
Herodias.2 Among his followers the sword raged
relentlessly; it was rather a massacre than a battle;
and two noble youths were butchered in cold blood,
one of them on his first day of service. The old king
himself had almost fallen on the side his heart dis
owned. Placed in the front rank, and disguised by his
vizor beyond recognition, he was wounded in the
shoulder before he could declare his name. The exas
peration of the royalists may be explained if it cannot
be excused by this wanton exposure of the harmless
man. It is difficult with our imperfect knowledge to do en
tire justice to De Montfort's character. A saint in the
estimation of his contemporaries, wearing hair-cloth near
his skin, loving the company of churchmen, and defend
ing their liberties, he seems throughout the latter part of

1 Oxenedes,p.208. Hemingburgh, sent, and is said to have shed tears
however, says (i. p. 325) that when at the funeral of Henry de Mont-
the earl was dismounted and hemmed fort, his father's godson. Chronica,
in a narrow ring with his son and Rishanger, p. 37.
friends, he asked if they gave any 2 The Chronica de Mailros, Gale, i.
mercy. He was answered, " What p. 232, say that she refused to re-
mercy for a traitor ?" and then said, ceive the horrible gift, but they mix
" God pity our souls, for our bodies up the story with miraculous inci-
are in your hands ;" the remark as- dents, and it is unsupported by other
signed by Rishanger to the begin- evidence.
ning of the battle. Edward was pre-

HIS CHARACTER. 267
his career to have regarded his patriotic policy as an
expiation of his unhallowed marriage, and, by a noble
superstition, to have served England that he might re
concile his soul with God. It is easy to make, and diffi
cult to disprove, the charge of personal ambition against
him. It must be remembered, however, that he was
among the last to join the movement for reform at
Oxford; that for such a man as himself, whatever
meaner men might do, no honourable compromise was
possible when his side had once been chosen; that no
single step in his career indicates any change of purpose
or self-seeking, and that he spoke and acted to the last
as a man of stainless honour. His weakness lay in a
certain high-handedness of manner and unguarded
licence of speech ; he was less patient than a statesman
ought to be of baseness and unwisdom. Never quailing
before opposition, never broken by trouble, he held his
way in the teeth of opinion, " as though," says one of
his chroniclers, "the Holy Ghost inspired his conscious
ness of high nobility." But perhaps no man at that
time could have conducted a rebellion against the
enormous power of the crown with more eminent suc
cess ; and those who judge only by the event, may re
member that he defeated a more popular monarch
than John, supported by such a soldier as prince
Edward, and backed by the public feeling of Europe,
without calling the foreigner into London. His few
years of opposition and power did more to make illegal
taxation impossible than the half century since Magna
Charta, with all its confirmations, had done, and from
him dates the first august fulness of our English Par
liament. Yet we need not regret that his tenure of
power was short. From the necessities of his position,
as the leader of a minority among the upper classes, his

268 PARLIAMENT OF WINCHESTER.
authority must have been propped on force, and his
government oligarchical. Both from temperament and
from position he inclined to favour the highest claims of
the national Church, and he granted it better terms than
any pope had demanded or any king had allowed, and
tried offenders against it by something like martial law.
Even foreign favourites and officials were less dangerous
to the people at large than the power of a young De
Montfort or De Clare, and the tribute to Rome was a
light evil to what an English patriarchate under even a
Grosseteste would have proved. It was Heaven's last
gift to the great earl that he died when all that life
could win had been achieved. The good lived after
him; the evil "was interred with his bones."
The battle of Evesham was accepted by the whole
nation as a decisive blow. Kenilworth and Dover still,
indeed, held out for De Montfort's sons, rather than for
De Montfort's cause, but the barons generally set their
prisoners at liberty, and awaited the turn of events,
while royal commissioners traversed the different coun
ties, sequestering the lands and goods of all who had
aided or favoured the late rebellion. Within five weeks
a parliament of magnates was held at Winchester
(Sept. 8),1 to which even the wives or widows of the
barons taken or killed in battle against the king re
ceived letters of summons.2 The exception of the four
bishops of Lincoln, London, Worcester, and Chester,
was probably due rather to some censure they were
1 In festo Nat. beatae Maria?, might keep the feast of St. Edward's
(Sept. 8); Rishanger, p. 48. Adfes- translation, October 13. Imme-
tum exalt. S.Crucis (Sept. 14); Ann. diately after this he received news
de WaverleiS,, p. 366. It was broken of the surprise of Dover. Wikes,
up by the news of Llewellyn's in- Gale, ii. p. 72.
vasion, and Henry went to Windsor 2 Annales de WaverleiS, p. 366.
and afterwards to London, that he

CONTINUATION OF THE WAB. 269
under from the legate than to any fear of their influence
in opposition. In fact, the royalist party was too strong
to be controlled, and had suffered too much to be mer
ciful. They shed no blood, for where allegiance was
almost entirely a personal tie, the feeling of the age
would not have endured an extreme punishment for
treason. But they confiscated the lands of all who
had joined the late earl of Leicester, except on compul
sion; deprived the city of London of its charter and
fortifications; ordered that the countess of Leicester
should leave the kingdom with all her family; and
annulled all the acts of the late parliament. The con
fiscations, of course, enriched the king's family and
adherents. But they created a large body, number
ing altogether, it was said, more than a thousand of
men, known as " the disinherited," who identified the
new order with their own ruin, and whose only hope
was in the sword.
Accordingly, during two years, in spite of prince
Edward's energy and success, the war smouldered on.
The capture of Dover (October), where the royalist
prisoners contrived to seize the tower and hold the
garrison in check, was among the first episodes of the
autumn campaigns. But Llewellyn of Wales had
poured an army over the marches (September), while
the young Simon de Montfort put himself at the head
of a guerilla force in the isles of Axholme and Ely
(November). Prince Edward speedily reduced him to
sue for terms (December 28), which the king of the
Romans and the prince himself were to fix.1 As king

1 So says Wikes, but Rishanger on the king's side, but his daughter
says (p. 50) that Philip Basset, the had married Hugh Despenser, after
justiciary in 1261, was to be the other De Montfort the most trusted
umpire. He had fought at Lewes among the barons.

270 SUCCESSES OF THE ROYALISTS.
Richard had lately owed his life to the young De
Montfort, who had protected him and set him at liberty,
when the garrison of Kenilworth clamoured to revenge
the death of the earl of Leicester upon their prisoners,
it seemed for a time as if a reconciliation were possible,
and Simon actually came to court and received the kiss
of peace from the king. But the earl of Gloucester
hated his former party with the bitterness of a rene
gade, and by his influence the terms offered were con
fined to a pension of five hundred marks in return for
the surrender of Kenilworth, and at the price of going
into exile. Simon was inclined to agree, but the gar
rison of Kenilworth declared that they owed service to
his mother not to him, and would only resign to her.
Before long Simon suspected treachery at court, and
fled back to them. But the area of the insurrection was
gradually lessened by prince Edward's energy. The
men of the Cinque Ports were alarmed by tidings of
what had happened to London, where the mayor and
forty of the chief citizens had been allured, under let
ters of safe-conduct, to Windsor, and thrown into prison
(October), while the king had confiscated houses and
lands mercilessly. Nor were prince Edward's dealings
with the burghers of Winchelsea, some of whom he had
captured and hanged, more reassuring. Accordingly,
they put to sea with their wives and children, burned
Portsmouth, and though beaten at Winchelsea (March
7, 1266), and compelled to place themselves at the
king's mercy,1 obtained a full pardon and the confirma
tion of their franchises. The followers of Adam Gordon,
who ravaged Hampshire, Berkshire, and Buckingham
shire, were surprised in Alton wood (May 6); their
leader, unhorsed in single combat by the prince, and
1 Royal Letters, ii. p. 306.

THE DICTUM DE KENILWORTH. 271
chivalrously pardoned.1 The earl of Derby's partisans
were defeated with great loss at Chesterfield (May 15),
and himself sent prisoner to Windsor.2 The glory of
Robin Hood and Little John, whom the most authentic
history refers to this period,3 may at least serve to show
that Nottinghamshire was among the counties where
" the disinherited " avenged their fortunes upon society.
the summer of 1266, Edward was able formally to in
vest Kenilworth (June). During five months the
royalists lay in unavailing strength before the strong
hold on which the engineer's skill had been exhausted.
The obstinate courage of the garrison was the salvation
of their party. Alarmed at the prospect of an inter
minable war, the king nominated a commission in a
parliament held in the camp (August 24), to propose
the terms of a durable compromise. The result of this
was the Dictum de Kenilworth, confirmed by a Parlia
ment at Northampton, two months later (October 26),
by which the delinquents were divided into three classes,
— extreme offenders, those who had borne arms against
the king, and those who had simply accepted office under

1 So say Wikes (p. 76) and Mat- says that Adam Gordon was im-
thew of Westminster (p. 397), but the prisoned and heavily chained, while
Chronicles of Rishanger (p. 49) re- Matthew of Westminster says that
present the fight as an equal one, his companions were hanged. He
and Adam Gordon as yielding to was bailiff and justice itinerant of
the offer of terms. He deserved to Alton Forest, in Hampshire, under
be well treated, having driven the Edward I. Foss, Judges of Eng-
Welsh under William de Berkeley land, iii. p. 98.
from before Dunster castle, the 2 Annal. de Dunstaplia, p. 241.
Sunday before Evesham battle The forest of Suffeld-frith, where
(Idem, p. 41). The Annals of Dun- his head-quarters were (Wikes,
staple (p. 241) place Alton wood in Gale, ii. p. 75) was probably that
Buckinghamshire (no doubt Halton, better known as the Peak forest.
part of the old Byrne wood), near 3 Authentic, it is true, only by
Chiltern and Kimble. The Chroni- comparison, as the passage is an in-
cles of Rishanger place it between terpolation. Fordun's Scotichroni-
Alton and Farnham, "in partibus con, ed. Goodhall, ii. p. 104.
Wyntonise." Curiously enough Wikes

272 REVOLT OF THE EARL OF GLOUCESTER.
De Montfort. The first might redeem their estates by
the payment of seven years' rental ; the second were to
be mulcted in five, and the first in two or one. The
De Montforts and the earl of Derby did not reap the
benefits of the compromise ; Simon had escaped before the
siege into France, where he vainly endeavoured to raise
troops for an invasion; and Robert de Ferrars lost his
title, and could never recover the greater portion of his
lands from prince Edmund, to whom they had been
granted.1 This settlement gradually quieted the coun
try, Kenilworth throwing open its gates, and the out
laws, except in Ely, dispersing to their homes. Yet it
gave so much dissatisfaction to the royalists, who were
compelled to disgorge their booty, and especially to the
earl of Gloucester, that for a time a new war was immi
nent. The commons of London declared in favour of
the earl, when he took possession ofthe city (April 17-
24), and all who had not made their peace with the
king flocked to his standard. The legate was shut up
in the Tower, which sustained repeated assaults. Prince
Edward hurried back from the north at the head, it
was said, of thirty thousand men; and French troops
under the earl of Boulogne, and Gascon ships came

1 The De Montforts are not in- seems, however, to have offered
eluded in the Dictum de Kenilworth, ,£50,000 ransom for them to prince
on the ground that the king has put Edmund, and being unable to pay it,
their matter into the hands of the his sureties gave the prince possession.
king of France. In a letter of Sep- This was afterwards the subject of a
tember 6, 1267, king Henry tells law suit, but no redress was obtained.
Louis IX. that he has offered them From a suit for dower, which his
terms for his sake, which will not be widow afterwards brought, it seems,
repeated if they are now refused. however, that Robert Ferrars re-
Royal Letters, ii. p. 315. Concerning tained some fragments of his old es-
earl Ferrars, it is awarded that he tate. He probably gave up the title
shall give seven years' value of his of earl from inability to support its
land, which was increased by umpir- burdens. Dugdale's Baronage, pp.
age afterwards to eight years. He 263-265.

SEVERE TREATMENT OF LONDON. 273
over to the king's aid. De Clare quailed at the sight
of the forces arrayed against him, left his northern
allies to their fate, and made terms for himself with the
king, giving bail for his good behaviour (June, 1267).
The citizens of London were included in this peace, and
at last reconciled to the king, having paid dearly for their
energetic partisanship. It was among the first fruits of
the battle of Evesham that prince Edward received a
grant of all the goods and merchandises of such as had
taken part against the king, and although some compo
sition was finally made in this instance, it must have been
on severe terms, if we may judge by the fact that one of
the prince's knights received £1760 — from £25,000 to
£30,000 of our money — on a lien ofthe goods warehoused
in Flanders.1 From the benefits of the Kenilworth
decree the city was specially excluded, being placed
at the disposal of king and council. The late mayor
and his companions, who had been thrown into prison
at Windsor, were forced to ransom themselves. This
last severity was generally blamed by moderate men,
as the sufferers, however guilty they might have been
in previous years, had come as a deputation to the
king's court, and ought to have enjoyed the benefits of
his peace. Besides this, all who had been markedly
anti-royalist were expelled the city; the city fortifica
tions, the bridge and its tolls were kept in the king's
hands ; and although the city was allowed, after a few
months, to elect a mayor and sheriff, the franchise was
restricted to the richer members of the corporation, and
soldiers attended the Guildhall to moderate excessive
freedom of suffrage.2 Thus handled and schooled, Lon- ,

1 New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 2 Liber de Antiquis Legibus, p.
468. Royal Letters, ii. p. 305. 86.
II. T

274 CONFERENCE AT BURY ST. EDMUND'S.
don was able, in 1270, to recover all its old privileges
on the moderate terms of raising the rent to the crown
from £300 to £400 a-year. Even then, however, it
was provided that the arms used were to be kept in
separate storehouses, not by the citizens themselves;
that no man was to own a war-horse, and that no great
lord might lodge in the city without leave from the
crown. Perhaps the city which had done so much for
liberty could hardly complain if it suffered when the
common cause of the nation was overthrown. Yet in
one respect it had deserved well of any government. It
had maintained strict order in the neighbouring district
for twenty-five leagues round during the campaign of
Evesham; and some marauders who followed in the
track of the younger De Montfort were hanged piti
lessly by the Londoners (June 29, 1265) without re
gard to franchises, or to the fact that they called them
selves by the right party name.1
During the siege of Kenilworth a few of the disinhe
rited contrived to take possession of the Isle of Ely,
which its bishop had garrisoned in the king's interest.
The fen country soon became the last stronghold of the
desperate ; and they captured Norwich and levied con
tributions as far south as St. Alban's and Dunstaple. In
February, 1267, the king summoned the whole strength
of the kingdom to Bury St. Edmund's. But his more
immediate object was to reduce the Church to vassalage.
Supported by the presence of a legate, he demanded
that the clergy should grant aids and do military ser
vice for their fees in the same proportion as the lay
1 Liber de Antiquis Legibus, p. forty citizens of the royalist party,
74. On the other hand, the royalist which was prevented by the news of
compiler (p. 114) tells a curious the battle of Evesham.
story of a conspiracy to murder some

REFUSAL OF THE CLERGY TO BE TAXED. 275
tenants of the crown ; that the taxes should be assessed
by laymen on the full values of church property ; that
special grants of more than 50,000 marks should be
granted, and that a general crusade should be preached,
and service in it excused only by payment. The first
of these articles were in themselves reasonable and
right; and though the clergy opposed them as viola
tions of old franchise, they would have found no sup
port in the nation, if it had not been felt that the
money wrung from Englishmen would only enrich
foreign kinsmen of the king or papal dependants. The
crusade which Henry professed to desire was not in
itself a bad expedient for draining England of men
demoralized by war; but to make it obligatory was in
fact to force the nation to ransom itself. The clergy
seem flatly to have refused compliance,1 and the disin
herited of Ely, making common cause with them, replied
in a spirited manifesto to the legate's summons to sur
render. They were as good Christians as himself; they
acknowledged the pope as head of the Church, not as
arbitrary ruler, and the legate as umpire, not as royal
partisan; they were unjustly deprived of their lands,
for which they were willing to fine; they were fighting
for the rights of Church and State against government
by aliens and unjust taxation. They ended by de
manding restitution of their lands and hostages as
guarantees of a five years' peace. It is evident that

1 They were to give 30,000 marks Rishanger, pp. 61, 62. Proceedings
to restore the king's state, and 9000 of Privy Council, vol. i.p. 342. The
to discharge engagements contracted clergy gave way afterwards so far as
in Rome by the king's envoys. Be- to grant tithes for three years and a
sides this they were to give the le- twentieth ; and Wikes says the pro-
gate tithes, amounting probably to ceeds (apparently of the tithes alone)
at least 12,000 marks, as a tenth, in amounted to more than the whole
1410, amounted to over £10,000. royal revenue. Gale, ii. p. 86.

276 PARLIAMENT OF MARLBOROUGH.
they relied on De Clare's revolt, which, in fact, saved
them for a time. But when the earl of Gloucester had
made his peace prince Edward lost no time in reducing
the insurgents of Cambridgeshire. Energetic and full
of resource, he carried his troops over the fens on
hurdles and pontoons, and obtained possession of an
important post from the mother of Nicholas de Segrave,
one of the rebel chiefs.1 The garrison had no strength
in the country which they had ravaged wantonly, burn
ing corn when they could not take it away ; and they
were distracted by frequent quarrels among themselves.2
They were allowed to go out with the honours of Avar,
and their personal property, and to take the benefit of
the terms agreed to in the Dictum de Kenilworth.
But they were at once impoverished and unfitted for
the peace : they tried to maintain themselves by rob
bery ; and several who had for awhile been soldiers in
a righteous cause, closed a dishonoured career on the
gallows.3 In November, 1267, a parliament met at Marlborough.
It is not certain that the towns were represented in it,
but an expression in the preamble to the statutes that
the more discreet men of the higher as well as of the
lower ranks were summoned, shows that spokesmen
from the gentry at least were present. The first care
of the meeting was to reform the flagrant abuse of

. * Chronica Rishanger, p. 57. An- comrades to the death sooner than
nales de Dunstaplia, p. 246. let Barnwell priory, where their an-
2 The curious account quoted by cestors were buried, be burned down.
Mr. Halliwell from the cartulary of 3 See a list of nine gentlemen, one
Barnwell (Rishanger, pp. 146-150), of them a Nevile, who were either
mentions in particular that Hugh hanged for robbery, died in prison,
and Robert Pecche, two of those or escaped by corrupting the judges,
who made the surrender, had threat- in the Annals of Dunstaple, p. 251.
ened some time before to fight their

RESTORATION OF ORDER. 277
private war, which had become rife in the land,1 the
great men declining the jurisdiction of the king's court,
and taking revenges or levying fines on their neigh
bours at their pleasure. It was enacted that all such
offenders should make compensation to the sufferers
and fine in proportion to their offences to the king. A
series of smaller provisions enforced the authority of
the local king's courts. The article in the statutes of
Oxford which exempted the baronage and the higher
clergy from appearance at the sheriff's tourn was con
firmed, with the single abatement, " except their ap
pearance be specially required there for some cause."
Charters of exemption from service on assizes, juries,
and inquests were annulled in cases where the presence
of the privileged persons was required for the adminis
tration of justice, as, for instance, where they were
wanted to give evidence. The Great Charter and the
Forest Charter were confirmed. Altogether, the pro
visions of this parliament seem to show that order and
the royal authority were at last definitely re-estab
lished. The remaining events of the reign are unimportant,
prosperity returning with peace and good harvests. A
quarrel between prince Edward and the earl of
Gloucester seems to have been healed by the arbitra
tion of the king of the Romans, and in 1270 the prince
started to join the new crusade, under St. Louis,

1 In a lawsuit between earl War- p. 92. The same earl and Henry
ren and Alan de la Zouche, the earl, de Lacy, having a quarrel about right
expecting to lose, attacked his op- ofpasturage,raisedarmiesforprivate
ponent in court, leaving him half war, but were stopped in time by the
dead. Chronica Rishanger, p. 58. royal justiciaries, who decided in fa
in this case the offender was fined vour of De Lacy. Matt. West., p.
7000 marks, but Alan de la Zouche 399.
died of his wounds. Wikes, Gale, ii.

278 CRUSADE BY PRINCE EDWARD.
stipulating, however, that De Clare should be of the
expedition. Altogether twenty-two bannerets and
nearly a hundred knights joined the expedition, stimu
lated, it would seem, by the pay assigned them;1 and
the land had rest from civil war for a time, though the
effect of the late troubles had been to increase the
power of the great nobility. Arrived before Tunis,
Edward found that the death of the king of France
left him no course open but to conclude a treaty with
the Dey. But having put on the white cross, partly
in performance of his father's old vow, he determined
to carry out his engagements scrupulously, and accord
ingly crossed from Sicily to Palestine, where there still
remained a wreck of the old Christian dominion to be
defended by the sword. The prospect of a long ab
sence induced him to entrust the care of Gascony2 to
his cousin Henry, who had lately married the daughter
of the count of Beam. Henry presently set out,
turning by the way, in company of the kings of France
and Sicily, to attend the conclave at Viterbo, which
had been sitting two years to elect a pope. It was a

1 See the list of prince Edward's shanger, p. 60. By a curious ar-
chief followers with the sums allotted rangement De Clare was to receive
in the proportion generally of 100 8000 marks if he assigned the spiri-
marks each. Archasolog. Journal, tual benefits of the crusade to king
viii. pp. 45, 47. To defray his ex- Henry, and 2000 if he kept them to
penses Edward received apparently himself. Lib. de Ant. Leg., p. 123.
£31,120 from the taxes raised in Wikes, however, makes the difference
England, and 70,000 Tournois livres depend on whether he joined prince
(equal to £17,500 English; "qua- Edward or fought on his own account.
tuor Turon' pro uno sterlingo com- 2 Wikes, Gale, ii. p. 94. There is
putandis," New Rymer, vol. i. part i. an interval in Mr. Shirley's list of
p. 912) ; from Louis IX. ; the re- the seneschals of Gascony between
payments to be made out of the Mar. 5, 1267, when John de Grelley
revenue of Gascony at the rate of is in office, and June 5, 1272, when
10,000 livres a year. Lib. de Ant. Luke de Tony is appointed. Royal
Leg., pp. Ill, 114; Chronica Ri- Letters, ii. p. 400.

MURDER OF COUNT HENRY. 279
dangerous neighbourhood, for Simon1 and Guy de
Montfort, the latter of whom had won distinction and
lands in the papal service, were then staying in the
town. Accordingly, on the fourth day after his arrival
(March 13, 1271), while Henry was praying in a chapel
near his lodgings, his two cousins, who had tracked
every movement since he came, rushed in upon him
with drawn swords, calling him traitor and their father's
murderer. The wretched man started up from his
knees and clung to the altar, on which lay the host
only just consecrated, but the brothers stabbed him at
the very shrine of God. By a last refinement of insult
they dragged him, wailing for mercy, about the church,
as their father's senseless body had been dragged on
Evesham plain. Never was crime more awful in its
circumstances. Yet only a slow, vengeance overtook
the murderers. The pursuit was followed up slackly
till prince Edward returned from Palestine, and by
that time Simon was already dead. Guy was thrown
into prison (1273) for ten years, when the pope, needing
his arm in the field, released him. In 1288, however,
he was taken prisoner by the Sicilians and consigned to
a dungeon, from which he never emerged. The bitter
ness of exile had indeed done its worst when De Mont
fort's sons stooped to be assassins ; and Simon, who had
saved the father at Kenilworth when his loss was yet
fresh, slew the son after six years of peace.
There are no signs that king Henry became a better
or a Wiser man for the experience of the civil war ; but
advancing years seem to have aged him before his time,

1 Bartholomew Cotton says (p. have been in the early part of the
146) that Simon came to England year, and his visit may have some
in this year to see the tombs of his connection with the tragedy of Vi-
father and brother. If so it must terbo.

280 QUARREL WITH FLANDERS.
and those around him had learnt a lesson about the
barons' power of endurance. In 1268 he was again in
want of money, partly perhaps to defray the expenses
of completing Westminster Abbey, and the solemn
translation of the Confessor's bones to their new resting-
place. The prelates and lords were obsequious and
granted 'large aids, which were exacted with unusual
rigour. In 1270 a quarrel broke out with Flanders, the
countess confiscating all English property in her domin
ions, to the value, it was thought, of more than 40,000
marks,1 as security for a yearly pension which Henry,
she said, had contracted to pay her for military ser
vices. The English council ordered reprisals, which,
however, were insignificant, as the Flemings had been
forewarned of the countess's intentions, and parliament
soon afterwards (Oct. 13) forbade any wool to be
exported into Flanders. An attempt was even made
to establish native manufactures,2 but smuggling seems
to have been found an easier and more profitable ex
pedient. The nation, however, was thoroughly roused,
and all attempts at negotiation failed for the time. The
Flemings in London were arrested and expelled- the
country, under oath not to return till terms of peace

1 Liber de Ant. Leg., p. 111. The all the stock of wool. Lib. de Ant.
estimate was probably exaggerated, Leg., p. 136. The only apparent in-
as inquiry showed (p. 142) that the stance of commercial distress that I
goods of the English merchants, ex- can find is that where the monastery
eluding prince Edward's vassals, and of Dunstaple, in 1272, pledges its
natives of Wales, Ireland, Scotland, wool, apparently on onerous terms,
and Gascony, only amounted to for a loan. Annales de Dunstaplia,
£7000. The goods of the Flemings p. 253. Yet as the price of good
turned out to be worth £8000. wool was about 10 marks the sack
2 A proclamation invited Flemish of 26 stone (Hardy's Preface to Rot.
workers in wool to settle in the Litt. Claus., p. xliv.), a loan of 8
country, and stated that English marks the sack does not indicate a
merchants were prepared to buy up general fall.

RIOT AT NORWICH. 281
had been arranged. The countess, however, was un
subdued, and sent so insolent a message to the king,
threatening reprisals, that her envoys were ordered to
leave the realm within three days.
The last year of the king's life had several troubles.
In the spring came the death of his brother Richard, to
whom he had been accustomed to look for counsel and
support, though the king of the Romans was better
fitted for the meridian of Germany than for a constitu
tional country like England. In the autumn a serious
riot broke out at Norwich. The prior there was a
haughty violent man, constantly at feud with the
citizens, from the attempt to extend his feudal do
minion, or from the licence in which he indulged the
abbey servitors. At last these men ventured to use
blows to some visitors to the annual fair who had been
a little behindhand in removing their booths ; and the
citizens could obtain no redress for this outrage. They
prepared to exact it by force, while the prior brought
over a number of the Yarmouth rabble, men depraved
by the late troubles in the kingdom, and fortified the
belfry. The men of Norwich now considered that they
were justified in maintaining the king's peace by vio
lence; and forgetting, as a chronicle puts it, that it is
wrong to burn Christians in a consecrated place, they
set fire to the tower, and the whole monastery and
cathedral church, with their relics and books, were
consumed. Nothing could be more calculated to rouse
Henry to indignation. He went down in person to
Norwich,1 put the bishop of the diocese on the com-

1 So say most authorities ; but According to Bartholomew Cotton,
Trivet (p. 279), whose father was the who was a monk of Norwich, (p. 148),
judge employed, appears to imply he went there after a parliament at
that Henry did not go in person. Bury St. Edmund's.

282 DEATH OF KING HENRY III.
mission for trying the offenders, and had a jury of
forty-eight knights empanelled from the country round,.
lest the townsmen should be too merciful. In this
way more than thirty offenders, chiefly young men,
but with one woman in their number, were convicted,
and dragged at horses' tails through the streets to be
hanged or burned. But the progress of the inquiry
showed that the prior and his monks had been at least
equally guilty, and had set the town on fire in three
places.1 Homicide, robbery, and other crimes were
also proved against the prior, to such an extent that
the king gave orders to take "him into custody. To
the scandal of all right-minded men, the criminal was
allowed to escape with a mere ecclesiastical purgation.
From this unsatisfactory solution to the Norwich riot
Henry went back to London to die. His last hours
were disturbed by the old quarrel of the city between
the privileged and the unprivileged class — the council
refusing to give any final decision for fear of causing
an instant rebellion, and the people coming every day
to clamour for an answer under the windows of the
dying man at Westminster. It was a strange commen
tary on the feeble disorder of the reign. Henry him
self, lay beating his breast, confessing his sins aloud,
and promising that he would amend his life if he were
spared.2 Yet the king had one comfort in death. His
doubtful subject, Gilbert de Clare, promised on oath
that he would do his best to preserve peace and keep
the kingdom for the prince.8 Henry died of weakness

1 The jury even found that the townsmen had fired the gates. Lib.
church had been burned by its de- de Ant. Legibus, p. 147 ; Bart. Cot-
fenders, who had left the fire of their ton, p. 149.
smiths burning, when they fled in a 2 Chronica Rishanger, p. 50.
panic. But it was admitted that the 3 Lib. de Ant. Leg., p. 155.

HIS CHARACTER. 283
and of old age rather than of any positive malady,
November the 6th, 1272.
Henry's character scarcely needs the long commen
tary of his reign to be understood. The small thick
stature was all he had in common with his grand
father ; the drooping eyelid with his son. Never man
was more strangely placed between the first Plan-
tagenets and Edward I. than the king, who, as a private
. gentleman, would have lived without infamy and with
out praise, and whose mild well-meaning, and re
ligiousness, almost balanced his perjuries, his profusion,
and his injustices, the results of weakness — not of
positive vice, in the eyes of his contemporaries. The
same feebleness that allowed him to misgovern without
making personal enemies, kept him through life without
personal friends, in spite of the favours that should
have purchased them; his fitful passionate temper
alienated his courtiers, his incapacity and braggadocio
disgusted them. Even his three masses a day, his wax
tapers and alms did not conciliate the Church, which
suffered far more from his necessities than it gained
from his charities. The most genuine and respectable
trait in his character was his love for art. To him we
owe Westminster Abbey, unmatched at that time among
transalpine cathedrals, and for which an artist may for
give him the oppressions in which he founded it.
Several entries in the Rolls attest his care for painting,1
and seem to show that he thought to better purpose on
this subject than on politics. In literature, except
romances or poems, he seems to have had little in
terest. Probably his own feelings, in accordance with
the tendencies of the time, were against the philosophy
1 Hardy's Preface to Rot. Litt. Claus , pp. xiv. xlvi.

284 COMMERCIAL PROSPERITY.
which was needed to justify his faith; with St. Francis
against the schoolmen.
Strange as it may appear, in spite of Henry's prodi
galities, and of the great waste of civil war, the wealth
of the country seems to have increased steadily during
his reign. A writer, towards the end of it, estimates
that an export duty of five marks on the sack of wool
would alone amount in six months to 110,000 marks,1
and without inquiring whether this policy was in fact
possible, or whether the estimate of 22,000 sacks for
the half-year was not somewhat beyond actualities, we
may well believe that the trade in wool was rising
rapidly towards the high mark it attained in 1297,
when it was estimated at half the rent of the kingdom.2
The trade with the Hanse towns received an immense
impulse, partly through the connection of the king of
the Romans with Germany. The Steelyard in Thames-
street was the German Guildhall, while Lombard-street
was the head-quarters of Italian finance, which had
come over in the train of the pope's collectors. The
marvellous works of Roger Bacon show that optics and
mechanics were intelligently studied with a view to
invention, and the great prophet of science speaks with
a serene confidence of possible results, which religion
taught him to undervalue, but which have been the

1 See the curious letter quoted by had amounted to £160,000, implying
Mr. Blaauw from the Archives du an export of more than 50,000 sacks.
Roy, (Barons' War, Appendix, pp. Rot. Pari., ii. p. 131, iii. pp. 279, 625.
1, 2). In 1341, Edward III. re- The calculation of Henry III.'s ad-
ceived a grant of 30,000 sacks of viser is therefore not incredible,
wool, and in a petition of Henry especially if we assume that the
IV.'s reign it is stated that the duty six months meant are the six months
on wool raised in the 14th of Richard after shearing.
II. at the rate of £2 10s. a sack for 2 Trivet, pp. 361, 362.
denizens, and £2 13*. 4d. for aliens,

ADVANCE OF SCIENCE AND LEARNING. 285
triumph of later centuries; of carriages that can go
without horses, boats that can sail against the wind, and
glasses that can reflect distant objectsl To him or to
this time belongs the discovery of gunpowder. Litera
ture had a little declined before the more absorbing in
terest of political struggles, but the reign produced one
of our greatest lawyers, Bracton ; and Bacon, and Duns
Scotus were the glory of the schools. Fifteen thousand
students were entered on the Oxford books, and Cam
bridge was growing into importance. The separation
from Normandy had consolidated Norman and Saxon
into one English people. Not to speak English was the
mark of a foreigner, and no longer, as in old times, of a
gentleman. The very government was compelled to
translate its more important manifestoes into the ver
nacular. The law of Englishry was dying out, and it
had been found possible to abolish the ordeal, which was
not now, as it had once been, the refuge of the weak from
the strong. Wealth, intelligence, unity, and the growth
of law were slowly moulding the nation for higher
destinies.

286

Chapter IX.
FIRST YEARS OF GOVERNMENT.
The English Regency. Edward's Actions in Palestine. Return to
Europe. Homage to the French King. War in Gascony and
Guienne. Submission of the Earl of Flanders. Return to
England and Coronation. Edward's Character. Inquiry into
Titles and Privileges. Judicial Reforms. First Statute of
Westminster. New Method of Taxation. Measures against the
Jews. Statute of Mortmain. Second Statute of Westminster,
and Abridgment of Clerical Privileges.
f|"^HE proceedings after the death of Henry III. are
JL striking proof of the respect for law that had
grown up in England since the times of Stephen. The
members of the royal council at once assumed the cares
of government.1 The royal seal was finally delivered
up to them (Nov. 17). At the burial in Westminster
Abbey (Nov. 20), before the tomb had yet closed upon
the corpse,2 the earl of Gloucester stepped forward and
1 I cannot understand on what six prelates, one prior, four earls, and
ground Dr. Pauli speaks of the arch- fhe barons; and the earl of Glou-
bishop of York, the earls of Corn- cester does not appear witnessing or
wall and Gloucester, as having been signing any other important docu-
regents; "Reichsvcrweser." (Gesch. ment in Rymer. It is a point of
v. England, iv. s. 2.) It is true they some constitutional importance, that
witness the writs to the sheriffs, but no regency having been appointed
the notice of the delivery of the beforehand, the council at once as-
great seal says it was handed over to sumed the functions of vice-royalty.
the archbishop of York, Robert de 2 As usual there are three slightly
Aguilon and others of the council; different accounts, "nee dum clauso
the letter to the king is signed by jam tumulo," say the nobles. New

ALLEGIANCE OF THE NOBLES. 287
took the oath of allegiance on the sacred elements at the
great altar ; prelates, barons, and meaner men followed
the example of the greatest and most dangerous subject.
Briefs were presently issued (Nov. 23) to the sheriffs
of counties, stating, in the new sovereign's name, that
the kingdom had now devolved on him by hereditary
right, and the will of the peers, and the homage before
done to him; the king's peace was therefore to be pro
claimed and enforced under heavy penalties. A letter
was sent to the king, urging him to return. The papal
nuncios, who had come over with authority to tax the
clergy for the crusade, were told that they must receive
fresh credentials. The clergy, however, gained little
by the respite. Their Italian, taxmasters quartered
themselves in the Temple, defraying their expenses by
a tax on conventual revenues, and finally received
authority to raise a tenth for two years for the king and
the earl of Cornwall.1 Meanwhile Parliaments were
held with all regularity. At one in Westminster (Jan.
14, 1273), the oath of allegiance was taken before the
archbishop of York, and two clerks, acting as the king's
proxies. Walter de Merton was confirmed as Chan
cellor.2 It was agreed that no justices in eyre should
be appointed till Edward returned to England,3 the
Rymer, vol. i. part ii. p. 497. "Ante- brother.
quam corpus R. II. traditum esset 2 He had been chancellor under
sepulturse." Ann. Ecc. Wig. Anglia king Henry, and attested a record
Sacra, i. p. 499. " Rege igitur se- on the Close Roll as chancellor nine
pulto." Matt. West., p. 401. days after his decease. On the other
1 Lib. de Ant. Leg., pp. 157, 158. hand, it is doubtful if the chief
Cont. Flor. Wig., ii. p. 211. Annales justice of the King's Bench, Robert
de Wintonia, p. 113. But the de Brus, was continued in his office.
Annals of Dunstaple, p. 255, and Foss's Judges of England, iii. pp. 5,
Wikes (Gale, ii. p. 99) say that the 17.
clergy granted the king a tenth for 3 The justices, Roger de Mortimer
three years. Possibly it was two and Nicholas de Stapelton, who in-
years for himself, and one for his quired into a riot at Winchester in

288 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNCIL.
reason probably being that part of their duties consisted
in levying the fines due at an accession, and the council
would naturally desire to avoid the odium of heavy
exactions or the charge of prejudicing the king's rights
in his absence. But if they were discreetly timid of
action, where action could be deferred, they showed
equal energy and efficiency in maintaining the order and
honour of the realm. Repeated writs were issued to
obtain the oath of allegiance from the doubtful Llewellyn
of Wales. Tournaments were put down under penalty
to the offenders of forfeiting all their lands. (April,
June, 1273. ) The exportation of wool to Flanders, which
had been resumed in spite of royal prohibitions, was
met with a summary announcement that offenders would
risk life and limb, as well as their property (April 10,
1274).1 There were threats of risings in the north,
where men said that Edward would never return, and
vague rumours of possible attempts on London. The
bishop of Chichester had the singular indiscretion to try
bringing back Aymeri de Montfort into the realm (1274),
and was met with seizure of his barony and a prohibition
to land from the king, who heard of his intentions.2
But the council steered safely through all difficulties of
an uncertain rule and enforced respect for the royal
authority in the northern marches, as well as in London
and Winchester.3

the summer of 1274, must probably 2 Liber de Ant. Legibus, pp. 158,
be regarded as special commissioners, 159.
not as ordinary justices coming on 3 Compare the letter of Robert,
circuit. Annales deWintonia, p. 17. bishop of Carlisle, to Walter de
1 This seems an exertion of royal Merton, clearing himself from the
power, beyond what would in after charge of preventing the men of his
times have been permitted without diocese from performing their fealty
the sanction of Parliament. First to the king (Sixth Report on Public
Report on the Dignity of a Peer, p. Records, p. 94), with the story in
172. Matthew of Westminster, (p. 413,)

ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF EDWARD AT ACRE. 289
Meanwhile Edward had been winning a reputation
for courage and piety, which afterwards did him good
service as king. When he landed in November (1270)1
at Tunis, he found Louis IX. dead of dysentery, and
peace already concluded between the king of Sicily and
the Bey. The French resolved to defer further opera
tions, and proposed a second expedition three years
hence. " By God's blood," said the English prince,
" though all my brothers-in-arms and countrymen forsake
me, I will enter Acre with my horse-boy Sowin, and
keep my oath to the death." Accordingly, after win
tering in Sicily, he set sail for Acre, and reached it (May,
1271), just in time to prevent its surrender. But the
little English force could effect nothing further by itself,
though it made forays into the country, and the hopes
of help from Europe, or of alliance with the Tartar Khan
of Persia, with whom embassies were exchanged, soon
proved to be valueless. Yet Edward had nearly lost
his life at Acre. A fanatic, suborned, it was said,
by an emir who had gained confidence by affecting an
inclination to Christianity, obtained an audience of the
prince (June 17, 1272), and stabbed him in three places
before Edward had time to turn and slay the assassin with
his own knife.2 For some time the wounds threatened
to be dangerous ; it was thought the dagger had been
poisoned, and the prince executed a formal will.3 But

of 300 men-at-arms, besides light- says that Edward brained him with
armed men, who assembled for the a trestle, but Hemingburgh (i. p.
beginnings of civil war, and were 335) says that the stool was used on
dispersed by the earl of Cornwall the dead body by an attendant, who
and Roger de Mortimer. rushed into the room.
1 Nov. 10. Liber de Ant. Legibus, 3 The beautiful legend that Ed-
p. 126. November, 16-18. Wikes, ward's life was saved by the devotion
Gale, ii. p. 93. ofhis wife Eleanor, who sucked the
2 The Opus Chronicorum (p. 30) poisoned wounds, dates in English
II. U

290 edward's return from Palestine.
even on what seemed a death-bed he steadily refused to-
let any reprisals be taken which might be revenged on
the Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem. A good constitution
and skilful surgery at last triumphed over the injuries
inflicted. Edward's first care on his recovery was to
examine the muster-roll of his army. It appeared that
barely a hundred in all were left of the English force,
from all quarters and of all kinds. It was idle to remain
for the mere purpose of relieving guard on the citadel,
and, after more than a year of honourable enterprise,
Edward concluded a " ten years' truce" (Aug. 15, 1272)
with the sultan, and returned to Europe by way of
Sicily. At the court of Charles of Anjou he first re
ceived tidings of the deaths of his uncle, his father, and
his eldest son.1
Before returning to England, Edward wished to se
cure his position abroad. In a visit to Gregory X.
(Feb. 14, 1273), who, as archdeacon of Liege, had shared
part of the campaign in Palestine, he at last obtained a
tardy justice against Guy de Montfort, who was brought
to trial and imprisoned as a felon. It is probable

history from Camden's Britannia (fol. taken out of the room by the sur-
ed. p. 432), where it is erroneously geon's orders before he commenced
given on the authority of Roderic of operating. Finally, the same story
Toledo : a writer who would be en- is told of Sibylla of Conversana and
titled to credit, as he wrote in 1281, Robert of Normandy. Schola Sa-
but who makes no allusion to the lernitana, ed. Sylvii, Praef., c. iii.
story. It is really derived from * It is noteworthy that a story,
Roderic Santius (Rer. Hisp. Script., which three chroniclers think worthy
i. p. 297), who wrote in the latter end of repetition, is told in two different
of the fifteenth century, professing, it ways. The Opus Chronicorum (p.
is true, to quote from older sources, 33) says, that Edward was nearly
" ut vera perhibent annalia." The distracted at the news of his son's
story will not bear examination. No death ; Trivet (p. 284) and the
English writer of the time ever Chronica Rishanger (p. 78) repre-
alludes to any such report. Heming- sent him as mourning most for his
burgh, in a very detailed account, (i. father, on the ground that he might
p. 336), says that the princess was have other sons.

TOURNAMENT AT CHALONS. 291
that this sentence was a triumph of English over
French interests. Guy's crime would never have been
dared, or at least would not have remained so long
unavenged, if he had not counted on and received
Charles of Anjou's protection. From Orvieto the
English king went on in a triumphal procession through
Italy, greeted with processions and trumpets, and shouts
of " Vivat Imperator." A soldier to the core, we find
him once sleeping in the tent of a captain of Bologna,
who was leading troops against Forli,1 and a little later
(June 25, 1273) reducing a disorderly noble to the alle
giance of his kinsman, Philip of Savoy. Once the king's
chivalry had almost cost him his life. In a great tourna
ment at Chalons both parties kindled into bitter earnest,
and the English, a thousand in number, only prevailed
by sheer hard fighting over their more numerous ene
mies. Edward himself grappled on horseback with the
count of Chalons, and flung him heavily to the ground.
In his first anger, suspecting treachery, and hearing
that the townsmen were cutting off his soldiers, the
king threatened to fire the city, but the authorities
succeeded in restoring order. There is, perhaps, no
reason to suspect that the "little battle" of Chalons
was premeditated by either side; large bodies of men,
animated by national jealousy, were likely, under any
circumstances, to turn a mock fight into a real melee.2
It was characteristic of Edward, as careful in per-

1 New Rymer, vol. i. part ii. p. England to take part in a, tourna-
523. ment, and cautioning him against
2 I have followed Hemingburgh treachery from personal enemies.
in placing the tournament of Chalons On the other hand, tournaments were
before Edward's visit to Paris ; but not infrequent, and, as Dr. Pauli ob-
Dr. Lingard refers it to the next serves, we know that Edward was in
year, on the strength of a bull from Gascony, and do not know of his
pope Gregory, forbidding the king of visiting Burgundy, in 1274.

292 GASTON DE BEARN.
forming his obligations as jealous in exacting his rights,
that one of his first cares was to visit Paris (July 26,
1273), and perform homage for the lands that he held of
the crown of France. John and Henry had shrunk
from the ceremonious recognition of their vassalage.
Nobles and knights had flocked over already to do duty
at their king's side in the little battle of Chalons, and
Edward was assisted by a council in treating with the
French king. They parted at Melun on friendly terms
(August IO),1 though their relations were no longer as
cordial as they had been during the lifetime of Louis, and
it was noted in France, with some displeasure, that Ed
ward had worded his homage "for all the lands that I
ought to hold" of the French crown, as if reserving by
implication the case of Normandy.2 Ships had been
prepared to take the king into England ; but he turned
southward, where his queen awaited him in Bordeaux,
and where a dangerous vassal required his presence.
Gaston de Be^irn, no longer attached by any personal
ties to the English interest, since his son-in-law prince
Henry perished at Viterbo, was waging a civil war in
the. province, without the smallest regard to royal
seneschals and commissioners. Edward at first treated
the powerful rebel with lenity, contenting himself with
exacting securities that Gaston should remain at his
court, until the complaints against him were examined
into and sentence given (Oct. 2, 1273). But the vis
count dared not face a judicial inquiry. By a strata
gem, like that which Edward had himself employed

1 Wikes says that Edward left the crown jewels from the king of
Paris on Monday, Aug. 7. Gale, ii. France, bears the date of August
p. 99. But the quittance given him 10, at Melun. New Rymer, vol. i.
for the payment of an old debt of part ii. p. 505.
£1000, borrowed on ihe security of 2 Matt. West., p. 402.

HIS REVOLT AND SUBMISSION. 293
against De Montfort, he escaped on a swift horse
from his honorary guard, and put himself at the
head of his troops. The insurrection spread, the coun
tess of Limoges refusing homage, and, after a winter of
hard campaigning in the mountains, Gaston eluded a
final issue for the time by appealing to the king of
France as suzerain. From proceedings that afterwards
took place at Limoges (May 11, 1274), when Gaston's
envoys complained that his country was still kept as it
were in a state of siege, merchants denied passage, and
husbandmen shut out from their farms and commonage,
it is evident that Edward succeeded in re-establishing his
authority. The readiness with which he granted redress
is proof that he accepted, in its full extent, his position
of feudal inferior to the crown of France. In fact,
though national predilections must have been with the
Gascon against the Englishman, justice could only be
delayed, not denied ; sentence was at last given for the
king of England, and Gaston appeared at court with a
halter round his neck to make submission (Feb. 2,
1276). x He was committed for some years to prison,
but was finally released, giving security for his good
conduct, and converted for the rest of his life into a
loyal and peaceable subject.
Edward did not attend the Council of Lyons (May 7-
July 17, 1274). His coronation had been delayed, so
that it might not interfere with the attendance of
English churchmen; but the king, as statesman and
general, probably saw by this time that the epoch of
crusades had gone by, and that Gregory's appeal to the
faith of Europe would be in vain. In his absence it
1 The Ann. de Winton. (p. 120) given, and which Dr. Pauli seems to
and Wikes say 1276 (Gale, ii. p. adopt.
105), but 1275 is the date generally

294 ADJUSTMENT OF THE FLEMISH QUARREL.
fared ill with the English Church. A tax of six years'
tithes was proposed, and the new primate, Robert de
Kilwardby, accepted it with the remark that he was the
pope's creature, and that his church and all its goods
were at the pope's disposal. The spirit was not that of
the English clergy in general. The dean of Lincoln
handed in a paper, complaining that the Church in Eng
land was ruined almost beyond hope of redemption.
The timid remonstrant was deprived on the spot of all
his benefices,1 and the example proved effectual against
further opposition. It might be right that the English
Church, which often evaded the service due to the
State, should contribute to matters of European impor
tance, but that taxes should be paid solely at the pope's
requisition was a precedent of doubtful safety for
nations. Meanwhile the king of England adjusted the
difficult Flemish quarrel at Montr euil (July 24). The
vigorous measures of the English government had
triumphed, and the count came to offer an uncondi
tional submission.2 In presence of the English council,
he declared his regret for his mother's conduct ; he pro
mised to give up his prisoners and make reparation ; and
he agreed that he and certain of his knights would offer
themselves prisoners, if the compensation promised were
not made by the next Easter. On these terms he was
admitted to a renewal of the old commercial relations.
1 He was, however, restored after four deputies to Paris to confer with
three days, the grant apparently the king. The meeting, however, was
having been voted meantime. (He- appointed for June 11, and the de-
mingburgh, ii. p. 4). puties seem to have returned (p.
2 Lingard and Dr. Pauli say, that 171) July 16, eight (lays before the
this conference was held in the pre- conference. Probably they were
sence of deputies from London. consulted as to the terms to be ex-
Their authority seems to be a letter acted, but their presence would have
given in the Liber de Ant. Leg. (p. been a needless humiliation for »
167), ordering the citizens to send powerful prince.

CORONATION AND GOVERNMENT OF EDWARD I. 295
Edward's coronation (August 19) was celebrated
with much magnificence, and the occasion of great
rejoicings. Never had man more honourably belied
the evil promise of his youth, when he issued illegal
writs from his chancery,1 or traversed England with a
train of routiers and grooms, worse brigands, it was
said, than had come in the train of the French invasion
under Louis, who lived at free quarters upon the coun
try, and sacked the very houses where they received
hospitality.2 Edward had learned by experience what
it was to be the object of a people's hatred, and with the
elasticity of a strong mind set himself to win the love
that is easily given to princes. From the day he
became De Montfort's captive no story of broken
faith clings to his memory; and, after the crowning
triumph at Evesham, he was as ready to mediate for
the conquered as to reduce the disorderly. Imperious
in exacting the rights of his crown to the uttermost, he
was punctilious in discharging his intricate obligations
as king or vassal. The scandal of foreign favourites
was removed from the court. In his private relations
as son, husband, or father, the king was beyond re
proach. The last crusader of European kings, he was
rarely superstitious in matters where common sense
could discriminate ; 3 indignant at impostures and hypo
crisy; impatient of all pretended clerical immunities.
When a mendicant gained his mother's ears by a tale that

1 In 1257, king Henry was obliged man, who seems to have given some
to stop all proceedings upon an ille- trivial offence, to be deprived of an
gal writ, which the prince had issued eye and ear.
out of his chancery in Ireland. 3 Once, however, he declined to
Prynne's Records, iv. p. 255. enter Oxford, in the belief that St.
2 Paris, Hist. Major, 937, 938. Frideswide would be offended.
Paris adds a horrible story that, on Wikes (Gale, ii. p. 102).
one occasion, he ordered a young

296 edward's disposition and physique.
the late king had restored his sight, Edward said con
temptuously, that a just man like his father Henry
would have been more likely to blind a notorious cheat.
Brave almost to insanity, the king was also a consum
mate general, able, as he showed at Evesham, to disci
pline raw levies, and, as he proved at Ely and in Wales,
to carry out engineering works with singular audacity
and resource. Hot-tempered and overbearing he no
doubt was to the last. When an attendant, separated
by a broad river, ventured to disobey orders, Edward
at once swam his horse across the flood, and pursued
the culprit till he implored mercy. His anger was so
dreaded, that a clergyman, deputed by convocation to
remonstrate against an obnoxious tax, dropped dead in
the royal presence. Large-minded toward mere personal
enemies, but never pardoning baseness or broken faith,
the king relaxed his anger against all the De Montforts
except the assassin Guy, whom his vengeance pursued
to the end of that miserable life. He was less tolerant of
opposition than of opponents, perhaps from a conscious
ness that his own integrity of purpose and largeness of po
litical view were beyond the measure ofhis surroundings.
One of his earliest acts was to reduce Wales, where his
first political check had been received ; and his reign is
illustrated by stringent statutes against the clergy, who
had been the backbone of rebellion during the barons'
war. Tall, broad-chested, and sinewy, with the vaulted
forehead of the Norman, and yellow hair of the Saxon,
Edward looked the ideal sovereign of his race, and a
slight infirmity of speech detracted nothing from his ready
power of persuasion. He came back with new honours,
from a war with which no memories of civil bloodshed
were associated, to a people who only desired a strong,
just government. It is scarcely wonderful if king and
nobles were ready to promise everything that the crown

ROYAL COMMISSION ON CROWN PROPERTY. 297
could grant or demand. Only two incidents might be
cited of evil augury for the future. Llewellyn of
Wales was absent from the coronation. Alexander IIL,
Edward's brother-in-law, attended, but in doing homage
for the lands he held of the crown, expressly reserved his
rights to the kingdom of Scotland.1 The reservation was
excepted to at the time, but the homage was received.
One of Edward's first cares was to ascertain the full
rights and possessions of the crown. Commissioners
were appointed in every county (Oct. 11, 1274), whose
duty it was to ascertain what were the royal manors,
what hundreds and tithings were still in the hands of
the crown, what fines the sheriffs and other officials had
received, and by what warrant estates that were for
merly crown lands, or judicial rights that were once
exercised by the crown, had passed into the hands
of private persons and corporations. There was nothing
new in the idea of such an inquiry. It was matter of
notoriety that the crown, often unjust itself, was pil
laged in every direction, and William Rufus and
Richard2 had been prevented, by deaths that were at
least opportune, from making fresh surveys more exact
and detailed than the Domesday census, if not as general.
The commissioners first appointed were often, perhaps
always, men connected with the counties in which their
inquests were to be held.3 But the inquiry excited
1 Trivet (p. 292) and Rishanger's that the homage rendered separately
Chronica (p. 84) say merely that for Penrith and Tynedale was re-
Alexander performed homage, and ceived, seems, from the context, to
apparently copy from one another, refer to the epoch of the coronation.
or from a common account. It is New Rymer, vol. i. part ii. pp. 554,
certain the homage thus rendered 563, 907.
was not considered sufficient, as the 2 Vol. i. p. 418. Hoveden, ed.
king of Scotland performed it again Frankfort, p. 783.
more satisfactorily; and the state- 3 Thus William de Brabceuf, a little
ment in the letter of Boniface VIII. later sheriff of Hampshire, and own-
(1299), that Alexander publicly re- ing property there (Foss's Judges of
fused homage for his kingdom, and England, iii. p. 60), and Guy de

298 OPPOSITION OF JOHN DE WARENNE.
fierce opposition. When John de Warenne, earl of
Surrey, was summoned to produce title-deeds, he bared
a rusty sword, and told the commissioners, " Here,
sirs, is my warrant. My ancestors came over with Wil
liam the Bastard, and conquered their lands by the
sword, and by the sword I will hold them against
all who seek them." x There was a tumult of applause
from men like-minded with the earl, as he strode un
challenged away; and the king, it was said, gave in
structions to stay proceedings. To this cause, accord
ingly, we may probably refer the preamble of the
Statute of Gloucester, which grants that the franchises
claimed by the prelates, earls, and others of the king
dom may be enjoyed without detriment to the crown
rights till the king in person or the justices in eyre be
able to give judgment. But Edward never faltered in
his purpose, and the inquiry went on, at intervals,
through a period of more than twenty years.2 It was
probably no accident that Surrey was one of the first

Taunton, probably of a family that and his essoins disallowed. Rot.
held property in Devonshire (Testa Pari., i. p. 3.
de Nevill, p. 180), were commis- 2 Eleven counties were visited be-
sioners for Hampshire, Wiltshire, tween 1278 and 1282. The corn-
Berkshire, and Devonshire. New mon statement that the inquests were
Rymer, vol. i. part ii. p. 517. At made in 1278, (Pauli, Gesch. v. Eng-
the same time it is noticeable, that land, iv. s. 15), or 1281, (Ann.
even the earliest inquests for North- Waverl., Gale, ii. p 235), probably
amptonshire, Nottinghamshire, and refers to the amount done during
Derby, were actually held before that period. In 1283 the visitations
justices in eyre. recommenced, and twelve counties
1 Hemingburgh, ii. p. 6. This were gone through during the next
dramatic scene probably occurred four years. Eight were taken be-
in 1278, as no inquests are recorded tween 1291 and 1294, and Cam-
before that year, and at the Par- bridgeshire seems to have been the
liament of Gloucester a petition was object of a special visitation in 1298,
presented mentioning earl Warenne 1299. The eight remaining counties
as aggrieved by the commissioners. of our present division do not appear
The earl seems to have been charged in the published returns.
with encroaching on the king's chase,

NATURE AND RESULTS OF " QUO WARRANTO." 299
counties taken after the Statute of Gloucester ; and this
time John de Warenne consented to appear by attor
ney and plead.1 The method of procedure before the
justices was simple. They went down on circuit into
the district and summoned the great landowners to
produce their titles for all doubtful estates and privi
leges. A crown prosecutor stated the king's case, and
if, in the absence of documents, prescription or any
other plea was advanced by the defendant, a jury from
the district was empanelled to give a verdict. The re
cords of proceedings seem to show that there was no undue
influence, and, in fact, the feeling in every district must
naturally have been for the actual occupant. The most
numerous cases were not of property unjustly held,2
but of doubtful privileges. The right to hunt the cat,
the fox, and the hare was often contested with strange
pertinacity. Still more frequently was the right of the
gallows questioned, as, wherever this existed, the pro
fitable fines for all felonies were diverted from the crown.
Often the right to hear suits in a particular hundred
became matter of inquiry. How strangely England was
tessellated with little dominions, owing nothing to the
crown but vassalage and taxes, and independent for all
common purposes of justice, is very apparent from the
records of the commission. It is said the king gained
little by their proceedings, and it may be true that his
revenue was not much enhanced; but Edward was not a
man to protract a profitless inquiry; and it is pretty
certain that in the course of years the crown would have

1 Placita de Quo Warranto, p. might occupy forcibly any land en-
745. croached upon him by a man still
2 One reason for this, no doubt, living, leaving the occupant, if ag-
was, that by the statute called De grieved, to his legal remedy. Statutes
Bigamis, passed in 1276, the king of the Realm, i. p. 43.

300 Edward's love of justice.
lost much if it had never taken stock of its rights and
property. But the offence of claiming back its own from
those who had the title of possession was none the less
resented because it wore the colours of legality. Once
Edward, in an idle moment, asked the young men of
his court what they talked about while their fathers
were with him in council. Under promise that he
would not resent it, he was told the doggrel verses
that had been the pastime of the day's idleness : —
Le roy cuvayte nos deneres,
Et la rayne nos beaus maners,
Et le " quo warranto "
Maketh us all to do.1
One secret of the king's success in carrying out his
measures to re-establish the royal authority lay doubt
less in the strong love of justice, that made him as ready
to redress the wrongs of his subjects, as to repel en
croachments on his own revenue and prerogative. At
the same time that he issued the commission of " Quo
Warranto" he changed almost all the sheriffs in England,
and caused hiquiry to be made into their conduct.
" No good came of it," says an old chronicler,2 but the
fault lay with a generation corrupted by Henry III.'s
government, not with the energetic sovereign. As the ^
country was traversed by officials eager to discover and
reform grievances, occasion was furnished to litigious
men to rake up old offences and threaten vexatious
suits. Attempts were even made to revive the old
troubles of the civil war, which had left questions of
broken covenants behind it. A new statute (Nov.
1276) 3 provided for summary justice, and enjoined a
wise discretion in the dealing with worn-out feuds or
1 The king covets our money, 2 Annales de DunstapM, p. 263.
And the queen our fair manors, &c. 3 Statutes ofthe Realm, i. p. 44.

HIS FIRST PARLIAMENT. 301
insignificant matters. But while the issue with think
ing men was to establish the king's character, much
trouble was caused for the time, and the persons im
pleaded and troubled were mostly those who had pos
sessed the power to do wrong.
The first parliament of prelates, magnates, royal
councillors,1 and representatives of the qommons was
held by Edward I. in the Easter of 1275, and occupied
itself with legislative reforms. The clergy were freed
from the burden of compulsory hospitality, and were to
be protected by the king's justices against all trespasses
and purveyances. Their most coveted privilege was again
conceded, and clerks accused of felony were to be deli
vered to the ordinary for trial, under charge that they
should receive sufficient punishment. A clause pro
viding against force or intimidation at elections testifies
to the growing importance of Parliament. Several im
portant articles were directed against abuses of autho
rity by the crown officials; against the constables of
castles who levied illegal dues; the sheriffs' officers
who refused sufficient bail; the sheriffs who levied
excessive fines, or withheld quittances of debts; and
against any king's officers who promoted suits. A
provision that the crown should prosecute in cases of
rape, if no action were commenced within forty days, is
incidental proof of a higher respect for law. Generally,
justice was made more rigid. The " peine forte et dure,"
of scanty fare and hard imprisonment, for felons who
would not put themselves on the country, was either
introduced or enforced. Men impounding on their
1 The words of the writ for pub- and magnates, and are subscribed
lishiug the Statutes of Westminster also by all the king's ministers. Sta-
state, that they have been made by tutes of the Realm, i. p. 39.
the common counsel of the prelates

302 ACTS OF THE PARLIAMENT.
own property were to have their castles summarily de
molished, if they did not deliver up the stock on the
offer by the sheriff of sufficient bail. Nobles extending
their jurisdiction to strangers passing within their fran
chises were to be heavily fined. A provision against
spreading false reports, which might cause discord be
tween the king and estates, was a mischievous reminis
cence of the civil wars, and copied from a rescript of
Henry III.1 But a provision restricting the aids, at the
knighthood of the lord's son, or marriage of his daugh
ter, to five per cent, on the whole income of the pro
perty,2 was a valuable safeguard against excessive tal
lages. The other enactments were mostly on smaller
or technical points of feudalism. But it is noticeable
that a clause, providing that the course of justice should
not be suspended during Advent, Septuagesima, and
Lent, is said to be at the special request of the king
made to the bishops. The State did not yet dare to
legislate on matters ecclesiastical.
In the following October, Edward met a fuller par
liament of lords, spiritual and temporal, with repre
sentatives of shires and boroughs at Westminster.3 The
treasury was in urgent want of money, and the current
expenses of the government were defrayed by loans.4
Rather against their will, the lay members of Parliament
consented to a tax of a fifteenth on all their personalty,
and ratified a perpetual toll of half a mark on the
sack of wool, and a mark on the last of hides.8 By

1 New Rymer, vol. i. part ii. p. 467. the writ for levying the wool-toll, —
2 Twenty shillings on the knight's " Prselati, magnates, et tota commu-
fee, and as much on twenty librates nitas concesserunt."
of land held in socage. See p. 210, 4 Wikes, Gale, ii. p. 100.
note 5. 5 Coke's Institutes, part iv. p. 29.

:i

This seems proved by the title of

GENERAL TAX ON INCOMES. 303
this statutory enactment the exemption claimed by
London from all tolls was annulled. Its continuance
was incompatible with a general taxation of the country,
and the citizens seem to have acquiesced readily, being
now on the most friendly terms with the crown. But
it was more difficult to obtain supplies from the clergy.
They pleaded, with much reason, that they had been
drained for many years by collectors for pope and king,
and a new assessment was now going on for the six years'
tenths voted at the Council of Lyons. Above all, the
bishops represented that no proctors of the clergy had
been summoned, and that the spiritual estate could not
be taxed without consent of its representatives.1 It was
agreed that the question should be referred to convo
cation, but, in fact, the royal' officers seem to have
accepted a composition,2 and wherever this was not paid
the fifteenth was taken by force.3
It was more than a sentimental satisfaction to clergy
and people suffering by the new taxation, that the Jews
were debarred their immemorial trade of usury. Ever
since Richard's crusade the position of the outcast
people in England had been growing worse and worse.
In all disorders they were among the first sufferers.
Once (1244) their quarter was attacked and sacked at
Oxford, and no convictions for felony could be procured.4
During the civil war, they were pillaged as royal property,

1 " Because the prelates could not laity. Compare Ann. de Wintonia,
andought not to impose the necessary p. 119.
contributions, when their clergy had 2 " 1275. We fined with the king
not been summoned or consulted." for the fifteenth throughout our
Wikes, Gale, ii. p. 103. The Ann. property for ten marks." Ann. de
de Dunstaplii (p. 266) state, how- Dunstaplia, p. 268.
ever, that the fifteenth was granted 3 Matt. West., p. 408.
by clergy and people, but this i Wikes, Gale, ii. p. 45.
probably refers to the tax on the

304

CONDITION OF THE JEWS.

or murdered as conspirators on the royal side. Naturally
they retorted a bitter hatred upon their oppressors.
Once (1268) they attacked a procession at Oxford, and
cast down the crucifix. Stories of Christian children
carried off to be circumcised (1235), or crucified (1255),
were perpetually afloat, and supported by more or less of
colourable evidence. Nor was the persecuted religion
altogether without influence on society. Once, at least,
(1223), England was scandalized by the spectacle of a
deacon apostatizing,1 and the charge of Jewish heresy was
constantly brought against those whose ruin was resolved
on, from the German emperor to the English knight. But
the law of their existence in England made the Jews a
branch of royal revenue, exceptionably protected, con
trolled, and pillaged. Supposed to enjoy special favour in
the law-courts, because all their gains lay at the king's
mercy, they were constantly amerced on slight pretexts
by the Crown, or doomed to sustain the burden which the
nation declined. Under John they once paid a con
tribution equal to a year's revenue of the kingdom.2
Henry III. sold them for some years to his brother,
" that those whom the king had flayed the earl might
disbowel." The interest they charged, varying from
forty to eighty per cent., is to our notions mon
strous, but was compensated by the wholesale remis
sions of debts which a favourite at court would obtain
from the king.3 That a whole people should continue
to amass wealth, which it held only at the tenure of

1 Paris, Hist. Minor, ii. p. 254. Mosseye; and in 1265, Thomas de
2 66,000 marks. Madox, Hist, of Clare, and Adam le Despenser, ob-
the Exchequer, p. 151. tained similar quittances for all
3 Thus, in 1264, Gilbert de Clare moneys owed to Jews. Excerpta e
obtained a quittance for a dependent Rot. Finium, ii. pp. 415, 421 .
for £70, due to Cress, the son of

THEIR SOCIAL POSITION. 305
royal caprice, is at first sight almost miraculous. But the
Jews knew that their hope of existence was bound up
with their wealth ; ifthey once ceased to be necessary, or
lost the power to bribe,1 they were without hope. Ac
cordingly, they worked and prospered in the land, till
manor upon manor was mortgaged or even aliened to
them. Thus the convent of St. Alban's, having a quarrel
with a neighbour who enfeoffed a Jew in insult to
the brotherhood, raised the question at law, whether a
Jew could own a freehold in England ?2 The question
had issues of the last importance, for it involved the
whole right of equal citizenship. If a Jew might own
land he was entitled to all its incidents, — the oath of
fealty, the wardships and marriages ; he might even
acquire a barony, and receive a summons to attend the
king's council. The judges being, it is said, bribed, were
at first favourable to the Jews, but the strong remon
strances ofthe clergy and public feeling prevailed.3 One
of the last acts of Henry III.'s reign was to issue a
statute (July 25, 1271), forbidding Jews to own any
realty, except houses in towns for their own use. An
other provision forbade Christians to serve them. From
that day the fate of the Jews was sealed; a decision
three years afterwards (Aug. 1274), that no Christian was
to buy the flesh of animals forbidden by the Jewish law,
under pain of excommunication, showed that council
and people desired to carry persecution into the smallest
details of daily life.4 Edward would naturally incline

1 In 1256 seventy-one Jews, found doned. Paris, Hist. Major, pp. 922,
guilty of crucifying a boy at Lincoln, 924.
being still unhung, their brethren 2 Gesta Abbat. Mon. S. Alb., i.
are said to have bribed the Fran- pp. 401, 402.
ciscans to intercede for them, and 3 Liber de Ant. Legibus, p. 234.
thirty-five were accordingly par- 4 Liber de Ant. Legibus, p. 172.
II. X

306 ENACTMENT AGAINST USURY.
to the same policy. He consented to an enactment
that the Jews should renounce usury under pain of
being hanged as felons,1 and should live in future by
retail trade and agriculture. They were further to
wear linen tablets on their dress as a distinguishing
badge. It is always difficult to know how far a statute
is carried out; ten years later we meet with a royal
quittance to a man whom his Jewish creditors are
oppressing with usury. On the other hand, there is
some evidence of their progressive impoverishment.2
From the trials and executions that took place two years
later, it seems that they directed their activity to clipping
and adulterating the coin. Two hundred and eighty
were hanged in London alone, and many in other parts
of the kingdom, while their Christian accomplices
escaped with fines.
There was great rejoicing among the clergy at the
pious laws against Hebrews and usury, though it is
difficult to see why landed proprietors and suitors for
preferment, who were often in want of money, should
have rejoiced at being debarred the aid of money-lenders.
The real gain was to Lombards and London merchants.
But Edward had not been animated by any peculiar love
for the Church in his late exceptional legislation. No
man was better fitted to distinguish where the dues of the
Church ceased, and where the rights of the State began.

1 Madox, Hist, of the Exchequer, utterly impoverished by payments to
p. 177. It is noticeable that Jews the crown. 18 Edw. I. the barons
were excluded from the benefit of are admonished to examine into the
the statute of Acton Burnel in 1283. tallage of Belia of Gloucester, who
Statutes of the Realm, i. p. 54. has been so heavily tallaged that she
2 Thus 9 and 10 Edward I. a writ has nothing left to live with. Madox,
issues to the barons ofthe exchequer, Hist, ofthe Exchequer, pp. 175, 176,
enjoining them to give further time notes ¦ and k.
to Aaron le Evesque, who has been >

POSSESSIONS OF THE REGULAR CLERGY. 307
It was a tradition of those times that England had been
conquered by the Normans,1 because so much of the
country was in the hands of churchmen ; and since then
the proportion owned by the Churchhad increased largely.
Among all orders the prevailing sentiment was one of
legal conservatism ; a desire that the existing order should
be preserved, without gain or loss to the crown or any
estate. In this spirit Magna Charta had provided that
no fees should be aliened from the baronage to the crown ;
and the Parliament of Merton had compromised on the
vital question whether new fees might be constituted.2
For many years past, the great danger to the balance of
power appeared to come from the regular clergy, who,
favoured by the success of the mendicant orders, were
adding house to house and field to field. Never dying out
like families,3 and rarely losing by forfeitures, the monas
teries might well nigh calculate the time, when all the soil
of England should be their own. It is doubtful whether
they withdrew much from the warlike strength of the
country,4 as only lands held by frank-almoigne were
discharged from contributions to military service. But

1 Gesta Abb. Mon. S. Alb., p. 50. 4 Thus, in 1404, the archbishop of
2 See pp. 88, 177. Compare the Canterbury said in Parliament, that
clauses in feoffments not to alien to the king got as many soldiers from
religious houses. Madox, Formulare church fees as from lay ; an assertion
Anglicanum, pp. 196, 197. which seems to confirm Sprot's state-
3 Of course there are cases where ment, that the Church owned in the
an impoverished monastery was proportion of twenty-eight in sixty.
bought up, or otherwise absorbed, Walsingham, ii. p. 265. Bishop
by another, and extinguished. Gir. Pecock speaks of the great number
Camb., Spec. Ecc, pp. 152, 168. But of lawyers, knights, and squires,
its lands remained cturch - lands whom the Church maintained; though
under almost any vicissitudes. The he contrasts the quiet character of
case of the alien priories is rather the church tenantry with the fight-
an apparent, than a real, exception, ing and brawling dependants of great
as their lands were mostly diverted lords. Repressor of Overmuch
to religious purposes. Blaming, p. 371.

308 STATUTE OF MORTMAIN.
the fees transferred to them were drawn from the pos
sessions of the baronage, and the land which the clergy
held was locked up for ever from the class of men who
desired to invest. Accordingly, one of the first acts ofthe
barons under Henry III. had been to enact, that no fees
should be aliened to religious persons or corporations.1
Edward re-enacted and strengthened this by various
provisions in the famous Statute of Mortmain. The fee
illegally aliened was now to be forfeited to the chief
lord under the king ; and if, by collusion or neglect, the
lord omitted to claim his right, the crown might enter
upon it. Never was statute more unpopular with the
class at whom it was aimed, more ceaselessly eluded, or
more effectual. One chronicler believes it to have been
a judgment on the Benedictines for resolving to shorten
their services by omissions, as of the Athanasian Creed.2
Once the clergy seem to have meditated open resist
ance, for, in 1281, we find the king warning the bishops,
who were then in convocation at Lambeth, as they loved
their baronies, to discuss nothing that appertained to
the crown, or the king's person, or his council. The
warning appears to have proved effectual, and the clergy
found less dangerous employment in elaborating subtle
evasions of the obnoxious law. At first fictitious
recoveries were practised ; an abbey bringing a suit
against a would-be donor, who permitted judgment
against him to go by default. When this was prohibited,3

1 Statutes of the Realm, i. p. 10. receive it back again on lease. How
2 Gesta Abb. Mon. S. Alb., i. p. this can ever have been considered
464. legal is difficult to understand, but
3 In 1285, by the Second Statute of it had to be forbidden in the repub-
Westminster, c. 32. Statutes of the lication of Magna Charta (c. 36) in
Realm, i. p. 87. A less subtle form 1297.
of evasion was to transfer the fee and

ITS SALUTARY EFFECTS. 309
special charters of exemption were procured.1 Once an
attempt was made to smuggle a dispensing bill through
parliament.2 One politic abbot in the fifteenth century
encouraged his friends to make bequests of land, suffered
them to escheat, and then begged them back of the
crown, playing on the religious feelings of Henry VI.3
Yet it is strong proof of the salutary terror which the
Statute of Mortmain inspired that even then the abbot
was not quieted, and procured an Act of Parliament to
purge him from any consequences ofhis illegal practices.
In fact, the fear, lest astute crown lawyers should in
volve a rich foundation in wholesale forfeitures, seems
sometimes to have hampered its members in the ex
ercise of their undoubted rights as citizens. The
abbey of Meaux in Yorkshire paid off an old loan from
its order in a sudden panic, apparently lest a long
standing mortgage should be considered a fraudulent
transfer.4 There is no reason to suppose that Edward had any
secret idea of ruining the Church. Himself the foun
der of a stately Cistercian abbey,5 and a man whose
oblations and alms were a large sum in his yearly ex-

1 As many as thirty were obtained allowed to pass without their assent.
during the three reigns of the first Rot. Pari., iii. p. 276. This shows
Edwards by the Abbey of Coventry. pretty clearly that, even where they
Dugdale's Monasticon, iii. pp. 196- were allowed to invest in land, it was
198. not desecularized.
2 In 1389, the colleges and clergy 3 In the 18th of Henry VI. New-
of Oxford, having purchased largely come's History of St. Alban's, pp.
in the city since the 20th of Edward 334, 335.
I., tried to carry a bill through the l Chronica Mon. de Melsa, ii. pp.
Lords, (probably sent up from the 308-310. Perhaps the act against
proctors of the clergy in Parliament), alienating of lands by religious houses
to invest all their new acquisitions is that really intended. Statutes of
with the immunities and privileges of the Realm, i. p. 91 .
the ancient temporalities. The Com- 5 Vale Royal in Cheshire. Tanner's
monsprayedthatthebillmightnotbe Not. Monast., p. 63.

310 edward's legislation not
penses,1 he displays even as a legislator a genuine
anxiety for the real interests ofthe Church. In the second
Statute of Westminster (1285) he provided against ille
gal presentations, such as the pope had often practised,
to the wrong of English ecclesiastics, while a clause,
copying the Statute of Mortmain, forbids religious
houses to alien their lands, under penalty of forfeiture to
the founder's family or to the king. The intention, of
course, was to provide against the waste of tenants for life,
and to keep up the possessions ofthe Church unimpaired.
Nor could the clergy complain of a later statute, car
ried with their full assent, and probably at their
instance, which forbade the heads of religious houses
to tax their lands and send the money out of the coun
try.2 Whatever was lost to Rome was a gain to the
English clergy. But while he desired to see them rich
and efficient, Edward was equally resolved that his
clergy should have no privileges incompatible with the
civil order of the realm. Following the precedent, by
which any one putting on the white cross was protected
against suits in the courts,3 the knights Templar and
1 Out of £64,105 0s. 5d. disbursed 2 33rd of Edward I. re-enacted in
in the year 1299-1300, £1 166 14s. 6d. the 36th. Statutes of the Realm, i.
are entered as alms and oblations. pp. 150-152. At the Parliament of ¦
After all allowance for grants to reli- Carlisle, Jan. 1307, the lower clergy
gious houses in requital of their hospi- were very largely represented, se-
tality, whatremains represents a very veral bishops and abbots sending
liberal scale of expenditure. Liber proxies, and all the dioceses return-
Contrarot. GarderobaB, pp. vii.-xi. ing proctors. However, in the state-
In fact, alms were given during the ment of grievances the petitions were
year to more than one hundred and all said to be presented by the lords
thirty thousand people, assuming and commons, without special refer-
each donation to have been separate ; ence to the clergy. Rot. Pari., i. pp.
and, on the more probable assump- 189-191, 220.
tion of regular pensioners, the 3 A mere pilgrim was allowed
number of these averaged about protection for a year and a day ; a
seven hundred a week, besides those crusader, till his return. Bracton de
who came in for special gratuities. Legibus, f. 339.

INIMICAL TO THE CHURCH. 311
Hospitaller were accustomed to set up crosses on land
which did not even belong to them, and defend it by
the privileges of the order against the demands of the
lords of the fee. By the second Statute of Westminster,
such lands were to be forfeited to the chief lords or to the
king, like lands in Mortmain. The abuse of withdraw
ing suits into their own courts was forbidden, and as
they not unfrequently appointed monks to be their judges,
from whom no damages could be recovered, it was
enacted that the superiors should be liable. These pro
visions are clearly part of a more extensive system by
which the limits of the spiritual jurisdiction were de
fined. So stringent were the prohibitions enacted, that
the judges applied for instructions whether they should
allow the bishop of Norwich to hold spiritual pleas in
his diocese. The king in a rescript1 explained that, in
all matters purely spiritual, such as the reformation of
manners, the levying of tithes, mortuaries, and pensions,
or in cases of defamation and violence to clerks, where
the pursuer did not seek to recover a fine, the spiritual
judge might still exercise jurisdiction. But wherever
the plea has a secular side, where the tithes have been
sold to a layman and become temporal, where impor
tant questions of patronage are mixed up with tithes,
or where the penances imposed take the form of
fines, the jurisdiction belonged to the secular court.
In other words, the principle which the clergy had so
long contended for, that all cases touching morals or
church property, however remotely, were to be re-

1 1 cannot persuade myself that the of instructions, drawn up by the
statute, so called, of "Circumspecte king in council, for the defining of
Agatis" (Statutes ofthe Realm, i. p. new laws. Of parliamentary authq-.
101), is anything more than a body rity the preamble says nothing.

312 edward's supremacy.
served for the Church,1 was exchanged for the very
different doctrine, that nothing was to be withdrawn
from the State unless it belonged wholly to a domain into
which the State did not intrude. Nor were these regu
lations mere paper-enactments. Four years later (1289),
the king took an offender out of sanctuary, and banished
him from the kingdom, only sparing his life on account
of his former rank.2 Yet so changed were the times,
and so powerless the clergy against a competent monarch,
that these acts of vigour did not even excite a murmur.
Edward was king as no sovereign had been since
the days of the Conqueror, and almost all for which
Becket had lived and died had for ever passed away
like an evil dream.

1 Compare the 'Statement of cleri- cases in which the clergy are to an-
cal rights drawn up by Adam de swer before secular judges are stated
Marsh for Grosseteste, in which it is to be those which concern fees,
laid down, that the Church has its taxes, and patrimonial offices. An-
own laws and rights in the acquisi- nales de Burton, pp. 426-429.
tion of temporalities, and the only 2 Wikes, Gale, ii. p. 119.

313

Chapter X.
THE CONQUEST OF WALES.
Disintegration or Wales. The Lords Marchers. Union op the
North under a Single Dynasty. Llewellyn's Refusal op Ho
mage. Negotiations. First Welsh Campaign. Llewellyn's
Submission. Edward's Conduct to Llewellyn and David. Quar
rel op the Welsh Princes with the Royal Officers. Second
Insurrection. Edward's Campaign. Death op Llewellyn.
Capture, Trial, and Condemnation op David. Statute op
Wales. Last Disorders.
LONG before the accession of Edward the Wales
of Saxon times had been broken up. Of its three
old kingdoms, Powys on the eastern marches, and De-
hewbarth south of the Dyfi, were mostly parcelled
out into little English principalities. The English
lords marchers, whose dominions girdled the country
from Chester to Pembroke, claimed something like
royal or palatine rights. They had their own chancery
and justiciaries ; they took the first cognizance of all pleas
in their lordships ; l and while they sometimes received in
their charters a grant of all future conquests to be won

1 Madox, Baronia Anglica, p. 154. rence de Hastings, earl of Pembroke,
In 1272, the earl of Gloucester main- gives a pardon to Nicolas de Shir-
tained that the king's commissioners bourn " for all kinds of homicides,
could not make a truce without his robberies, felonies, &c," with the
consent. Royal Letters, ii. p. 342. proviso, however, that he shall an-
Compare a deed quoted by Mr. swer any private suit in the earl's
Wakeman (in the Archaeologia Cam- court. This was in 1340.
brensis, iv. p. 142), in which Lau-

314

DAVID AP OWEN.

upon " our enemies the Welsh,"1 they were never slow
to enforce their claims upon English neighbours with
the sword.2 Our Norman nobles, Avho were the most
practical of men, were never restrained by any theory of
inferior races or base blood from a profitable intermar
riage. From an earl of Chester down to Braoses, Mor
timers, and Barris, all were eager to strengthen the
title of the sword by more natural claims.3 Our kings
followed the same policy. Henry II. gave his sister
Emma in marriage to David ap Owen,4 who had usurped
the royalty of Gwyneth. The alliance was not profit
able to the Welsh prince, whose subjects transferred
their allegiance to the rightful heir, Llewellyn ap Jor-
werth. The transfer indicated a change of policy for

1 Mr. Milman, in his instructive
paper " On the Political Geography
of Wales," appears to regard this
clause as an authorization to make
war at any time. Archaeologia,
xxxviii. p. 25. But the instances he
quotes belong to ayear (1199) when
John was at war with the most
powerful prince of Wales, and there
is considerable evidence that the
prince of Wales, like any other vas
sal, might appeal to the king's court
against a powerful neighbour. Thus,
in 1221 and 1223, Llewellyn ap Jor-
werth appealed to the king in coun
cil against the earl Marshal. Brut
y Tywysogion, pp. 309-315.
2 The earliest accredited instance
of private war, carried on with regu
lar formalities in England, is between
the earls of Pembroke and Glouce
ster. Madox, Formulare, i. 155. Cu
riously enough, the two other most
famous instances are in the same dis
trict, between the earls of Glouce
ster and Hereford, in the time of

Edward I., and between Lord Berke
ley and Lord Lisle, under Edward
IV. Allen, On the Royal Preroga
tive, pp. 122-123. For some slighter
cases, see Royal Letters, ii. pp. 214,
219, 232.
3 John le Scott, seventh earl of
Chester (1231-1244), married a na
tural daughter of Llewellyn ap Jor-
werth, called Helen by Dugdale
(Baronage, i. p. 45), and Jane in
Lloyd's History of Wales, p. 297.
Gladys Dhu, Llewellyn's legitimate
daughter, was married first to Regi
nald de Braose, and afterwards to
Ralf de Mortimer, ; Margaret, an
other daughter, married John de
Braose ; and Gerald of Windsor, the
founder ofthe Barri family, married
Nest, the daughter of Rhys ap
Tewdwr. Gir. Camb., de Rebus a
se gestis, lib. i. c. i.
4 Brut y Tywysogion, p. 225.
Emma was probably a natural
daughter of Geoffrey of Anjou.

LLEWELLYN AP JORWERTH. 315
the time. David had garrisoned his castles with Eng
lish soldiers. Llewellyn, undeTr the leadership of
Gwenwynwyn, a prince of the south, swept down on
the English border. The attempt was ultimately de
feated, but Llewellyn, who seems to have held out
longest, obtained the best terms from his conqueror,
being first admitted to an equal peace, on condition
of acknowledging himself the English king's vassal
(1201),1 while a little later (1205),2 he received the
hand of Joanna, one of John's natural daughters. From
that time the star of the Welsh prince rose steadily.
He reduced Gwenwynwyn to vassalage; obtained a
papal absolution during the last years of the interdict
from his oath of fealty to John (1212), and, in a series
of small expeditions, razed many of the castles with
which his territory was bridled. With the restoration
of peace in England, he might, in less favourable times,
have sunk again into his old condition of vassalage, as
only one among a number of turbulent nobles. But
he was a man of ability, the circumstances of the reign
favoured him. He treated with Henry III. as an
equal.3 He drove back the royal army in one campaign,
through the treachery of the nobles who hated Hubert
de Burgh (1228), and reduced several important for
tresses (1233) as the confederate of earl Marshal in his
rebellion. His submission towards the end of his life
(1237), when he was bedridden and paralytic,4 was
merely that he might secure the English interest in
favour of his eldest legitimate son David against the
bastard, Griffith, who was troubling him with rebel-

1 New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 84. outlaw. But the English council
2 Rot.Chart.inTurr.Lond.,p. 147. evidently took a different view.
3 "Non quia teneamur excusare Royal Letters, i. p. 229.
nos," he writes about harbouring an 4 Paris, Hist. Major, p. 437.

316 CIVIL WAR IN WALES.
lions. It suited English policy that the son of the
princess Joanna should succeed, and Griffith died, in the
attempt to make his escape from an English prison,
under circumstances of some suspicion.1
On the death of David without children (1246), the
question of the Welsh succession was opened again. To
all English notions, the rightful heir was Roger de Morti
mer,2 son of Gladys Dhu, David's legitimate sister, who
had been given in second marriage to Ralf de Morti
mer. The Welsh nobles, however, set aside altogether
the claims of an alien, and divided the principality be
tween Llewellyn and Owen the Red, the sons of Griffith
ap Llewellyn, David's illegitimate brother. Curiously
enough, their decision does not seem to have been ap
pealed against. Perhaps the English government pre
ferred to see Wales divided among its native chiefs, to
a strong rule under an English noble, whose marriage
with a co-heiress of the Marshals gave him lands from
Pembroke to Montgomery. Left to themselves, the
two brothers soon drifted into a civil war, and Llewel
lyn (1254) made himself master ofthe land. The in
surrection provoked by prince Edward followed, and
Llewellyn seemed within reach of absolute independence,
when Simon de Montfort, in his last campaign, offered to

1 Brut y Tywysogion, p. 331. times vaguely entertained, that a
David's anger, at the death of a bro- woman could transmit the title to a
ther whom he had despoiled and im- throne, but not inherit it. By a
prisoned, was probably caused by the Welsh precedent, however, of the
idea that his gaolers had connived at ninth century, when Esylht, daugh-
the attempted escape. It is curious ter of Cowan, carried the throne to
that Paris, who gives the circum- her husband, Mervyn Vrych, there
stances of the death very minutely, was no reason why Gladys Dhu and
represents Griffith as alive, and ac- her husband, Ralf de Mortimer, who
tually escaping, two years later, lived some months after ©avid,
Hist. Major, pp. 617, 695. should not have succeeded him.
2 That is, on the assumption, some-

LLEWELLYN ENTITLED PRINCE OF WALES. 317
annul all the concessions and restore all the lands that
had been wrested from the prince of Wales or his prede
cessor. But with the battle of Evesham the cloud-land
of a renovated Welsh sovereignty disappeared, and two
years later (1267) Llewellyn purchased a peace, by the
promise to pay thirty thousand marks in instalments,
while, in return, the king recognized him by the title
of prince of Wales. The recognition of a title which
Henry had once conferred on his eldest son,1 and the
fact that Llewellyn retained a portion of his conquests,
show that the Welsh chieftain knew well how to hold
his own. But his success against a weak sovereign,
during a reign shaken by civil war, blinded him to the
real nature of his own strength. With the progress of
Norman civilization, the Welsh had learned much in
the art of war, and their princes could bring heavy-
armed soldiers into the field, or besiege castles, as well
as any English nobleman. They were even stronger
than an earl of Gloucester or Leicester, standing simply
by himself, inasmuch as they governed a compact ter
ritory, swayed the devotion of a whole nationality,
could fall back upon difficult mountain ranges, and
possessed the best guerilla troops of the country. But
the genuinely Welsh parts were diminishing every year.
A petition from the men of Keri, in Montgomery, pray
ing Henry III. that Wales and the Marches may be
included in the English pale,2 shows that there were

1 So says Lloyd in his History of him, grants the principality of Wales
Wales (p. 309), quoting the Tower to the aforesaid Llewellyn and his
Records for 1245, and the statement heirs, in such sort that they be
seems to be confirmed by the clause called princes of Wales." New Ry-
in this treaty of Montgomery that mer, vol. i. part i. p. 474. Compare
the king, " by the will and assent of Knyghton, c. 24, 35.
his eldest-born, Edward, given to 2 Royal Letters, ii. p. 353.

318 llewellyn's relations with England.
men who did not value the possession of a barbarous
independence. The petitioners object that, by Welsh
law, the crime of the guilty was visited on their inno
cent kindred, and that, by the practice of the border
courts, a decision in the king's court was not treated as
final. But, in fact, the strong contrast between the
interminable disorders of Welsh rule, and the strict
order which was maintained in England proper, could
hardly fail to impress the dwellers in a debateable dis
trict. Wales was only Welsh in parts where the Nor
man scarcely cared to come.
There were undoubtedly reasons why Llewellyn
should look forward with anxiety to his relations with
England under Edward I. He had driven the king, as
a young man, with some disgrace out of Wales; he had
constantly sided with the barons against the crown, and,
at. a time when disaffection was still rife, he was be
trothed to a daughter of the late earl of Leicester. The
relations of Welsh and English on the Marches were
always difficult, and whether a new fortress was built
or a new market opened,1 one or other of the neigh
bouring peoples was certain to think itself aggrieved.
The presence of Welsh exiles on the border, who made
forays into the principality, and sold their plunder in
English towns,2 was the natural consequence of a divided

1 Thus in June, 1273, Llewellyn complaining, that Llewellyn's men
is warned by the council not to build have made three forays from Buelt
a castle or open a fair at Abrunol, into English territory, while the
near Montgomery, for fear the trade bailiff of Buelt informs Llewellyn
of the neighbourhood be impaired. that his men have been peaceable,
New Rymer, vol. i. part ii. p. 504. but that the merchants of Buelt and
2 Compare Llewellyn's complaints, other places have been plundered
that the men of Griffin have ravaged and imprisoned at Leominster fair
his lands and sold their booty at by the men of Roger de Mortimer.
Shrewsbury and Montgomery, with Royal Letters, Fifth Report, Nos.
the letters of W. de Christchurch, 755, 777, 778.

HE REFUSES TO PERFORM HOMAGE. 319
dominion ; and the border wars, embittered by the ani
mosities of civil feud, were waged with a ferocity
unknown in the rest of England. Nevertheless, the
Welsh princes were so thoroughly regarded as part of
themselves by the baronage, that there was a great
jealousy of extreme measures against them; and this
would naturally be strong after a civil war, when all
offences had been condoned. Accordingly, had Llewel
lyn acted with common discretion or honesty, he might
probably have retained his sovereignty to the last ; but
he calculated on a divided people, and an embarrassed
exchequer, to raise pretensions which no suzerain could
submit to. The first summons from the council to per
form homage was contemptuously disregarded, and the
king's commissioners waited in vain for the prince at
the trysting-place. A second order, to pay part of the
debts due to the treasury, was eluded by the excuse
that Llewellyn must consult with his council ; and, down
to the time of Edward's arrival, the prince of Wales had
given no other sign of vassalage than by professing his
readiness to supply venison for the coronation banquet.
A third appointment to do homage at Shrewsbury was
broken off by the king's illness (Nov. 1274), but next
year an appointment was made for Chester, and the
king went up north to receive his vassal. By this time
both sides were distrustful. The sheriff of Shropshire
was warned, by a royal brief, not to trust himself in
Llewellyn's power, or commit himself to any negotiations ;
and Llewellyn again failed to appear. At last, having
received a peremptory summons to attend the king's
parliament at Westminster (Sept. 1275), he replied by
an insolent letter, stating that he was afraid of sharing
the fate of his father, Griffith, and refusing to come
unless the king's son, the chancellor, and the earl of

320 llewellyn's critical position.
Gloucester, were given as hostages.' At the same time
he wrote to the pope, stating that he could not come in
safety to the meeting-places appointed, and that the
king had broken the last treaty by harbouring Welsh
traitors. The excuses were quite worthless. The first
place appointed during the regency had been close to
Llewellyn's own castle, and until he had performed
homage he had no claim to redress from a new sovereign.
His intentions are better interpreted by his acts than
his words. He sent over to France for his betrothed
wife, Eleanor de Montfort, the sister of the king's worst
enemies, and one who, as the king's cousin, would be
doubly dangerous in opposition to his interests.2 The
lady sailed in company of her brother Almeric. But four
Bristol ships were on the watch for them, and they were
brought captive to the king, who consigned Almeric to
a prison, while he kept Eleanor in honourable custody
at court.
Llewellyn's position was becoming every day more
critical. If he crossed the border in pursuit of a stag,
he found his presence the signal for the whole district to
rise in arms.3 His brothers, David and Owen, conspired
against him ; and when the plot was detected, David
with his following escaped into England. Inasmuch

1 Matt. West., p. 407. Trivet, p. Royal Letters, Sixth Report, Nos.
292. 1124-1130. On her death, in 1274,
2 It is noteworthy that one of the restraint upon her family was re-
Edward's first acts had been to se- moved. Yet, as she left property to
cure her dower, as countess of Pem- her daughter, it might be doubtful
broke, to his aunt. Blaauw's how far Eleanor was not a royal
Barons' War, p. 296. This seems ward, only to be married with the
to have been at the request of Philip king's consent.
IIL, who, in consequence of trans- 3 Royal Letters, Sixth Report,
actions between Louis IX. and No. 1328. Pauli, Gesch. v. England,
Henry IIL, was answerable for a iv. s. 19.
part of it, amounting to 8000 marks.

SUBMISSION OF LLEWELLYN. 321
as the three legal summonses had been served, the
prince of Wales might at any moment be deprived of
his fief by sentence of the king and peers. It seems
marvellous lenity, that the sentence was actually de
layed till October 1276, when Llewellyn had roused
public opinion to the uttermost by repeated forays
along the marches, and by an insolent reply to the un
official negotiations of the primate, that he would do
his homage at Montgomery if the king's safe conduct
were guaranteed by certain of his council, if the old
treaty were confirmed, and reparation made for its in
fringements ; and provided his affianced wife were re
stored to him. The Avhole force of the realm was
accordingly summoned to meet at Worcester in June of
the next year; and so well was the command obeyed,
that Edward found himself able to dispose of three
armies. With the first he himself operated along the
north, opening a safe road through the Cheshire forests,
and fortifying Flint and Rhuddlan, while the ships of
the Cinque Ports hovered along the coast and ravaged
Anglesey. The second corps d ' 'armie, under the earl of
Lincoln and Roger Mortimer, besieged and reduced Dol-
vorwyn castle in Montgomeryshire. , The third was led
into Cardigan by Payne de Chaworth, who ravaged the
country with such vigour that the South Welsh, (being
probably disaffected to a prince not of their own lineage),
surrendered the castle of Stradewi and made a general
submission. Edward had avoided the fatal errors of
previous commanders, who had risked their forces in a
barren and difficult country. His blockade was so well
sustained, that Llewellyn was starved, rather than beaten,
into unconditional submission. With singular modera
tion, Edward had declined receiving the homage of
II. y

322 edward's generous
the southern chiefs.1 He now granted Llewellyn ho
nourable terms, (Nov. 5, 1277). A fine of £50,000
was imposed to mark the greatness of the victory, but
remitted next day out of the king's grace. Four border
cantreds, lying about Diganwy, Denbigh, Ruthyn, and
Rhuddlan,2 old possessions of the English crown, which
Llewellyn had wrested from it in the wars of the late
reign, were to be surrendered to the English king who
already occupied them. Prisoners in the English in
terests were to be set free, and Llewellyn was to come
under " an honourable " safe conduct to London and per
form homage. Edward had promised David half the
principality, but with a reservation at the time that he
might, if he chose, give him compensation elsewhere.3
He now elected to do this, moved, it would seem,
simply by the wish not to dismember Llewellyn's do
minions, and David was made governor of Denbigh
Castle, married to the earl of Derby's daughter, and
endowed with extensive estates.4 In every other respect
Llewellyn was tenderly dealt with. The hostages ex
acted were sent back. The rent of 1000 marks stipu
lated for Anglesey was remitted. When the prince of
1 Brut y Tywysogion, p. 367. the writ convoking the parliament of
2 Lhoyd's History of Wales, p. Shrewsbury in 1283, that the king
334. had endowed David out of his own
3 At least partially; the question lands, "placing him among the greater
of total compensation elsewhere per- men of our palace," an expression
haps not having been entertained. which does not seem equivalent to
New Rymer, vol. i. part ii. p. 544. making him an earl. Report on the
4 The author of the Greatest of Dignity of a Peer, Appendix i. p. 49.
the Plantagenets says that Edward As the Lords' First Report observes
created David an earl (p. 11 2). lean (Dignity of a Peer, p. 291), if he
find no proof of this, except in the were an earl, it was unnecessary to
promise, that "he, and Owen, and summon burgesses to try him. In all
their heirs are to come to our parlia- documents he seems to be described
mentsin England,likeour otherearls simply as brother of Llewellyn, or
and barons," (New Rymer, vol. i. part son of Griffin.
ii. p. 544) ; and in the statement of

TREATMENT OF LLEWELLYN. 323
Wales came to London to perform homage he received
the last favour of all, and was married sumptuously, at
the king's cost, to the lady Eleanor de Montfort.1
There is no reason for supposing that Edward che
rished any covert plans of absorbing Wales into England.
Having wiped out the dishonour of his early years, and
replaced England in its old position of ascendancy, he
had no motive for reviving bitter memories, or dis
possessing a great noble of his fief. The king's conduct
in giving his cousin to one who was only her equal
through an usurped royalty ; the inquests held in the
marches to determine border law;2 the instructions to
the royal judges, to judge according to local customs;
the special commission appointed when Llewellyn
thought himself aggrieved f are curious evidence of
fair-mindedness in a strong-willed and almost absolute
sovereign. But in one respect Edward was ill-fitted to
deal with an uncivilized people. He was over-strict for
the times even in England, where his subjects almost
learned, before he died, to regret the anarchy of his
father's reign. But his officers were nowhere harsher
than in Wales, where the people, unaccustomed to a
minute legality, complained that they were worse treated

1 Dr. Pauli supposes that no one cessary transference of the strongest
after Llewellyn was to enjoy the title personal bond between man and man.
of Prince of Wales. But the passage Another instance of our chroniclers'
in Trivet (p. 297), on which he relies, inaccuracy is to be found in Heming-
is scarcely borne out by the treaty, burgh's statement (ii. p. 5), that Llew-
which distinctly says, that Llewellyn ellyn bound himself to attend par-
may retain the homages of four barons, liament in London once a year. No
whose lands the king has seized and such article occurs in the treaty ; no
does not mean to restore to the such service was ever rendered ; and
principality. The motive of this no complaint of its omission was ever
reservation is, no doubt, partly in made.
the desire to spare Llewellyn's feel- 2 Calend. Geneal., i. p. 270.
ings, but chiefly, I think, in the dis- 3 New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 557.
like of a punctilious mind to unne-

324 DISSATISFACTION OF THE WELSH.
than Saracens or Jews. Old offences were raked up ;
wrecking was made punishable ; the legal taxes were
aggravated by customary payments ; and distresses were
levied on the first goods that came to hand, whether
Llewellyn's own or his subjects'. The people of the
four annexed cantreds were soon ripe for rebellion.
David was alienated from the English cause by petty
quarrels with Reginald Gray, justice of Chester, who
insisted on making him answer before the English courts,
hanged some of his vassals, and carried a military road
through his woods. The Welch gentlemen complained,
that they were removed from offices which they had
purchased, brought to justice for old offences which
ought to have been condoned by the peace, and de
prived of their jurisdiction in local courts.1 For a time
the lady Eleanor tried to mediate between her husband
and her cousin.2 But it was impossible that a stern
just man like Edward, penetrated with the most ad
vanced doctrines of European legists, and deriving his
information from English employes, should be able to
understand the position of the chief of a semi-barbarous
nationality, who thought outrages on law matters to
be atoned for by fines, while he brooded with impla
cable rancour over every slight, real or fancied, to his
own position as prince of Wales, representative of a
dynasty that had ruled " since the time of Camber the
son of Brutus." Moreover, Llewellyn thought, perhaps
unreasonably, that he had been betrayed by Edward.
He said that on the day of his marriage the English king
had forced him to subscribe a document, to the effect

1 Lhoyd's History of Wales, pp. 1983.
340-364. Annal. de Dunstaplia, p. 2 Royal Letters, Sixth Report,
291. Royal Letters, Sixth Report, 1333,1334.
No. 1340; Seventh Report, No.

MERLIN'S PROPHECIES. 325
that he would never harbour an English exile, or main
tain forces against Edward's will.1 There was little in
all this that was not implied in Llewellyn's position as
vassal, and he himself did not complain that the con
ditions had ever been offensively pressed. A king who
had granted such liberal terms as Edward might perhaps
claim, with reason, that his conquered vassal should
never threaten him with hostilities. But the offence
was none the less deadly, that it was justified by the
relations of subject and sovereign.
A curious superstition precipitated an outbreak. In
the time of Henry I. some Norman had fabricated the
so-called prophecies of Merlin, which were designed to
reconcile the Welsh to the Norman conquest. Henry
was designated in them as the lion of justice, and it was
given as a sign of his reign, that the symbol of com
merce would be split and the half be round.2 The
prophecy had already been fulfilled by the regulation
for breaking coin at the mint, and making the half
penny a round piece by itself.3 In 1279, Edward
issued the farthing as an entire coin.4 The change re
called the memory of Merlin's prophecy, and the vague
oracles, that had been compiled to describe Henry's
dominion over the Saxons, were easily interpreted to
mean that a Welsh prince should be crowned at Lon
don, and retrieve what its natives regarded as the lost
dominion of the principality. Llewellyn, it is said, con-

1 Lhoyd's History of Wales, p. was ordained to take away occasions
348. of clipping coin, that pence, half-
2 Geoffrey of Monmouth, lib. vii. pence, and farthings should be
c. 4. round." Matt. West., p. 409. The
3 See vol. i. p. 443, note 1. change had been before ordered by
1 " For whereas the penny used to John, and Merlin's prophecy had then
besplit into two parts for half-pence, also been quoted. Paris. Hist. Major,
and into four parts for farthings ; it p. 230.

326 REBELLION OF THE WELSH.
suited a witch, who assured him1 that he should ride
crowned through West-Cheap. But the prince of
Wales also relied on less visionary assurances. The
" Quo Warranto " commission was prosecuting its labours
vigorously, and had produced a wide-spread discontent
in England, where men said openly, that the king would
not suffer them to reap their own corn, or mow their
grass.2 Llewellyn was in correspondence with the
malcontents, and received promises of support. His
brother David was easily induced to join the rebellion,
and began it on Palm Sunday, 1282, by storming the
castle of Hawarden, and making Roger de Clifford, its
lord and Edward's sheriff, his. prisoner. Flint and
Rhuddlan were next reduced, and the Welsh spread
over the marches, waging a war of singular ferocity,
slaying, and even burning, young and old women and
sick people in the villages.3 The rebellion found Ed
ward unprepared, but he met it with equal vigour and
efficiency. Making Shrewsbury his head-quarters, and
moving the Exchequer and King's Bench to it,4 he
summoned troops not only from all England, but from
Gascony. It is possible that the foreign recruits were
intended to strengthen the king's hands against subjects
of doubtful fidelity, but no real embarrassment from
the disaffected was sustained. The troops mustered
operated in two armies, which started from Rhuddlan
and Worcester,8 and enclosed Llewellyn, as before, from
north and south. Meanwhile the ships of. the Cinque
Ports reduced Anglesey,9 "the noblest feather in

1 " Consulto diabolo." Heming- king's want of money was urgent.
burgh, vol. ii. p. 13. 3 Annales de Waverlei^, p. 398.
2 New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 4 Idem.
575. It is noteworthy, that during 6 New Rymer, vol. i. part i. pp.
1282 and 1283 no new county seems 603, 607.
to have been visited, though the 6 The Opus Chroniconim (p. 40)

TERMS OFFERED BY EDWARD. 327
Llewellyn's wing," as Edward joyfully observed. But
the king was faithful to his old policy of a blockade. A
bridge of ships was thrown across the Menai Straits,
and the forests between Wales proper and the English
border were hewn down by an army of pioneers.
The king's banner, the golden dragon,1 showed that
quarter would be given. As the war lasted on, nego
tiations were attempted ; and the archbishop of Canter
bury, who had threatened the last sentence of the
Church against Llewellyn and his adherents, was sent
over to Snowdon to hold a conference. Llewellyn had
already been warned that it was idle to expect assist
ance from Rome, He was now summoned to submit at
discretion, with a hope — so expressed as to be a promise
— that he and the natives ofthe revolted districts would
have mercy shown them. In private he was informed
that, on condition of surrendering Wales, he should
receive a county in England and a pension of £1000 a
year. David was to go to the Holy Land, and not return
except by the king's permission.2 These terms were
undoubtedly hard, but could not be called unreason
able, as, by the subjugation of Anglesey, the principality
was reduced to the two modern counties of Merioneth
shire and Caernarvonshire. Llewellyn and his barons
preferred to die fighting sword in hand for position and
liberty. The primate excommunicated them and with
drew.

speaks of a repulse sustained by Ed- tion are given in full in Lhoyd's
ward in marching upon Anglesey. History of Wales, pp. 338-371. The
This is evidently a confusion with refusal to give up the four cantreds,
the skirmish at Bangor in Novem- on the ground that they are among
ber, when Lucas de Tany and four- the oldest possessions of the Welsh,
teen bannerets were slain. Compare " since Camber the son of Brute,"
Annales de Dunstaplia, p. 292. is curious incidental evidence to the
1 Opus Chronicorum, p. 40. influence of Geoffrey of Monmouth.
3 The particulars of this negotia-

328 DEFEAT AND DEATH OF LLEWELLYN.
About the time of this interview (Nov. 6), there was
a sharp skirmish at Bangor. Some of the earl of Glou
cester's troops crossed over before the bridge was com
pleted, except for low water mark, and were surprised
and routed with the loss of their leader and fourteen
bannerets by the Welsh. This encouraged Llewellyn to
resume offensive operations, and he poured troops into
Cardigan to ravage the lands of a Welshman in the
English interest. The English forces in Radnor
marched up along the left bank of the Wye, and came
in sight of the enemy at Buelth (Dec. 10). Llewellyn
was surprised during a reconnaissance and killed by an
English knight, Stephen de Frankton. After a short
but brilliant encounter, in which the English charged
up the brow of a hill and routed the enemy with loss,
they examined the dead bodies, and for the first time
knew that Llewellyn was among the slain.1 A letter
was found on his person giving a list, in false names, of
the English nobles with whom he was in correspon
dence,2 but either the cipher was undiscoverable, or the
matter was hushed up by the king's discretion. Llewel
lyn, dying under Church ban, was denied Christian
sepulture. His head, crowned with a garland of silver
ivy-leaves, was carried at the point of a lance through
London, and exposed on the battlements of the Tower.3
The prophecy, that he should ride crowned through
London, had been fatally fulfilled.
With the death of Llewellyn the Welsh war was
virtually at an end. With all his faults of temper and
judgment, he has shown himself a man of courage and
capacity ,who identified his own cause with his people's.
1 Trivet, p. 304. " Hemingburgh, ii. p. 13. Matt.
2 New Rymer, vol.i. partii. p. 619. West., p. 411.

CAPTURE OF DAVID. 329
But David, though now implicated in the rebellion be
yond hope of pardon, had fought under the English
banner against his countrymen, with the wish to dis
member the principality. The Welsh cannot be accused
of fickleness, if they became languid in a struggle
against overwhelming power, and a king who had
shown them more tenderness than their leader for the
time. David's one castle of Bere was starved into sur
render by the earl of Pembroke, and David himself
taken in a bog by some Welsh in the English interest
(June).1 His last remaining adherent, Rees ap Wal-
wayn, surrendered, on hearing of his lord's captivity, and
was sent prisoner to the Tower. For David himself a
sadder fate was reserved. His request for a personal
interview with his injured sovereign was refused. Ed
ward did not care to speak with a man whom he had
no thought of pardoning. He at once summoned a Parlia
ment of barons, judges, knights, and burgesses2 to meet
at Shrewsbury (Sept. 29),3 and decide on the prisoner's
fate. It is evident that Edward was incensed in no
1 Wikes, Gale, ii. p. 111. Trivet, Shrewsbury, and that the king took
p. 307. no direct share in the proceedings.
2 " It does not appear that any The preamble of the Statute " de
prelates were summoned to this as- Mercatoribus" speaks of it as "made
sembly." First Report on the Dig- at Shrewsbury," but a grant to Rees
nity of a Peer, p. 190. The reason, ap Meredith (Oct. 1283) speaks of
no doubt, was, that they would have "our Parliament which weheld at Ac
claimed their right of not sitting in ton Burnel," and of " deliberations
judgment on a case that involved before us and our council." New
the loss of life or limb. For the se- Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 634. As
parate writs addressed to judges and Acton Burnel was only about ten
councillors, see Appendix i. p. 51. miles distant, either king or estates
3 Dr. Pauli thinks that Parliament may easily have ridden backwards
met at Acton Burnel, where the and forwards. But I cannot believe
king lodged with his chancellor, the that Edward was absent from the
bishop of Bath and Wells. Gesch. v. deliberations, as such absences were
England, iv. s. 28. The author of much disliked by the Estates. Mo-
the Greatest of the Plantagenets (p. dus tenendi Parliamentum, p. 35.
132), thinks that Parliament sat at

330 SENTENCE ON DAVID.
common measure against the traitor whom, as he ex
pressed it, he had " taken up as an exile, nourished as
an orphan, endowed from his own lands, and placed
among the lords of our palace," and who had repaid
these benefits by a sudden and savage war. Neverthe
less, the king, from policy or from temperament, re
solved to associate the whole nation in a great act of
justice on a man of princely lineage. The sentence,
which excited no horror at the time, was probably
passed without a dissentient voice. David was sentenced,
as a traitor, to be drawn slowly to the gallows; as a
murderer, to be hanged; as one who had shed blood
during Passion-tide, to be disembowelled after death;
and, for plotting the king's death, his dismembered limbs
were to be sent to Winchester, York, Northampton, and
Bristol. Seldom has a shameful and violent death been
better merited than by a double-dyed traitor like
David, false by turns to his country and his king; nor
could justice be better honoured, than by making the
last penalty of rebellion fall upon the guilty prince, ra
ther than on his followers. The form of punishment in
itself was mitigated from the extreme penalty of the
law, which prescribed burning for traitors.1 Compared
with the executions under the Tudors and Stuarts, or
with the reprisals taken after Culloden, the single sen
tence of death carried out on David seems scarcely to
challenge criticism. Yet it marks a decline from the
almost bloodless policy of former kings. Since the
times of William Rufus no English noble, except under
John, had paid the penalty of rebellion with life. In
particular, during the late reign, Faukes de Breaute

1 " Igne concremantur qui saluti dominorum suorum insidiaverint." Brac
ton, f. 105.

INCORPORATION OF WALES. 331
and the adherents of Simon de Montfort had been
spared by men flushed with victory and exasperated
with a long strife. There were some circumstances to
palliate David's treachery, if, as is probable, his charge
against the English justiciary have any truth. We
may well acquit Edward of that vilest infirmity of weak
minds, which confounds strength with ferocity, and
thinks that the foundations of law can be laid in blood.
He probably viewed David's execution as a measure
demanded by justice and statesmanship, and in which
the whole nation was to be associated with its king.
Never was court of justice more formally constituted ;
but it was a fatal precedent for himself, and the weaker,
worse men who succeeded him. From that time, till
within the last century, the axe of the executioner has
never been absent from our history.
Edward was resolved to incorporate Wales with
England. The children of Llewellyn and David were
honourably and safely disposed of in monasteries, from
which they never seem to have emerged.1 The great
Welsh lords who had joined the rebellion were punished
with deprivation of all their lands.2 Out of the con
quered territory, Denbigh and Ruthyn seem to have
been made into march lordships under powerful English
men.3 Anglesey and the land of Snowdon, Llewellyn's
territories of Caernarvon and Merionethshire,4 with

1 Brut y Tywysogion, p. 365. 2 Annales Cambrise, p. 107.
Brunne's Langtoft, p. 243. Compare 3 Denbigh under the earl of
Edward's letter to the prioress of Al- Lincoln, and Ruthyn.under Reginald
vingham, Nov. 11, 1283, requesting Gray. Lhoyd's History of Wales, p.
her to receive ¦' aliquem vel aliquos 377.
de filiis, etc. ad ordinem et habitum 4 The districts included in these
domus vestra;." Dugdale's Monasti- three counties corresponded, or
con, vi. p. 959. New Rymer, vol. i. nearly so, to Llewellyn's territory at
part i. p. 712. the time of the second rebellion. The

332 INTRODUCTION OF ENGLISH LAWS.
Flint, Cardigan, and Caermarthenshire, were kept in the
hands of the crown. The Welsh division of commotes
were retained, and several of these constituted a sheriff
dom, which bore pretty much the same relation to an
English shire that a territory bears to a state in the
American Union. The new districts were also brought
more completely under English law, than the marches,
which retained their privileges and customs. The
changes, where we can trace them, seem to have been
for the better. The blood-feud was abolished; widows
obtained a dower; bastards were no longer to inherit;
and in default of heirs male in the direct line, daughters
were allowed to inherit. On the other hand, fines were
to be assessed according to local custom ; compurgation
was retained for unimportant cases, and inheritances
were to remain divisible among all heirs male. The
ordinance that contains these dispositions is no Par
liamentary statute,1 but seems to have been drawn up
by the king in council (March 24, 1284). It was based
on the report of a commission which examined one hun
dred and seventy-two witnesses.2 Soon afterwards an
¦inquest was ordered, to ascertain the losses sustained by
the Church in Wales, with a view to giving it compen
sation. Nor did Edward neglect appeals to the national
sentiment. The supposed body of Constantine was dis
interred at Caernarvon, and received honourable burial

other districts are, however, included usual, no reference is given, but which
in the operation of the Statute of is partially confirmed by Carte, ii. p.
Wales. . 196. The account is not in itself
' First Report on the Dignity of improbable, but it is a little curious,
a Peer, p. 192. Mr. Parry, however, that the same man, the bishop of
thinks there was a parliament. St. David's, should hold two in-
2 I insert this on the authority of quests on the same subject within
a quotation in the Greatest of the three years. Compare New Rymer,
Plantagenets (p. 137), for which, as vol. i. part ii. p. 593.

COST OF THE WELSH CAMPAIGN. 333
in a church. The crown of Arthur and a piece of the
holy cross, once the property of the Welsh princes, were
added to the king's regalia. It was probably by design
that queen Eleanor was confined at Caernarvon (April
25, 1284) of a prince whom the Welsh might claim as
a countryman.1 At last, having lingered for more than a
year about the principality, Edward celebrated the con
summation of his conquests (Aug. 1, 1284) by a splendid
tournament at Nefyn, to which nobles and knights
flocked from every part of England, and even from
Gascony. It was even more a demonstration of strength
than a pageant.
The cost of the Welsh campaign must have been
enormous, and it is difficult to understand how Edward
met it. But no sort of expedient was spared. Com
missioners were sent through England and Ireland to
beg money of clergy and laity. Next, the cities of
Guienne and Gascony were applied to ; then, the money
that had been collected for a crusade was taken out of
the consecrated places where it was deposited.2 The
treasures put in the Welsh churches were freely con
fiscated. Nevertheless the parliament of Shrewsbury
granted the king a thirtieth, from which, however, the
loans previously advanced were deducted. In return
for this the king passed the Statute of Merchants, which

1 The common story that Edward tioned only by the modern chroni-
presented the Welsh chiefs with his clers." I cannot discover it in any
infant son as " a prince of Wales writer before Stowe.
who could not speak a single word 2 It is doubtful whether this was
of English," has elicited very con- ever restored. The pope wrote
tradictory comments. Hume (ii. p. strongly about it, but Edward's ne-
67) calls it " a vulgar story which, as gotiations, in 1284, about a crusade
it suits exactly the capacity of the look very much like an excuse for
monkish writers, is carefully recorded detaining church taxes. New Rymer,
by them." Rapin says (i. p. 361), vol. i. part i. pp. 631, 642.

as

far as can be found it is men-

334 INSURRECTION UNDER MADOC.
made provision for the registration of merchants' debts,
their recovery by distraint, and the debtors' imprison
ment. The clergy had at first been less compliant
when the king applied to them for a tenth. The Con
vocation of the province of Canterbury (April, 1283)
replied, that they were impoverished, that they still
owed a fifteenth, and that they expected to be taxed
again by the pope. They also reminded him bitterly
of the Statute of Mortmain. Ultimately the matter was
compromised by the grant of a twentieth (Nov. 1283).
For a few years Wales was still an insecure portion
of the English dominion. In 1287, Rees ap Meredith,
whose services to Edward had been largely rewarded
with grants of land and a noble English wife, commenced
levying war against the king's sheriff. His excuse was,
that his baronial rights had been encroached upon ; but
as he had once before risked forfeiture by preferring a
forcible entry to the execution of the king's writ which
had been granted him,1 we may probably assume that
he claimed powers inconsistent with English sovereignty.
After foiling the earl of Cornwall in a costly campaign,
Rees, finding himself outlawed, fled, by the earl of
Gloucester's complicity, into Ireland. Some years later
he returned to resume his war with Robert de Tiptoft,
but this time was taken prisoner, and executed at York
by Edward's orders (1292). More dangerous by far
was the insurrection of two years later (1294), when
the Welsh, irritated by a tax,2 and believing that Edward
had sailed for France, rose up throughout the crown
lands and slew one of the collectors, Roger de Pulesdon.
Madoc, a kinsman of Llewellyn, was put forward as
king, and his troops burned Caernarvon castle and in-
1 New Rymer, vol. i. part ii. p. 634. 2 Matt. West., p. 423.

HIS SUBMISSION. 335
flicted a severe defeat on the English forces sent to
relieve Denbigh (Nov. 10). Edward now took the
field in person, and resumed his old policy of cutting
down the forests as he forced his way into the interior.
The Welsh fought well, and between disease and fighting
the English lost many hundred men. Once the king
was surrounded at Conway, his provisions intercepted,
and his road barred by a flood ; but his men could not
prevail on him to drink out of the one cask of wine that
had been saved. " We will all share alike," he said,
" and I, who have brought you into this strait, will have
no advantage of you in food." The flood soon abated,
and, reinforcements coming up, the Welsh were dis
persed. Faithful to his policy of mercy, the king spared
the people everywhere,1 but hanged three of their
captains who were taken prisoners.2 Madoc lost heart,
made submission, and was admitted to terms.3 Mean
while, Morgan, another Welshman of princely blood,
had headed a war in the marches against the earl of
Gloucester, who was personally unpopular with his
vassals. Two years before the earldom had been con
fiscated into the king's hands, and it is some evidence
that Edward's rule wasnot oppressive, by comparison with
that of his lords, that the marchmen now desired to be
made vassals of the crown. Morgan is said to have
been hunted down by his old confederate, Madoc, but
it seems more probable that he was the first to sue for
peace.4 He was pardoned without reserve. As there
1 Annal. de DunstapliS, p. 386. only denote English hostility, but is
Cotton observes (p. 253), that the not used of Madoc, Morgan, or Mael-
earl of Gloucester gave no quarter, goun, the other chiefs.
and even slew monks. 3 Annal. de Dunstaplia, p. 387.
2 Conan, the chief, is called " a Bart. Cotton, p. 282.
notorious robber" by Matthew of 4 Lhoyd's History of Wales, p. 382.
Westminster. The expression may Matt. West., p. 423.

336 THE WELSH PEACEABLY SETTLE DOWN.
was then war with Scotland, hostages were taken from
the Welsh chiefs, and were kept in English castles for
several years. But the last lesson had proved effectual.
The Welsh settled down peaceably on their lands, and
gradually adopted the English customs. Except a few
great lords, their gentry were still the representatives
of their old families. Only five men in all had received
the last punishment of the law for sanguinary rebellions,
extending over eighteen years of the king's . reign. Of
any massacre of the bards, or any measures taken to
repress them, history knows nothing.1 Never was con
quest more merciful than Edward's; and the fault lies
with his officers, not with the king, if many years still
passed, before the old quarrel between Wales and Eng
land was obliterated from the hearts of the conquered
people.

1 The story of the massacre of the was " followed by the governors of
bards is derived by Hume and Carte Wales until Henry the Fourth's
from Sir J. Wynne's History of tbe time ;" but he gives no authority for
Gwedir family, (Barrington's Mis- his statement, and appears to have
cellanies, p. 386). It is a mere le- deduced it from the fact that he
gend, without the smallest confirma- could find no songs, addressed to his
tion from authentic history. Sir J. ancestors, of earlier date than the
Wynne adds that Edward's example reign of Henry V.

337

Chapter XI.
EDWARD'S PEACE.
The Second Statcte of Westminster. Conditional Gifts. Questions
of Distraint and Commonage. Attempt to give Citizenship to
the Irish. Its Failure. Edward's Visit to the Continent.
His Return. Trial and Punishment of the Judges. Expulsion
op the Jews. Private War. Commission of Trail-baston,
Death of Queen Eleanor.
XTTITH the subjugation of Wales the king was set
T f at liberty to resume the work of legislation.
The second Statute of Westminster (March, 1285) was
probably the work of a great council in which only the
lords spiritual and temporal, and a few judges or other
officials, sate. Its chief provisions accordingly bear the
impress of an oligarchical character, or tend to conso
lidate the organization of government. Hitherto the
practice of English law had assumed that the real
ownership of land, subject, it is true, to numerous limi
tations, was in the tenant or feoffee, rather than in the
lord. A large class of vassals had been able, at the time of
the Conquest, to transfer the service of their land from
one lord to another. It had been the object of much
previous legislation, to limit this power of alienation
from the superior. But the principle still prevailed that
where land had been granted to a man and the heirs of
his body, the donee might enfeoff others with the con-
II. z

338 CHANGES IN LAWS OF POSSESSION.
ditional grant to himself, so that either his heirs after
wards were defrauded, or, if he died without issue, the
donor was barred of his reversion. Nothing can show
more strongly the practical independence of our ancient
gentry and yeomen, than that deeds of gift so worded
should have been interpreted in such a spirit. By a
most unfortunate change it was now decreed, that the
vassal should only have a life interest in his fee, which,
if issue failed him, was to revert to the 'donor.1 To
quote a modern analogy, the feoffee was thus deprived
of a saleable tenant-right, and care was taken that the
provision should not be eluded by a fine barring the
heir in tail. In a similar spirit it was provided, that land
given to a woman for her marriage, failing heirs of her
body, should no longer go by "the law of England"
to her husband. It was in future to revert to the
original donor. But it is easier to make laws, than to
enforce them against interest and old custom. Land
was still freely aliened as before, and, when the crown
claimed the reversions due to it from its own vassals,
so much odium was excited, that, during Edward III.'s
minority, a statute2 was passed legalizing the custom
on payment of a reasonable fine. But the benefits of

1 Reeves observes, that by this sta- that where a name of dignity con
fute a fee conditional was changed cerned land it might be entailed
into a fee tail, so that a man pur- within the act, although in the case
chasing for himself and wife and before them the dignity was held to
their lawful issue, had nothing but have been forfeited by an attainder.
a freehold for their lives, and the There seems reason, however, for
fee for their issue. History of Eng- doubting the soundness of this argu-
lish Law, ii. p. 166. A curious at- ment, as the statute could hardly be
tempt was made in James the L's meant to apply to , a dignity that
reign to bring the dignity of an earl- could not be aliened. Third Repqrt
dom under this statute as a tene- on the Dignity of a Peer, pp. 40-44.
ment; and the judges are said by 2 1 Edward III. st. 2, c. 12.
Sir Edward Coke to have decided

JUDICIAL AND POLICE REGULATIONS. 339
this act were confined to those who held immediately
of the crown.
Other minor enactments of the second statute of
Westminster show the same oligarchical spirit. The
tenant replevying cattle in cases of distress was to
give security for their value. The old rule of common
law, by which no defendant might remove a suit into the
superior courts, was abrogated in favour of lords whose
tenants sued them for an illegal distress. The power
of enclosing commons, which the Parliament of Merton
had affirmed in favour of lords against their tenants,
was now extended in favour of lords against their neigh
bours. There were plausible reasons for all of these
changes. It was unjust that the tenant should elude
his lord's distress by a forced or fictitious sale. It was
fair that cases, where tenure was disclaimed, should be
tried before the justiciaries, since in such cases the local
courts were not able to inflict penalties. Obviously, too,
the lord was entitled to a higher right of enclosing com
monage against strangers, than against his own tenants.
But all these enactments testify to a changed spirit in
our courts. With the symmetry of Roman law, its
literal constructions and arbitrary tendencies were
creeping in.
The king took care for the better ordering of justice.
By the statute,' commonly called of " Nisi Prius," pro
vision was made for more regular assizes three times a
year, so that the uncertainties of former times might be
avoided. A provision that sheriffs imprisoning men for
felony, except by lawful inquest of jury, should be
liable to an action for false imprisonment, was designed
to strike at a flagrant abuse which had grown up with
the increase of royal officials. In fact, the provisions in
our laws against sheriffs and other employes were as

340 LEGISLATION FOR IRELAND.
numerous as against any class of malefactors. The
Statute of Winchester in the autumn of this year (Oc
tober 8) did for the police of the country what the Sta
tute of Westminster tried to do for its judicature. The
district was made answerable for all felonies within
its limits. The roads between market towns were to
be cleared of wood two hundred feet, or a bow-shot, on
either side, to prevent robbers lurking in them. The
towns were to maintain the frank-pledge system, by
which every man in the suburbs was made responsible
for his lodgers, and all strangers, going about at night,
might be arrested on suspicion. The regulation what
arms each man was to keep, is curious evidence of the
difference between mediaeval and modern times. Then
every man was bound to be ready for service in the hue
and cry or the army. In fact, the Statute of Westmin
ster had lately directed, that sheriffs were to call out
the county in arms, if any powerful man resisted the
king's precept. Now, the general possession of arms is
apt to be regarded as the sign of disorderly times.
The preamble to the second Statute of Westminster
contains a remarkable passage, implying that the legis
lation of England was designed also to comprehend
"the people of Ireland."1 Unhappily, the words used
are such as might apply to the English settlers only,
or to those and the privileged Irish clans, or to the
population generally, of whatever lineage. Perhaps the
second supposition is the most probable. Both John

1 Commonly, "Hibernicus" is et fidelibus suis Hibernicis" (as the
Irish in opposition to English, as in contraction Ilibn. must probably
pleadings. " A non tenetur ei inde be read), seems to prove that the
respondere eo quod est Hibernicus. word might be used so as to include
B dicit quod Anglicus est." But a the "Anglici de Terrft Hibernia?."
writ of John's to the justiciary of Patent Rolls, p. 80.

Ireland, " et omnibus aliis baronibus

ITS ENGLISH SETTLERS. 341
and Henry III. had declared, that Ireland was to have
the same laws and customs as England, and the same
forms of writ. Magna Charta was formally extended to
Ireland. Yet, in fact, to kill a mere Irishman in time
of peace was often adjudged no felony, and an Irish
man could not recover at common law against an
Englishman.1 It is true he was punishable as a felon
at English law.2 These iniquities, very different from
thetenourof Edward's legislation for Wales, are partly
explained by the imperfect conquest of Ireland, where
powerful chiefs barely acknowledged the suzerainty of
the king of England, and where the people in remoter
parts still clung to the Brehon laws. But, in the neigh
bourhood ofthe English pale, many natives were anxious
to share the benefits of a more civilized legislation, and
two petitions on the subject were addressed to Edward
from the Irishry.3 The king and council were very
willing to assent, and only desired to sell their fran
chises for a high sum of money4 and a large quota of
troops. The Irish justiciary was first entrusted with
the negotiation (1277). Three years later, Edward
directed that a parliament of the English settlers5
should be convened, to decide whether the concession
could be made without prejudice to their own interests.
It seems certain that the business miscarried through

1 Davies, Historical Tracts, pp. 6 It is noticeable that the writ is ad-
80-83. dressed generally to the archbishops,
2 " Latrones Hibernici et recepta- &c, earls, &c, knights, and all English-
tores eorum deducantur secundum men of the land of Ireland, bidding
legem Anglorum." Patent Rolls, p. them come together on certain days
80. which theyshall appoint. No direc-
3 One in 1277 (New Rymer, vol. i. tions are given for the election of
part i. p. 540), and one seemingly in representatives by the sheriffs. This
1280. Prynne's Records, iv. p. 257. looks as if an assembly of some kind
4 The Irish had offered to fine in were then sitting, or as if such con-
eight thousand marks. ventions were not unusual.

342 edward's visit to france.
some jealousy or mismanagement, and the Welsh wars
soon afterwards engrossed Edward's energy. Now that
pe'ace was restored, he ordered all the laws that had
been passed in his reign to be sent over and proclaimed
in Ireland.1 For the Irishry he did what he could by
granting numerous charters of admission to English
law, in which ultimately five whole clans were com
prised.2 Royal grace thus repaired to a certain extent
the injustice of a privileged community. The misfor
tune was, that where the favoured status was excep
tional, it generally lay with the Irishman to prove his
privilege, :and, as late as two centuries afterwards, we
find the chief of an enfranchised clan applying to Par
liament for re-enactment of his citizenship.
In the spring of 1286, Edward felt himself at liberty
to visit France (May 13). His presence there was
required to do homage to the new king, Philip IV.,
for the English possessions. But as the treaties of
Henry III, had never been thoroughly carried out,
the homage was rendered conditionally, " according
to the form of the peace that was made between our
ancestors," Philip was a very young man, and proved
ready to negotiate. He promised that Edward, as long
as he lived, should never be subject to forfeitures for any
appeals against him from his Gascon vassals. After-

1 An entry on the Close Rolls 3 Prynne mentions as many as ten
quoted by Prynne (Records,iv.p.258), to different individuals, and Sir John
records that the first and second Davies (p. 84) shows that the " Five
Statutes of Westminster, the Statute Bloods," as they were called, were
of Gloucester, and the Statute of enfranchised at least as early as the
Merchants were given at Winches- third of Edward II. They were,
ter on Wednesday, Sept. 14, to O'Neil of Ulster, O'Molaghlin of
Roger Bretun, clerk of the justi- Meath, O'Connor of Connaught,
eiary of Ireland. At that time, it O'Brien of Thomond, andM'Morogh
will be observed, the Statute of of Leinster.
Winchester had not been passed.

HE ACTS AS MEDIATOR. 343
wards, it was agreed to give up the districts in Sain-
tonge that had been withheld, and to make compensation
for the king's claims upon Querci. Satisfied on these
points, Edward still lingered on the Continent, to 'make
peace between his nephew Alfonso of Arragon and his
cousin Charles of Anjou, who disputed the throne of
Sicily. It was really a quarrel between France, not
yet consolidated, and Spain, still dismembered, for the
command of the Mediterranean, and the partisans of the
house of Anjou would have had no footing in Sicily
after the Sicilian Vespers (March 30, 1282) if the
French fleet had not kept the sea for them. Edward
had already declined to preside over a great tourna
ment, in which the fathers of the present claimants,
with a hundred knights on each side, were to do battle
for their rights. In a private letter he had explained
his reasons — a dread of the great damage that would
be wrought to Christendom if such a combat took
place,, and a feeling that he could not preside in
court over a scene of so great cruelty. He now
vindicated the sincerity of his language by staying
three years on the Continent, occupied with fruitless
negotiations between thoroughly dishonest sovereigns.
In fact, the French king was aspiring to conquer Ar
ragon for himself, as well as Sicily for his cousin.
Edward succeeded so far as to patch up a hollow peace,
and procure the liberation of Charles of Anjou, who had
been taken prisoner. But, as soon as he was set free,
he violated all terms, and, later on, conceived an invete
rate hatred for the mediator. The English nobles
murmured at their king's absence, and refused to give
a supply till they should see him back (Feb. 1288).
The king seems to have enjoyed residence abroad, or
the honourable post of umpire, and tried for a time to

344 JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
support himself by extraordinary tallages on the cities
and crown lands. At last, after more than three years'
absence, he returned (August 12, 1289),
Edward's presence was urgently demanded. Before
leaving England he had established a strong govern
ment, bu^ he had not been able to wean his subjects
from the disorderly practices which Henry's misrule
and a civil war had engendered, or to give his judges '
integrity when he made them powerful. An incident
of the previous year showed how thoroughly the very
gentry were demoralized. A number of gentlemen
resolved to plunder the great fair of Boston. They pro
claimed a mock tournament of monks against canons, as
an excuse for coming in armour; and one evening set
fire to the booths in several places. The merchants, who
hurried off with their goods, were stopped, robbed, and
perhaps murdered, while the confederates escaped in
ships which they had prepared. Robert Chamberleyn,
the head of the gang, was convicted on discovery of a
part of the spoil in his house, and was hanged, wailing
and imploring mercy of the merchants who stood round,
But he would not denounce his partners in guilt, and
they escaped punishment altogether.
Enquiry into disorders like this awakened suspicions
that the judges were false to their trust, and took bribes
to screen wealthy offenders. The king, by public pro
clamation, ordered all who were aggrieved to attend at
Westminster, and lay their complaints before the king
in parliament, (Jan. 30, 1290). A judicial committee
sate, aided by the chancellor, to examine the charges
brought, and a jury was empanelled as in ordinary
procedure. Among the first sufferers was the chief
justiciary, Thomas de Weyland, who had risen to his high
office in the state from the position of a cadet of good

JUDGES CONVICTED AND SENTENCED. 345
family, and, in the haste to become rich, had forgotten
justice and honour. The worst charge against him is
variously stated; one account saying, that he had in
stigated a murder, and another, perhaps the more pro
bable, that he gave sanctuary in his house to a servant
guilty of murder, and allowed him to escape punish
ment altogether.1 By some negligence of his gaolers,
Weyland escaped from prison, fled to St. Edmund's,
and was admitted by the Franciscans to their brother
hood. The admission was grossly uncanonical, for the
justiciary was a married man, who was neither separated
from his wife, nor had made a vow of chastity. Edward
angrily reprimanded the prior, disallowed the privilege,
and starved the fugitive into a surrender. Churchmen
noted with satisfaction that Weyland suffered by a
rule he had introduced or enforced, that a fugitive
might be denied food after forty days sanctuary.2 The
justiciary resumed the dress of a layman, threw himself
on the king's mercy, and being allowed to choose be
tween judgment by his peers, prison for life, or banish
ment with confiscation of his goods, elected in favour of
the third alternative. His sentence was carried out
with all formality. Adam de Stratton, one of the
exchequer barons,3 was also convicted of homicides,

1 Wikes (Gale, ii. p. 119) gives 155, note 1), seems to show that,
the lighter charge, the Annals of Dun- while Bracton himself was in favour
staple (p. 355) the graver. I can of only one day's sanctuary, others
hardly imagine that a judge guilty allowed a term of forty days, and
of suborning murder would have strong churchmen would have per-
been allowed to escape with his life. mitted perpetual residence. Wey-
It is noteworthy that Wikes speaks land apparently deserves the credit of
of him as a knight ; the Annals of having reduced this intolerable abuse
Dunstaple, as having been sub- within limits.
deacon. 3 As this title is given him by the
2 The passage of Bracton (f. 136), Annals of Dunstaple (p. 357), and
to which I have alluded above (p. by the Chronicles of Rishanger (p.

346

GENERAL JUDICIAL DEPRAVITY.

witchcrafts, and treacheries. He had once before fined
to escape punishment for adulterating the coin, an
offence for which, as weigher of the exchequer, he must
have had special facilities. The injudicious lenity of
his first sentence was now compensated by total dis
herison, and the king derived more than 30,000 marks in
money alone from the escheated property.1 Ten other
judges, or high officials, were permitted to compound
by fines, more or less onerous, for offences varying from
actual corruption to mere irregularities in the admin
istration of justice. Ralf de Hengham, chief justice of
the King's Bench, was punished, it is said, for no heavier
offence than reducing a fine by rasure on the roll in
favour of a poor man. He was afterwards restored to

420), I venture to retain it in spite
of Mr. Foss's doubts. Judges of
England, iii. p. 161.
1 Mr. Foss (1. c.) thinks that the
fine was only 500 marks ; if so, Ed
ward would be quite purged of fining
for love of gain rather than of justice.
But his authority is a petition from
Walter de Stratton, showing that his
uncle had made composition for 500
marks, and praying that certain
manors, seized into the king's hand,
may be restored. Rot. Pari., ii. p.
42. This, I think, is not positive
presumption that Adam de Stratton's
personalty, once confiscated, was
restored to him. Wikes and the
Annals of Dunstaple both speak of
it as confiscated; he is entered in
official returns as late as 1305 as dis
inherited for felony (Calend. Geneal.,
p. 693), and the petition itself says,
that his friends fined to get him out
of prison and exempted from further
prosecutions. His petition a year
before, that he might receive back
his personalty,whichhehimself values

at £26,000, had been peremptorily
refused. Rot. Pari., i. p. 57. The
real gist of Walter de Stratton's
petition seems to be, that, after his
uncle was allowed to fine, that part
of his manors, which was not derived
from the crown, ought to have been
restored to him. There is no doubt
a difficulty about the expressions, that
Adam de Stratton is to quit the king
of all moneys seized before his im
prisonment, and is to receive back
all those seized on occasion of his
imprisonment. But, perhaps, the
best explanation is, that he was to
get back the rents of the manors
given him by his patroness, the
countess of Albemarle, which are
those demanded by his nephew.
Again, if Adam de Stratton was to
receive back more than 30,000 marks,
why do his friends bind themselves
to pay 500 marks for him within two
years? Surely the presumption is
that the sums coming to him were
very small.

EXPULSION OF THE JEWS. 347
office and placed at the head of the Common Pleas. Only
two judges in all are said to have come scatheless out
of the inquiry ; and, as it extended to forest justiciaries,
sheriffs, and crown officials of every kind, the disorders
discovered among all classes attested a general depra
vation. The fines that flowed into the exchequer were
so abundant a source of revenue, that Edward has been
suspected, in later times, of promoting the inquiry as a
source of profit. Such a policy would have been suicidal
and absurd. No one was more interested than the kiner
in supporting the judges and officials who collected his
taxes and rents, and whose plunder was rather from the
people than from the crown. Solomon of Rochester,
one of the judges whom he never pardoned, had served
hi the " Quo warranto " commission, and, as the object of
special odium, was entitled to special support. Richard
de Byland added to this claim, that he had been com
missioner of the government during the king's absence.
A weak sovereign would have supported authority, and
even a well-intentioned prince might have shrunk from
the terrible scandal of passing judgment on the men he
had most trusted. It would have been easy to replace
them gradually and noiselessly. The king preferred to
make no compromise with corruption.
There were other sufferers that year in England be
sides the officers of the crown. The Jews were still
numerous enough in the towns and villages to excite
jealousy, and it was said that, in defiance of law, they
still plied their old trade of usury. As they were a
branch of crown revenue, it lay with the king to decide
their fate, and Edward on this point had the feelings of
a crusader. A royal proclamation (June 24 to July 8)
gave them the choice, of quitting the kingdom within
four months, or becoming Christians ; death would be

348 illtTreatment of jewish exiles.
the penalty of delay or contumacy. With a certain
righteousness of purpose, which never forsook him even
where he was most wrong, the king allowed the exiles
to carry away all their property,1 and issued orders for
expediting their passage across the channel. The poor
were to be taken at moderate fares, and the sheriffs were
to see that no one was plundered. But the people
murmured at the extravagant grace which allowed so
much crown treasure, as the Jews' property was con
sidered, to pass from the kingdom. One man left his
passengers, who were wealthy merchants, upon a sand
bank, and told them to call on their prophet Moses, who
had brought their fathers out of the Red Sea. It is
said that this miscreant boasted of his villainy at court,
and was roughly undeceived, by being put on trial and
hanged with his accomplices.2 Similar justice overtook
others who robbed their passengers at sea and threw
them overboard. Some of the exiles, it is said, were
wrecked by "God's providence" on the French coast,
and died miserably. The wretched survivors of more
than 16,000 fugitives for conscience sake were allowed
by Philip IV. to settle at Amiens. The concession
drew down a sharp reprimand from the pope. There is
no trace of pity for the victims in any contemporary
chronicle ; the king was held to have used sound
counsel, in expelling the enemies of Christ from England,
as he had before done from Aquitaine. Only when he

1 Debts that they could not re- The wish was father to the thought
cover went to the crown. Coke's in this instance. Wikes (Gale, ii. p.
Institutes, p. 508. This would be 122) and the Annals of Dunstaple
in their favour, as most men would (p. 362), agree that the criminals
sooner compound with the Jews than guilty of these practices were hanged,
pay in full to the exchequer. and Sir E. Coke quotes a MS. record
2 Hemingburgh (ii. p. 22) says, of the Justices Itinerant in Kent to
" he obtained favour and reward." the same effect.

EARLS OF GLOUCESTER AND HEREFORD. 349
demanded and obtained the grant of a fifteenth through
out the kingdom, as compensation for the loss his re
venues had sustained, a portion ofhis clergy complained
bitterly, that catholics should be punished in place of
the enemies of the cross of Christ. He would certainly
have been more popular, if he had left the Jews nothing
but their clothes and lives.
Neither legislation nor police, nor the presence of
Edward himself in England, could impose absolute quiet
on an unruly land. In 1292 a complaint came before
the king in Parliament, that his son-in-law, the earl of
Gloucester, had levied open Avar in the district of Breck
nock against the earl of Hereford, who had married
Maud de Fienles a kinswoman of the queen. Both par
ties were more or less guilty, and it is evident that they
presumed on their high connections and on the sup
posed usage of private war in the marches. It aggra
vated their offence, that they had been ordered in Par
liament two years before to refrain from all hostilities ;
and the earl' of Gloucester particularly incensed the
king, by objecting to the summary process of a writ
calling him to account before an inquest had been held.
The excuse of border privileges for disorder was sum
marily quashed; both earls were imprisoned, and their
lands were declared forfeit for life It is probable that so
strong a sentence against the two first subjects in the
realm could not have been carried out safely, and was
only intended as an assertion of royal authority. Before
long the two earls were allowed to fine, Gloucester in
ten thousand marks, and Hereford in one thousand, and
were then restored to their honours and estates.1 But

1 Rot. Pari., i. pp. 18-77. Dugdale the fine was one thousand marks
says, but I think erroneously, that apiece. Baronage, i. p. 215.

350 lawless bands repressed.
the example of condign punishment in the highest place
was soon forgotten by a generation, which was partly
demoralized by frequent wars, and partly by an intricate
legality. If an earl of Gloucester or Arundel1 was pre
cluded from private war, he, and meaner men, would find
other means of carrying on an armed quarrel. Towards
the end of Edward's reign, the country was infested
with numerous bands of swash-bucklers, or "trail-
batons," as they were called, who were protected by
the county gentry in consideration of their services in
making forcible entries or avenging private feuds, while
they maintained themselves by every species of plun
der.2 From firing houses at night to picking quarrels
in the streets, and demanding damages from their victims,
nothing was too desperate or too petty for these ruffians.
Edward and his Parliament applied a sharp remedy in
the form of special commissions, that traversed the
country, inquiring, imprisoning, fining, and even hang
ing, summarily. A rhymed chronicle and a popular
song3 give the two sides of the controversy. The
former represents the "well-meaning men" who had

1 In 29 Edward I. a precept was against them, pledge and deposit the
issued from the king to the earl of lands and tenements they have
Arundel, directing him to forbear usurped in the hands of great lords,
making private war upon Fulk Fitz- &c. . . . concerning those who covet
Warine, in Shropshire, under pe- the lands of their poor neighbours. . .
nalty of forfeiting all that he holds concerning those who in market-
in chief of the king. Dugdale, Ba- towns or in any other county town
ronage, i. p. 315. run up against the townsmen and
2 See the articles of inquest in shoulder them to make a quarrel, and
Hemingburgh, ii. pp. 237-240, " con- then wish to threaten those whom they
cerning those who forcibly and have assailed or injured in life and
wrongfully against the peace of our limb till they make agreement or
lord the king have entered into fine with them at their pleasure, in
other men's lands, and when they money, or chattels, or wine, &c."
cannot maintain their wrong and 3 Wright's Political Songs, pp.
force against those who are by law 231-236, 319-321.

DEATH OF QUEEN ELEANOR. 351
been forced to pay black-mail to the plunderers, and
who would not dare to live in their houses " if pun
ishment were not made of ribalds and brigands." The
other is the complaint of an old soldier who has served
the king in Flanders, Scotland, and Gascony. So
sharp is the law now that he dares not cuff his lad
for fear of a summons. If the judges continue as they
began, many will take to the green-wood for fear,
and " he will become a robber who never was one be
fore." If a man know more law than his neighbours,
he is taxed with conspiracy. The ballad is the in
dignant utterance of a peaceable man, who was "never
willingly a homicide," though he would like to teach
two of the judges the game of " trail-baston," and
" break their back-bones," and " cut out their tongues."
The spirit of the whole poem gives ample evidence that,
even if the commission was a little rigorous, it had to
deal with actual and crying abuses.
Among the great misfortunes of Edward's life, we
must place the loss of his queen, Eleanor, who had fol
lowed his fortunes with unvarying devotion, and had
contributed largely to win the hearts of his people. It
was her singular merit for those times, that she made
herself one of the nation among whom her fortunes were
cast, fostering no aliens at court, lending herself to all
complaints of wrong-doing or misery,1 and administer
ing the ample manors with which her husband had en
dowed her, so that no man was oppressed by her officers.
The praise of being slow to shed blood, which Edward
may claim above all kings during the first part of his

1 " If the least complaint of op- Gesta Abbatum Mon. S. Alb., pp.
pression came anyhow to her ears." 411-413,of the townspeople besetting
Chronica Rishanger, p. 121. Com- her on a visit to complain of the op-
pare an interesting account in the pressions of the abbey.

352 QUEEN ELEANOR'S OBSEQUIES.
reign, leaves him gradually from that time forward, as
if a restraining influence had been removed which perpe
tually appealed from the king's anger to his generosity.
Eleanor's disease seems to have been in the nature of a
decline. The body was brought by slow stages from
Hardley, in Lincolnshire, where she died (Nov. 28,1290),
to the burial-place of kings in Westminster, and a stately
cross at every town where it halted attested her husband's
remembrance of his irreparable loss. "We loved her
tenderly in her life-time ; we do not cease to love her
in death," said the king, when he asked the abbot of
Clugny to' intercede with prayers and works of charity
for the departed lady's soul. But the strong man's
unutterable grief found no response in any kindly sym
pathies ofthe first churchman of the realm. The pri
mate was then occupied in a degrading squabble with
the abbot of Westminster, whom he had excommuni
cated, and the funeral obsequies of the dead had to be
celebrated by the bishop of Lincoln.1
1 Wikes, Gale, ii. p. 121.

353

Chapter XII.
THE SCOTCH SUCCESSION.
Question of Scotch Homage. Policy of Saxon and Earlt Norman
Kings. Later Relations of the Two Kingdoms. Different
Kinds op Vassalage. Recognized Rights of Scotch Royalty and
Uncertain Claims op the English Crown. Interregnum in Scot
land. Treaty op Brigham. Death op the Fair Maid op Norway.
Disputed Succession. Edward's Interference. Conference at
Norham. Recognition of Edward's Suzerainty. Progress op
the Pleadings and Decision in Favour of Balliol. Balliol's
Homage. New Relation of the Two Crowns and Annulment op
the Treaty op Brigham. King John cited to the English
Court.
THE pageant of Edward's coronation had been
troubled by a refusal from the king of Scotland
to perform homage, as unreservedly as the English
lawyers desired. During the first years of his reign
Edward was too weak to assert his supremacy. But,
with the successful issue of the first campaign against
Wales, Alexander III. became alarmed for the safety of
his English fiefs, and made overtures to perform un
conditional homage.1 When, however, the peers as
sembled to witness the ceremony in parliament at West-

1 " Our dear and faithful brother, in a letter from the king to his chan-
the illustrious king of Scotland, has cellor, it may fairly be supposed
offered us his homage due to us with- that Edward understood these pro-
out any condition." New Rymer, mises to be held out by the Scotch
vol. i. part i. p. 554. As this occurs envoys.
II. A A

354 scotch homage.
minster, it appeared that all difficulties were not yet
voided. Alexander insisted on reserving his kingdom
of Scotland from the homage he tendered. A com
promise was adopted, by which the Scotch king declared
vaguely, that he became Edward's liegeman against all
nations ; while the question of English and Scotch claims
to the northern sovereignty was reserved for future dis
cussion.1 Robert Bruce, as Alexander's deputy, then
took the oath of fealty for all lands and tenements which
his master held of the English king. As these were
not recited, the whole question of Edward's sovereignty
was left absolutely in abeyance, though his dignity as
feudal superior was saved. No Scotchman disputed
that Alexander owed service to Edward for certain
English fiefs, such as Tynedale and Penrith, just as
Edward owed service to the crown of France for Guienne.
The real question at issue was, whether or not Scotland,

1 Such is the statement of an entry 321), that Alexander tendered hom-
in the English Close Rolls, which, age for his lands held of the English
however, has been called in question, crown with reservation of his king-
because there are traces of erasure dom, and that the bishop of Norwich
in it, and because the date which instantly reserved the English claim
it gives of Michaelmas is incon- to homage for the kingdom of Scot-
sistent with the real date, October land. The entry in the Close Rolls
28. The latter objection would in- says, that Alexander's homage was
validate several unsuspicious docu- received with reservation of the
ments (see p. 174, note 1, and p. 258, English claim to homage for the
note 3, for cases of dubious date). It realm of Scotland, this claim being
is highly probable that the entry was reserved for future discussion. Both
made some time after the act of therefore agree that Alexander's
homage, and by some clerk who homage was not full, that it was
copied loose or slovenly memoranda accepted as far as it went, and that
and made mistakes ; but an error in the English claims were reserved.
date is precisely one that a forger Neither party was interested in
would have been careful to avoid. pushing the matter to a quarrel.
I see myself no material difference For an excellent statement of the
between the Scotch and English controversy, leaning, however, to the
accounts, except that they are from Scotch side, see Robertson's Scot-
different sides of the same question, land under her Early Kings, ii. pp.
The Dunfermlyn Register says (No. 423-425.

POLICY OF SCOTCH KINGS. 355
as a principality, was a fief of the English crown, liable,
under certain circumstances, to be forfeited or to escheat
to its superior.
There were good reasons why English lawyers should
regard the kings of Scotland as vassals of an English
suzerain. The old condition of the lowlands, as part of
a Roman province, had been so far maintained through
Anglo-Saxon history, that a kingdom of Berenicia and,
afterwards, a province of Northumbria beyond Tyne, had
remained down to a late period incorporate with the
southern part of Britain. A series of events favoured.
the Scotch and Pictish tribes in gaining ground upon
their old invaders and conquerors. The civil wars
of the Northumbrian kings ; the havoc wrought by the
Danes ; the transference of power in England to a Saxon
line governing from Winchester, and afterwards to Nor
mans with even less hold upon the north country ; all
these causes facilitated the absorption of the Lothians into
a Scotch sovereignty. Yet it was not consummated till
the eleventh century (1018), and the conquered people
were allowed to retain their English laws.1 The policy
of Edmund, who invested Malcolm I. with Cumberland,
that a worthless province might become a serviceable
fief, was copied two centuries later by Stephen, who
invested David I. with Northumberland. The natural
ambition of the Scotch kings was to extend their limits to
the Humber, and they cared little for a vassalage which

1 Simeon of Durham, (Twysden, c. was stipulated at the time, and that
81), is the authority for the cession of Matthew Paris was right in enume-
Lothian in consequence of the battle rating this among the lands for which
of Carham ; and Wallingford, (Gale, service was due. Hist. Major, p.
ii. p. 545), for the maintenance of 829. That one party should wish to
their old laws and franchises to its in- evade, and another to extend, this
habitants. It is not impossible that obligation was natural.
homage for it to the English crown

356 RELATIONS OF ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND.
was nominal in the services rendered, while it was paid
with wealthy provinces. On the other hand, our Norman
sovereigns and the Plantagenets were more interested
in France than in their own sovereignty. They must
have known the traditions of English supremacy; of
the Scotch accepting Edward the elder as overlord;1 of
Athelstane crushing the Scotch power at Brunan-beorh ;
of Edred, Edgar, and Canute receiving acknowledgments
of suzerainty ; and of Siward, the Northumbrian
ealdorman, shattering Macbeth's power by a great battle,
to promote the interests of a prince favoured by Eng
land. But both the Conqueror and Rufus had derived
little profit from their Scotch campaigns, beyond peace
on the borders, and some vague recognitions of a higher
sovereignty attached to the English crown. Once, in
deed, William Rufus claimed, it would seem in mere
wantonness, that the Scotch king should submit to trial
by the English peers. The claim was indignantly re
fused, and William himself took no trouble to enforce
it. But he twice afterwards took advantage of civil
wars to place a candidate on the throne, who agreed to
do fealty and homage2 for the conquered kingdom.
The grievance of those times in Scotland was the influx
of Norman and Saxon settlers, and so long as these
were not favoured by their king, the people cared
little for his international position.
The capture of William the Lion, during a war of
wanton aggression against Henry 1 1., completely changed
1 " And him chose then to father whom he then served, that he should
and to lord the Scotch king and all grant him the kingdom of his father,
the Scotch people." Saxon Chroni- and he swore fealty to him," &c. Sim.
cle, A. 924. Dunelm., cc. 219, 223. Flor. Wig.,
2 1093. " Which, when Duncan, ii. pp. 32, 41. Saxon Chronicle,
son of king Malcolm, heard of, he A 1093, A 1097.
asked and obtained of king William,

WILLIAM, THE LION. 357
the relations of the two countries. Not only was the
Scotch king deprived most deservedly of his English
fiefs, but he was forced to purchase his liberty by
agreeing, for himself and his heirs, to hold the crown
of Scotland of Henry and his heirs. The prelates and
great lords of Scotland were to do fealty and homage
to the king of England. Fugitives from either country
were to be given up to the other. The treaty was no
mere paper document; for, some seven years later,
when William expelled an obnoxious bishop from his
dominions, he was summoned, at the prelate's com
plaint, to his lord's court in Normandy, and thought it
safest to comply. At the accession of Richard, the
Scotch king attended and did homage. But he had
strong claims on the new monarch, who had been his
old confederate in the disastrous war against Henry,
and Richard, needing money for his crusade, was ready
to sell his kingdom for an immediate supply. Perhaps
it was thought politic to conciliate one who woidd be
an unsafe neighbour to a regency. For the sum of
ten thousand marks William purchased a charter, an
nulling all the treaty with Henry II. , and replacing
him in the rights and duties of his brother Malcolm.
John recognized his brother's engagements by admit
ting William to homage, with reservation of his rights.
But a few years later (1210) John, stimulated by dis
affection at home, and the formal curse of the Church,
marched north with an efficient army, and constrained
the king of Scotland, then aged and infirm, to give up
his daughters, as royal wards, to be married by the
English king, and to give hostages from the chief
families of the nobility. The treaty was naturally dis
liked, and the Scotch sided with the barons in the civil
war, and were held accordingly to heavy ransom by

358 INTIMACY OF ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND.
Pandulph. But it was renewed in the next reign under
mediation of the papal legate, and its consequences
were on the whole good.' Fostered by intermarriages,
the relations of the English and Scotch courts became
increasingly intimate ; and though a question of the
extent of homage was raised in 1252, when Alexander
III. was married to the princess Margaret, the Scotch
king, who was a mere boy, prudently evaded an awk
ward discussion, by observing, in words that were no
doubt put into his mouth, that he had come for a bride
and not for a conference. The increasing number of
English nobles Avho held lands in both countries, and
the strong repugnance of all soldiers to serve under
a general of such signal incompetence as Henry IIL,
contributed to the preservation of peace during that
sovereign's reign, and Scotch troops even fought in the
royal army at Lewes, though their king, in sending
them, obtained an acknowledgment that they were
granted not of right, but of special favour.2
Reviewing all these transactions, it is .evident that
the precise nature of the relations of Scotch to English
royalty, except in the case of kings imposed by Rufus,
had never been formally settled till William the Lion's
captivity, and became indeterminate again after Richard's
annulment of the charter of submission. In fact, the
relations of lord and vassal admitted of infinite variety,
according to the dignity of the contracting parties. An
earl palatine, for instance, as of Chester, was said to

1 Palgrave's Documents and Re- enemies. The prelates and nobles
cords, i. p. 74. New Rymer, vol. i. of Scotland are to promote the exe-
part i. p. 157. In this treaty Henry cution of this covenant.
is called Alexander's " dearest and 2 New Rymer, vol. i. part ii.
liege lord," and Alexander promises p. 907.
not to make alliance with Henry's

DIFFERENT KINDS OF VASSALAGE.

359

have royal power in everything saving the suzerainty
of the lord king as prince,1 and such a noble might
bring to justice, or pardon, without infringement on the
regalia. A sovereign prince undoubtedly stood in a
still higher position, even though he were under a
suzerain. He might use the royal style, without
mention of his suzerain, as Edward actually did in
Gascony.2 He might conquer territory for himself,
provided he did not Wage war directly or indirectly
against his lord.3 In the case of the king of Scotland, he
had a right never contested, though Henry II. obtained
its temporary surrender, to harbour felons and exiles
from the realm of England.4 He was not summoned
to the king's council, or bound to do service in the king's
campaigns, or, except for his English fiefs, a contri
butory to the taxation of England.5 The surrender by

1 Bracton, f. 123. Ryley's Plead
ings, p. 169. It is noticeable that
the king of Scotland held Tynedale
as a regality, exercising therein all
the rights of a sovereign. Pal-
grave's Documents and Records, i.
p. 111. Had the connection with
Normandy lasted, and the strength
of England been diverted towards
the continent, Tynedale might easily
have been absorbed into Scotland.
2 His charters there ran, "reg-
nante Edwardo Rege Angliae," and
when the king of France objected,
in 1282, to this style, the English
agent showed that the counts of
Toulouse had employed the same
formula. New Rymer, vol. i. part ii.
p. 602.
3 I have noticed an apparent, but,
I think, not a real instance of the
same power in certain charters given
to lords of the Welsh marches, p. 314,
note 1. Anyhow, if it had been in
herent in their dignity, it would not

have been made matter of special
concession. 4 Thus Llewellyn ap Jorwerth
says to Henry IIL, " AVe are not of
less privilege than the king of Scot
land, who receives outlaws from
England, and with impunity." Royal
Letters, i. p. 229. Edward I., in
1279, acknowledged the existence
of this custom. New Rymer, vol. i.
part ii. p. 566.
5 Unless the two thousand marks
which William the Lion paid towards
Richard's release were assessed on
Scotland, as well as on his English
fiefs, for which they certainly seem
an inordinate contribution. Chronica
de Mailros, Gale, i. p. 179. It is
not impossible, however, that Wil
liam gave largely of his own free
will to release a king, who had acted
generously towards him, and who
loved and trusted him. Hoveden,
p. 722.

360 ENGLISH CLAIM OF SUZERAINTY.
William the Lion of his daughters as royal wards must
be ascribed to his dread of hostilities, since the right
was neither asserted, nor exercised, and was once ex
pressly disclaimed, by Edward I. In one important
particular Scotland was more fortunate than Wales, for,
after many disputes and much negotiation, it obtained
a declaration from the pope, that it had no canonical
dependence except on the see of Rome. It may seem
accordingly, that the English claim of suzerainty was
as unwarrantable in theory, as it was unsubstantial in
fact. This would probably be to assert too much. The
king of England, as an anointed king, possessed an
undoubted diplomatic superiority over the sovereign of
Scotland, and the privilege was contested at the court
of Rome, one party eager to obtain it, and the other
zealous that it should be withheld, with an earnest
ness which showed that it was not regarded as an
unreality.1 It certainly sanctioned the belief that the
premiership in Great Britain lay with the English line.
Accordingly, when an exiled Scotch noble appealed to

1 Thus, in 1251, Henry III. writes the answer both look as if the Eng-
to Innocent, requesting that the king lish claim of superiority, and the
of Scotland may not be anointed or substantial independence of Scot-
crowned, inasmuch as he is the king land, were alike notorious facts.
of England's liegeman, and has done Henry, himself a liegeman of France,
him homage. Innocent replies, could not have objected to his vas-
affirming his right, but assuring sal's anointment, if he had not re-
Henry that he shall not exercise it garded the vassalage as due for
to the prejudice of the royal dignity. Scotland. Of the anointing, Mr.
At the same time he refuses the Burton observes, that " it gave a
grant of the Scotch tenths, on the tone of respectability and solemnity
ground that it was unheard of to to the rule of those who got it, and
grant such a tax in another man's thence was much coveted." History
kingdom. Three years later, how- of Sootland, ii. p. 95. The import-
ever, this objection was overcome, ance whioh the. German electors
and Henry received the grant of a attached to the title of king, is a
twentieth. New Rymer, vol. i. part i. fair illustration of the case in
pp. 277, 303. The application and point.

RIGHTS OF SUZERAINTY. 361
Henry IIL, as suzerain, to do him justice against the
king of Scotland, he advanced a doctrine that could
not be thought unreasonable. If any umpire existed to
be appealed to in the last resort between sovereign and
subject in Scotland, the sovereign on whom the tra
ditional rights of the Roman emperors had devolved
for Britain, might fairly be accounted the supreme
arbiter. Nor was the disinherited Bisset without colour
able grounds for denouncing the reception given to
Geoffrey de Marsh, who had been implicated in a plot
against Henry's life, as a breach of the allegiance and
fealty which Alexander II. owed to the English crown.
The Scotch right to harbour fugitives from justice, could
never be worse asserted than for one who suborned
assassins ; and Alexander virtually renounced the claim,
when he agreed, at the treaty of Newcastle (1244),
that neither sovereign should abet the enemies of the
other. But the tendency of English lawyers was to
reduce the vague, shifting claims, that had grown up
confusedly in several centuries, into one compact sys
tem, in which all should be rigid and uniform. To
them in the thirteenth century there were no shades
of difference in the rights of suzerainty, though its
exercise might be limited by local franchises. Wales
disappeared from the roll of nations, not because Eng
lish lawyers denied that it was a sovereignty, or be
cause Edward I. disregarded treaties, but because the
practice of the English courts treated it as only a
county palatine, with some allowance of personal dig
nity to its lord. Our lawyers could not rise beyond
their classical text-books, to the unfamiliar conception
of a country connected with a powerful neighbour by
any tie short of vassalage, or by any vassalage short of
a French or English peer's.

362 TREATY OF BRIGHAM.
By the death of Alexander IIL, in 1286, Scotland
was left in a highly critical position. The heir, by mo
dern notions, was the king's grand-daughter, Margaret,
who was then a child in her father's kingdom of Nor
way. But the right of a woman to inherit was not yet
firmly established, and, except for the prompt action
of the Estates of Scotland, who met instantly at Scone
and appointed a regency, the sovereignty would have
been disputed by several lords who were kin to the
royal family. Robert Bruce, earl of Carrick, actually
seized the castle of Dumfries,1 and formed a league, in
which even English nobles were included, for the pur
pose of enforcing his claims by arms.2 But it was not
Edward's interest to let a vassal ascend the throne
which might, by a little management, be secured for an
English prince. He maintained a strict neutrality in
England, while Bruce was reduced to order, and nego
tiations began soon afterwards, for marrying the young
Margaret of Norway to the king's eldest son, Edward
of Carnarvon. The Scotch Estates met at Brigham, on
the borders (July, 1290), and agreed generally to the
proposition, complimenting the king on his good fame,
and the justice that he did so commonly to all; and on
the good neighbourhood and great profit which the
realm of Scotland had received from him and his ances
tors. The compliment was not undeserved. For more
than a century the relations of the two countries had
been peaceful and friendly in no common degree, and if
Edward had advanced some technical claims against the
late king, he had never tried to embarrass the regency.
But, in consenting to what was virtually an union of
the two countries, if Margaret should live and have heirs,
1 Palgrave's Documents and Records, pp. 42, 43.
2 Dugdale's Baronage, i. p. 216.

DEATH OP PRINCESS MARGARET. 363
the Estates stipulated, with great justice,xthat .Scotland
should remain free, separate, and without subjection,
divided as heretofore by its marches from the realm of
England. It was in Scotland that all homage was to
be received, all justice administered, and all state-
papers preserved. Edward's commissioners made no
difficulty, except that they declined to renounce the
right of erecting fortresses on the borders. But they in
sisted, with some peremptoriness, that the Scotch castles
should be given up to the king. This the regency re
fused, courteously but firmly, though they gave a pledge
of their good faith in accepting the bishop of Durham
as an associate in their office.1 The significance ofthe
king's request was soon seen. In September, the young
princess died on her passage from Norway to Scotland.
As soon as the tidings were received, Robert Bruce raised
an army, and his example was followed by every great
lord. Edward cannot have foreseen the fatality that cut
off the heiress of the Scotch crown in her youth ; but he
no doubt anticipated that some troubles would arise, be
fore the settlement of the succession was secured. As it
was, he received an urgent letter from the bishop of St.
Andrew's, the first churchman of Scotland, praying him
to march north with an army, that the succession might
be settled peaceably and justly. The letter is that of a
time-serving man, but it expressed a not unnatural sen
timent. The verdict of a king famed for justice, and well
practised in the law of nations, was likely to be a better
settlement than could be hoped for from a civil war.
Yet, except by a civil war, perhaps, complicated by

'Probably the earl of Warenne ing the report of Margaret's death, —
was also sent into Scotland in some " The bishop of Durham, the earl of
official capacity. The bishop of St. Warenne, and we have heard," &c.
Andrew's says, in his letter announc- New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 741.

364 DISPUTED SUCCESSION.
invasions from Norway and Holland, it seemed impossible
that the Scotch succession would be decided, if Edward
declined to act as umpire. The government was admi
nistered by a regency, of which John Comyn, himself a
candidate for the vacant throne, was a member. A court
so constituted could not be accepted as an impartial
tribunal, and a government that was suspected of par-
tizanship could hardly hope to make war successfully
against more than half the kingdom. On the other
hand, the competitors, altogether thirteen in number,
were certain to be divided amongst themselves, as soon
as they should succeed in upsetting the regency.
Already seven earls, of whom Bruce was one, had
addressed a protest to Edward, declaring that it apper
tained to the Estates of the realm to nominate the heir
in case of a vacancy, and requesting him to see that
their rights were not usurped by the executive.1 Such
an appeal, if Edward had no title to interfere, and no
interest in the kingdom, would have been treason
against the national liberties. With the death of Mar
garet the situation became more critical, and the suitors
at once more importunate and more pliant. That the
troops raised by Bruce effected nothing, and that Scot
land, though anxious and unsettled, was not distracted
by actual war, can only be ascribed to English in
fluence ; to the mediation or threats of Edward's envoys ;
and, to the general agreement that the king of England
should adjudge the contested royalty to the best quali
fied suitor. The death of Edward's queen probably
delayed his proceedings for a time, but there is reason
to suppose that the interval was well employed. Robert
1 Palgrave's Documents and Re- to place it later than Bruce's attempt
cords, pp. 14-21. The date of thi* at civil war.
protest is uncertain, but I am inclined

EDWARD AS ARBITER. 365
Bruce at least was negotiating with his English suze
rain, and offering to do homage for Scotland if the
crown were given him.1 Probably other candidates
were employing the same persuasions. Regency and
nobles all seem to have appealed to Edward as arbiter,
and they even consented to meet him in the Eng
lish marches, making, we may presume, the reserva
tion, which was certainly made three weeks later for
another conference, that this compliance should not be
held to impair the privilege lately guaranteed by treaty,
that the king's justice for Scotland was to be done in
the kingdom itself.2 The course of events afterwards
has made this alacrity to refer everything to Edward
appear base and unnatural, so that English chroniclers
are sometimes suspected of having exaggerated its ex
tent.3 But it would be more wonderful if the feeling
at the time had been different. The invitation to Ed
ward probably came, not from the Estates, who perhaps
were not even consulted, nor from the burghs, which

1 " Let the king know that when- required or requested ?) those pre-
ever he will make his demand in law, sent by his letters to meet him in this
I will obey and aid him." Palgrave's place. Among those assembled are
Documents and Records, p. 22. said to have been, besides prelates
2 "We will and grant that this their and lords, many of the commonalty
coming to treat with us on this side (populares) ofthe kingdoms of Eng-
the Tweed do not turn to their pre- land and Scotland, as well clergy
judice, nor to that of the kingdom, as laymen. At the second and
that they should come and treat fuller meeting of June 2, the bishop
with us another time on this side of Bath and Wells speaks of Edward
the aforesaid water, by occasion of as having ordered (mandavit) the
this coming, so long as the treaty Scotch bishops and lords to attend.
last." New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. The first official act towards the
755. This writ, issued May 31st, conference may, therefore, have come
was, however, not used till June 5th. from the king of England, in the
3 Edward's writs of summons are shape of writs intended to assert his
not extant. But the speech deli- claim by implication. But he would
vered by Roger de Brabazon, in the hardly have issued them without.
first meeting at Norham (May 10), having good warrant to suppose that
says, that the king " requisivit" (has they would be respected.

366 PARLIAMENT AT NORHAM.
were thoroughly national, but from a regency committed
to the English alliance, and from nobles like Bruce, Bal-
liol, and Comyn, who were Normans by descent, and
English by allegiance and interest. The invitation, once
given and accepted, it was natural that all classes
should endorse it. It was likely to ensure peace, and
those who apprehended remoter dangers would best
guard against these by attending the conference.
Edward had informed his council,1 that'he intended to
assert his suzerainty on occasion of the conference. He
summoned a full parliament from all classes of the
community to meet at Norham, in May, while fifty-
five military tenants, among whom were three claim
ants for the Scotch crown,2 were ordered to bring up
their retainers three weeks later. The king's object,
probably, was to avoid all appearance of force at first,
while he yet kept a sufficient army in reserve. Pro
ceedings were opened (May 10) by the English justiciary,
Roger de Brabazon, who read a letter from the king,
stating, that he had come as overlord to do justice to
all ; that he wished not to delay or hinder it, or to
occupy unjustly on any man; but that, to assure the
better carrying of his conclusions to effect, he desired
that his claim to direct sovereignty should be admitted.
The Scotch bishops and lords asked time (May 11) to
consider the claim advanced, and consult with their
countrymen, and a period of three weeks was granted
them. During this interval they conferred with other
influential Scotchmen, who flocked to the place of meet
ing, so that something like a formal Scotch parliament
1 Wikes, Gale, ii. p. 122. An- 54. As many as one hundred and
nales de Waverleia, p. 409. eighty-seven military tenants were
2 John de Balliol, Robert Bruce, summoned for the second Welsh war,
and William de Ros. Report on the so that fifty-five cannot be called a
Dignity of a Peer, Appendix i. p. large number.

Edward's suzerainty recognized. 367
was assembled.1 Against Edward's claims, supported
by numerous excerpts from chronicles, which the abbots
of different monasteries had contributed, and put into
shape by the best English lawyers, a legal and anti
quarian answer could not easily be prepared in three
weeks. At the end of the allotted period the Estates
returned to a conference, which was held this time (June
2) on the Scotch side of the Tweed. The nobles and
clergy then admitted, that they could not impugn the
English claim of suzerainty. The commons were less
pliant. What their precise answer was we know not,
and English lawyers regarded it as " not to the point,"2
but it probably was an appeal from law to justice, from
technicalities of feudal style to the facts of history during
the last century. The court disregarded the objection,
and proceeded by calling on Robert Bruce to say, whether
he recognized the king of England as superior or direct
lord of the Scotch realm, and was willing to ask and re
ceive justice at his hands. Robert Bruce replied in the af
firmative, and his answer was followed by all the claimants
or their attorneys. The recognition of Edward's claim
was complete, and it was followed by its natural conse
quences. The Scotch fortresses were given up to the
custody ofthe English king. An Englishman, Brian Fitz-
Alan, was added to the Scotch regency, and an English-

1 The proceedings state expressly, the treaty of Brigham, and Mr.
that the bishops, prelates, earls, Robertson thinks that their first par-
barons, gentry, and commons of the ticipation in public business of im-
whole kingdom were consulted, and, portance was in 1295. Scotland
as the commons gave in a separate under her Early Kings, ii. p. 152.
answer, it appears that the regular Edward seems to have overreached
forms of a parliament voting by himself, in his desire to obtain
estates were observed. But the right unanimous recognition.
of the Scotch burghs to be consulted 2 " Nihil efficax." Annales Regni
was as yet of doubtful validity. Scotise, p. 245.
There are no popular signatures to

368 COMMISSION AT BERWICK-ON-TWEED.
man put into commission with the Scotch chancellor.
The bishops and nobles of Scotland took the oath of fealty
to Edward as lord superior, and the king of England's
peace was proclaimed everywhere through the land. Pro
ceedings were then adjourned for a time, and Berwick-on-
Tweed was fixed, as the place in which a court of justice
should be held some two months later, to consider the
rival claims. By this choice of the commercial capital
of the country, Edward again recognized the principle
that his justice as overlord was to be done in Scotland.
During nearly a year the numerous claimants to the
Scotch crown prepared statements of their respective
titles. These were put in before a commission of
twenty-four English statesmen and lawyers, assisted by
eighty Scotchmen of rank, of whom half were nominated
by Balliol, and half by Bruce.1 The supereminent
claims of these two candidates, and the fact that they
represented conflicting principles of inheritance, were
probably the justification of the large influence given
them in the commission of inquest. In fact, some of
the pretensions advanced were so remote and fanciful,
that it seems as if they were put forward, merely in
ostentation of royal affinities, or in some vague hope
that the claims of the nearest heirs might be defeated
on technical grounds. Practically, there were three
questions at issue. Were the three descendants of
David, earl of Huntingdon, who were unquestionably
the nearest in blood, disqualified by any circumstance

1 So says the legal abstract in curious that Balliol nominated on
Rymer ; and, as it gives the names of of his rivals, William de Ros, while
those chosen by either candidate, its Bruce named William and John de
authority must be regarded as para- Soules, Nicholas de Soules being a
mount ; but the Annales Regni competitor. Perhaps this was in-
Scotite (p. 254) speak of them as tended to conciliate men who had no
elected by all the candidates. It is very formidable pretensions.

CLAIMS OF BALLIOL AND BRUCE. 369
barring their right of inheritance ? Assuming them to
be qualified, was the crown partible among them, or, if
impartible, did it descend to the great-grandson by the
eldest daughter, or to the grandson by the second?
Edward, finding his council embarrassed by the multi
plicity of pleadings, decided on trying this last issue
first, and desired the eighty Scotchmen on the com
mission of inquest to report, whether John de Balliol,
great-grandson of David, earl of Huntingdon, by his
eldest daughter, Margaret, or Robert Bruce, grandson
by the second daughter, Isabel, had the prior claim to
the inheritance. The question was first debated (Oct.
25) in the king's council, which included most of the
twenty-four English assessors.1 All easily agreed that
the laws and customs of England and Scotland, which
in all important matters were the same, were to be
followed in preference to the imperial code ; and, in
reply to a second question, the bishop of Durham, as
spokesman, answered, that, reserving whatever prero
gatives the kingdom of Scotland had, or might have
in other respects, it had no claim to be judged by any
other laws of inheritance, than those which regulated
1 I cannot understand Mr. Bur- was a more orderly assembly than
ton's statement, that " king Edward's the committee of inquest, where
own council of twenty-four were alone parties naturally ran high among the
consulted." History of Scotland, ii. Scotchmen. Still less can I admit,
p. 233. The council met on two that the eighty acted only as "ad-
days, — October 25, when forty-seven visers of the two claimants." They
members were present, and Novem- were called in the second day to give
ber 1, when fifty attended, though, two important opinions : one, that the
one seems to have pleaded ignorance. case was to be decided by Scotch
Annales Regni Scotias, pp. 254-261. law; the other, that if Scotch law
Among these, several names of asses- were insufficient, the king in council
sors are wanting, as of the bishop of might provide for the emergency.
Bath and Wells, William de Bereford Then, after severalclays, having had
and John de Lethegreyns. The ob- ample time for deliberation, they
ject of the discussion in council I were called in (Nov. 5) to accept or
take to have been, that the council reject the verdict of the council.
II. B B

370 PLEAS OF THE CANDIDATES
the succession to other dignified tenures in England
and Scotland. The claimants were then questioned,
in presence of the eighty Scotch commissioners (Nov.
1), if they acknowledged Edward's right to adjudge the
kingdom on the principles that governed the succession
to earldoms and baronies. Balliol agreed, with the re
servation that the kingdom could not be divided, while
Bruce, having different interests, recognized the un
reserved right of his suzerain. After some further
pleadings, judgment in council was unanimously given
that the nearest in one degree of blood through the
second daughter did not exclude the more remote in
one degree of blood through the eldest daughter.
From the council it was referred to the commission
of inquest. As the English assessors had already
taken part as councillors in the argument, the matter
would have been left to the Scotch for decision; but
they requested and obtained the assistance of their
usual colleagues. The minutes of council were read
out, and Bruce's chief partisan, the bishop of St. An
drew's, declared himself thoroughly convinced by the
arguments adduced. The commission gave in its una
nimous adhesion to the verdict.
The question was now simplified. The title ad
vanced by Florence, count of Holland, who descended
from a sister of William the Lion, on the double ground,
that David, earl of Huntingdon, had been attainted in
blood for waging war against his English suzerain,
and had bartered away his claim on the succession for
an estate, is more interesting to the feudal lawyer than
to the statesman. The count ultimately withdrew it. An
incidental claim by Robert Bruce, on the ground that
Alexander II. had at one time declared him heir to the
throne, seems either to have been regarded as not

FOR THE SCOTCH CROWN. .371
proven, or, as answered by Balliol's counter-plea, that
the king's right to give away an entailed estate was
barred by the birth afterwards of an heir. But the
claim of Sir John Hastings, who descended from Ada,
earl David's third daughter, was at first sight more
reasonable, and Avas urged with greater persistency.
He pleaded that, by the common law of England and
Scotland, all honours and lands held in chief of the
crown are partible among sisters, and each sister is
entitled to an equal share. If, therefore, the kingdom
of Scotland follows the law of earldoms and baronies, it
is partible among the heirs of the three daughters. He
proceeded to argue that, as_ the kings of Scotland were
neither crowned nor anointed, their kingdom had no
such dignity as the realm of England, or as kingdoms
held under the empire. Robert Bruce put in a plea to
the same effect, and urged with great force, that the
common law knew nothing of impartible tenures and
fiefs. The answer of Balliol rested mainly upon the
ground, that the object of all law was to preserve, not to
destroy; and that, if a kingdom might be indefinitely
subdivided, the very purpose of legislation would be
defeated.1 The judgment of the court was more tech
nical. It stated, without assigning reasons, that the king-

1 The general principle of Eng- Baronage, i. p. 84. Whether this
lish law being that, where several represents an earlier theory of Eng-
women inherited with equal rights, lish law, partly coinciding with the
the inheritance, so far as it was case of the earldom of Athol (quoted
partible, was to be divided among in these proceedings,) by which the
them. Bracton, f. 67. In the case eldest daughter should have the
of Robert Fitz-Parnel, earl of Lei- rights of an heir male over a dig-
oester, who died, leaving two sisters, nity, or whether it is not rather an
the lands were evenly divided, but instance of the right, still claimed by
the earldom, with the third penny, the crown, to terminate an abeyance
and the office of high steward, went in favour of one of the co-heirs, is a
with the elder sister. Dugdale's point I cannot decide.

372 VERDICT IN FAVOUR OF BALLIOL.
dom was not partible ; that the crown lands were not
partible; that earldoms in Scotland had been decided,
in the case of the earldom of Athol, not to be partible ; and
that, where there was no male issue, the eldest daughter
took the earldom, without provision for her sisters,
except of grace (Saturday, Nov. 15). Two days after
this verdict had been given (Monday, Nov. 17),Edward,
by his justiciar, pronounced judgment in favour of
John de Balliol. The verdict stated, that the kingdom
and crown lands of Scotland were not partible, but
that lands and tenements out of the realm of Scotland
must follow the laws of the country in which they were
situate. Two days later, orders were issued to give
Balliol seisin of his kingdom, its castles and all its
property, with reservation of the reliefs due to Edward.
The great seal which the regents had used was for
mally broken up, and its pieces preserved, in sign
of Edward's suzerainty, and to prevent any doubt
being thrown on such writs as the new king might
issue. King John, thus enfeoffed, did formal homage,
in the most binding words, to his suzerain, promising to
bear him faith for life and limb and earthly honour,
and to do him the services due from the realm of
Scotland (Nov. 20). The justiciary wound up the
ceremony, by charging him strictly that he should do
justice in such wise, that no complaint should be made
of him to his superior,
Edward's great object was now achieved. He had
reasserted, in the most formal and stringent manner, the
right of the English kings as overlords of Scotland,
and, if signatures could guarantee his title, he had on
parchment the vassalage of the first names of the
country. Down to this point it is difficult to con
vict him of wrong-dealing. He may have exaggerated

EDWARD RECOGNIZED AS SUZERAIN. 373
his rights, but they were not the baseless pretensions of
an unscrupulous man. During Alexander's reign he
never waived his claim to homage, and during Marga
ret's minority he took no steps to enforce it. As far
as his measures can be traced, he seems to have done
his best to save Scotland from civil war. It is doubtful
whether he was invited to adjudicate, or whether he
claimed the right as overlord, but if, as is not un
likely, the latter be the true version of the case, the pre
lates and nobles who obeyed his writs had no reason to
tax him with ungenerous conduct if he demanded a yet
more formal recognition of his suzerainty. It is quite
probable that he would have declared war if his title
had been denied. But had the Scotch Estates cared to
resist, they might have taken the field as soon as the
king, whose little army did not arrive till the matters
in dispute had been thoroughly settled, and was pro
bably rather meant for parade than for actual service.
The fact is, that the Scotch nobles were Normans, caring
little for their adopted country, and looking for honours
and pensions to the English court ; and we do not want
evidence that within three months of the submission
several of them were applying for grants out of the
crown lands.1 His title once recognized, Edward's
anxiety to do justice is very marked. His commission
of inquest was chiefly Scotch ; his former commissioner
for Scotland, the bishop of Durham, made one of the
strongest reservations of the prerogatives of the Scotch

1 There are seven briefs extant faction in some other way. Rotuli
(of August 13, 1291) giving grants Scotise, i. p. 3. Probably Edward
to the amount of one hundred or his ministers did not regard the
pounds, or one hundred marks, transaction as very creditable. Later
yearly value out of the Scotch ward- on, John Comyn received a remission
ships, &c. These were speedily can- of arrears to the extent of £1563
celled, the claimants receiving satis- 14*. 6{-rf. (p. 17.)

374 NATURE OF EDWARD'S SUZERAINTY.
crown ; and the principles and practice of English law
were overruled in the final decision which declared,
against Edward's interest, that the kingdom of Scotland
was not partible. Yet, had it been severed into
three different principalities, it is at least probable that
the earls, backed by England, could have held their
own. Nor can Edward be accused of seeking to advance
new claims. His direction to the royal justiciaries, that
his writs are to act in Scotland as well as England,
applied merely to the few months during which he was
in possession as overlord.1 One of his first acts was to
execute a formal instrument, acknowledging that the
king of England had no claim to wardship, or marriage,
or to occupation of Scotland during a minority. He or
dered all the court rolls to be given up to the new
king.2 There was only one change in the relations of
England and Scotland, but it was of unspeakable
moment. So long as the amount of homage rendered
by the Scotch kings was indeterminate, and their sub
stantive independence a palpable fact, their subjects
were slow to appeal to the possible suzerain, and the
king of England might evade unpleasant contro
versies. This fortunate condition was now changed.
Any man, who conceived that king John denied him
justice, might appeal to the king of England, and Ed-

1 They are dated July 3, 1291. fresh commission, not only to exa-
2 It is worth noting that, as early mine documents, but to carry them
as 1282, Edward had caused a great away. Rot. Scot., i. p. 3. The pre-
many documents of importance in text was, that they were for use dur-
the Scotch exchequer to be inven- ing the trial. It is not known cer-
toried. New Rymer, vol. i. part ii. tainly what became of them after-
pp. 615-617. On that occasion the wards. Probably, they were restored
English commissioners seem not to by Edward, taken away again by
have been allowed to inspect cer- Cromwell, and lost at sea during the
tain sacks of papers. Accordingly reign of Charles II. while they were
in August, 1291, Edward issued a being sent back.

balliol's difficulties. 375
ward could not, without dishonour, refuse the legal
•remedies to an aggrieved vassal.
Neither was there from the first any uncertainty as
to Edward's intentions. Only six weeks had elapsed,
since the kingdom had been adjudged to Balliol, when
a burgess of Berwick-on-Tweed appealed from the
Scotch courts to the king of England. King John
sent commissioners to the king, who was then at
Newcastle, and remonstrated against this appeal being
heard, reminding Edward of the treaty of Brigham, by
which no pleas were to be heard out of Scotland.
Edward replied in presence of a full council. He said
that the present case was one in which justice had been
withheld by his own officers appointed during the inter
regnum, and it therefore pertained to him to hear
the appeal. But, further, no promises that he had
made, and honourably observed during a time when
Scotland was masterless, could divest him of his in
defeasible right to hear appeals on matters that
concerned Scotch kingship and his own suzerainty.
This protest was afterwards repeated in king John's
presence, and he executed a formal surrender for him
self and his heirs of all claims to an independent juris
diction. He went back to Scotland loaded with his
patron's favours, and even with a fresh jewel in his
crown, with the island of Man restored to him,1 but a
disgraced and ruined man. The rights he had given up
were the very essence of sovereignty, as Edward well
knew by his own experience in Gascony. The Scotch
showed their feeling in an unmistakeable manner. The
Estates insisted on nominating to all offices of trust,
1 Edward had annexed this in princes had died out, and who dis-
1290, apparently at the request of liked the Scotch rule. New Rymer,
the inhabitants, whose native line of vol. i. part ii. p. 639.

376 BALLIOL CITED TO ENGLAND.
and the king found himself surrounded by strangers,
and not without fear for his life or liberty. Meanwhile,
other difficulties thickened upon him. Every English
man, or English subject, who could manufacture a claim
on Scotland, sent it in, relying on the king's dread of an
appeal.1 Every Scotchman, allied with the dominant
faction, looked up his dormant rights and demanded
satisfaction from the king's fears.
Before long king John received a formal citation
to appear in the English parliament, and answer a
charge of denying justice, which Macduff, son of the
earl of Fife, brought against him. By the rules which
the English court had laid down, the king of Scotland
was allowed to plead by attorney ; 2 and the intention
probably was that he should keep proctors at West
minster, such as represented England in Rome or
Avignon, who should answer for him in appeals. But,
having disregarded the first writ altogether, king John
thought it advisable to plead in person to the second,
the more so as, by other rules which the English judges
framed for the new occasion, Macduff's homage, if
judgment were given for him, would be transferred,
during the life of either king, to the king of England,
and he was also to recover damages for being unjustly
cast in the courts below. When the case came on for

1 Cases on record are those of John custom of the English court, if they
Mason, merchant of Gascony, the think it to their advantage." Riley's
abbot of Reading, and Aufrica, Pleadings, p. 152. The case here
heiress of the Isle of Man. Rotuli referred to is that of Macduff. No
Scotias, i. pp. 17-19. doubt, on a charge of treason or
2 " And it is to be known that no felony against himself, Balliol would
essoin shall be allowed the king of have to appear personally, as king
Scotland or the plaintiff in all the John of England was cited before
proceedings in this case, but let thein Philip Augustus for the murder of
have an attorney, according to the Arthur.

Edward's suzerain rights overstretched. 377
trial (October, 1293), king John and his chancellor,
who attended him, stood upon the solid political ground,
that the king could only answer by advice of his coun
cil. The English judges treated this from the legal
point of view as contumacy, gave Macduff damages for
the imprisonment for which his plaint on that day was
brought, and decreed that three of king John's castles
should be sequestered, " because it was just that an of
fender should be mulcted in what had emboldened him
to offend." Balliol's shortlived courage at once gave
way. Knowing, apparently, what sentence had been
agreed to, he came into court before it could be pro
nounced, and prayed the king, whose man he was, to
let him consult with his people, whose interests were
concerned. He would return, and plead in the first
summer parliament of the next year. This proposal
was easily accepted, and king John returned to his
barren sovereignty in the north. The charges, com
monly brought against Edward of deliberate personal
insults, cannot be sustained. Rather it is evident that
he was willing to surround his vassal with all possible
ceremonial, and treat him with all indulgence, so long as
his own suzerainty was acknowledged and absolute. He
claimed of Balliol, what the king of France and the pope
claimed of himself. But chains are not worn easily by a
high-spirited people, and a heavy responsibility rests with
him who attempts to forge, or to rivet, them anew.
From the moment Edward extended an unreal right
of overlordship to comprehend his permanent rights as
a supreme judge, he overstepped the boundaries of
tradition, and translated a harmless diplomatic fiction,
into an oppressive reality, of feudal allegiance. The
instincts of the ruler and the lawyer were stronger
than political foresight and conscience.

378

Chapter XIII.
WAR WITH FRANCE AND SCOTLAND.
Jealousy of England and France. Battle of St. Mahe. Negotia
tions and Treacherous Seizure op Gascony. Preparations for
War in England. First Campaign in Gascony. Turterville's
Conspiracy and Fate. Rupture with Scotland. Storm op
Berwick. Conquest op Scotland. Taxation of the Clergy
enforced. Opposition to Illegal Taxation. Campaign in
Flanders, and Truce with France. Edward's Concessions to
the Constitutional Party. War op Independence in Scotland.
Sir William Wallace. Battle op Stirling. Ravage op North
umberland. Battle of Falkirk, and its Immediate Results.
WHILE Edward was occupied in consolidating
his new suzerainty over Scotland, he found him
self unexpectedly embroiled with France. During- the
reigns of John and Henry IIL, we had become a by
word among nations for our disastrous and shameful
defeats abroad. Beaten out of every province that the
French seriously essayed to conquer, and dishonoured,
as well as defeated in every great encounter, we were
currently taunted in brawls as " English cowards." x
For a time men chafed in silence under a reproach,

1 "Anglicani caudati,", or turn- the long- tailed men of Kent is de
tails, the nearest rendering mediaaval rived from a classical translation of
Latin would afford of" coward," from "caudati." Paris. Hist. Major, pp.
"queue." I suspect the legend of 785,790. Opus Chronicorum, p. 51.

JEALOUSY OF ENGLAND AND FRANCE. 379
which it seemed impossible to retrieve. But, in the
civil wars, Englishmen learned a discipline and a self-
confidence, which told signally on the success of Ed
ward's Welsh campaigns. Llewellyn was not, as the
event showed, a very formidable antagonist; but he
and his ancestors had held England at bay for many
years past, and it was an augury of new times, when
the old enemy was subdued in a campaign where only
the Gascon allies had so much as sustained a check.
As the prestige of England increased, the dormant
jealousy of the French revived, and it was heightened
along the coast by commercial rivalry. Accident pre
cipitated a political crisis. In 1292 an English and
Norman sailor quarrelled which should be first to water
at a well. The Frenchman was killed in the scuffle,
and his mates pursued the homicide, and, by one
account, took vengeance on him. But, from that time,
there was almost open war between the Normans and
the king of England's subjects ; and the Normans,
sailing together in large numbers, and with ships
equipped for war, plundered and slew mercilessly on
the high seas. At one time, when the English mari
ners believed that peace had been restored, seventy of
their ships were intercepted and taken by a fleet of
three hundred sail off Brittany. The loss on this
occasion was estimated at twenty thousand pounds.
Sometimes the prisoners were hanged, with dogs at
their sides, to their own mastheads; sometimes they
were flayed alive. Edward negotiated at Paris to obtain
redress for his subjects, but in vain. It was believed
that Charles of Anjou gave secret assurances of support
to the Norman sailors, and even erected gallows along
the coast. It is certain that it was Edward's interest
to avoid all complications. He refused a letter of

380 BATTLE OF ST. MAKE.
marque to an injured subject,1 and made no prepara
tions of men or money to enforce his diplomacy.
Thus, abandoned by their king, the men of the Cinque
Ports resolved to act for themselves. With Dutch, Irish,
and three Gascon merchantmen for allies, they sailed
out from Portsmouth (April 24, 1293), and were off
St. Mahe in Brittany when the French fleet, reinforced
by Flemings and Genoese, came in sight. Though each
party afterwards declared that it had been attacked
without cause, it appears that the scene of battle had
been chosen beforehand, and was marked by a great
flag hoisted from a ship.2 The English had only some
sixty ships against about two hundred of the enemy,
who came on cleared for action, and with red streamers
flying from their masts in token that no quarter would
be given.3 But English seamanship, favoured perhaps
by a sharp hailstorm in a rough sea, triumphed over all
odds, and eight thousand French4 perished in the en
gagement, while one hundred and eighty ships were
taken into port by the conquerors. Yarmouth alone
got thirty ships as its portion of the spoil. A share was
offered the king, but Edward angrily refused to accept
it,5 and threatened to try the offenders by a royal com
mission. They answered by a spirited remonstrance,
pleading that they had not begun the quarrel, that they
had fought only as people who could not otherwise
escape death, and that they were not bound to make
restitution of spoil taken from men who had hoisted the
1 Champollion-Figeac, Lettres de 326), that they had been making
Rois, i. p. 368. prizes and were laden with wine.
2 Hemingburgh, ii. p. 42. 4 Chron. de Mels&, ii. p. 257. The
3 The barons of the Cinque Ports Opus Chronicorum (p. 52) says
say, that the French ships had only 15,000.
half ladings, in order that they might 5 Matt. West., p. 419.
fight the better. Trivet says (p.

REMONSTRANCE OF KING PHILIP. 381
red flag. Wherefore they prayed the king that wrong
might not be done them, as they were ready to give and
receive right in his court, by just judgment of their
peers, and according to the laws of the sea. " And,
dear lord, your barons ofthe Cinque Ports, and all others
of the marinage, are sworn to you against all who can
live or die ; and if you please remember that you are
bound to your people to keep the lawful rights, and the
customs, and franchises which your ancestors, kings of
England, have given, and yourself granted and con
firmed. And be the king's council well advised, that, if
wrong or grievance be done them in any other fashion
against right, they will sooner forsake wives, children,
and all they have, and go to seek through the seas where
they shall think to make their profit."1
These bold words were followed up by suitable acts.
The English sailors swept the seas, fighting, it is said,
and winning one more great battle,2 but certainly taking,
destroying, and slaying wherever they went. The
Normans were thoroughly cowed and dared not venture
out. King Philip sent a dignified, and not unfriendly,
remonstrance, demanding that restitution should be
made, as he would himself have made it if required, and
complaining that hostilities were continued. Edward
answered that he had taken order to stop piracies, and
that the English courts were open to those who sought
redress. He was willing to make restitution, provided
the claims on either side were adjusted by arbiters,
or he would discuss the matter in a private conference.
Meanwhile he sent down the threatened commission,
1 Champollion-Figeac, Lettres de speaks of the same battle, in which
Rois, i. pp. 392-398. the Opus Chronicorum (p; 53) says,
2, 1 suspect the Continuator of that the English took and destroyed
Florence of Worcester (ii. p. 268) thirty ships of war.

382 EDWARD CITED TO THE FRENCH COURT.
which commenced vigorous enquiries.. But the feeling
in England would not allow of any extreme concessions,
and the feeling in France was daily growing in intensity.
The next step was that Edward, as a vassal of Philip,
received a citation to appear in the French court and
answer for the wrongs done to his suzerain. By an
irony of fortune, the citation came at the very period
when Edward was citing the king of Scotland to his
court. He could not dispute the French king's claim,
but he would leave nothing untried to avoid the humilia
tion of appearing in person. His brother, the earl of
Cornwall, who had married the French queen's mother,
was sent over to negotiate. It was arranged that French
honour should be saved by a formal cession of Gascony,
which Philip should give back after forty days' occu
pation. The alliance of the two crowns was then to
be strengthened by Edward's marriage to the French
king's sister Margaret ; and the duchy, settled upon
her issue, would pass at Edward's death from the
English crown. No scheme could have been wiser or
more favourable to the interests of both countries.
Philip defeated it by a gross act of treachery. Having
obtained possession of the English fortresses, he refused
to make the covenanted restitution. It is possible he
was irritated at the strong feeling displayed in Guienne,
where Normans, and even French officials, were mur
dered on publication of the writ addressed to Edward.1
It is said that the princess Margaret was indisposed to re
ceive the addresses ofher elderly lover.2 But the perfidy

1 New Rymer, vol. i. part ii. p. the proposed marriage being within
800. the prohibited degrees. It would
2 The Continuator of Florence of be curious to know if he had any
Worcester (p. 269) speaks of Edward other than political reasons for the
as infatuated by an unlawful love, match.

TREACHEROUS SEIZURE OF GASCONY. 383
was the more flagrant, that the English province was
excellently prepared for war by its seneschal, John St.
John. Of course all negotiations were at an end ; and
the earl of Cornwall left Paris, following the numerous
English students who had taken flight earlier.1 Com
mercial intercourse between the two countries was sus
pended, and the want of French corn and manufactures
was severely felt in England.2 But every other feeling
was overpowered by indignation, when the earl of Corn
wall told the English parliament (May,1294), how grossly
he had been overreached by French treachery. It was
whispered, that if the king of England had ventured
over to Amiens his person would have been seized.
Edward swore that he would fight out his quarrel, though
he had no greater following than a squire and a horse.
The peers agreed that Gascony must be recovered by
arms, and promised to support their king to the utter
most. King John, who had come to prosecute his suit,
gave three years' rental of his English estates, whether
forseeing that he should soon forfeit them, or thinking
the time favourable for a compromise on the question of
overlordship. It is not unlikely that he attempted some
such diplomacy. He is accused by an English chronicler
of having fled, as it were, suddenly from Edward's court,
and the panic may have been caused by an angry inter
view. The further hearing of the Macduff case was
adjourned to Martinmas.
Edward had been slow to begin war, but he left no
thing undone that might bring it to a prosperous issue.
He formally renounced his homage to Philip. He made

1 Matt. West., pp. 419-421. rayed cloths, woad, fruit, vegetables,
2 Matt. West., 421. Wikes, Gale, ii. herrings, bark, horses, and fire-wood.
p. 126. Among French and Flemish Liber Albus, i. pp. lxxxviii. xeiii.
imports into England were wine, xciv.

384 PREPARATIONS FOR WAR WITH FRANCE.
alliances in Flanders, Germany, and Savoy, tempting
the count of Flanders with an offer of marriage for
his daughter to prince Edward, buying the king ofthe
Romans with £100,000, and subsidizing Savoy with
£22,000. He seized all the wool in the English ports,
and forced the merchants to ransom it as a preliminary
to taxation. The goods of French merchants, and the
surplus revenues of alien monasteries, were confiscated
to the king's use. He sent writs of summons to the
nobles of Scotland, who were thus familiarized with a
new claim of suzerainty, and the one which of all others
was most burdensome. It does not appear that any
one of them complied. But in England the national
feeling seconded the king nobly. From the lay fees
the king obtained a tenth, and from the citizens a sixth
of all their personalty. The Londoners made an addi
tional grant of their own free will. The clergy were
appealed to by the king in person for an extraordinary
grant. He pointed out how liberal the other estates
had been, and how much more might reasonably be
demanded from men, who were personally exempt from
military service, and whose lands were commonly free
from its obligations. He ended by asking a grant of
half their incomes, in return for which he promised a
redress of grievances. The clergy tried to compromise
for a fifth, but their spokesman, the dean of St. Paul's,
died of terror in the royal presence, and Sir John
Havering, coming into convocation, addressed it briefly :
" Reverend sirs, the king^ demands half your revenues.
If any oppose, let him stand up, that he may be marked
as an enemy ofthe king's peace." The clergy quailed
and gave way. Their list of grievances was headed
with a request that the Mortmain Act might be abo
lished, and the king answered that he had no authority

RIGOROUS EXACTION OF TAXES. 385
to repeal a statute passed by counsel of his peers.
The king took care to exact his dues rigorously. Com
missioners were appointed in great numbers, and, from
the pigs and kitchen implements of the burgess,1 to
the very lanterns and leper-houses of the monasteries,
nothing was too small, or too holy to escape appraise
ment and assessment. The clergy repented bitterly,
that they had not refused to give anything without the
sanction of the pope. Nothing could better justify the
threat Edward afterwards carried out, of putting them
without the pale of the law.
The ill-starred rebellion in Wales hindered Edward
from accompanying his troops to Gascony, and, in spite
of a capable leader, John St. John, and a general dispo
sition in the province to welcome them, the English
failed under a worse reproach than of bad general
ship or cowardice. One of their captains, John Giffard,2

1 The returns ofthe commissioners to fall on farming stock and stock-
for Colchester in two later years of the in-trade, rather than on furniture
reign (1296 and 1301), havebeen pre- and ornaments. But the upper
served, and are probably a fair sample classes were exceptionally favoured.
of the general practice in England. Men owning less than lOd. in value
"Henry Goodyear had on the afore- escaped altogether.
said day five quarters of corn, value 2 Dr. Pauli speaks of Giffard as
of the quarter, 5s. Id., and seven " 100 years old." Gesch. v. England,
quarters of barley, value of the iv. s. 94. This is, I suspect, a trans-
quarter, 4*.; two horses and cart, lation of "miles quidam centenarius."
1 mark ; hay for them, 3*. ; four Hemingburgh, ii. p. 50: The "cente-
pigs, 5s.; silver cup, 5*.; one bed, narius," like the "centurio" (Mat.
4s.; two silver spoons, lOd. each; West., p. 423), was the captain of
brass pot, 3d. Total, £A 8s. Se- 100 men (Hemingford, ii. p. 93),
venth, 12*. Id." Rot. Pari., i. p. 228. and a person of importance. Thus
Some things were exempted from John, lord of Gommenyz, banneret,
taxation. Gentlemen were not taxed received £400 a-year under Richard
on arms, dress, jewels, or plate ; and II. for the maintenance of 100 men.
tradesmen in towns were allowed a Madox, Baronia Anglica, p. 161.
double bed, a dress, a ring, a silver The name of the offender is given
cup, &c. Bart. Cotton, p. 255. differently. Hemingburgh calls him
Evidently the taxation was meant John ; Trivet, who adds that he
II. C C

386 ILL-SUCCESS OF AN ENGLISH EXPEDITION.
capitulated for a small fortress, with liberty to with
draw his own troops, while he left his Gascon allies to
the mercy of Charles of Anjou, who hanged fifty of
them. The English marshal at Rions brought Giffard
to a court-martial, but the soldiers of Giffard's garrison,
heated with wine, came up in a body to rescue a com
mander, to whose policy they ascribed their own pre
servation. A general brawl ensued, the knights sup
porting, their superior officer, while the archers and
yeomen generally made common cause with Giffard and
his party ; and the gentlemen, outnumbered and beaten,
were compelled to take refuge in the castle, or drop
down the river to neighbouring places. Before order
had been restored, the French army appeared before the
place, and easily captured it, making several prisoners of
importance. Giffard was accused of calling the French
in, and for a time dared not show himself in England.
Besides Bayonne, where the people had risen in arms
for them, the English now only retained St. Sever,
which they captured the same day that they lost Rions.
Even this was forced to capitulate after a gallant de
fence, St. John not daring to raise the siege by a battle.
But so many of the French had died of disease, that the
garrison was allowed to march out, and the French

stayed many years in France, speaks Giffard ofBrimsfield, a veteran soldier
of him as Walter. No Walter Gif- of doubtful morality, a man of posi-
fard can be traced living at this tion, and who served during this cam -
time, though three had died during paign in Gascony (Dugdale's Baron-
the reign. There were three John age, i. p. 500), is the most likely hero
Giffards — John Giffard of Brimsfield, of this adventure. But, if it were he,
in Gloucestershire, who was not he must have made his peace quickly,
more than 62 years old ; John Gif- as he received a summons to Parlia-
fard, his son, a boy of 9 ; and another • ment for Martinmas of the same
John Giffard, aged about 23 (Dug- year. Report on the Dignity of a
dale's Baronage, i. p, 424. Calend. Peer, Appendix i. p. 71.
Geneal., pp. 25, 244,281, 572, 625).

king Philip's designs upon England. 387
army soon evacuated the province. Not long afterwards
the English recovered St. Sever, but were too weak
to carry on systematic hostilities.
The king of France meditated grander schemes than
the mere recovery of a province. Edward was by this time
the best served, the most respected, and the most hated
of kings. Among the pleas then before his court was one
in which John Fitz-Thomas, a man of position in Ireland,
accused William de Vesci, the chief justice of Ireland, of
having invited him to join a conspiracy, and of defaming
the king with a charge of cowardice. De Vesci was
charged with saying, that Edward had wished to order
a retreat before the battle of Evesham, and had been
forced into giving battle by Sir Roger de Clifford, who
ordered banners to advance and pricked forward. The
story is almost certainly a wanton lie, but Fitz-Thomas
no doubt adopted a current slander,1 and political feeling
must have been bitter indeed for the Paladin of his age
to be charged with cowardice. Philip seems to have
known of this feeling. ^Wanting an agent to treat with
the Welsh and Irish, he selected one of his captives,
a Sir Thomas Turberville from Herefordshire,2 and
bribed him with a promise of the principality of Wales

1 Holinshed, who gives j, graphic ceedings in the king's court, it seems
but inaccurate account of the quar- that Edward desired to hush the
rei (Chronicles of Ireland, p. 63), matter up. Twice was a day for
represents Fitz-Thomas as earl of trial by duel appointed, but on each
Kildare, a title nowhere given him in occasion one of the combatants had
the pleadings, and says that De Vesci not been properly summoned, and
called him to account for making the court adjourned the trial indefi-
privatewar. Fitz-Thomas retaliated nitely. Rot. Pari., i. pp. 127-132.
by taunting De Vesci with his birth, De Vesci was employed elsewhere
(he was a bastard), and saying, that as (Foss's Judges of England, p. 168),
he had married the heiress to the and Fitz-Thomas returned to his old
lands of Kildare, he wished to beg practices without fear of interrup-
the forfeiture of the title, and make tion.
his son a gentleman. From the pro- 2 Rot. Pari,, i. p. 25.

388 FRENCH AND SCOTCH ALLIANCE.
to become an agent of the French designs upon Eng
land. Turberville's sons were kept as hostages for
the execution of his promises, while he himself was re
leased and allowed a passage to England. At the same
time, a treaty, offensive and defensive, was made with
Scotland. Irritated by Edward's incessant claims of suze
rainty, the Scotch nobles had come to see that their king's
cause was their own, and that, where the sovereign was
forced to plead, the vassal would be called upon to
serve. Distrusting, with reason, their king's weakness,
they elected a council of twelve to administer the govern
ment under him, associated the great towns in their
designs, and expelled every Englishman from civil em
ploy. But it was difficult to obtain unity of action.
The French fleet, more than three hundred strong, was
collected in the Channel in July, when the Scotch were
still unprepared to act, the Welsh subdued, the Irish
discords pacified, and Turberville unable to obtain any
command on the South coast which he might betray.
Nevertheless, he wrote to them, announcing intrigues
with Morgan, and charging them to make no truce.
They sailed along the coast in overpowering force, and
landed a force of fifteen thousand men at Dover (Aug.
1, 1295). At first all was panic in the town, but while
the invaders were occupied with sacking houses, the
citizens united with the forces detached to guard the
coast, and made a vigorous onslaught, which ended in
the total defeat of the French. More than five thou
sand of their men perished. The French had wasted on
a petty foray a force that, in their estimation, might have
occupied all England ; and the . insult was soon reta
liated on their own shores by the men of Yarmouth,
who burned and sacked Cherbourg. The wretched
traitor who had invited the enemy was denounced by

EDWARD AT FEUD WITH SCOTLAND. 389
his secretary, captured on his road to Wales, and
brought to trial (Sept. 28). He tried to obtain respite
or pardon, by an offer to betray his confederates, if he
might have speech ofthe king; but Edward refused to
listen to his vile confidences, and sternly ordered that
justice should take its course.1 Escorted through the
streets in a mock procession, and treated with every
circumstance of dishonour,2 he was sentenced to be
dragged to the gallows and hanged in chains. Nothing
is known that can extenuate the exceptional infamy of
his conduct.
During the autumn and winter negotiations for peace,
and preparations for war, went on side by side. English
chroniclers claim, probably with justice, that Edward
was willing to accept honourable terms, while Philip's
pretensions were so extravagant, that the papal legates,
who acted as mediators, did not dare to report them in
England. In fact, Edward had everything to gain by
peace, and Philip very little to lose by war. In the
desultory campaign of small sieges and raids that went
on under the earl of Cornwall in Gascony,-the advantage
seems, on the whole, to have rested with the English.
But Edward reserved his real strength for Scotland.
He knew, soon after it was made, of the secret treaty with
France, and seems to have received a peremptory refusal
to a second series of writs of summons, demanding military
aid from the Scotch lords.3 Moreover the Scotch lodged
an appeal with the pope, whose predecessor, Nicholas IV.,
had refused to sanctionEdward's claim of suzerainty,4 and
1 Brunne's Langtoft, p. 269. extract a confession.
2 The statement in Cotton (p. 306) 3 Trivet, p. 339. Hemingburgh,
that he rode to Westminster between ii. p. 90.
"his tormentors dressed like devils," 4 Raynaldi Contin. Baronii. ii. a.
is a little ambiguous, but perhaps 1292, p. 13.
implies that he had been tortured to

390 PREPARATIONS FOR WAR WITH SCOTLAND.
Celestine V. absolved Balliol from his oaths of homage
and fealty. The situation was critical, and Edward was
disposed to temporize, perhaps even to give way. He
offered to remit his other claims, if the three frontier
fortresses of Berwick, Roxburgh, and Jedburgh were
put in his hands ; and, if the Scotch would close then-
ports to French shipping. The terms were not ex
travagant, but public feeling in Scotland would not now
endure them. At Berwick, where the rivalry of the
two nations was kindled by neighbourhood and conflict
ing interests, there was a riot, in which all the English
merchants were killed or driven out of the town.
Throughout the kingdom preparations were made for
war, and the estates of all who refused to render services
were confiscated.1 Edward now summoned Balliol to
attend a parliament at Newcastle-on-Tyne, in March of
the next year, and adjourned the further hearing of the
Macduff case till then. Meanwhile, he ordered troops
from England, Wales, and Ireland, to assemble at the
same rendezvous. The Scotch nobles were not idle;
within little more than a week Edward learned, that
one thousand men, whom he had sent to reinforce Wick,
had been surprised, and massacred or taken, by the
perfidy of its late castellan, Robert de Ros, and that
Carlisle was invested by a powerful force (March 26). 2
The king, with characteristic scrupulosity, thanked
Heaven that his enemies had been the first to shed
blood, and seems never to have understood, that his own
exasperating legality had kindled the spirit of resistance

1 Among these were the lands of of Scotland, had died April 1, 1295.
Robert Bruce the Fifth, of Annandale, 2 Robert Bruce, the Fifth, was at
whose father, Robert Bruce the this time governor of Carlisle. Duo--"
Fourth, the competitor for the crown dale's Baronage, i. p. 450.

SIEGE AND CAPTURE OF BERWICK. 391
in a weak sovereign and a half-hearted nobility. As
he advanced along the east coast the Scotch fell back,
and he reached Berwick unopposed. The townsmen,
ignorant of war, trusted in their numbers and strong
castle, and defied Edward from the battlements.1 The
king commenced the siege by regular approaches ; but
his ships, mistaking a signal, sailed into the harbour
and were roughly handled, three or four of them being
stranded and lost. A general attack was at once ordered
(March 30) ; the wooden palisades were carried with a
rush, and the king rode over the ruins into the town.
Only one Englishman of rank was slain, but the king
was determined to make an example, and he directed
that no quarter should be given. Thousands of the
wretched citizens, men and women, were cut down in
the horrible carnage that ensued.2 Thirty Flemings
who had barricaded the Red Hall, and held it gallantly
till evening, were burned alive in it. At last a procession
of priests ventured into the streets, bearing the sacred
1 It is rather difficult to reconcile the leaves in autumn," says the
¦the taunts levelled at Edward by the writer of the Annales Anglite et
Scots, who bade him "pike and dike," Scotise, p. 374, who adds, that the
evidently referring to actual siege corpses had to be thrown into the
operations, with the description of sea. " Many thousands." Annales de
the storm, when only a ditch and DunstapM. " Twenty-five thousand
stockade have to be crossed. But seven' hundred." Chron. Mon. de
the probability is, that Edward at Melsa, ii. p. 261. " Forty thousand,
first meant only to attack the castle, and there was none of them left
and altered his plans in the exas- quick." Brunne's Langtoft, p. 272.
peration of seeing his ships burned. Trivet and Wikes do not mention
If so, it is some palliation of the any massacre. But their silence can
massacre, that his first intentions hardly outweigh the distinct evidence
were to reduce only the castle. of other writers, however loose some
Brunne's Langtoft, p. 273. Heming- of the estimates may be. Heming
burgh, ii. p. 98. Annales Anglise burgh's is probably nearest the truth,
et Scotiffi, p. 373. as the Scotch themselves seem to
2 " More than eight thousand." have stated their loss afterwards at
Hemingburgh, ii. p. 98, "Sixty thou- under eight thousand. Greatest of
sand." Matt. West., p. 427. " Like the Plantagenets, p. 438.

392 BALLIOL RENOUNCES HIS HOMAGE.
relics and the host, and implored Edward to show
mercy. Extravagant in his impulses, the king burst
into tears and called in his troops. The men-at-arms
under William Douglas surrendered the citadel, on a
promise that they should receive no worse punishment
than imprisonment. Partly as a military precaution,
partly, no doubt, to gratify the English merchants,
Edward resolved to sever Berwick-on-Tweed from the
kingdom of Scotland. The remnant of its old inhabit
ants was expelled; it was turned into a fortress, and
only the tradition of its former prosperity remained.
The circumstances of its storm mark the growing deteri
oration of Edward's character. Such a massacre had
not been witnessed within the four seas since the ravage
of the north by the Conqueror. From this time a sea of
blood lay between the English king and his Scotch
dominion. Before he left Berwick, Edward received a cartel, in
which Balliol renounced his homage, and formally defied
his suzerain. " Has the foolish fellow done this folly?"
said the king, "if he will not come to us, we will come
to him." Accordingly, though the Scotch marauders
behind him were harrying with singular ferocity, muti
lating women, and burning two hundred boys alive in a
grammar-school at Corbridge,1 he marched straight
upon Dunbar, which had been delivered to the enemy.
The fortress was of importance, and three Scotch earls
with several barons were among its garrison, while

1 Palgrave, Documents and Re- giving no quarter, " sparing neither
cords, p. 149. As the date of this sex, rank, nor age." Hemingburgh,
atrocity (April 8-11) was more than ii. p. 95, 101. They were below
a week after the storm of Berwick, the English in civilization, and their
it may have been intended as repri- leaders were men of no ability, who
sals. But the Scotch had begun by could not enforce discipline.

BATTLE OF DUNBAR. 393
Balliol marched at the head of an army to relieve it.
All the more significant were the rout of the relieving
forces, and the surrender at discretion of the garrison.
Edinburgh was next reduced, and Stirling and Perth
occupied, by the English army. It is said, that Robert
Bruce had been detached from Balliol's cause by a pro
mise that he should receive the forfeited sovereignty;
and that, after the battle of Dunbar, he obtained a con
ference with Edward and claimed performance of the
promise. The king answered angrily, "Do you think
we have nothing to do but to win kingdoms for you?"
and the answer, if it be genuine, probably shows that
no such compact existed. It was against Edward's
policy to make any such agreement, and against his
character to stoop to deliberate fraud ; whereas, nothing
could be more natural than that Bruce should be ready
to serve against Balliol, or quick to beg the reversion of
a forfeited estate to which he was next heir. Edward
was, in fact, acting as he had done in Wales. He seized
the mystic stone on which the Scotch kings were in
stalled, and the black rood on which the most binding
oaths were made. He even carried off the trinkets of the
Scotch treasury. But, being irresistible, he could now
afford to be merciful. He admitted Balliol to an abject
submission, and pardoned the wretched man, on his
assurance that his rebellion had been forced upon him
by his peers. After an easy captivity of some years,1
the discrowned king was suffered to retire to his French
property. Nor was Edward less merciful to the Scotch
nobles and gentry, some of whom might well have been
called to account, by any one but the conqueror of Ber-

1 " AVith a respectable household twenty miles out of town." Trivet,
assigned him, and the right of going p. 351.

394 SUBMISSION OF SCOTLAND.
wick, for their barbarities at Corbridge. Except the
traitor Robert de Ros, no one suffered in person or
property, beyond a few months' captivity, for what
Edward still regarded as a rebellion, and no one blushed
to desert the cause of a king who had been untrue to
himself. One by one, earls, barons, and gentlemen,
gave in their homage and fealty to Edward, according
to the most binding forms of Norman law.1 Nothing
was changed in Scotland but the executive. Four
castles, garrisoned by English troops ; four Englishmen
administering the country as regent, justiciary, chan
cellor, and treasurer ; an English exchequer at Berwick-
on-Tweed; and the forced residence of a few Scotch
nobles in England till peace should be made with
France, represent the whole conditions imposed by the
conqueror on the conquered. Only, behind this politic
clemency lay the unabated claims to jurisdiction and
service in the field.
Edward was now temporal sovereign of all Great
Britain and Ireland, but a portion of his subjects ac
knowledged another supremacy. The clergy, suffering
under a double taxation, and unable to devise the
means of refusing tribute to Rome, applied to the pope
for protection against their own countrymen. Boniface
replied by a bull, excommunicating all rulers of any
kind who should impose taxes on the Church, and all
clergymen who should pay them (Feb. 24, 1296). The
result soon showed itself. In the autumn Parliament,
1 Mr. Burton remarks, " One thing Ellenbogen (1294), who took service
is peculiar in these homages, that no under Edward against the king of
reason is set. forth why homage should France, but probably did not like to
be given." History of Scotland, ii. specify that he did it for money.
p. 275. A similar peculiarity may be The seigneur of Montjoye was less
observed in the letter recording the punctilious. New Rymer, vol. i.
homage of the count of Katzen part ii. pp. 813, 820.

REFUSAL OF THE CLERGY TO PAY TAXES. 395
at Bury St. Edmund's (Nov. 3, 1296), it was agreed
to give the king the eighth penny in all towns, and the
twelfth from all lay lands. According to custom, the
proportion due from the clergy was discussed, and
it was fixed, on this occasion, at a fifth. But the aid
could only be voted in convocation ; and when this met,
on the ensuing Feast of the Epiphany (Jan. 6, 1297), 1
the clergy unanimously agreed that it was out of their
power to pay a tax. The king's commissioners refused to
take back any such message, and the clergy were obliged
to send it up by special deputies (Jan. 14). Edward's
anger was great, but he acted with thorough legality
and moderation. Till next Easter (April 14) the clergy
might reconsider their vote, or make separate agree-
ments ¦ with the crown. After that time, all who re
fused to contribute to the common taxation should be
put out of the pale of the law. Meanwhile, their pro
perty was put under seal, and no churchman was sum
moned to the next Parliament at Salisbury (Feb. 24). 2
A portion, with several bishops among them, at once
gave way, and contributed the required fifth, satis
fying their consciences with the distinction, that to fine
for the king's peace was not to pay a tax. But by far
the greater number held out till the first days of out-
1 Annales de Dunstaplia, p. 404. bind the country. In the absence
Hemingburgh (ii. p. 116) makes of clergy and burgesses (Cotton
Jan. 14th the date. But as the con- speaks of " milites," who, I suppose,
ferences lasted eight days (Matt. were knights of the shire), the Par-
West., p. 429), the later date is pro- liament could not, of course, tax the
bably the day on which they broke unrepresented corporations, or make
up. any innovation in ecclesiastical mat-
2 Bart. Cotton, p. 320. Heming- ters. But it could agree to a war,
burgh, ii. p. 121. The First Report on decree or refuse military service in
the Dignity of a Peer (p. 220) con- Flanders, and take any measures for
eludes, that if the persons summoned the regulation of the home govern-
actually met, their proceedings were ment.
not considered as of authority to

396 ENGLISH ALLIANCES AGAINST FRANCE.
lawry, and then, terrified at their own position, com
pounded, at extravagant rates, with the treasury. In
fact, so determined were the royal officers, and so well
backed by public opinion, that the horses of the primate
himself were seized, when he came to a conference with
the king at Maidstone. The archbishop, Robert of Win
chelsea, gave permission for his weaker brethren to do
as seemed right to their consciences. He himself, with
a tenacity worthy of a nobler cause,, deserted by all his
household, except a chaplain and a clerk, lived for
several months in a country rectory, and obtained a
meagre pittance from the alms of the faithful. Edward
had won a signal victory, and he followed it by pro
curing a bull, in which the pope explained, that volun
tary aids granted by convocation were not taxes. But
the clergy had a just cause of complaint so long as
they were taxed into two treasuries ; and as the popes
became more and more the instruments of French policy,
the national feeling of the estates devised means for
wiping off a large part of the unworthy tribute.
Meanwhile, the interest of the war had shifted from
north to south. By the capture of its gallant seneschal,
John St. John (Jan. 12, 1297), Gascony lay at the
mercy of the French, and the English clergy triumph
antly pointed to God's judgment on a king, who
took money from them. On the other hand, a strong
English interest was growing up on the northern fron
tiers of France. The new earl of Holland was Edward's
son-in-law. The count of Flanders had betrothed his
daughter to Edward of Carnarvon. When Philip,
alarmed at this alliance, took the lady into his own
custody, her father, indignant at the outrage, appealed
to the Estates to join him in an alliance with England.
France was thus girdled by a league of enemies. The

Edward's difficulty with his nobles. 397
opportunity was tempting, and Edward caught at it
with passionate energy. Relying on the prestige of
success to secure his people's support, he prepared two
great expeditions for Gascony and for Flanders, intend
ing to take command of the second in person. But as
the expenses of these armaments could not be defrayed
from his ordinary revenue, he tried new expedients for
taxation by prerogative. By a late edict (1292), all
who possessed £40 worth of land were compelled to
take up their knighthood ; the qualification was now re
duced to £20.! The toll on wool was raised six-fold,
from half a mark to two pounds a sack. The sheriffs of
every county were ordered to raise forced contributions
of cattle and corn. But the English nobles shrank, not
unreasonably, from the prospects of an European war.
They were prepared to serve in Gascony, if the king
would go with them, but not in Flanders, to which their
tenures did not oblige them.2 Bohun, earl of Hereford,
and Bigod, earl of Norfolk, the king's constable and
marshal, headed the opposition. " By God, earl," said
Edward to Bohun, " you shall either go or hang."
" By God, king," answered the earl, " I will neither go
nor hang." The Parliament broke up in confusion (Feb.
24), and the earls held an informal Parliament of their
own in Wire Wood. When the time came to attend the

1 New Rymer, vol. i. part ii. p. 758. country in which they would not
Trivet, p. 354. serve. The principle was an impor-
2 Hemingburgh's statement (ii. p. tant one. Anciently, service had
121) that the nobles refused to serve been only within the realm. Under
in Gascony is certainly a mistake, the Norman kings it had been ex-
Matthew of Westminster says (p. 429) tended to defence ofthe king's -pos-
they were very willing to go there if sessions anywhere. The requisition
the king would go with them ; and to serve in a foreign country was
in the counter-memorials on either against all principles of feudal law,
side it is always Flanders, and not and Edward himself did not dare to
Gascony, that is mentioned as the enforce it.

398 PERSONAL APPEAL OF EDWARD.
summer Parliament in London (July 8) which was to
precede the embarcation, the earls first requested, that
others might be appointed in their place ; and, when this
request was complied with, circulated, and perhaps sent
in, a statement of grievances.1 They were not bound to
serve in Flanders ; they had suffered heavily from
forest laws and illegal taxation ; they dreaded the king's
absence at a time when there were fresh troubles in
Scotland ; and they prayed that he would redress their
wrongs. Edward had taken the precaution to be re
conciled to the archbishop. He met his barons and
knights at Westminster (July 14), and, standing on a
step in the hall, with the primate and earl of Warwick
at his side, he addressed his vassals in a speech broken
by tears. It was true he had taken their substance
from them with no due warrant of law, and he craved
their pardon for the offence; but he had done it to save
them from enemies who were thirsting for their blood.
" I am going now to risk my life in your behalf; if I
return, demand justice of me here, and I will restore
all I have taken." The primate wept aloud; and the
meeting was carried away by the impulse of the mo
ment, and voted for war, and for giving the king an
eighth. In return for this the Great Charter was to be
guaranteed again. Edward hurried his followers to the
sea-coast, leaving the earls to an inglorious residence in

1 Trivet, says (p. 360) that this the articles was, and his speech
memorial was sent to the king shortly at Westminster was an answer to
before his embarcation. In his let- them. Probably the formal send-
ter of justification, Edward alludes ing described by Trivet was the re-
to a report that the earls had shown ply of the earls to this rescript ;
him certain articles, and that he had especially, as the king had alluded to
rejected them. He denies that they men who sow distrust between sove-
sent in any memorial; but he evi- reign and subject.
dently knew what the purport of

THE BARONS ASSENT. 399
England,1 while he issued a rescript from Udimore, near
Winchelsea (Aug. 12), promising redress for all griev
ances on his return, praying his people to support him,
as they saw that he did not spare his body or wealth to
relieve the common sufferings, and threatening all who
should trouble the peace of the realm with the penal
ties of the law and the last sentence of the Church.
Edward had broken the constitution, threatened force
as long as it could be employed, and was now staking
the whole resources of the realm upon a war of doubt
ful policy. He had been at first thoroughly wrong,
and the earls absolutely in the right. But the king's
greatness of nature carried him through every diffi
culty. He could demand confidence, for his people
knew that he did everything for England ; he inspired
trust, for he never broke his word ; and between a king
risking captivity or death, and two nobles refusing the
service which thousands of meaner men rendered, public
opinion pronounced emphatically for the sovereign. He
carried the nation with him through sacrifices that
had no parallel in those times.
The result justified the king's previsions. His army
was weak, and it was disorderly. In place of the great
nobles who had refused service, or were employed else
where, were new men like Ralf de Monthermer, whose
good looks had won him the king's daughter and the
titular earldom of Gloucester,2 and kinsmen like Aymer

1 The appointment of Thomas de Dignity of a Peer, Appendix i. pp.
Berkeley and Geoffrey de Genevill 87, 103, 105.
in their places did not, however, di- 2 Ralf de Monthermer, a simple
vest the earls of their offices. Roger knight from Durham, won the graces
Bigod is summoned as Marshal of of Joan, countess dowager of Glou-
England to the Michaelmas Par- cester, and married her secretly
liament of this year, as well as to within a year ofher husband's death.
subsequent ones. Report on the Hemingburgh, ii. p. 70. The king

400 PEACE CONCLUDED WITH FRANCE.
de Valence, or Scotch nobles disaffected at heart to
the cause. The sailors of Portsmouth and Yarmouth
quarrelled during the passage, and, as soon as they had
disembarked the troops, engaged in a pitched battle, in
which the men of Yarmouth were defeated, with the
loss of twenty-five ships. The king's soldiers quar
relled with the Flemings whom they came to assist, and
sacked the town of Damme, killing some two hundred
prisoners of war who were in it,1 an offence which Ed
ward punished summarily with the gallows. Confronted
by a superior French army, the king of England was
obliged to fall back upon Ghent, and to be contented
with paralysing the enemy's movements. But Philip
saw that he had lost the chance of reducing a disaf
fected province to obedience, and that he now had to
reckon with all Europe in arms. Germany, Holland,
Flanders, Burgundy, and Savoy were in league with
England. What was not an immediate danger might
become so at any moment, and. Philip for the first time
was glad to negotiate. A truce was soon arranged (Oct.
9 ), which was to last some three months, and this, under
the pope's mediation, was gradually prolonged till it be
came a peace. Within seven months after he landed in
Flanders, Edward was able to return to England
(March 14, 1298).
The constitutional quarrel had been settled during
his absence in the happiest manner. The two earls
 %  , 
imprisoned him on finding it out, his first coming "(" se primo dede-
but now, being in difficulties, set him rant regi"). Hemingburgh, ii. p.
free, and gave him the title and ho- 159. Dr. Pauli renders this, " 200
nour of Gloucester during his wife's of the most respectable inhabitants."
lifetime. Trivet, p. 358. He was Gesch. v. England, iv. s. 132. Per-
a man of courage and capacity. haps this translation is possible, but
1 "Two hundred picked men, who I think it is not the most natural.
had first surrendered to our king at

RENOUNCEMENT OF ILLEGAL TAXATION. 401
were not inclined to relax in their opposition. They
issued a notice, that the eighth granted by the meeting
at Westminster had not been sanctioned by the peers,
was informal, and was not to be collected. The pri
mate swayed back to the constitutional cause, threaten
ing to excommunicate the royal collectors, and prince
Edward, who acted as regent, after trying the effects
of an acknowledgment that the eighth was irregular,
and was not to be made a precedent, was forced to hold
a Parliament and consent to a compromise.1 By this,
Magna Charta and the Forest Charter were confirmed,
with the addition of several articles, in which the king
renounced all prescription from taxes levied illegally,
promised to raise none in future except by consent of
the realm, and abandoned the additional export duty on
wool ; reserving only, as a perpetual source of revenue,
the moderate tax granted at the beginning of the reign.
Lastly, Edward was to remit his anger against all who
had joined the barons' confederacy. In return, the
Estates would grant him the aid of an eighth penny. It
is scarcely wonderful if Edward hesitated for three days
before he gave his assent to the new charter, by which
all indeterminate rights of impost were abrogated.
Happily he had no alternative but to comply. Out of
ten English earls, only two were with him in Flan
ders, and two others serving him in England and Gas
cony.2 The news from Scotland was of rebellion and
1 New Rymer, vol. i. part ii. pp. Warenne had just been driven
875-877. out of Scotland. Thomas of Lan-
2 The two with him were, his son- caster was still a minor. The re
in-law, the new earl of Gloucester, maining earls do not seem to have
and his cousin, Aymer de Valence, joined the army under Bigod and
heir to the earldom of Pembroke, Bohun, but it is probable that none
though apparently not yet invested. of them could be relied on to act
The earl of Lincoln was com- against it. It is noticeable, that the
manding in Gascony, and the earl earl of Arundel was summoned to
II. D D

402 THE TRIUMPH OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES.
defeat. The Flemings were doubtful allies, and the
princes of Germany mere mercenaries. Had Philip un
derstood his position, it may be doubted if he would
have agreed to a truce. It is said, Edward regarded
his assent as of doubtful validity, because it had been
extorted from him by force and subscribed in a foreign
land. It is certain, that he exhausted every expedient
to evade a public renewal of it in England. Once he
forced his councillors to swear to his good intentions
(1298), and once he gave the promised ratification
(1296), with an evasive clause, reserving the rights of
his crown and reasons of state. Only a second threat of
rebellion induced him at last to give way, and his
officers showed a suspicious repugnance to carry out
the orders finally given. The renewal of the " Quo
warranto" commission (1299), which had been sus
pended for five years, looks suspiciously like an attempt
to gain in one way what was denied in another.1 Worst
of all was the attempt to procure a brief from the pope
annulling the obnoxious statute. But something must
be allowed to a king's horror of that public humi
liation which was implied in a formal reversal of his
acts, and something to the imperious necessities of
his policy. The war with Scotland entailed heavy
expenses, and the people, who shared their king's am
bition, were scarcely justified in complaining of its cost.
Anyhow, though he chafed under the obligation, and
probably regarded it as unjust, Edward carried it out

Rochester with his retainers, to con- present at the Parliament itself, he
fer with prince Edward, the Sunday can hardly be set down as a royalist.
before the Parliament at London. Report on the Dignity of a Peer,
This looks as if the prince desired to Appendix i. p. 86.
know what military force he could ' It sate for Cambridgeshire, but,
count on. But as the earl was not apparently, not for any other county.

Edward's return to England. 403
with tolerable fidelity. His one palpable violation of
it, in 1304, took the form of an extra tallage on the
crown lands and boroughs, which the nobles condoned
for permission to act similarly by their own vassals.
Nor did the king resent his opponents' behaviour.
With the instinct of a consummate statesman, he pre
ferred to conciliate the rival power in the State, and
married a daughter, some years later, to Humphrey de
Bohun's son.1
Setting aside reasons of home policy, Edward's re
turn had been matter of imperious necessity. His troops,
a chance army without leaders or cohesion, had acted
like invaders in the country they came to defend, and
provoked a riot in Ghent, before their departure, which
might easily have turned into a general massacre of the
citizens or of their allies. The Welsh, who had espe
cially provoked the quarrel, fought it out staunchly,
and virtually saved the army.2 The count of Flanders

1 Dr. Lingard thinks that the sur- easily be indifferent to the claims of
renders of their estates and honours, remote kinsmen, and to the king it
which the earl of Norfolk and the was important that earldoms should
next earl of Hereford afterwards revert to the crown as often as pos-
made to the king, were the results of sible. Theprinciplehadbeenthesame
a systematic policy, to punish all in the case of the countess of Albe-
who had taken part against him. marie, but the statute was not then
(History of England, ii. p. 268). passed. Trokelowe's statement (p.
The same thing, however, had al- 74), that the earl marshal wished, by
ready been done with the king's the surrender, to ingratiate himself
most valued servant, the earl of Lin- with the king is not incredible. But
coin, and with the countess of Albe- he must have had reason to sup-
marle (Dugdale's Baronage, i. pp. pose that he would be no great suf-
65, 104), and as estates and titles ferer by the transaction. After all,
were restored in every case, with the most probable account is Hem-
simply a limitation to the direct ingburgh's (ii. p. 224), that he had
heirs ofthe grantees, I suspect it was quarrelled about money matters with
merely an attempt, at least in the his brother, and stipulated for a pen-
three first cases, to apply the statute sion of ,£1000 from the king.
"de donis conditionalibus " to the z Brunne's Langtoft, p. 295.
peerage. The great lords might

404 Edward's scotch policy.
was forced to explain, that the English had plundered,
violated, and murdered till the burghers were resolved
to have satisfaction ; and Edward, who dared not em
bark with a hostile population in his rear, paid a large
sum to the town in compensation of its wrongs. The
incident might have taught him that wrongs, which
cannot easily be forgotten or endured, are almost inse
parable from an armed occupation; and that the disci
pline, which his own presence had failed to enforce in
Flanders, was not likely to be better observed under his
lieutenants in Scotland. Nor was Edward's policy in
his new dominion in itself temperate, or carried out
with discretion. He was liberal in giving back lands
to the nobles and gentry whom he kept with him and
carried off into Flanders. But he tried to tax Scot
land on the English scale ; to repress the disorders of a
rude country, the cattle-lifting and feuds that were
almost part of its domestic economy, as rigorously as
could be done in the heart of England; and to intro
duce English monks, and invest English clergymen with
Scotch benefices.1 Experience had proved that, while
ecclesiastics were for Rome and their own order against
the nation, they were also animated with the narrowest
local patriotism against all who were born out of their
own province or kingdom ; and Edward calculated no
doubt on this factitious loyalty, while he alienated the
1 Thus the monks of Durham re- fices. More excusable is the order
ceive a pension of £40 a year from to the monks of Jedburgh, that they
the exchequer at Berwick (Sept. 16, shall take in and provide for Tho-
1296); the brothers preachers re- mas de Byrdeley, a clerk lately mu-
ceive letters commendatory to the tilated by Scotch robbers. (Sept. 13,
Scotch government (Nov. 1, 1296) ; 1296). But it shows at how early a
and one of the king's last acts, before period English clergymen had be-
shipping for Flanders, was to give come specially obnoxious. Rotuli
Brian Fitz-Alan the power of pre- Scotias, i. pp. 33, 34, 37, 47.
senting Englishmen to Scotch bene-

WILLIAM WALLACE. 405
hearts of the native clergy. While everything was
thus done by the executive, and especially by the trea
surer, Cressingham, that could irritate or aggrieve an
impatient people, the guardian of Scotland, earl
Warenne, was residing out of the country to escape its
climate.1 In his absence the soldiery were at once un
employed and uncontrolled, and they behaved with the
licence of conquerors ; while the constant reductions in
their number, made by Cressingham's economy, weakened
their efficiency, and filled the country with disbanded
mercenaries. The people were ready to rise in arms,
and only wanted a leader. Their native and Norman
nobility was serving in Flanders, with a few excep
tions of men like Robert Bruce, whose antecedents gave
the king confidence in their loyalty. In default of the
great territorial lords, a simple gentleman, William
Wallace,2 offered himself to the national cause. In a
brawl with some English soldiers in Lanark, Wallace
had killed his man, and was outlawed in consequence.
By one story, horrible but not incredible, his wife, or
mistress, having favoured his escape, had been put to
death for it by the sheriff of Clydesdale ; and Wallace
never rested till he had slain the merciless judge, sir
William Haselrig, in a daring attack by night upon
Lanark garrison. For some time the outlaw seems to
have kept the country, cutting off small parties of
Englishmen. Then, as he acquired a name, he was
joined by William Douglas, the former governor of

1 Hemingburgh, ii. p. 127. His Warenne was wanted to command
office and functions were transferred the army. Rotuli Scotiae, i. p. 45.
to Brian Fitz-Alan, on the 18th of 2 Younger son of Sir Malcolm
August, when the Scotch revolt had Wallace, who owned the £5 fee of
become dangerous, and the earl Ellerslie, near Paisley.

406 REBELLION IN SCOTLAND.
Berwick, a veteran, who would scarcely have served
under a mere robber. From that moment Wallace was a
national leader, and finding soldiers, wherever he went,
among his countrymen, he drove the justiciary from
Scone, and hunted the bishop of Durham over the bor
der.1 The bishop of Carlisle, , apprehending that the
younger Robert Bruce would join the rebellion, sum
moned him to council, meaning, it would seem, to
arrest him. Bruce came at the head of a small army,
made copious professions and oaths of fidelity, ravaged
the lands of William Douglas, and then repenting, or
seeing chances for the rebellion, held aloof from both
parties in dangerous neutrality. Meanwhile, the general
rising ofthe people had been joined by bishops and nobles,
and the English were killed or driven out of the country
everywhere. But when Henry Percy marched, at the
head of an imposing force — the militia of all Cumber
land — into Galway, the nobles, paralysed by dissensions,
gave way almost without exception, and were admitted
to the king's peace at Irvine (Aug. 10-20). Yet a few
of the younger men still held by Wallace, who collected
a large army, principally from the cities, while the nobles
secretly urged him on with exhortations to persist.
The king's instructions had been to make peace anyhow,
and the only difficulties were, that his officers would not
pledge themselves to a positive restoration of the old
franchises of Scotland,2 that the Scotch commons would
not trust vague promises, and, perhaps, that Wallace
1 Burton's History of Scotland, that " promises were made of future
p. 285. Trivet (p. 356) and the concessions, as it were, with certain
Chronica .Rishanger (p. 171) say, expectation," seem to show that Ed-
that he was sent into Scotland on a - ward's representatives were pre-
special mission to report as to the pared to go almost every length, but
state of the country. had not full powers from the king to

2

Hemingburgh's words (ii. p. 1 34), act.

FAILURE OF NEGOTIATIONS. 407
and his chief adherents felt that they had gone too far
to recede. Thus the two nations drifted into an inter
necine war, which Edward and his officers, as well as
the first families in Scotland, from policy, if not from
better feelings, were sincerely anxious to avoid.
The English army, under earl Warenne and Cressing-
ham, found the enemy encamped near Stirling Bridge
(Sept. 16). On the side of the invaders the utmost
confidence prevailed, and Cressingham had dismissed
the troops from Cumberland as an unnecessary expense.1
It is to the credit of the English leaders that they were
still willing to try the issue of negotiations. But the
envoys, two Scotch noblemen, found Wallace animated
by a noble confidence. "We have come," he said,
" not for the blessings of peace, but to fight, that we
may avenge ourselves and free our country. Let the
English come up as they like, and they will find us
ready to beard them." The Scotch position was se
cured by hills in the rear and flank, over which retreat

1 The English troops actually en- Once for all, I must express my be-
gaged at Stirling are put by Heming- lief, that these numbers have not the
burgh at 1000 horse and 50,000 smallest pretensions to accuracy,
men, while Henry Percy is said to except for the heavy-armed soldiers.
have taken back 300 horse and That over 130,000 fighting men
80,000 picked men. At the same could be supplied from the counties
time there was an army in Flanders, north of Humber, after they had
another inGascony, and large bodies of furnished a contingent to three or
menwereassembledunderprinceEd- four other forces, is in the highest
ward and under the earls of Hereford degree improbable ; that they could
and Norfolk. Wallace is represented be provisioned, marshalled, or moved
as commanding 40,000 infantry and in those times almost equally incre-
180 horse. Next year, Edward's army dible. It is evident that the loss
at Roxburgh is said to have mus- of 5000 men, at most, completely
tered 7500 heavy-armed men, and paralysed the operations of the Eng-
80,000 infantry, almost entirely Irish lish general, and left the North com-
and Welsh. The Welsh in particular paratively defenceless till Edward's
numbered 40,000, though they were return. I suspect at least a third of
made drunk on two casks of wine. the army fell at Stirling.

408 the battle of Stirling.
was possible, while in front it could only be approached
by a narrow bridge and by a distant ford. Moreover,
the Scotch, lying within a semicircle of hills, could
close at pleasure upon any part of the enemy as it ad
vanced. Nevertheless, in utter disregard of all rules of
war, the English generals decided, in a disorderly coun
cil, not merely to attack in front, but to attack only
by the bridge. The motive assigned was, not to divide
their forces. But the natural result was, that, when a
portion of the English army, streaming over slowly in
a thin line, had pushed forwards within the fatal
amphitheatre, Wallace descended upon them with the
main body of his army, while a division, interposed be
tween their rear and the bridge, cut them off from the
forces behind. For a moment the English cavalry car
ried everything before them in a brilliant charge, the
light Scotch horse flying in disorder. But an English
captain, sir Marmaduke Twenge, looking round, saw
that Wallace's spearmen had closed upon the English
infantry, and were pressing them backward in a dis
orderly mass to the Forth. The battle was already
decided, and Twenge himself was among the few who
had crossed who escaped with life. He had the shrewd
ness and audacity to ride straight for the bridge, cutting
his way, by favour of his armour, through the company
that guarded the approach, and as soon as he was safe on
the other side, earl Warenne, in a helpless panic, (having,
it is said, been in the melee himself,1) ordered the planks
to be cut and fired, lest the conquerors should cross.
Accordingly, the English who escaped death in battle
were mostly drowned in the Forth, or killed by the

1 " Primus pontem transiit comes dux Anglorum." Political Songs
(ed. Camden Society), p. 171.

VICTORY OF THE SCOTCH. 409
country people. Their numbers were estimated at one
hundred heavy-armed and five thousand light-armed
soldiery, the iron-clads being counted as the real loss.
Cressingham was among the slain, and his body was
flayed, in derision, by the infuriated Scotch. If the
numbers commonly given are near the truth, earl
Warenne still commanded a superior force. But his
troops were morally beaten ; he himself was thoroughly
unnerved ; and he is said never to have drawn rein till
he reached Berwick. The onlv soldier-like precaution
he had taken was to leave sir Marmaduke Tweng-e in
command of Stirling castle.
The victory of Stirling was the turning-point in
the fortunes of Scotch independence. During nearly
three centuries the Scotch had been defeated in every
pitched battle by their southern neighbours, and the
reluctance of the nobility to take up arms was, no doubt,
chiefly caused by a sense that they were hopelessly
overmatched. So tremendous was the superiority of
trained soldiers in proof-mail, over mere yeomanry
or townsmen in leather jerkins, that De Montfort, no
mean general, had found no better use for the London
citizens than to put them in a separate wing at Lewes,
where thev were instantly defeated, and he never cared to
employ them afterwards. Yet even the London citizens,
who often had armour, though they wanted discipline,
and the English yeomen, who were just acquiring a
terrible familiarity with the bow. would have found
readier acceptance with a mediaeval general than the
lowlanders, armed with their long spears and javelins,
or the swordsmen of the highland clans. Wallace de
serves the high credit of having seen that position
and tactics might neutralize his other disadvantages,
and if it was his singular fortune to meet an opponent of

410 WALLACE'S ADVANCE TO THE BORDERS.
absolute incapacity, it was his merit that he knew
how to use his chances. Favoured by a report of
Edward's death, which decided waverers to join him, he
now pushed on rapidly to the borders, found the town
of Berwick evacuated at his approach, summoned Car
lisle unsuccessfully, and retaliated havoc and carnage
on the northern counties. It is some excuse of this raid,
that its object was to procure food for the people of the
desolated lowlands.1 A story, which tells how the
Scotch rifled a chapel where their leader was hearing
mass, while his back was turned for a moment, the
plunderers carrying off the very chalice and altar-cloth,
adds, that Wallace attempted to punish the offenders^
and complained that he could not enforce the discipline
he desired. His conduct seems to contrast favourably
with that of the earls under Balliol, inasmuch as no
charge of wanton cruelty is substantiated against him
self.2 What we know of his policy is wise and states-

1 Metrical Boece, iii. p. 166. to very eminent Poles and Italians,
2 The author of the Greatest of the nowhere connects him personally
Plantagenets, who couples the name with any brutalities to unarmed
of Wallace with that of Nana Sahib, people, or with any massacres ; though
says that all the English writers of he tells a story of two canons of St.
the period charge Wallace with Andrew's, who were brought before
" forcing English men and women him and expected death, but were
to dance naked before him, pricking let off on paying ransom and pro-
them with lances and swords ;" with mising never to enter Scotland again.
" burning alive a whole school-full Matthew of Westminster (p.. 451)
of boys," &c, and that Edward I. and the Chronica Rishanger (pp. 171,
endorsed these charges in a formal 226) bring the charge, but do not
letter to pope Boniface. I can find no support it by specific evidence, and
sufficient warrant for these state- the former mixes it up with the un-
ments. Edward I. brought the se- founded accusation about a school.
cond charge against Balliol's army, The other chroniclers say little on the
not against Wallace. New Rymer, subject, though the fact that English
vol. i. part ii. p. 933. Hemingford, ecclesiastics were special victims of
who commonly speaks of Wallace the rising has its influence on the
as " that robber," or " brigand," histories of the time. Sir P. Gray
a phrase which has been applied merely says, that he burned all

HIS GOVERNMENT.

411

manlike. He put forward the name of king John as
lawful sovereign of Scotland, and took for himself only
the title of guardian.1 He tried to associate the clergy
and gentry of Scotland in his government. He an
nounced the recovery of Scotch independence to the
nation's old allies on the continent. The Scotch
nobles who had followed Edward to Flanders were in
duced to leave his quarters and take refuge at Paris.
As a new man, and an adventurer, Wallace found it
difficult at first to enforce his authority at home. Aber
deen, which, from its position, had escaped English
jealousy and a foreign garrison, refused to contribute
levies to the national cause. Wallace hanged some of
the burgesses,2 and the example proved an effectual

Northumberland. Scalacronica, p.
124. The Chronicle of Lanercost
(p. 190) accuses him of making a
sword-belt of Cressingham's skin ;
but the charge, if it be true, argues
alow civilization rather than cruelty.
Of four documents, issued by Wal
lace, that have been preserved, two
are letters of protection. He saved
a monastery at Alnwick from the
flames, though the monks could not
pay the stipulated ransom, (Political
Songs, p. 174). It is true he was
charged on his trial with setting fire
to Dunottar church, and burning
people in it, a reproach which comes
with singular grace from the sove
reign who burned the Flemings alive
at Berwick. But as the indictment
for felony could not be sustained, it
was necessary to make the most of
murder and sacrilege ; and Wallace
was, no doubt, responsible for the
licence of his followers, if he could
have checked it, or if he was wrong
in resisting Edward. It remains to
be proved that the burning of Du

nottar church was anything more
than an incident in the storm of a
fortress in Fife ; " that strong castle
upon a rock of stone," as the Metrical
Boece calls it. Such events, how
ever deplorable, are not always easily
avoided, and even Edward's precedent
at Berwick might have escaped cen
sure, if we did not know that he fired
the Red Hall, when its surrender was
merely matter of time.
1 The writ for the expenses of
Wallace's execution (quoted by Mr.
Stevenson, Chron. de Lanercost, p.
523), says that "in contempt of the
king he had falsely made himself be
called king of Scotland throughout
Scotland." But no chroniclers men
tion this, though several allude with
great bitterness to his knighthood ;
and in the writs quoted by Heming
burgh (ii. pp. 145, 1 46 ) his name comes
after that of Andrew de Moray. Per
haps the title may have been given him
by his soldiers, who are said to have
called him William the Conqueror.
2 Tytler's Scotland, vol. i. p. 142.

412 edward's northward march.
argument. It is impossible to blame him for this
severity; his government was an undoubted fact, and
it represented a scarcely questionable right. If national
existence be worth contending for, its assertors may
surely claim to be armed with that right of conscrip
tion, which is freely exercised by every established
government. The English government was not absolutely inactive
while Wallace was ravaging the north. Earl Warenne
collected a fresh army (Jan. 20, 1298), which relieved
Roxburgh from siege, and occupied Berwick as an out
post against future invasions. On the west Robert
Clifford ravaged Annandale. But the king forbade any
great enterprise till he should return from Flanders,
and Wallace accordingly reduced Stirling Castle.1 It
was his last great success. By the end of June an army,
such as Edward had never yet raised, numbering seven
thousand five hundred horse and many thousand foot,
partly recruited from Wales2 and Ireland, assembled at
Roxburgh, and marched northwards in search of the
enemy. The policy of Wallace was to lay the country
waste and avoid an engagement, and he carried it out
so well for a time, that, although the king was partly
victualled from England by coasting ships, the delay of
a few days, which was occasioned by contrary winds,
caused an actual famine in the camp, so that men died
by hundreds. The king was marching upon Edinburgh,
in the hope of finding supplies there, when the earls "
1 The Chronicle of Meaux (ii. p. Stirling, Dirlton, with two neigh-
270) says, he seized sir Marmaduke bouring forts, Ayr, and Lochmaben,
Twenge at a conference. Heming- were among the castles occupied by
burgh (ii. p. 140), however, seems to the Scotch.
refer it to earl Warenne's neglect 2 The Annales Angliae et Scotias
to relieve it within ten weeks. Dun- (p. 386) put the Welsh at ten thou-
dee, Montrose, Brechin, Dunottar, sand, which is not incredible.

POSITION OF THE SCOTCH ARMY. 413
of March and Angus1 brought news, that the Scotch
army was in the neighbourhood, in the forest of Falkirk,
and intended to surprise him by a night-attack. Ed
ward at once changed his route, and passed the night
at Linlithgow, his men using their shields for pillows,
and with their horses tethered at their sides. In this
rough bivouac the king met with a serious accident, his
war-horse, held carelessly by a page, stepping back on
him and breaking two of his ribs; but he would not
hear of surgery or delay. Next day the march was re
sumed, and the Scotch spearmen were first sighted on a
hill near Linlithgow. Retreat for them, in the presence
of the English cavalry, was impossible, and Wallace
drew them up,2 skilfully enough, on a slope of rising
ground, protected in front by a bog, and on the rear by
Callendar Wood.3 The spearmen were entrenched on
the flanks in four great hollow circles, supported by
the archers, who stood between them, and by the cavalry
behind. It was evident that the Scotch horse could
not stand a charge from the more numerous and better
appointed English cavalry, but they might, perhaps, be
trusted to come up for aid in an emergency. " I have
brought you to the ring," was Wallace's pithy speech
to his men, "do ye dance now, if ye will."4 For
1 Mr. Burton thinks the charge 2 Bartholomew Cotton reaches the
against the two earls, of giving in- climax of statistical absurdity in
formation against their countrymen, estimating the Scotch at 260,000
not proven. But the difficulty in infantry, and 2000 horse. Their army
Hemingburgh's text, to which he was pretty certainly smaller than the
alludes, disappears in Hamilton's English, or Edward, with his forces
edition, where " Patricius S." is ren- weakened by the defection of the
dered" Patricius scilicet;" and it is no- Welsh, would not have1 tried to sur-
ticeable, that both earls had received round it.
letters of thanks from prince Edward 3 Brunne's Langtoft, p. 306.
for their good services during the * This either was already, or be-
last year's campaign. Rotuli Scotire, came, a proverbial saying for men
i. p. 50. obliged to make the best of a difficult

414 THE BATTLE OF FALKIRK.
a time the issue of the battle was doubtful. The first
advance ofthe English was disordered by the bog, which
could not be crossed; when they at last skirted it, their
cavalry could make no impression on the Scotch spear
men, who stood like a wall of stone ; and the Welsh,
disgusted by punishment for a late brawl in the camp,
went off in a body to a hill hard by, and waited the
issue of events. But Edward understood the use of
artillery, and, instead of wasting his strength in chi
valrous charges, surrounded the Scotch with archers,
who hailed arrows upon their ranks. The few Scotch
bowmen could make no effectual reply, and were
repeatedly cut down by English horsemen who rode
in between the circles. Suddenly, a fresh body of
English, led, it is said, by Robert Bruce the elder,1 who
took them by a path round the hills, issued out from
the woods in the Scotch rear and assailed them. Then
the cavalry, led by the Comyns, who were thought to
be half-hearted in the cause as long as Wallace was in
' power, rode off in confusion, and the army and its
leaders were left to their fate. The spearmen fought
gallantly, and met worthy antagonists in the English
yeomen, who attacked them in close melee with huge
stones, while the cavalry picked off others with their
long lances. At last, all order was lost, and the Eng
lish knights rode in and out the crowd of lost men,
cutting down pitilessly. The Welsh, seeing the day
decided, rushed in to plunder and kill. Many Scotch

situation. See Political Songs (ed. English side at this time, as on June 8
Camden Society), p. 339. he received letters of protection
1 The charge is brought by Scotch from the king, on the ground that he
authors. Fordun, p. 981. Metrical was to accompany him into Scotland.
Boece, iii. p. 178. The elder Robert Rotuli Scotias, i. p. 51.
Bruce was pretty certainly on the

DEFEAT OF THE SCOTCH. 415
gentlemen of good family, a Graham, a Steward, and a
Macduff, witnessed, by an honourable death, that Wal
lace's cause was that of the nation at large, and that all
her nobles were not like the great earls. The leader
fought his way out at the head of a little body of men;
and was followed in hot pursuit by sir Brian de Jay, the
English master of the Temple, who paid the penalty of
his daring with his life. But no other Englishman of rank
fell ; and the Scotch loss, by a low estimate, was put at
more than 10,000 men.1 The veteran army, recruited
from the flower of the cities, was now a tale of the past.
Wallace burned Stirling Castle in his retreat, that the
English might not find a fortress to their hands. The
very act shows that he was desperate. Abandon
ing his office of guardian, he went to the Continent,
hoping, seemingly, that the king of France, or the pope,
might interpose effectually for his country. But the
day for such mediation was gone by.
Edward's victory was decisive, but it was almost
profitless. The Scotch left him nothing but the pos
session of so much desolated land as his army could
camp upon. There was still a national government in
Scotland, with the younger Bruce and Comyn for guar
dians, and to which the bishop of St. Andrew's lent his
support. The English nobles desired a division of
earldoms and manors throughout the Lowlands, and
were furious when the king invested an Irish vassal
with the Isle of Arran. Their discontent took the form
of refusing service, and the king was obliged to make
them the desired promises in the autumn Parliament at
Carlisle (Sept. 15, 1298). 2 Nevertheless, as the great

1 Scalacronica, p. 125. More than 20,000. Trivet, p. 373. Chron. Mon.
de Melsa, ii. p. 271. 2 Hemingburgh, ii. p. 182.

416 GOVERNMENT OF SCOTLAND.
Scotch families kept a prominent member on each side,
so that Comyn the father was thanked for his good
services, while Comyn the son was in rebellion, it was
certain that large confiscations could only alienate the
men whom Edward was most anxious to conciliate.
The small injustice, involved in his first assertion of
suzerainty, had gradually dilated into a huge ambition,
that would admit no modifications of vassalage, would
listen to no excuses for opposition, revived national
hatreds, and sustained itself by their intensity, hesitated
at no carnage, made havoc the minister of justice, and
proposed, as its final object, the disinheritance of a whole
nation from its lands.

417

Chapter XIV.
LAST YEARS OF EDWARD'S REIGN.
¦
Peace with France. Papal Intervention for Scotland, and An
swer or the Parliament op Lincoln. Redress of Forest
Grievances. Conquest of Scotland. Capture, Trial, and Exe
cution of Wallace. Ordinance for the Settlement of Scotland.
Domestic Opposition removed. Murder of Comyn. Coronation
of Robert Bruce. English Preparations for War. Rout of
Methuen, and Ruin of the Patriotic Cause. Severity towards
the Captives, and Penal Ordinance for Scotland. Parlia
ment of Carlisle. Death of Edward I.
AS long as Edward lived, the fate of Scotland de
pended on the complications of English and
European politics. Even if the united people could have
coped with their more powerful neighbour, the Low
land Scotch, who were the real combatants, and who
were only aided by uncertain Highland allies, had no
chance in a long series of campaigns. They might win
single battles, but sooner or later they were over
powered in the field, and their country then lay at the
invader's mercy. Accordingly, the peace between
England and France, which pope Boniface VIII. me
diated (June, 1298), in his private capacity as a friend
to the sovereigns, was a fatal blow to the chances
of Scotch independence. It stipulated, that the Eng
lish possessions in France should be restored, that com
pensation should be made mutually for the damages
II. E E

418 PEACE WITH FRANCE.
inflicted on trade, and that the alliance of the two
crowns should be cemented by the marriage of Edward
to the French king's sister Margaret, and of Edward's
son to Philip's daughter Isabella. Of course, it was
understood and implied, that neither sovereign was to
assist his neighbour's rebellious subjects, and Scotch
and Flemings were thus left to their fate. Fortunately
for Scotland, nearly five years elapsed before the award
was finally ratified by the two crowns (May, 1303), the
French putting forward demands for the liberation of
Balliol, which Edward treated as inadmissible; and
Edward cautiously requiring complete restitution of
every fortress that belonged to him, before he renounced
the right of interfering in Flanders. During a portion
of this time the French stipulated that the benefits of
the truce should be extended to Scotland ; and, so long
as his relations at Paris were doubtful, Edward seems
to have been hampered in his campaigns, and rather
lost than gained ground for a time. Thus, in 1299, he
could not relieve Stirling, which was obliged to sur
render. In 1300 he took Caerlaverock,1 but it was the
solitary success of a campaign which cost him heavily
in money and men;2 and the country around him was
still in the hands of guerillas. The campaign of the
following year was equally without result. During the
next summer there was a truce, and in 1303, when hos
tilities were renewed, Sir John Segrave, the English

1 The Chronicon de Lanercost (p. unimportant successes of the Eng-
194) says, that Edward hanged seve- lish army (p. 440-445), but winds up
ral ofhis prisoners, but the Norman by saying, that many nobles, finding
narrative, printed by Sir H. Nicolas, their stay useless, and lacking money
(p. 87), says, he gave them life and and the necessaries of life, went home,
limb and a new garment apiece. although the king refused them fur-
2 The fragment called the Annales lough.
Regis Edwardi Iml. relates several

PAPAL CLAIM TO SCOTLAND. 419
commander, was surprised at Roslin (Feb. 24), it is
said by Wallace,1 and sustained a repulse which had
almost been an overthrow. The engagement was re
ported abroad as a signal victory. Nevertheless, Ed
ward's campaigns achieved the object of wasting the
resources of a poor country, so that, when the war re
commenced in earnest, Scotland was even less prepared
for it than at first.
- Meanwhile, the diplomacy of the Scotch envoys at
Rome had succeeded in obtaining papal interposition.
The first fruit of this was the liberation of Balliol (1299),
whom Edward, probably glad to get rid of an occasion
of useless controversy, consented to deliver up to the
pope, with reservation of the English rights over Scot
land from any possible papal sentence in Balliol's favour.
By a last indignity, the deposed king's baggage was
searched at Dover, and the crown, which he had not
known how to guard, found secreted among his effects,
was taken away, and offered up at the shrine of St. Thomas
of Canterbury. Balliol retired to his French estates,
resuming his title of king of Scotland,2 though he never
ventured again to assert it in arms. Scarcely had the
order for Balliol's liberation been given (June 14),
when Boniface addressed a rescript to the king of Eng
land (June 27), laying claim to Scotland as a fief of
the Apostolical See. His proofs were not very con
vincing, as they rested chiefly on the fact, that Scotland

1 The story is partly confirmed by vered from the discredit of the de-
Trivet's statement (p. 398), that the feat at Falkirk, and was taking a
Scotch in this year began to make prominent part in the Scotch war,
war again under William Wallace as though no longer as first man in the
captain. Fordun, however (p. 917), nation.
makes John and Simon Comyn the 2 He calls himself king of Scot-
successful generals. It seems certain land in 1302, writing to Philip IV.
that Wallace had by this time reco- New Rymer, vol. i. part ii. p. 946.

420 PARLIAMENT OF LINCOLN.
had been converted by St. Andrew's relics, and on the
previous decision of the papal see, that the primacy of
Scotland rested with itself. But he made out a stronger
case against Edward's claims of suzerainty, dwelling ju
diciously on the facts of Alexander II.'s reign, when the
vassalage, if it was ever admitted, had certainly been a
mere name. Finally, Edward's claims, if he had any,
should be submitted to the pope. The papal letter did
not reach Edward till the next year, when he was re
turning from Scotland (August, 1300). He laid it
before a full Parliament1 at Lincoln (Jan. 20, 1301),
to which representatives of Oxford and Cambridge
were summoned,2 along with law-officers and clergy well
reputed for learning, that they might advise the king
on the extent of his rights. In this assembly two letters
were drawn up. One from Edward recapitulated the
English acts of suzerainty over Scotland from the time
of Edward the Elder downward,3 bringing forward,
amongst other evidences of the divine right inherent in
the English crown, a miraculous sword-stroke, with
which Athelstane, by favour of St. John of Beverley,
had hewn a gap in a rock near Dunbar. The letter
glossed skilfully over the facts of the Norham confer
ence, representing the homage of Balliol and his nobles
as a tribute to the justice of Edward's claims, and their

1 It seems more than doubtful earlier draught of this letter, en-
whether the representatives of coun- rolled on the Close Rolls, a long ar-
ties and towns, though present for gument from the History of Geoffrey
other purposes, were consulted about of Monmouth is inserted. It deduces
the king's foreign policy. First Re- Edward's claims from Brutus, the
port on the Dignity of a Peer, p. 241. contemporary of Eli and Samuel. It
2 Four or five from Oxford, two does not occur in Hemingburgh, and
or three from Cambridge. First was probably rejected by more cri-
Appendix to Report on the Dignity tical, or more practical men, than the
of a Peer, p. 125. first compiler. Hemingburgh, ii. p.
8 In what is supposed to be an 196, note 1, by Hamilton.

LETTERS TO THE POPE. 421
rebellion afterwards as an act of wanton treason.
Throughout this memorial, Edward's language was at
once firm and temperate. The second letter, intended
to represent the feeling of the English baronage, took a
higher tone of remonstrance. The lords could not suf
ficiently express their wonder at the contents of the
papal rescript. It was matter of notoriety, that the
papal see had no rights over Scotland, and that, from
the time of the Britons downwards, the suzerainty of
Scotland had been vested in the English crown. The
rights of the crown were those of the whole realm, and
the barons would not permit the king, even if he wished
it, to make unprecedented concessions to an usurped
authority. This letter received the signatures of seven
earls1 and sixty-eight barons, present at Lincoln.
Twenty-eight barons added their seals afterwards. The
earl of Norfolk and fourteen barons seem to have re
fused to sign it. The small number of the dissentients
brings the general unanimity into stronger relief, and
shows how thoroughly Edward's schemes of conquest
were endorsed by his people. For some unknown
reason, the barons' letter appears never to have been
sent ; 2 and perhaps both documents were merely shown

1 Or eight, if we include Aymer pear in any list. The earl of Lin-
de Valence, who signs himself lord coin was absent at this time as am-
of Montiniac, but who is commonly bassador at the papal court. The
regarded as having been uninter- earl of Cornwall had died without
ruptedly earl of Pembroke. It is issue in 1297. The earl of Umfra-
noticeable, that the name of Roger ville was summoned to the Parlia-
Bigod appears twice, first as signing, ment, though he seems, as a Scotch
and next as not having signed. I earl, to have taken no part in the
suspect the first mention of him is memorial. But it is clear the sig-
erroneous, and that the copyist has natures were intended to comprise
confounded him with Robert de Vere, the whole English nobility.
who was summoned to this Parlia- 2 Palgrave, Documents and Re-
ment, but whose name does not ap- cords, p. cxxxi.

422 DEMANDS OF THE BARONS.
to the pope's representative, in this instance the arch
bishop of Canterbury, like a modern communique. Such
a plan would be less compromising to the pope's dignity,
and Edward had his own reasons for wishing to avoid
a quarrel. But the letters thoroughly achieved their
purpose, and from that time forward the right of Eng
land to settle its disputes with Scotland as it would was
never contested at the papal court.
There is reason to believe, that Edward had purchased
his barons' adhesion by concessions to popular demands.
So strong a feeling had been aroused by the constitu
tional disputes preceding the expedition to Flanders,
and by Edward's repeated delays in executing the forest
charters, that the barons assembled at Stamford, with
an army at their backs, prepared for a civil war.1 The
most important demand made was, that the great minis
ters of state should be appointed in parliament. It was
felt, that so long as they were responsible to the king
alone, they would only care to carry out his wishes and
orders. But the times were not yet ripe for the change.
Edward replied indignantly, that he would not submit
to such dictation, as none of his subjects would endure

1 Trivet (p. 379) and Rishanger 20th of January; they were dis-
(p. 198) speak of the parliament of missed on the 30th, (Prynne, Re-
Stamford as if it were distinct from cords, iv. p. 42) ; and, as the persons
that of Lincoln ; and Hemingburgh specially interested in the disforest-
say s, that the parliament of Stamford ing, it is not likely that they were
was held in Lent, (February 15 to referred to a future assembly for an
March 26), while the barons' me- answer; or, that the matters at issue
morial is dated from Lincoln, Feb. were settled after the answer to the
12. It is possible that parliament pope. The king was at Lincoln as
was moved for convenience from late as the 28th of February. New
one city to another, or, that the Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 930. There
barons met first informally at Stam- are no rolls of parliament, or re-
ford ; but the writs to the sheriffs cords of pleas, for any parliament of
order knights of the shire and bur- Stamford.
gesses to attend at Lincoln on the

REDRESS OF FOREST GRIEVANCES. 423
in the management of their own households.1 On the
matter of the royal forests, which existed in no fewer
than twenty-four counties,2 Edward gave way sullenly
but completely. The perambulations, which had been
ordered three years before, had been completed in the
interval, and were now laid before the estates, while all
who had any complaints to make were invited to attend.
The result seems to have been, that large tracts were
disforested, or withdrawn from the peculiar and stringent
jurisdiction of the forest laws. The king revenged
himself by depriving all residents in the new purlieus,
as the disforested tracts were called, of the old rights
of commonage, which had been their compensation for
the diminished liberty of enclosing, unless they con
sented to live, as of old, under forest law. He also
announced his intention of preserving, as strictly as he
had ever done, on his own lands. As, however, no one
wished for a war with the first general of the age, these
concessions were accepted, and parliament closed its
labours by granting a fifteenth for the war with Scot
land. The clergy again refused their assent, unless
permission from the pope should be obtained ; but either
the refusal was purely formal, or Boniface, who about
this time levied a tenth for his own purposes, thought
it expedient to interpose no obstacles.
In the spring of 1303, Edward at last saw all diffi
culties removed. The treaty with France only waited
signature ; the pope was occupied with troubles in Italy ;
the English estates were thoroughly reconciled to the
crown. Edward summoned an overpowering army to
1 Annales Regis E. Im'., p. 460. and Berkshire, for some unknown
Brunne's Langtoft, p. 312. reason. Among the twelve specified
2 Chester and Durham are omitted as having no royal forests it is curious
from the list as counties palatine, to find Sussex.

424- CONQUEST OF SCOTLAND.
Roxburgh (May 26), and, disregarding the Scotch
borderers, who ravaged Cumberland behind him, he
carried fire and sword through the whole country, pene
trating even to Caithness. Debarred of all hope of
foreign assistance, the Scoth nobles lost heart, and were
only anxious to make terms. Two years before they
had demanded that their lands in England should be
restored, and the king had indignantly refused the
request. They now stipulated only for the recovery of
their Scotch estates, on the payment of reasonable fines,
and Edward admitted them, by a general amnesty, to
his peace. Probably the English earls, who had received
grants of Scotch forfeitures, were bought off, or easily
consented to renounce dangerous titles of doubtful
value. John de Soulis, with a noble constancy, refused
these terms,1 and retired to die, beggared and free, in
France; but there was only one exception to the king's
clemency. William Wallace, who had taken part in the
earlier negotiations, applied, like others, for the king's
grace, and for permission to hold the lands he had ac
quired. The expression points to transactions now
unknown, by which his services had been rewarded
with manors, so that he was nominally, at least, an
estated gentleman. But Edward would not recognize
the titles derived from war against himself, or could not
bring himself to pardon the adventurer, who had held
all the force of England at bay. He would only agree,
that Wallace should come in and make his peace, that
is to say, should make unconditional submission, with
the understanding that he should be tenderly handled.2

1 Scalacronica, p. 127. our lord the king, if he think good."
2 " And as to Monsieur William Riley's Pleadings, p. 370. The
le Waleys, it is granted, that he put words, I think, clearly imply, that
himself upon the will and the grace of the king will admit Wallace to

WALLACE OUTLAWED. 425
Wallace refused these terms, and was proclaimed an
outlaw with a price set upon his head. The Scotch
nobles made a formal submission at Strathorde (Feb. 9,
1304), and the conqueror afterwards taxed them by
a graduated series of not exorbitant fines. They
obtained easier terms than were given to the English
rebels by the award of Kenilworth. There was no
alloy of smallness in Edward's character. Long after
the Scotch government had submitted, a troop of gal
lant men held out in Stirling Castle against all that
English artillery, and troops fighting under their sove
reign's eye, could do. Edward himself, exposing his
person freely, was repeatedly in danger of his life ; and
was driven to such straits, that he had to strip the
churches of St. Andrew's and Brechin of lead. He
forced the garrison to surrender at discretion (July 24,
1304), but admitted them to an interview, allowed him
self to be melted by their prayers, and inflicted no
penalty upon them beyond imprisonment for a time.
The rules of modern warfare- are less merciful to a
garrison, that defends an untenable fortress after peace
has been declared.
Unhappily for Edward and England, the measures
taken to apprehend Wallace were crowned with a fatal
success. By the late peace Wallace was debarred his
old refuge in France, which perhaps had never been
thoroughly secure, if it be true, that king Philip once
offered to arrest and send him to England.1 After a

mercy, though he will not promise mitted any unpardonable crimes in
him terms ; otherwise the expression 1304.
" accorde," " granted," would be 1 The Annales Anglise et Scotiae
mere irony, and quite misplaced in (p. 387) say that in 1298, when Wal-
a formal document. Apparently, lace first came to the continent, the
therefore, Wallace had not com- king of France imprisoned him at

426 CAPTURE OF WALLACE.
long vagrancy in the moors and fens, where he supported
himself by plunder, Wallace incautiously ventured to
Glasgow, and was taken in the house of his mistress,
through the treachery of his servant, Jack Short, who
bore a grudge against him for the death of a brother.1
The earl of Monteith, then governor of Dunbarton, and
one of the few Scotch nobles who had served Edward
with fidelity, shares with his brother, sir John Mon
teith, the discredit of a service to his country's enemy
against his country's defender. The large rewards
showered upon the captors, and the strong escort under
which Wallace was hurried through the lowlands, attest
the importance which Edward attached to his capture.2
Faithful to his maxim, that he would not see any to
whom he would not show grace,3 the king sent his great
antagonist to London (Aug. 22, 1305), where he was
taken through the streets in a mock procession, like
Turberville's, with a crown of laurel on his head, and
tried by a special commission, consisting of three judges,
the lord-mayor, and John de Segrave, the beaten gene
ral of Roslyn. By strict law, as soon as the fact of
Wallace's outlawry was proved against him by record
of the coroner's roll, he was to be hanged, and his pro-

Amiens, and offered to send him to taking him. Riley'sPleadings,p.279.
England. The passage is unfortu- On the present occasion sir John
nately mutilated, and the story, if Monteith received land of £100
true, probably belongs to a later value ; the servant forty marks ; and
date. the other captors sixty among them.
1 Brunne's Langtoft, p. 329. 3 I think Mr. Bond's reading of
2 It is remarkable that, as early as " ipsum aspicere nolens" instead of
1302, Edward was scheming to ap- "volens," (Chron. Mon. de MeM, ii.
prehend Wallace, and sent a Scotch p. 275), is established by the con-
knight, Ralph de Haliburton, who text, and the Eulogium Historiarum
had promised to effect the capture, has_ it (iii. p. 187). Edward seems
under custody to Scotland, to help to have been in Wales about this
those men who shall be employed in time.

HIS TRIAL. 427
perty forfeited to the crown ;l but this summary process
would not have suited English policy, which desired, be
fore it slew its victim, to brand him as a felon. Accord
ingly, the forms of trial were preserved, and Wallace
was indicted for treason, for murders and robberies, for
sacrilege in churches, and for not having come to the
king's peace. It is said Wallace answered to the first
count,2 denying that he was a traitor, as he had never
sworn allegiance to the king of England. By the ideas
of that time the defence was valid, for allegiance was a
personal tie rendered in return for certain advantages,
and which gentlemen at least might withhold at plea
sure, so that Wallace was not necessarily bound by the
acts of his countrymen. His refusal exposed him to
forfeiture of his land, and might put him out of the
king's peace, but did not make him a traitor. If, how
ever, this plea were overruled, Wallace had no answer,
as he seems, in fact, to have made none, to the other
counts ofthe indictment. He had undoubtedly headed
a war, in which men and women had been slain under
circumstances of great ferocity, and churches plundered
or burned by his followers. He had certainly not been
worse, and had probably been more merciful, than the
Comyns and other Scotch leaders; but he was not jus
tified by ancestral rank in putting himself at the head
of a national movement, and English pride could not
forgive the mere squire, who had defeated nobles and
knights with burghers and Highland kernes. To Ed
ward and his people — as even to Philip of France,
and perhaps to some Scotchmen of the day — Wallace

1 Britton, c. xii. ment ; at least I cannot discover it
2 Stowe (Annals, p. 315) seems to in either Adam Murimuth or Tho-
be the first authority for this state- mas de la More, whom he cites.

428 SENTENCE AND EXECUTION OF WALLACE.
was no better than a brigand, leading an armed rabble
against their natural lords, and subverting the founda
tions of a political order more valuable to every states
man than a mere principle of nationality. Accordingly,
the sentence pronounced, though it struck men who
remembered better times as horrible, did not seeni to
them unjust. By a new refinement of cruelty, Wallace
was not only to be dragged, like Turberville, to the gal
lows and hanged, but to be cut down while yet living,1
and disembowelled. This atrocious sentence was actu
ally carried out. Those who remember how Henry II.
had spared the promoters of a wanton rebellion, how
Richard had acted by John and his followers, how John
himself had been compelled to plead at the bar of pub
lic opinion for the murder of the younger De Braose,
and never dared to bring a rebel to formal trial, how
Fawkes de Breaute was suffered to leave the country,
and William de Marsh only hanged for complicity in
rebellion and assassination, will understand what the
clemency of our old judicial practice to all offenders
in the rank of gentlemen had been, and how completely
it was transformed under Edward into an impar
tial barbarity. The early lenity was perhaps exces
sive, but it did not demoralize like the executions, which
are henceforth crowded thickly into the king's bitter
old age. It is possible that Wallace's fame has been

] As far as I can understand Scotchman hanged for the first war
Matthew of Westminster's descrip- of independence. History of Eng-
tion (p. 451), this was regarded as a land, iii. p. 242. But no reasons are
new sentence, invented specially for discoverable, except his low rank and
Wallace ; and I cannot discover that conspicuous services to the Scotch ;
either David ap Griffith, or Turber- and Edward's conduct afterwards
ville, was disembowelled alive. Dr. showed, that even high rank would
Lingard thinks there must have been not protect men who were charged
special reason for the severity to with neither cruelty nor sacrilege.
Wallace, because he was the only

PARLIAMENT OF PERTH. 429
better served by his death, than it could have been by
his life. Though a man of rare capacity, who called the
first army of independence, as it were, out of the earth,
and who gave body and enthusiasm to the war, he was
unfitted by position to command the allegiance of the
great nobles, who could alone ensure success. He
would probably have weakened Bruce by dividing the
patriotic interest, or else have degenerated into a mere
partisan leader. From the little we know of him, he
was no faultless hero of romance, or absolutely without
reproach among bloody and faithless men. It is prob
able that he permitted a savage licence, before he was
sobered by success and a high position; and he seems
to have lost heart in the last campaign, and to have
wished to renounce a struggle which he was left to
maintain alone. But these frailties, dearly expiated,
cannot detract from the great facts of his life ; that he
was the first man who fought, not to support a dynasty,
but to free Scotland ; and the first general who showed
that citizens could be an overmatch for trained soldiers ;
that no reproach of cruelty or self-seeking attaches to
his term of government; and that the enemy of his
country selected him as its first martyr.
The kingdom which Edward had won wrongfully, he
was disposed to rule wisely and moderately. A Scotch
parliament was held at Perth (May 28, 1305), which
chose ten representatives from the three estates to con
fer with the king at Westminster (Sept. 15). Under
the advice of these men, the king issued an ordinance
for the future government of Scotland. His own
nephew, John de Dreux, earl of Richmond and Brit
tany, was to be lieutenant of the kingdom, and, with
the advice of his chancellor and chamberlain — both
Englishmen — was to control the executive, and, if

430 ORDINANCE FOR SCOTLAND.
necessary, remove the judges. The judges, eight in
number, were to serve in pairs, for Galloway (1),
Lothian (2), the Highlands (3), and the country north
of Forth and east of the Grampians (4), and were
mixed English and Scotch. Out of some twenty-nine
fortresses, the eight most important1 were consigned to
Englishmen, the rest to natives. While the Keltic laws
of the Scots and Brets, as they were called, were utterly
abolished, the laws of the Scotch kings, from the time
of king David downwards, were to be observed; but
the lieutenant and his council were to make it their
care to improve these, and amend such matters as
were against God and reason. Matters of such weight,
as to transcend the powers of the council, were to be
submitted to the Scotch estates, who should send depu
ties to discuss the matter with the king. The English
in Scotland were to swear, equally with the Scotch,
to do all in their power to maintain peace in the coun
try, by giving good counsel or informing against
threatened disturbances : a provision which probably
arose, not from any apprehension of disloyalty on the
part of English officials, but lest they should connive at
misdemeanour in their countrymen. At the same time
the act of indemnity was published, and it was inti
mated, that the fines levied would probably be spent on

1 Berwick, Roxburgh, Jedburgh, ter de Berkeleye (who had fought at
Edinburgh, Haddington, Linlithgow, Dunbar), or at least they cannot be
Peebles, and Stirling. In three other traced among the English landed
cases the governor is said to be," celui gentry and officials. Except in the
qui est de fee," and was presumably case of Lochmaben and Kildrummie
a Scotchman. To Auchterarder no castles, held by Robert Bruce, and
one is assigned. In the remaining Roxburgh and Jedburgh, held by
cases the names are either certainly the viceroy, the custodian was also
Scotch, like McCulloch and Mon- a sheriff. Riley's Pleadings, pp.
teifh, John of Inchemartyn and Wal- 504-507.

DOMESTIC OPPOSITION REMOVED. 431
strengthening the Scotch fortresses, or for other na
tional uses. By these ordinances the separate existence
of Scotland was formally recognized, and the conquered
country might congratulate itself that it was not
merged into a province. The foreign element in the
government was not offensively prominent, and it was
evident that the work of assimilating the laws would
only be gradually carried out. But the three chief
grievances, against which nobles and commons had
taken up arms, were in no sense abated by Edward's
ordinance. The suitor might still be called to plead in
Westminster, and the soldier to serve in Wales or Gas
cony, and the great towns were still garrisoned by an
alien soldiery. It was a poor compensation that a few
Scotchmen, like Robert Bruce, whose father had fought
for England at Falkirk, or John Monteith, who had
betrayed Wallace, were retained in the English service
asthe custodians of castles.
Nevertheless, it is scarcely wonderful if Edward re
garded the work of conquest as complete, and chose the
moment for dealing with domestic difficulties. He had
not forgotten or forgiven the last armed remonstrance
of his barons at Lincoln, when the disforesting charter
had been extorted from him. The two earls of Norfolk
and Hereford were no longer a difficulty. Roger Bigod
had been bought over with a pension; the old Hum
phrey Bohun was dead, and his heir was the king's son-
in-law.1 There remained only the primate who could

1 The statement of Matthew of gross fiction. The old earl of Here-
Westminster (p. 452), abridged by ford had died in 1298 ; the earl of
Rishanger (p. 227), that Edward Norfolk and the new earl of Here-
fined the archbishop and the earls of ford had made arrangements with
Norfolk and Hereford for their con- the king in 1302, by which they
duct in 1297, is almost certainly a limited their succession in return

432 CONSPIRACY OF THE PRIMATE.
head opposition, and Robert of Winchelsea, from the
first year of his consecration, had been the steady oppo
nent of the king's policy ; refusing taxes in convocation,
annoying the royal officials with citations and processes,1
threatening to excommunicate the king himself, and de
nying him the title of lord ;2 and at last organizing a plan
of conspiracy, by which Edward was to be deposed
and imprisoned, and his son crowned in his stead. The
intention is strong evidence against the archbishop's
purity of motive, for prince Edward's violent and licen
tious character was already matter of notoriety ; he
was disgraced in this very year for insulting a royal
judge, and his chosen favourite was the worthless Piers
Gaveston. It is significant, too, that Robert of Winchelsea
was involved in several quarrels besides his feud with
the king. He had a quarrel for precedency with the
archbishop of York, and a lawsuit about presentations
with the abbot of St. Augustine's, Canterbury. It is
doubtful at what time the king first learned of the in
tended treason at Lincoln, but he probably knew it
from the first, and kept the secret till he was prepared
to strike. Then he told the archbishop that he was
discovered, and Robert of Winchelsea, confounded and
alarmed, made an abject submission, offering to fine for

for substantial advantages (see p. a punishment inflicted for the oppo-
403, note 1), and from that, time for- sition, preceding the campaign of
ward they seem to have enjoyed the Flanders, and for that at Stamford
king's confidence. Any connection or Lincoln, is very important, as
between these events and Winchel- Edward had promised to bear no
sea's disgrace, in 1306, is purely grudge in the former case.
fanciful ; though it is not improbable * New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 875.
that the earl of Norfolk, who refused Palgrave, Documents and Records, p.
to sign the barons' letter to the pope 299. " Quoties scripsi tibi in visita-
in 1301, had, at that time, an un- tione clericos meos angarianti." Matt.
derstanding with the primate. Even West., p. 452.
if this be so, the distinction between 2 Thorne, c. 2005.

HE IS CITED TO ROME. 433
the king's peace, and ended by asking Edward for his
benediction, Edward was not inclined to give it, or to
remit his opportunity; but, not caring to embarrass
his policy by trying the first churchman of the realm,
he sent a special envoy to pope Clement V., who cited
the archbishop to Rome, and suspended him from all
his revenues for a year, (August, 1306). By the time
this sentence was obtained,1 the primate seems to have
been implicated in the Scotch troubles, as his name is
joined in Edward's correspondence with that of the
bishop of Glasgow.2 A few months earlier (Dec. 29,
1305) the pope had conferred a more equivocal service on
Edward, by absolving him from the new charters against
illegal taxation and for disforesting (Jan. 1305). The
application, on the king's part, was dishonest, though
he seems only to have kept the bull in reserve against
future difficulties; and the pope, though he reserved
the subjects' right by a single ambiguous clause,3 was
curiously unpolitic in exercising his doubtful preroga
tive for the ruler against the people.
Meanwhile Edward's hopes of an undisturbed rule in
Scotland had been rudely disappointed. From the

1 Edward refers, in a letter of Glasgow," seems to imply that it was
April 6, 1306, to a previous corres- one concerning both prelates. Blind
pondence with the pope, on the sub- Harry (p. 356) says, that the Arch-
ject of the archbishop's disloyalty, bishop gave Wallace absolution after
and, from an allusion to a late inter- Edward had forbidden it ; and the
view, in which the primate had im- story may, perhaps, rest on a tra-
plored his grace, it is probable that ditionof the primate's sympathy with
the interview was in February, 1306. the rebellion.
This would explain the usual date 3 "By this, however, we do not
assigned of 1305, the ordinary medi- mean to take away any right that
sevalyear being dated from March 25. any inhabitants ofthe aforesaid king-
New Rymer, vol. i. part ii. p. 983. dom might have in the matters enu-
2 The expression, " concerning the merated, before the concessions of
matter of Robert, archbishop of this sort made by thee." New Rymer,
Canterbury, and Robert, bishop of vol. i. part ii. p. 978.
II. F F

434 ROBERT BRUCE AND JOHN COMYN.
moment that Balliol and Wallace, the representative of
lawful succession and the champion of popular govern
ment, had been removed, nothing, except the foreign
occupation, stood between the next rightful heir and
the throne. As it happened, there were two claimants,
with titles of almost equal validity in the public esti
mation. Robert Bruce, earl of Carrick and Annandale,
was grandson ofthe Robert Bruce who had disputed Bal
liol's title, and, if the Balliol family were disqualified,
was the undoubted next heir. But John Comyn the Red,
lord of Badenoch, was next in succession to Bruce on
the father's side, was nephew by his mother to Balliol,
and was endeared to the Scotch people by his descent
from the remote Donald Bane, the legendary hero
of times when the Norman was not yet rooted in the
land. Either lord had served his country with courage
and fidelity during the late war, though the Comyns
were slightly discredited by their suspicious flight at
Falkirk, and Bruce by his father's unswerving loyalty
to the conqueror. Nevertheless, the two men were now
the forlorn hope of the national cause, and a sense of
their position induced them, in the critical moment
when Edward was just reducing Stirling Castle (June,
1304), to bind themselves, by a solemn covenant of
mutual counsel, confederation, and support, in all future
emergencies. Only the bishop of St. Andrew's joined
them in the perilous partnership. The compact was
undoubtedly meant to hold the contracting parties in
spite of any terms to which the king might admit them.
When, however, the final settlement had been made,
Comyn seems to have conceived himself bound by it, or,
perhaps, was satisfied with Edward's policy and doubtful
ofthe chances of a rebellion, or jealous of Robert Bruce's
influence and ambition. Accordingly, when Bruce sug-

BRUCE SUSPECTED OF TREASON. 435
gested a fresh rising, Comyn not only declined it but
gave information of it to the king, and forwarded the old
covenant in evidence.1 There was other reason for sus
pecting the earl of Carrick. Having rendered good ser
vice to Edward in the months first following his capitula
tion and pardon,2 he had been consulted as to the new
Scotch constitution, and had gone as royal commissioner
to the Estates at Perth ; but his name was not among the
ten deputies who were to consult with the king on the
ordinance, though it had been difficult to find an accept
able man of rank.3 He still garrisoned his two castles
of Lochmaben and Kildrummie. His friend and late col
league, the bishop of Glasgow, was in suspicious concert
with the disloyal English primate. It is scarcely wonder
ful if Bruce was summoned to explain his signature to
the bond, which was of a kind that the late ordinance
had especially denounced as dangerous. Questioned
angrily by the king, Bruce found a pretext for delay in
not having his seal about him, which was wanted for
comparison, or perhaps in pointing out that it was not
affixed to Edward's copy of the indenture.4 That even
ing he received warning, it is said, from the king's
nephew, the earl of Gloucester,5 that Edward had

1 The presumption in favour of nated, the earl of March, was dis-
this is very strong, not merely be- allowed by the king, and another
cause Scotch writers, like Robert named in his place. Riley's Plead-
Barbour (p. 20), and Fordun (p. 993), ings, p. 503.
state it, but because the document * Palgrave, Documents and Re-
has been preserved in the English cords, p. 324.
archives. Palgrave, Documents and 5 If Fordun's story has any foun-
Records. dation in fact, the friend can hardly
2 Mr. Stevenson quotes a letter have been Ralf de Monthermer,
from the king, of March 3, 1304, actual earl of Gloucester, who shortly
praising Bruce for his services. afterwards obtained, and had prob-
Chron. de Lanercost, p. 409. ably applied for, the honour of An-
3 One of the nobles actually nomi- nandale. But Gilbert de Clare had

436 COMYN KILLED BY BRUCE.
dropped threats of taking his life. The only chance
of safety was in escape, and Bruce fled so rapidly, as to
arrive in Scotland before the order for his arrest could
be brought by the king's messenger. He assembled a
few of his friends, told them of his position, and sent a
message inviting Comyn to meet him in the church of
the Gray Friars at Dumfries (Jan. 29, 1306).1 The
English judges were then sitting there in assize, and
Comyn was probably in the town on legal business.
After the first words of friendly greeting in the cloister,
Bruce produced his own copy of the bond, taxed Comyn
with treachery, and asked if he would make amends by
supporting his old confederate in the struggle for life
and royalty. Comyn positively refused, and Bruce,
who had come resolved to win back an ally or do
justice on a traitor, at once stabbed him where he
stood. Yet his passion was short-lived, and he flew
hastily and horror-stricken from the spot, telling the
friends who questioned him, " I doubt I have slain
Comyn." All had foreseen such an issue, and the only
feeling was that it must not be left doubtful. A Kirk-
patric rushed in, "to make sikkar," as he said; Comyn
was dispatched on the ground,2 and his uncle, who tried

some reason to dislike his grand- fore it was legally his. Riley's
father, who had given away his earl- Pleadings, p. 371. Dugdale's Baron-
dom, and illegally taken his socage age, i. pp. 216, 217.
lands into. wardship during his mi- ' Trivet, p. 407. Chronica Rish-
nority ; while his uncle, Thomas de anger, p. 229. Matt. West., p. 453.
Clare, had contracted a treaty of the Hemingburgh (ii. p. 245), gives
most binding kind, in 1286, with February 10 as the date.
Robert Bruce's father. Dugdale, 2 Hemingburgh 's story (ii. p. 246)
indeed, says that this Gilbert de that Comyn was dragged from the
Clare was styled earl of Gloucester church porch and killed on the altar
conjointly with his step-father, and steps, by order of Bruce, after the
though I cannot verify this, I see no town had been won ; and Matthew
difficulty in supposing that the family of Westminster's (453), that he was
title might be loosely given him be- killed by Bruce himself on the altar-

BRUCE MADE KING OF SCOTLAND. 437
to rescue him, killed at his side. There can be no reason
able doubt that the crime was, to some extent, premedi
tated, as one in which lay the only hope of safety for a
betrayed and desperate man. Comyn could not be left
free to make war against his old associates, and none of
the party could foresee the panic of all around which
followed the murder, so that a mere handful of men,
like Bruce's party, could occupy the town, besiege and
capture the judges, and retire unmolested across the
country. But the provocation, the sense of outraged
trust and personal danger, the quarrel, and the subse
quent remorse, serve at least to extenuate an act, which
was no sooner committed than repented, and which is
the one dark stain in a noble life.
For Bruce, at least, there was now no hope of safety
but in war. The one question was, to know whether
or not he would be supported by his countrymen as the
national candidate. The Scotch nobles and gentry
were already sickened of English rule, and they rallied
around the new leader with a heartiness which they had
never shown to Wallace. Within two months Bruce
was formally installed king on the mystic stone of
Scone, in the presence of five earls, four bishops, and a
large gathering of meaner men. Of the five earls, one
was probably his own nephew, the boy earl of Mar, unless
Malise of Stratherne's story of homage refused and ex
torted forcibly some time after the coronation, was a mere
fiction to save his life, as Edward, who put him in prison,

steps in the first scuffle conflict with Chronica de Melsa (ii. p. 276), and
one another, and are contradicted by Barbour (p. 23), speak of Bruce as
Langtoft (p. 330), as well as by killing him, but the expression is
Fordun (p. 996,) and the Metrical probably used loosely by men wishing
Boece (p. 199). Trivet (p. 407), the to economise words.
Chronica Rishanger (p. 229), the

438

ADHESION OF SCOTCH NOBLES TO BRUCE.

seems to have believed.1 But the earls of Lennox, Athol,
and Monteith,2 the latter concerned in Wallace's capture,
and two veterans of high reputation, sir Simon Fraser
and James Douglas, were cordially on the side of a
patrician candidate. Macduff, the earl of Fife, to whose
family it belonged to crown the Scotch kings, was
absent in England, and might have scrupled to assist,
as his sister was married to a Comyn, earl of Buchan.
But the countess of Buchan, fascinated, it is said, by a
guilty love for Robert Bruce, rode off with her hus
band's horses to the coronation, and placed the magic
circlet upon the new king's head, two days after the
first ceremonies had been performed (Sunday, March
27). Amid the general rejoicings a single voice of
warning was raised. " Thou art henceforth queen of
Scotland, and I king," said Robert Bruce to his wife.
" I fear," said Aymer de Burgh's daughter, " we are

1 Palgrave's Documents and Re
cords, p. cxxxix. He appears to have
come in and surrendered after Me-
thuen. 2 Hemingburgh says (ii. p. 247)
five earls were present, and Matthew
of Westminster (p. 453) speaks of
several. The instrument recording
the fates of prisoners enumerates
Alan, earl of Monteith, John, earl of
Athol, the infant heir of Mar, and
the earl of Strathern, who, however,
professed to have been captured and
forced into complicity by Bruce,
as . it would seem, at some time
after the coronation. Palgrave, Do
cuments and Records, pp. 319-322.
Besides these, the earl of Lennox
is mentioned by Matthew of West
minster. The fifth was probably
the earl of Sutherland. (Douglas,
Peerageof Scotland, p. 661). Ofthe
remaining five Scotch earls (exclud

ing Bruce), the earls of Angus and
Ros were more English than Scotch,
and the earls of Buchan and Fife
were connected with the Comyns.
The earl of March, Patrick of the
Black Beard, who died in 1308, had
served Edward in the first war
against Balliol, and in the second
against Wallace, and seems to have
held aloof from Bruce's rebellion, as
his lands were never confiscated by
the English government. Rot. Sco-
tise, i. p. 59. Of the four bishops
whose presence Hemingburgh re
cords, the bishops of Glasgow, St. An
drew's, and Moray were probably
three. The latter is mentioned in a
rescript of Edward's, (demanding
him, when he fled to the Orkneys,
from the king of Norway), as having
in some way consented to Comyn's
murder. There were ten Scotch
bishops in all.

EDWARD PREPARES TO DETHRONE HIM. 439
only playing at royalty, like children in their games."
But if Mary Bruce cared less for the royal crown than
for the bitterness of a rival's presence, or was at heart
loyal, like her father, to England,1 there were many —
even Englishmen — who were carried away by the im
pulse of the new adventure. A Conyers assisted at
the coronation, and the Northumbrian Setons, who
were allied by intermarriage with the Bruces, dedicated
their lives and fortunes to the mock-king, as he is styled
in English chronicles.8
Edward seems from the first to have understood the
importance of Bruce's rebellion. Before the tidings of
the coronation had reached him, he sent intelligence of
Comyn's murder to the pope, and obtained a bull ex
communicating the earl of Carrick. It would seem
that John of Dreux had never entered on the functions
of his lieutenancy, or at least was absent from Scotland
at the critical moment.3 The lieutenancy was trans
ferred to Aymer de Valence, who marched North with
a picked army, intended rather to watch the enemy
and relieve the- English garrisons than to conduct a
serious campaign. The king meanwhile prepared for
hostilities on a grander scale than his people had as
yet witnessed. The young nobles and gentlemen of
England were invited to take up their knighthood at
the approaching Whitsuntide with prince Edward, and

1 As soon as the earl of Ulster 3 I infer this from a letter of Ed-
heard of the rebellion, he sent over ward's, written in May, 1306, %-to
his two sons to. Edward as hostages. John, count of Dreux, then appa-
Hemingburgh, ii. p. 249. rently at Lyons, to assure him that
2 Two Lovels, apparently con- any report he may have heard of the
nected with John Lovel of Titch- king's speaking angrily about him
marsh, in Northamptonshire, were was without foundation. New Ry-
also among the first captives. New mer, vol. i. part i. p. 986.
Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 995.

440 GENERAL ENTHUSIASM AGAINST BRUCE.
the king promised to defray their expenses on the
occasion. Two earls and two hundred and forty of
knightly rank answered the appeal.1 When the cere
monies had been performed (May 22), while the king
sate at table among the new knights, a company of
minstrels entered the hall, and invited the young bro
thers in arms to illustrate the day of their baptism by
the vow of some noble enterprise. Edward spoke out
first, and swore, upon two swans that were placed before
him, to take vengeance upon Robert Bruce for the
outrage done' to God and to God's Church; this vow,
once accomplished, he would never again bear arms
against Christians, but would set out to die in the Holy
Land. Prince Edward followed by pledging himself
never to sleep two nights in the same bed till he
reached Scotland, in furtherance of his father's vow.
The enthusiasm was general, and all England united
with its king, and adopted his schemes of ambition, in a
horror of treason and sacrilege. The merchants granted
a twentieth ; the rest of the kingdom was assessed at a
thirtieth (May 30). Comyn's murder had been a grave
political mistake. It did not excite much horror even
among Englishmen in the lawless North, but south of
Trent it was viewed as a crime, which God could never
pardon, and which man was bound to avenge.
At first Aymer de Valence found, on his arrival in
Scotland, that he could not take the field against the
new king, who was traversing the country in every
direction, receiving homages and enlisting troops. The
English general accordingly threw himself into Perth,

1 Trivet, p. 408. Matthew of knights ; certainly not the 2000
Westminster (p. 484) says 300. whom the popular estimate of 60,000
Even the larger number does not knights' fees would require.
imply a very great yearly average of

THE BATTLE OF METHUEN. 441
and awaited the approach of the Scotch army. It came
up in good order and numerous, but with so many in
its ranks who were without defensive armour, that
Bruce had ordered all alike to cover themselves with
linen smocks, which concealed their poverty. Never
theless, all were eager for battle, and the earl of Pem
broke, at once unwilling to refuse and afraid to consent,
was glad to adjourn a decision by the pretext that it
was a Sunday (June 26). When, however, the Scotch
withdrew, an English council of war decided to violate
the agreement and surprise the enemy. A sally was
made in the evening, with complete success. Bruce
himself was three times thrown from his horse, and
only escaped with his life through sir Simon Fraser's
gallantry; and it was said also through the mercy of
his Scotch captor, John de Haliburton, who recognized
him and let him go. Many hundreds fell in the rout of
Methuen, and the disorder was so complete, that the
English pursued the fugitives to Kildrummie castle,
where Robert Bruce himself was believed to be. Ani
mated by this expectation, the English pushed the
siege vigorously ; but, on storming the castle, only found
the queen and Nigel Bruce. Unhappily, captives of
rank were brought in every day. Sir Simon Fraser was
captured in his flight from Methuen ; the earl of Athol
in a church, where he took refuge from Kildrummie ;
Brucete brother-in-law, Christopher Seton, and two
younger Setons, in Lochdor castle. The bishop of
Glasgow and the countess of Buchan were among the
captives of Methuen. The bishop of St. Andrew's had
surrendered himself to the English government, while
he sent his retainers to fight on the national side.
Robert Bruce was still at large, but he was almost
companionless. He.made a last effort to surprise Henry

442 BRUCE DESERTED AND A FUGITIVE.
Percy in the king's old castle of Carrick. Such a host*
age would have been doubly precious at the time ; but
before the fortress could be reduced, it was relieved by
an English detachment. Bruce grew furious at the
general defections from a hopeless cause, and took stern
vengeance upon all who made peace with the English
government. ' In Galloway, where he had fewest ad
herents, he expiated his anger bitterly. When his bro
thers, Thomas and Alexander Bruce, landed with a
body of Irish auxiliaries in Galloway, they were sur
prised in a night-attack by Dougal Mac-Dougal (Feb.
10, 1307), and almost the whole force taken or destroyed.
Some of the leaders were executed on the spot, and the
two Bruces sent prisoners to Edward. Bruce resumed
operations in person, at the head of an army of outlaws,
whose lands had been confiscated, and of recruits from
the Western Isles. He even won a victory over the
English army at Loudon Hill, and besieged the earl of
Gloucester in Ayr castle. But the mere appearance
of a Scotch army was the signal for larger forces to
be poured in from England. The earl was relieved,
and Bruce, without money or a regular government,
could not keep his forces in the field. (Feb. 1307).
Within a year of the battle of Methuen, the new
king was a fugitive in the Highlands, fighting his way
with a few men-at-arms through clans whose chiefs were
in alliance with the English; at times utterly forsaken,
tracked by blood-hounds, and repeatedly owing his life
to a quick brain and a resolute arm. Never king served
rougher apprenticeship.
As Edward grew older, his devotion to tbe Church
increased, his moral sense grew blunter, his temper
more violent. The punctilious regard for legality, and
the passion for prerogative, which had always been

Edward's arrogance and violence. 443
strangely blended in his disposition, were fused, as his
will triumphed over all opposition, into a habit, that
sometimes became a frenzy, of imperious statesmanship.
When his judges recommended to mercy a baron, who
had deserted the king's service that he might fight an
enemy who called him traitor, Edward was indignant
that they should encroach on the royal prerogative of
pardon, vowed that he had no more regard for them
than for a dog, and yet commanded that the decision
should be recorded.1 " Never man asked mercy of me
and was refused," he once said; but he took excellent
care that no one whom he intended to hang should have
the opportunity of asking mercy. He was now an
old man of nearly seventy, debarred from exercise, and
harassed by a painful disease ; and, having done much
and deserved well, he was yet foiled of his great prize
in the last moments of his life, and about to be
queath a struggle to his nerveless successor. It is
certain that the king's anger was at times so violent
as to border upon insanity. When his own son, soon
after his knighthood, petitioned that his playmate and
unworthy favourite, Piers Gaveston, might be made an
earl, the king, not satisfied with refusing the request,
seized prince Edward by the hair, tore handfuls of it
out, and thrust him out of the chamber, with every cir
cumstance of insult.2 These paroxysms of a diseased
mind must be taken into account, if we would under
stand how the just sovereign, who counselled mercy
after the barons' war, who spared all but three Welsh
men, after rebellions less justifiable, and wars even more*
ferocious, than those of the Scotch, and who refused to
listen to Turberville's denunciations, seemed only to

Matt. West., p. 450. 2 Hemingburgh, ii. p. 272.

444 EXECUTIONS OF SCOTCH NOBLES.
thirst for blood during the last year of his life. One by'
one, the noble company of Scotch patriots passed away'
from a short captivity to the scaffold or the gallows. The
queen and the English nobles interceded for the earl of
Athol, who claimed kindred with royalty through descent
from an uncle of Edward's.1 " His only privilege," said
the king, " shall be, to be hanged on a higher gallows
than the rest, as his treasons have been more flagrant and
numerous." The earl was further suffered to ride to
the place of his execution ; but it was his only privilege,
and he was disembowelled while yet alive. The same
miserable fate was inflicted on sir Simon Fraser, on sir
Herbert Norham and his squire, on Nigel, Thomas, and
Alexander Bruce, and on Christopher Seton and his two
brothers. Six others of less note, including Bruce's
marshal, standard-bearer, and chaplain, suffered in the
blood-bath of Berwick, where the prisoners taken at
Methuen were tried and sentenced. But, in fact, one

1 As the earl of Athol, John de Fin., i. p. 252. The Testa de Nevil
Strathbolgie, is styled " proximus (p. 348) speaks of an Isabella de Do-
parens domino regi Anglise" by He- ver as a royal ward; and an inquest
mingburgh, (ii. p. 250) ; while the in 1303 found that John, earl of
more cautious chronicler of Meaux Athol, then aged twenty-one and
(ii. p. 278) merely says, that he called more, was son of Isabella, sister of
himself the king's cousin, the question Richard of Dover. Calend. Geneal.,
of his pedigree becomes of some im- ii. p. 696. I suspect from the dates,
portance. Douglas, in the Peerage that the earl's mother was really
of Scotland (p. 46), says his mother Richard de Chilham's grand-
was Isabella, daughter of Richard, daughter. He inherited the earl-
natural son of king John ; while sir dom of Athol through his grand-
T. Gray calls him cousin to the king mother Ada Hastings, who descended
of England, "Fitz Maude de Douvre by her mother, Fernileth, from Ma-
sa tante." (Scalacronica, p. 131). dach, cousin of Malcolm Canmore,
Richard de Chilham, natural son of who was doubly connected with Eng-
king John, married Rohesia de Do- lish royalty through his wife Mar-
ver, and left at his death several garet, sister of Edgar JEtheling, and
daughters. Stapleton, Rot. Scac. tis daughter Edith, the queen of
Norm., ii. p. cv. ; Excerpta e Rot. Henry I.

SCOTLAND SEVERELY CHASTISED. 445
reliable English chronicler tells us, that Edward's justi
ciaries went through Scotland burning the Scotch, drag
ging them at horses' tails, and hanging them; and
another, writing from the borders, records, with horror,
that not only peasants were hanged, but knights and
clergymen.1 An ordinance of the English council put
the whole kingdom at the mercy of foreign officials, by
proscribing not only all who had. taken part in Comyn's
murder, but all who had borne arms against the king,
or who had sheltered rebels. Those, who were merely
slack in hunting down their rebellious countrymen,
were to be let off with the lighter penalties of forfeiture
and imprisonment; and even better terms were offered
to those who, being in arms, came in of their own
accord to the king's mercy, and who were to be impri
soned or ransomed at the royal pleasure. Only three
prominent exceptions were made to the merciless rigour
of Edward's sentences. Thomas Randolph, Bruce's
nephew, was spared at the intercession of Thomas Gor
don. The bishops of Glasgow and St. Andrew's, and the
abbot of Scone, owed it to their high position in the
Church, that they were merely imprisoned and not
summarily executed, though the bishop of Glasgow was
unfortunately conspicuous as having broken no fewer
than six oaths of allegiance. The earl of Buchan, justly
furious against the wife who had outraged conjugal
honour and the obligations of the blood-feud, was
urgent that she should be put to death. Edward, who
was less interested in the revenge, was not yet brutal
ized to the point of executing a woman. With a ques
tionable humanity, he ordered the unhappy lady to be
exposed, for several days, in a large wooden cage,
1 Hemingburgh, ii. p. 265. Chron. de Lanercost, p. 204.

446 TREATMENT OF SCOTCH LADIES.
fashioned like a crown, upon the ramparts of Berwick.1
She remained for four years in rigorous imprisonment,
and was then transported for three years more to gentler
custody in a convent. The sisters and daughter of
Robert Bruce were fortunate enough to escape insult
and meagre fare, but were equally consigned to a
prison or to a convent. The queen, as daughter to the
earl of Ulster, and because she was believed loyal at
heart, enjoyed all the honours and ease that are con
sistent with a light captivity. Her good fortune was
the more remarkable, as it was a new incident of this
lamentable war, that the wives of rebels were indis
criminately outlawed. They wandered into the woods.
and morasses, following their king's march as they best
might, and bequeathing, or treasuring up, memories of
inextinguishable hatred to their oppressor. The Scotch
inroads into England had always been marked by the
savage excesses which the Galwegians and Highlanders,
in particular, committed. From this time ferocity be
came a part of patriotism, and it was a fearful conse
quence of Edward's cruelty, that a veteran like James
1 Dr. Lingard denies the fact of 130), it seems impossible to doubt it ;
the public exposure, on the ground, and whether she was exposed in a
that it i3 not mentioned as part of large or a small cage does not really
the punishment in the writ men- make much difference. But as a
tioning how the cage is to be con- cage is not specified in imprison-
structed, and because the cage was ments generally, and as a rescript of
to have the convenience of a decent Edward II. speaks of mitigating the
chamber. As, however, it is men- severity (savitid) of the countess of
tioned by. Hemingburgh (ii. p. 247), Buchan's imprisonment (Rotuli Sco-
by sir Thomas Gray (Scalacronica, tiae, p. 85), and alludes specially to
p. 130), by Matthew of Westminster the cage, it is evident that the pun-
(p.455), and in the Chronicles of Ris- ishment was considered exceptional.
hanger{p.229), and as the fuller order Mary Bruce, the sister,- was at first
for its making expressly says that the ordered to be confined in a cage at
sides are to be latticed, so that all Roxburgh ; but the order was can-
may look at her for a wonder, (Pal- celled, and she was transferred, with
grave, Documents and Records, p. her aunt, to sir H. Percy's custody.

Edward's progress northwards. 447
Douglas, sprung from the quiet, commercial Flemings,
was provoked to retaliate wholesale massacres upon the
enemy. Robert Bruce, orphaned of three brothers,
deprived of wife, daughter, and sisters, with no choice
for himself between the scaffold and the crown, deserves
at least the praise, that he was more merciful than his
followers. Edward had begun to travel northwards, before the
necessity of a vigorous campaign was obviated by the
success at Methuen, and he made easy progresses about
the marches, or lay sick at Lanercost, distracted be
tween the cares of ambition and thought for his soul ;
now occupied with securing the earl of Fife by a mar
riage to his grand-daughter; now writing to implore
the prayers of Franciscans and Dominicans ; and
throughout directing the government and urging on
the terrible work of retribution. But he was too ill to
attend the great Parliament at Carlisle (Jan. 20, 1307),
though the business laid before the three Estates was of
no common interest.1 A new papal proctor, master
William Testa, was plying his unpopular trade with
such energy as to rouse all classes against him.
Deaneries, advowsons, and abbeys were sequestered
mercilessly to the pope's nominees, the first-fruits, or
first year's proceeds of a benefice were for ever annexed
to the Roman treasury, and the customary and mode
rate composition for Peter's pence was exchanged for
a new assessment of a penny on every head. It had
been a custom in England to contract engagements
under a penalty of money to be paid towards the next
1 At least, the. Parliament was that all business was transacted
opened by royal commissioners, and through them. But Hemingburgh
the language in the Rolls of Parlia- (ii. p. 252) speaks of a paper read
ment (i. p. 189) certainly implies, out "in the hearing of the king."

448 PREPOSTEROUS CLAIMS OF PAPAL PROCTOR.
passage of crusaders into the Holy Land. Bruce and
Comyn had inserted a clause of this kind into their
memorable covenant, and of course never intended to
enforce it in Edward's law-courts. But the Apostolical
proctor instituted an enquiry into all covenants of the
kind throughout the kingdom, and demanded that the
money should be paid over to himself in trust, even in
cases where the king's courts had set aside the agree
ment. Even more monstrous was the claim that all
bequests, where the will of the testator could not be
exactly determined, should escheat to the pope. In
fact, from the arrogant pretension to tax the tempora
lities of the clergy, of which, properly, the Church could
take no cognizance, down to the ignominious sharp
practice of buying an interest in bad debts and collect
ing them in the ecclesiastical courts, nothing was too
high or too low for the pope's commissioners. The
consideration of these grievances had been adjourned
from the last Parliament, that the sense of the country
might be taken as fully as possible. Accordingly, the
inferior clergy alone mustered nearly eighty strong in
the Parliament, while the bishops and abbots, without
exception, either attended or sent proctors to represent
them.1 It was probably known that Edward, alike
from devotion and policy, was inclined to connive at
the taxes raised for a crusade, and could not be trusted
to act cordially with his people. But the Parliament
did its best to overcome the king's apathy by address
ing him in a vigorous memorial, which enumerated the

1 Hemingburgh has transcribed a and not very forcible, attack on
curious appeal to public opinion, in the oppressions of the Roman see ;
the shape of a document that sud- the best point, perhaps, being a
denly fluttered down into the midst comparison of Christ paying tribute,
of the Parliament. It is a violent, with the pope exacting it.

THE LAST DAYS OF EDWARD I. 449
encroachments on royal authority, while at the same
time a statute was passed, forbidding the heads of reli
gious houses to send any taxes beyond sea, and espe
cially forbidding alien priors, who had been grievous
offenders, to impose any contributions. The statute
received the king's assent, and was ordered to be pub
lished in the county courts, as well as in Wales, Ches
ter, Ireland, and Gascony. Master William Testa was
warned by the royal commissioners to desist from any
encroachments on the royal prerogative, and was pro
vided with a safe-conduct out of the kingdom, that he
might report proceedings at Rome, and obtain instruc
tions. But the priestly influences around the king were
too strong for his resolution to last. As soon as the
Parliament broke up, he ordered the chancellor not to
seal the writs of publication, and signed a series of re
scripts reserving the first-fruits of vacant priories to
the pope, reserving all the rights of former nuncios to
master William Testa and his colleagues, and allowing
them to send remittances out of England in the shape
• of letters of exchange. Peter, cardinal of Sabina, who
had come to Carlisle (March 19) x to adjust the never-
ending complications with France, enjoys the credit of
swaying round the sick kmg to an arbitrary, and sub
stantially, a dishonest act. But its triumphs of this
kind were dearly bought by Rome.
The king was dying by inches, and passion and de
votion were the only strong impulses of his life to
which he remained sensible. The letters entreating the
prayers of the faithful continue, and he interests himself
only two months before his death (May 6, 1307) to get

1 Chron. de Lanercost, p. 206.
II. G G

450 DEATH OF KING EDWARD I.
Robert Grosseteste canonized. The priory of Lanercost,
where he is lodged, derives a fresh endowment from his
gratitude. But the neighbourhood of death did not
make him softer toward his enemies. Peace was within
his grasp when Robert Bruce tried to negotiate with
prince Edward at Glasgow, offering terms which the
prince thought worthy to be considered and reported.
But his father only asked angrily, who was " so bold
as to begin a treaty with our traitors without our know
ledge?"1 The soldiers for the summer campaign were
appointed to meet at Carlisle about the end of June.
When the army assembled, the king was so ill of dysen
tery that only his bedroom servants were allowed to
see him, and a rumour went through the camp that he
was dead. Edward heard of the report, and, by a last
effort of his unbroken will, commenced the march
northwards without further delay. But even short
stages of two miles a day were beyond his strength.
On the fifth day, as he was lifted up in the bed
to take food, he died in the arms of his attend
ants. He had seen the end coming, and had given a
last command that his dead body should be carried
before the host, which he had so often led to victory,
until the conquest of Scotland should be achieved.
But Edward's successor had no thought of exposing
himself to the toil and hazard of a war which his lieu
tenants might carry on. He sent the dead body to
Waltham under honourable escort, and it received the
last honours at Westminster, where the greatest of his
race rested among his fathers, and within the shadow
of Eleanor's tomb.
Among those of our kings whom we really know,
1 Scalacronica, p. 132.

HIS GOVERNMENT AND CHARACTER. 451
there is perhaps no greater name than that of Edward
the First. He wanted in some respects the imperial
conceptions of his great ancestor the Conqueror, and
his commissions upon crown lands and rights are as far
below the searching universality of Domesday Book, as
his purely legal view of property and punishment is
beneath the large temper of the sovereign who enfran
chised the fugitive slave, and erased the sentence of
death from his penal code. But if Edward could not
see into future time, he knew the wants of his own age,
and laboured for them with unswerving singleness of
purpose. He found England the most priest-ridden
country in Europe, and he raised a barrier against
Church aggrandizement and ecclesiastical jurisdiction
which neither monk nor pope could overstep afterwards.
The work of legislation, which had almost been sus
pended for two centuries, begins again with him, and
has endured in great measure to the present day. But
it is especially as a statesman that Edward's wisdom is
remarkable. He saw that the real strength of Eng
land was within the four seas, and, in the face of tradi
tion and punctilio, he prepared to give up the foreign
provinces, while he strained every nerve to incorporate
Wales and Scotland with the English monarchy. Nor
was his the vulgar spirit of a conqueror. It was not
Edward, but the settlers of the English pale, who refused
to admit the Irish to equal rights; it was not the king's
government that proved intolerable to the Welsh, but
a great English noble's. Where the king faded was
in an overstrained sense of his legal rights, and in want
of sympathy with the imaginative part of humanity.
He lost Scotland, because he would not waive his pre
rogative, or humour the tradition of independence in a
free people. He was prepared to give largely, to

452 CLOSE OF EDWARD S REIGN.
govern wisely, even to trust generously, but he could
not believe that the work of union was achieved, till the
writs for both countries ran in the same name. He
could understand the war levied by a noble better than
that headed by a simple gentleman ; and that a vague
love of country should weigh with any honourable man
above the feudal oath, was a question not to be seriously
entertained by the king, who took for his motto,
" Keep thy covenant." Like most men of punctilious
intellect, Edward was occasionally blunt to the higher
calls of honour. More than once he set aside the con
stitutional obligations which had been imposed upon
him by constraint ; and, under shadow of papal media
tion, he deserted his difficult but gallant allies the
Flemings. His people groaned under his stern govern
ment while he lived, but remembered him afterwards
with affection, and told in ballads how he mixed freely
with yeomen.1 The crimes that have cast a dark shadow
over his reign belong, with one exception, to the last
two years of his life ; and those who are conscious of
human weakness will be slow to pass a harsh judgment
on one, whose anger was partly the taint of a? diseased
old age, and whose perilous greatness had placed him
beyond control and above counsellors.

1 See the ballad of John de Reeve in bishop Percy's Folio Manuscript,
vol. ii. part ii.

453

Chapter XV.
THE STRUCTURE OF THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION.
Royal and Political Government. The Continual Council. The
Great Council. Fluctuating Constitution of Parliament. Royal
Influences. The Earls. Barons by Tenure and Barons by
Writ. Contrasts of Nobility in France and England. Real
Power of the English Nobles. Life Peers and Peers by
Office. Bishops and Abbots. Position of the Clergy in
Parliament. The Untitled Gentry. Knights of the Shire.
Borough Members. Contrasts of Modern and Ancient Parlia
ment. Financial Dependence of our Kings on Parliament.
Position of Royal Ministers. Balance of Power between
King and People.
WHEN the English nobles and Louis of France
were in controversy with Innocent IIL, it was
alleged on their side that John had forfeited his king
dom, by becoming the pope's vassal without the con
sent of his baronage.1 Nearly ninety years later,
Edward I. approved, and perhaps drafted, a letter, in
which the barons told Boniface VIIL, that they would
not allow their king, even if he wished it, to impair in
any way the just rights of his crown. The constitu
tional doctrine implied in these statements was capable

1 The argument was twice brought terbury. Paris, Hist. Major, p. 281 ;
forward : (1) by Louis's proctor, New Rymer, vol. i. part i. p. 140.
" miles quidam," to Gualo ; and (2) There can be little doubt that it was
in a letter from Louis to the abbot the English, rather than the French,
and convent of St. Augustine's, Can- view of monarchy.

454 ROYAL AND POLITICAL GOVERNMENT.
of very wide application. Throughout the thirteenth
century, the ideal of what Fortescue described, at a
later period, as " royal and political lordship," floated
before the minds of English statesmen and gentlemen.
They pledged every king at his coronation to maintain
the ancient rights and franchises, once granted by his
ancestors, and to enforce such new laws as the common
alty should ordain.1 A respect for old customs might,
however, be consistent with an oppressive and captious
executive ; and the tendency of our first Norman kings
to conciliate their English subjects, by avoiding new
legislation, seems to have induced a certain carelessness
about statutes, and a disposition to let the judges intro
duce necessary reforms by case-law, or decisions apply
ing general principles to new particulars. It is one
glory of Edward I., our first truly English king, that
he inaugurated a larger policy, and imparted a fresh
impulse, never afterwards lost, to law-giving. But,
whether old laws were to be enforced, or new laws
made, the right of the people to control and advise was
of equally high importance. Practically, all seemed to
turn on the constitution of the king's council. By this,
which comprised the great state officers and judges, the
kingdom was administered without any control, except
when parliaments were sitting. Under Henry IIL,
the barons tried, for a time successfully, to . estab
lish the principle of naming the king's councillors, and
of making them directly responsible for the issue of all
but purely formal writs. Edward I. partly recognized
both principles. Whde he steadily refused to allow
actual interference in the choice of ministers, he was

1 " Leges et consuetudines . . . quas vulgus elegerit." Statutes of the
Realm, i. p. 168.

THE CONTINUAL COUNCIL. 455
careful to include in his council the more reliable mem
bers of the great nobility and the prelates. While he
reserved a few writs, that were not to issue without his
own special orders, he gave up the rest to the discretion
of the council.1 The members of the Continual,2 or
Privy, Council, took an oath of loyal service to the
crown, and of inviolable secrecy.8 At a later period,
the primate put forward a claim which might be inter
preted to imply that he was, ex officio, a member of
their body;4 but under Edward I. the pretension seems
never to have been raised, or not allowed. Every coun
cillor, therefore, was a royal nominee.
The powers of the Continual Council were at once
extensive and vague. They drew up the statutes which
had been agreed to in parliament, and exercised a dan
gerous right of tampering with the phraseology. They
issued interpretations to guide the judges, and, at times,
summoned these, as members of their own tribunal, to
answer before them. They received petitions, and issued
special commissions to hear cases and give judgment.
They exercised the judicial functions which are now
transferred to the common-law side of the Court of

1 Palgrave' s Authority of Council, were ex officio members of council, it
pp. 17, 18. seems to me to be rather an instance
2 Proceedings of the Privy Coun- of legal verbiage, intended to guard
cii, vol. i., preface by sir H. Nicolas, against any possible limitation of
pp. iii. iv. privileges. The important words are,
3 Riley's Pleadings, p. 317. "reserving to myself and my suc-
4 This is the opinion of sir H. cessors, the archbishops of Canter -
Nicolas. The immediate object of bury, who shall be for the time in
the primate's protest (1386) was, parliaments and royal councils what-
however, to object to the imposition soever, as well general as special,
of an oath of secrecy; and though . . . the right of being present freely,
there is a cloud of technical phrase- as is premised, without the taking of
ology, which may be interpreted to any oath," &c. Rot. Pari., iii. p.
cover the assertion that all primates 223.

456 THE GREAT COUNCIL.
Chancery ; taking cognizance of those cases where the
plea was laid against the crown or its ministers. They
compelled offenders against the royal authority to
appear and answer in person ; thus superseding the com
mon-law courts in a point of vital importance to the
subjects' liberty. They recommended the crown to
issue charters, by which local dues were imposed.
They sanctioned the premature levying of taxes, and
exercised an uncertain influence on the expenditure.
They advised with the king on the conduct of foreign
negotiations and war. During the reign of Edward I.
they were sheltered, to a certain extent, by the sove
reign's character; and, though unpopular, were never
in actual danger. But, in later reigns, the power they
exercised, and the salaries they received, could not
always reconcile them to the risks of a prison or a scaf
fold, if the parliament should make them responsible
for bad government ; and happy were those who could
retire in time, and obtain a quittance from the Es
tates.1 Besides the Continual Council, there was a Great
Council, which was yet not Parliament. This comprised
all members of the former, all prelates and great lords,
all judges, and such persons as might be supposed well
fitted to advise on the wants of the moment. It is doubt
ful how far this body could legislate,2 and it is certain it

1 For a general view of the powers called " de Bigamis," in 1276; the
of the Continual Council, I must re- Mortmain Act, in 1279; and the
fer to sir F. Palgrave's treatise on Statute de Finibus Levatis, in 1299.
its original authority; to the Pro- In the first case, however, the main
ceedings and Ordinances of the Privy provisions of the statute seem to
Council, edited by sir II. Nicolas ; have been agreed to in the preceding
and to HaUam's Middle Ages. parliament. The Mortmain Act is
2 Possible instances of legislation stated in its preamble to be only the
by a Great Council are, the Statute carrying out of an existing law,

CONSTITUTION OF A PARLIAMENT. 457
could not tax. It was convoked, in cases of emergency,
to strengthen the hands of authority, and give ex
pression to the popular feeling of the day. But it was
also a judicial tribunal of the highest dignity and pre
rogative. It was by an assembly of this kind, that the
question of the Scotch succession was determined, and
the letter of the barons to Boniface signed. In the
second case, it seems to have followed an ordinary par
liament of the Estates, the knights and burgesses going
back when their work was done.
The word "parliament" is so vaguely used in our early
records, that it is often doubtful what the character of
the meeting actually was. It might, apparently, be an
informal conference of the king and his Continual Coun
cil with the spiritual and temporal lords, who attended
court at the three great yearly festivals. It might be a
meeting of the Great Council. It might be composed of
the two estates of magnates and commonalty, without
any formal representatives of the first estate, as. the
bishops and abbots sate in virtue of their baronies. At
the parliament of Salisbury (Feb. 24, 1297), when the
clergy were in covert rebellion, even the bishops and
abbots were not summoned. Unless we find that laws
were enacted, and taxes not only recommended, but
actually levied, we cannot always define the character
of the meeting ; and out of something like sixty assem
blies in the thirty-five years of Edward L's reign, not
thirty can be identified as parliaments proper. In many
other respects there was a certain looseness of practice
in early times. Once (Jan. 20, 1283), the nobles being
with the king in Wales, the clergy and commons of all
though in reality it no doubt effected some plausibility, as only a code of
a great change; and the. Statute de regulations for the royal courts.
Finibus might be considered, with

458 ROYAL INFLUENCES.
England, except perhaps the counties palatine of Dur
ham and Chester,1 were assembled in two distinct con
ferences ; the counties north of Trent meeting at York,
and those south at Northampton. It is fortunate for
England that this expedient of provincial estates never
recommended itself to the absolutist policy of our sove
reigns.2 At the parliament of Winchester (Sept. 8,
1265), the wives or widows of the earls, barons, and
knights, who had been killed or taken prisoners in the
king's service, were summoned to attend, no doubt that
their claims for compensation might be examined. In
the reign of Edward IIL, peeresses were twice sum
moned to parliament, with instructions, on one occasion,
to send proxies.3 But, above all, the crown exercised
a wide discretion in issuing writs of summons. It sum
moned forty-three earls and barons to the parliament of
St. Edmundsbury in 1296, and a hundred and eight
een to the parliament of Lincoln in 1301.4 It raised
the number of cities and boroughs that returned repre
sentatives, from twenty-one in 1283, to ninety-four in
1 Dr. Lingard says, that "the were addressed, not to the sheriffs
clergy and commons of the bishopric of Lancaster, but to Henry, duke
of Durham met in that city, probably of Lancaster. On the other hand,
in virtue of some privilege belonging Antony Bek, archdeacon of Durham,
to it as a county palatine." History was one of the royal commissioners
of England, iii. p. 246. I cannot ab- for the conference at York, and it
solutely disprove this statement, but seems unlikely that he would be
I can find no authority for it. It is separated from his bishop and clergy.
true, Durham and Cheshire are not 2 There is, however, another in-
among the counties to which writs stance, in 1360, when knights and
were addressed ; just as, a little later, burgesses were summoned to attend
they are not on the list of counties in five different places — Westmin-
for which collectors of the 30th are ster, Worcester, Taunton, Lincoln,
appointed. (Parliamentary Writs, i. and Leicester.
pp. 10-14); but the reason in each 3 In 1361 and 1362. Parry's Par-
case is, I believe, that the issuing liaments, p^-127.
writs of summons, and the appoint- 4 Parliamentary Writs, i. p. 48 ;
ment of collectors, rested with the Report on the Dignity of a Peer,
earl palatine. Thus, in 1356, writs Appendix i. pp. 125-127.

THE THREE ESTATES IN PARLIAMENT. 459
1295. With so vast a power of packing the representa
tive • assembly, and no restrictions but the want of
money, or the dread of popular opinion, the crown
might well regard its parliaments without any exces
sive jealousy. But it had another and grosser method
of influencing votes. Knights of shire and burgesses
were allowed their expenses in parliament, by an arbi
trary table of fees ; and the crown took upon itself to
diminish or withhold the payments made, according to
its own estimate of the members' respectability and
good behaviour.
Assuming a full parliament to have been summoned,
with numerous representatives of the three estates of
clergy, lords, and commons, it was still far from certain
that the elements of a strong opposition would be found
in it. Taking the case of our greatest nobles, the earls,
we find that they only numbered twenty altogether in
John's reign; and that, under Edward, if we exclude
Irish and Scotch titles, there were only thirteen at
most,1 who dwindled down to eleven. This, in itself,
might not detract from their power, as it assuredly
did not impair their position. But, of the twenty earls
who ought to have headed the baronage against John,
two, de Thouars of Richmond, and de Montfort of Lei
cester, were French. The earl of Huntingdon was
Scotch, and the earl of Ulster Irish ; while the earl of
Pembroke was chiefly connected by his interests with
Ireland and Wales. The earls of Salisbury and Surrey
were royal bastards. ° The earls of Hertford and Arun-

1 Twelve earls, with English or with the earl of Lancaster, whose
Welsh titles, were summoned to do name is repeated twice. Report on the
military service against Wales in Dignity of a Peer, Appendix i. p. 37.
1277, the earl of Arundel being The earldoms of Norfolk and Corn-
omitted, apparently by confusion, wall became extinct during the reign.

460 THE EARLS.
del were connected by marriage with the royal family.
Three other earls were creations of the reigning king;1
and, of the remaining eight, only three represented the
first companions of the Conqueror and the independent
English nobility. It was the natural policy of our kings
to be chary in the distribution of the highest honours ;
and, under Edward I., the time might almost be calcu
lated when the crown should have absorbed the whole
nobility. The earls of Cornwall, Lancaster, Pembroke,
and Richmond, were the king's near relatives. The earl
of Gloucester and the second earl of Hereford were his
sons-in-law. The earls of Lincoln, Norfolk, and Here
ford had agreed to a fresh settlement of their earldoms,
by which these were to revert to the crown in the event
of male issue failing in the direct line. Omitting those
whose titles were derived from Ireland or Scotland, the
earls of Arundel, Oxford, Surrey, and Warwick were
the only great lords, not immediately connected with
royalty,2 who transmitted their titles, without decre
ment, to their posterity. Of these, the earl of Surrey
is the only one who was, for a short time, in opposition.
He was humbled at the time, and employed freely in
the king's service afterwards. The earls of Arundel
and Warwick were new men, who had acquired their
earldoms by descent through the female line.
There were, of course, important families who were
only second to earls in position and influence. Under
John, several of these appear in history. Robert Fitz-
Walter, captain of the barons' army ; Wflliam de Braose,

1 De Quincy of Winchester ; De by the father's side, from a natural
MandeviUe of Gloucester ; and Fitz- son of Geoffrey of Anjou ; and, by
Piers of Essex. the mother's, from the Conqueror.
2 The earl of Surrey was, of course, But the connection was too distant
the king's relative, as he descended, to influence politics.

THE BARONS. 461
and his allies, the De Lacies, who acted like independ
ent princes, in Wales and Ireland; Fulk Fitz-Warine,
who defied the king for years, as an outlaw, and at last
concluded peace with him ; Eustace de Vesci, who mar
ried a Scotch princess ; and the thirteen other barons,
whom the pope mentioned by name in his brief of
excommunication, are all instances of a real and power
ful nobility. It was the policy of a constitutional king
to retain these men in his service as governors of castles
or judges; and if John and Henry III. could have
bated a little of their exorbitant claims, and consented
to be served by honourable men, instead of by supple
foreigners, and mere dependants, it would have gone
hard with English liberty. Edward I. was more pru
dent in his selections, and names like Gifford, Gurdun,
De Vesci, Segrave, and Clifford, show that estated men,
when they were capable, were freely preferred. His
policy of employing natives was even carried out, to his
ultimate loss, in Scotland. Accordingly, only one baron,
John de Ferrars, of a disgraced earl's family, took part
so actively against the king in 1297 as to deserve par
don by name. But there is reason to believe that the
baronage was impaired in influence, if not in numbers,
since the reign of John. Against more than two hundred,
whom we can identify as barons in that period, we find
only a hundred and nine summoned to the king's greatest
parliament, at Lincoln ; and, allowing for some omissions
of men absent on service, or exempted specially, the
numbers would seem rather to have fallen off, than to
have increased, though the population and wealth of the
country were advancing. One reason for this change may
be surmised with tolerable certainty. Anciently, a barony
had been the possession of a baron, and every man own
ing a compact estate, of a certain value, was baron by

462 BARONS BY TENURE AND WRIT.
tenure, unless specially disqualified, and entitled to special
summons. But, as division of land among daughters,
or among all heirs male, was at least not unusual in
England, even during 'the reign of Henry III.,' the old
baronies had been gradually split up, till, in one re
corded instance in the thirteenth century, a relief was
paid for the three-hundredth fraction of a barony.2 In
this case, the right to a parliamentary summons was in
abeyance among the different sharers of the barony.
Moreover, as attendance at court and a higher scale of
amercements were inconvenient privileges, it was con
stantly made an object to get rid of them. There are
several memorials on record, in which the petitioner
asserts, that he is not a baron, and does not hold by
barony, or even by part of a barony, and, therefore,
prays to be excused attendance at the king's council, or
a fine levied on the scale of the obnoxious dignity.3
Accordingly, the parliamentary baron of Edward L's
time was constituted by writ of summons,4 though, no

1 Thus, the possessions of Hugh de mas de Furnivall in the seventeenth.
Albini, earl of Arundel, who died in Thomas de Furnivall is believed to
1243, were divided among his four have made out his case unfairly.
sisters (Dugdale's Baronage, i. p. Madox, Hist, of the Exchequer, c.
121) ; and the lands of Petronilla de xiv. s. i. pp. 368-374. The abbot of
la Wodehouse, in Derbyshire, seem Beaulieu obtained a writ of exemp-
to have been divided between two tion, on the same grounds, in the
brothers in the fifty-third of Henry fifteenth of Edward III. Prynne's
III. ; while the inquest records that Records, iv. p. 335. For several
they had, on a previous occasion, other instances, see HaUam's Middle
been divided between four. Calend. Ages, iii. p. 122.
Geneal., i. p. 136. The statements of 4 There is one instance, in the
lawyers concerning the introduction eighteenth of Edward IIL, when the
ofprimogenituremustthereforebere- Seigneur de Wake attended, though
garded, as indicating the tendency of no writ of summons to him is extant.
thelaw-courts,ratherthanactualfacts. First Report on the Dignity of a
2 Madox, Baronia Anglica, p. 56. Peer, p. 318. There are probably
3 Some rather famous cases are several explanations for this ; but,
those of the abbot of Croyland in were there none, a single fact could
the eighth of Edward IL, and Tho- not outweigh a general use.

ENGLISH AND FRENCH NOBILITY. 463
doubt, in the greater number of cases, the writ was
issued of necessity, and not of grace. The writ did not
ennoble the blood, or even ennoble for life the man who
received it. He might only be summoned once or
twice, or, even if he were summoned during his whole
lifetime, his chddren were not necessarily entitled to
the same privilege.1 So far as the crown was guided
by any rules other than its own convenience, it seems
to have held, that a baron should possess two-thirds of
an earl's estimated income, or to the value of thirteen
knights' fees and a third.2 The knight's fee was finally
computed at a rental of £20. No doubt, it was also
necessary that a portion of this estate should be held
by baronial tenure. These conditions would be easily
satisfied ; and the crown might thus, at any moment
swamp the remaining representatives of entire baronies,
or baronies by tenure, with the representatives created
by writ of summons.
Perhaps, the true position of the English nobility,
and how completely it differed from the French,
will be best understood by a comparison of their
privileges, and by considering what constituted the
order in either country. In France, nobflity from
an early period, was a fact of race, connected with
the descent of certain privfleged families, and -insepar
able, except in cases of attaint, from every male descend
ant of the first male ancestor. Accordingly, the inter
marriages of nobles and bourgeoisie in France have
always been mesalliances. In England, nobflity has
always been connected, either with the possession of
land, or with the right to a writ of summons to parlia-
1 Third Report on the Dignity of a Peer, p. 101.
2 Modus Tenendi Parliamentum, p. 6.

464 RIGHTS OF FRENCH NOBLES.
ment; and as the tendency of our early laws was to
limit the possession of the chief fee, from which nobility
was derived, to the eldest son, so also the hereditary writ
of summons has never been issued to any but the head
of the family. Even when baronies by tenure fell into
disuse, so strong were the associations that connected
nobility with landed property, that a duke and a vis
count have, on two separate occasions, been excluded
from the peerage from poverty.1 Accordingly, no mes
alliance has ever been recognized by English custom,
except the marriage of free and slave, in which case
one of the parties might be bound by the conditions of
an inferior tenure. Similarly, while in France only the
gentleman could hold a fief or bear arms, these in
England have, been the privileges of all freemen ; and,
in one remarkable case, when a mere citizen became pos
sessed of an estate involving the discharge of high
official duties at a coronation, his right of purchase, or
property, was never contested, though he was forced to
perform the duties of his tenure through a deputy more
dignified than himself.2 Again, the French noble had
many rights resembling those of sovereignty, and in
consistent with the exercise of the central power. He
was exempt from all taxation, except the feudal aids.
1 George Nevill, duke of Bedford, wards formally surrendered the ba-
was degraded, in 1477, " for so much rony into the king's hands." Nicho-
as it is openly known that the same las's Synopsis of the Peerage, ii. p.
George hath not, nor by inheritance 600.
may have, any livelihood to support 2 At the coronation of Richard
the said name, estate, and dignity, IL, John Wilshire, citizen, hold-
or any name of estate," &c. Rot. ing lands in Haydon, in Essex, by
Pari., vi. p. 173. Roger Stafford, in grand serjeanty, petitioned to serve
1637, being grandson of the last the king with a towel before dinner.
baron, " was unjustly denied the dig- John Wilshire, being of his quality,
nity, on account of his poverty." " could not perform his service, but
Apparently, however, the refusal was did make an honourable deputy."
felt to be irregular, as " he after- Coke's Institutes, f. 107, b.

REAL POWER OF ENGLISH NOBLES. 465
He could coin money, wage private war, and exercise
an exclusive judicature on his estates. The English
noble seems, at first, to have had the right, in March
lordships at least, to exclude the tax-gatherer from his
estates ; but this may only have rested on his right to
assess the tax by his own officers.1 He undoubtedly
could not be taxed without the consent of his order;
but, in this respect, he was no better off than the
boroughs and country gentry : while he ultimately was
subjected to the most degrading of all public burdens —
the poll-tax. He had no special privilege of coining;
and, if he waged private war, he did it at his own per
sonal risk, and was certain to be fined, and liable to be
hanged. His rights of judicature, unless he were an
earl palatine, were restricted to determining civil suits
among his tenants, or trying them for offences against
himself; and were further balanced by their practically
unbounded liberty of appeal to the king's courts. If,
by special charter, he might try thieves, whether ten
ants or strangers, his jurisdiction was still limited to
petty larcenies, with which the higher courts did not much
care to be troubled; and, in general, he might arrest
but not judge. In particular, he was forbidden to im
prison poachers.2 The chief influence of our nobility in
1 Thus, Edward I. issued letters may be doubtful if the privilege
patent, in 1292, testifying that could be claimed in other cases.
Humphrey de Bohun, having gra- Pari. Writs, i. pp. 390, 391.
ciously granted a fifteenth of the 2 Seep. 177. Compare the statute
moveable goods ofhis men and te- 13 Richard II. c. 13. "Forasmuch as
nants, within his lordship of Breck- divers artificers, labourers, and ser-
nock, in Wales, such grant on the vants and grooms keep greyhounds
entry of the king's collector into the and other dogs, and on the holydays
said lordship was not to prejudice when good Christian people be at
him or them in future. Similar let- church, hearing divine service, they
ters are extant from other great go hunting in parks," &c, it is en-
lords ; but as they all seem to refer acted that only persons of some sub-
to the case of March lordships, it stance may keep dogs or ferrets, and
II. H H

466 PRIVILEGES OF THE NOBILITY.
the law-courts was therefore derived, not so much from
their own power of deciding cases, as from their influ
ence Over the judges, who were often country gentle
men. Under Richard II. , it was found necessary to
enact, by statute, that no steward of any lord should
be put in the commission of the peace, and that no lord
should sit on the bench with the judges of assize.1
Where the privileges of our nobility appear to be
most exceptional, they were yet based on analogies
that imply merely a graduated rank above their fel
low-subjects. They owed the privilege of partial
freedom from arrest to their position as royal coun
cillors, and the right to be tried by their own order
was conformable to all practice, when the knight,
the burgess, and the clergyman, had the same privi
lege, and, more or less, special tribunals.2 Accord
ingly, the English nobles, at their best, were never able
to make head against a capable king, even though he
were embarrassed by foreign wars, like Edward I., or
weakened by a doubtful title, like Henry IV. The
opposition of Bigod and Bohun was regarded by their
contemporaries as a failure, though it actually extorted
concessions which were never forgotten, and are now
part of the constitution. But where the ruler was
nerveless or vicious, the English nobles readily assumed
the leadership of the country. Precisely because they
were part of the people, as English in feeling, and not

that justices ofthe peace may enquire and knights were accordingly called
after and punish offenders. in and sworn. Among the earliest pri-
1 12Ric.II. c. 10. 20 Ric. II. c. 3. vilegesof the citizens of London, was
2 Thus, in a case mentioned in the the appointment of a justiciary from
Year Book of Edward I. (ed. Hor- their own body, " and that no one
wood, p. 531), the accused challenged else shall be justiciary over the men
the jury, on the ground that they of London." Liber Albus, i. p. 128.
were not his peers, he being a knight,

THE OFFICIAL NOBILITY. 467
unfrequently in race, as the yeoman or the citizen, were
the nobles, under the later Plantagenets, fitted to serve
the crown gloriously against the common enemies of
the realm, or, in the last necessity, to head the nation
against the crown. The true " Golden Book " of our
peerage ought to begin with the roll of names by which
Magna Charta was guaranteed.
Besides earls, barons, and the prelates and abbots
who held by barony, two classes, of what we may call
the official nobility, sate more or less regularly in par
liament, by the king's writ addressed to them. These
were the great civil servants of the crown, its untitled
councillors and judges, and the bannerets with whom,
now and then, the constable of an important castle was
joined, apparently out of regard to his rank in the royal
service. The position of the judges, councillors, and
governors of castles is tolerably easy to understand.
They sate, as ministers, to explain and defend the mea
sures which the government had adopted, or the policy
which it wished the country to carry out. In the par
liament of Acton Burnel, or Shrewsbury, there were
nineteen of this class to a hundred and nine earls and
barons, so that the official element was not formidable
in this way from its numbers. But it is not easy to
ascertain with precision who the bannerets were. In
the time of Edward IIL, it was decided that they were
so far commoners that their presence on a jury could
not be challenged.1 On the other hand, in the reign of
Richard II. , they were classed with barons for the pur
poses of the poll-tax.2 At the parliament of Lincoln, in
the reign of Edward I., several of them appear in the
list of barons who subscribe the letter to the pope, and
1 HaUam's Middle Ages, iii. p. 126. 2 Rot. Pari., iii. p. 57.

468 BISHOPS AND ABBOTS.
one of them, John of St. John, is high up in the list,
and was undoubtedly a man of great dignity.1 They
received pensions from the crown to the yearly amount
of ten or twenty marks a-piece, besides wages, when
they served, for themselves and their followers; and
these and other incidental advantages must have predis
posed them to side steadily with the crown. If, there
fore, we make allowance for royal kinsmen, nominees,
and pensioners, it will be evident, that the great council
of the baronage must often have been sorely embar
rassed in discharging what Bracton describes as its
peculiar duty of bridling the king, when he was without
a bridle from the law.2
Strictly speaking, the bishops and abbots were sum
moned and sate in respect of their baronies, and thus
represented the peerage rather than the spiritual estate.3
In fact, however, they had a double existence, and were
at once the heads of the clergy and the equals and
assessors of the lords temporal. An archbishop, eighteen
bishops, and forty-eight abbots attended the parlia
ment of Carlisle (1307), or sent proxies, so that, if only
numbers be regarded, the ecclesiastical element was of
great importance in parliament. The parliaments of
Shrewsbury (1283) and Salisbury (1297), are the only
recorded cases when no spiritual peers were summoned ;
and their attendance was so rigidly enforced, and was so
1 John of St. John had been go- pp. 125, 126 ; Liber Contrarot. Gar-
vernor of Gascony, and signs fifth derobse, pp. 199-202.
in the list of barons, or sixth, if we 2 Bracton, f. 34.
include Aymer de Valence, (whose 3 A bishop's "right to a seat in
investiture as earl is of doubtful parliament is a franchise annexed to
date), among the barons. Other the temporalities of his see, and not
names are those of Robert Clifford, inherent in his spiritual dignity of
Simon Montacute, John Botetourt, bishop." First Report on the Dignity
and John L'Estrange. Appendix i. of a Peer, p. 393.
to Report on the Dignity of a Peer,

THEIR POWER CURBED BY EDWARD I. 469
much matter of course, that the doubt expressed in Rich
ard II.'s reign, whether any laws were valid to which the
clergy had not assented, probably refers only to the
frequent absences of the proctors of the inferior clergy.1
Nevertheless, under Edward I., the spiritual peers do
not seem to have possessed great independence or poli
tical influence. Several of them undoubtedly disliked
the statutes by which Edward curbed their exorbitant
power; they were headed by primates, of whom two
represented the worst traditions of the mendicant
orders,2 while the third was thoroughly unscrupulous ;
they were backed by the whole body of the clergy;
and yet they were never able to hold their ground
against the king. The reason of this cannot be sought
exclusively in the fact that ten bishops, during the
reign, had been royal officials, for the proportion ex
hibits a marked decrease since the time of John, when,
in a reign only half as long as Edward's, as many royal
employes had been rewarded with the mitre.3 Especially
ought the abbots, who commonly owed little to the
1 It was then represented that in matters of taxation (see p. 303)
" sundry judgments and ordinances by any consent given in parliament,
made in parliament," in former it was probably held, that they could
reigns, had been "repealed and an- not bind them in legislation.
nulled," because the estate of the 2 I have already (p. 294) noticed
clergy was not present in parliament the disgraceful speech of the Domi-
at the making of the said judgments nican, Robert de Kilwardby, at the
or ordinances. Rot. Pari., iii. p. Council of Lyons. His successor,
348. The statute of Acton Burnel John Peckham, also a Dominican,
cannot be intended, as it was re- was reprimanded in council, in 1279,
enacted in 1285, in full parliament ; for threatening to excommunicate
and I know of no other parliament, those who should withdraw ecclesi-
at which there was any legislation, to astical causes into the king's courts,
which bishops and abbots were not &c. He had also ordered" Magna
summoned. Moreover, the clergy of Charta to be taken down from the
the two provinces concurred with church doors. Riley's Pleadings, p.
the prelates in nominating a proctor 442.
to represent them. As the bishops 3 Though the abuse was abated, it
certainly could not bind the clergy was no doubt a scandal that was

470 the clergy's relations to society.
crown except a purchased confirmation of their elec
tion, and who could hope nothing from its favour except
a casual grant or an exemption from the Statute of
Mortmain, to have formed an independent element in
the parliaments. But the habits of the cloister were too
strong for them. Promotion, support, immunity from
the national taxes, were benefits for which they must
look to Rome, and in Rome their interests centred.
Even for an English bishop there was a fascination in
the cardinal's hat that few had power to resist. Accord
ingly, in proportion as the popes falling under French
influence became less European, and the people of
England working out the French element became more
national, did the spiritual peers cease to exercise any
wider authority than great wealth, high birth, and, oc
casionally, high talent might give them. Latterly, they
always looked to the crown for support against the
reformations threatened by the Commons. But, even
under Edward I., they were so separated from the com
mon cause, by the monstrous character of the immuni
ties they pleaded, that they were beaten on the question
of taxes, in the very year when two high-spirited nobles
extorted the famous charter against illegal tallages.
If the power of the great spiritual lords was uncer
tain and generally small, much less was the right of the
clergy proper to send representatives to parliament of
any high value. As a separate estate, having a highly
organized convocation, in times when a parliament of
the realm was as yet unknown, the only right which
they really cared to contest, in general, was that of
granting, withholding, and assessing their quota of tax-
never quite put down. Piers Plough- divyn Become clerks of account, the
man says, (p. 5, ed. Skeat), " I saw king for to serve."
there bishops bold and bachelors of

THEIR POSITION IN PARLIAMENT. 471
ation. This they could do most conveniently in convo
cation, and accordingly, throughout the contest of
1297, they acted without concert with the lords
temporal and the commons. Nevertheless, they were
summoned to several parliaments during Edward the
First's reign,1 on the principle, which a royal writ ex
presses, that "whatever concerns all ought to be ap
proved of by all." Deans, archdeacons, and priors of
cathedral churches were summoned to attend in person,
but with a large practical liberty of sending proxies ;"
and the chapters, deaneries, and archdeaconries, elected
representatives. In parliament, they seem to have sate
by themselves, and to have claimed an undefined power
of sending up petitions or bills to the Lords, which
might pass into ordinances and laws, without discussion
in the Commons.3, This might have had very mis
chievous results. Once (1389) an attempt was made to
exempt the large property of the Oxford colleges from
the national taxation; and the Commons petitioned in
alarm, that the bfll might not be passed without their
consent.4 On another occasion (May, 1382), an ordi
nance was made, without the privity of the Commons,
for the repression of heresy ; but the Commons procured
its repeal in the next parliament (Oct. 1382). 5 During
1 In 1294, 1295, 1296, 1306, and was 1279. Hardy's Preface to Modus
1307, the interval often years being Tenendi Parliamentum, p. xv.
no doubt due to their quarrel with 2 At the parliament of Carlisle,
the crown about taxation. It is pos- fifteen archdeacons sent proxies. Rot.
sible they also sate in several earlier Pari., i. p. 190.
parliaments, such as that of West- 3 Thus, in 1377, the Commons pe-
minster, in 1285, when an entry on tition the king, "that no statute or
the Close Roll states that the king ordinance be made or granted at the
was petitioned to confirm the char- petition ofthe clergy, except by assent
ters by " prelates, men of religion, of your Commons." An evasive reply
andother ecclesiastical persons." But was returned. Rot. Pari., ii. p. 368.
the first year when they can be proved 4 Rot. Pari., iii. pp. 275, 276.
to have received writs of summons 5 Rot. Pari., iii. pp. 124, 141. The

472 CLERICAL REPRESENTATION.
the same mischievous reign (1389), the clergy once
joined the bishops in enrolling a protest against- any
laws that should be passed in derogation of Church
franchises;1 and once (1397) procured a parliamentary
recognition of the invalidity of any laws that were
passed without their consent.2 Fortunately their influ
ence suffered from their refusal to vote taxes any
where except in convocation itself.3 Their object in this,
probably, was to secure the presence and support of the
bishops ; but as the business of their representatives in
parliament was thus limited to expressions of opinion,
and refusing or giving assent to laws, they ceased to
be considered of importance ; their functions might be
discharged by a single proctor f and the right of the
order to elect fell so completely into disuse during the
fifteenth century,5 that its ancient existence has almost
passed into oblivion. Yet, in times when the clergy owned
at least a third of the national wealth, were the special
representatives of learning, and were recruited from

expression in the preamble of the 4 In the parliament of 1397, de-
illegal ordinance, that the growth of siring to separate while the other es-
heresy is " sufficiently proved " be- tates were sitting, they appointed
fore the bishops, doctors of civil law, sir Thomas Percy their procurator,
and " a great part of the clergy of with full power to consent to all laws
the realm, especially for that cause and ordinances in their behalf.
assembled," probably refers only to 5 In 1547, the clergy of the pro-
proceedings in convocation ; but as vince of Canterbury petitioned, that
convocation had met just before to "they might, have their room and
provide a subsidy, I think it may place, and be associated with the
fairly be presumed, that they coupled Commons in the nether house of this
their grant of money with a request present parliament," " according to
for a law against heresy. the tenour of the king's writ and the
1 Rot. Pari., iii. p. 264. ancient laws and customs of this no-
2 Rot. Pari., iii. p. 348. See ble realm ;" and if not, that laws
note 3, p. 468. concerning the Christian religion, or
3 In 1380, the clergy, being asked their persons and property, might.
to contribute a third of a capitation not be enacted without their being
tax, reply, " that their grant was made privy and heard in answer.
never made in parliament, nor ought Wilkins, Concilia, iv. p. 16.
to be." Rot. Pari., iii. p. 90.

THE UNTITLED GENTRY. 473
every class, common fairness and policy alike demanded
that they should have a voice in the national councils.
They forfeited the privilege by the unwise persistency
with which they clung to their existence as a separate
order, and forgot that they were citizens as well as priests.
In the interest of the great changes that were found
necessary in a later century, it can hardly be regretted
that they had no voice in the parliaments of the six
teenth century.
While the tendency in the baronage had been to a
diminution of the highest titles, and a decrease of
numbers generally, two very different causes had con
tributed to swell the numbers ofthe country gentry, and
of the freeholders or substantial yeomanry. A period
of peace or commercial prosperity is naturally attended
with a certain increase of population ; and the regula
tions for withdrawing land from commonage, and the
higher numbers that our chroniclers mention as serving
in mediaeval armies are fair evidence that England con
tained more men, and a larger proportion of rich men,
in the thirteenth century than in the twelfth. The
ambition of all in easy circumstances would naturally
be to become proprietors of land. At first, the existing
tenants of fiefs, regarding themselves as virtual pro
prietors, so long as their obligations to their lords were
discharged, were accustomed to subinfeoff purchasers
with more or less of their land, receiving from the
new tenants the same services which they themselves
rendered to their lords. But the lords looked with
jealousy upon a practice, which excluded themselves
from a share in a very profitable class of transactions ;
while in cases where the family of their own vassal died
out they lost the profits of the alienated fee altogether.
Accordingly, by the statute known as " Quia Emptores,"

474 EFFECTS OF STATUTE " QUIA EMPTORES."
it was enacted (July, 1290) that, in all such cases of
alienation, the new purchaser or feoffee should hold the
land of the chief lord by the same services and cus
tomary dues by which the seller or feoffee before held
it. This act was a compromise between the rival in
terests of lord and tenant, as the latter, who had before
been restricted to selling only so much land as would
not interfere with his ability to discharge his services
to his lord,1 might now dispose of the whole of his fee,
while his lord acquired the rights of suzerain over the
new vassals. It cannot be doubted that sales were
multiplied accordingly, or that new families were added
to the roll of proprietors. This class had obtained
earlier recognition than the towns, and had sided with
the crown in the barons' war. After De Montfort's
parliament of London, it was regularly summoned to
elect representatives in the county court, and from the
fact that, when the franchise was at last limited, it still
included all possessors of a forty-shillings freehold, we
may probably infer that freeholders possessed the right
to vote in the first elections.2 In fact, as the privileged

1 " Let no man in future give or diately of the crown, and from the
r.ell any more of his land to any one, presumption entertained by some,
but so that of the residue of his land that only royal boroughs returned
the service due to the lord of the members. On this latter point the
fee may be performed to him, &c." lords' committee was unable to ar-
Third Charter of Henry IIL, Sta- rive at any definite conclusion. (First
tutes of the Realm, i. p. 24. Report on the Dignity of a Peer,
2 There is a more restricted theory pp. 377, 378). On the other hand
of the old county franchise, which it may be observed, that the bishops
supposes that knights of the shire attended the Great Council before
represented only the crown tenants. the question of investitures was de-
For an excellent examination of this, cided ; that the clergy, who certainly
I must refer the reader to HaUam's had the technical right to elect repre-
Middle Ages (iii. pp. 15-19 and 215- sentatives, did not hold immediately
219). The great reason for the nar- of the crown ; that the number of
row view is the analogy from the boroughs which received writs at
bishops and baronage holding imme- one time or another is so large, as to

KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE. 475
class was comparatively small under Edward I., to
what it became in the fifteenth century when villen-
age was dying out, the electors in any single county
would not be so numerous in the thirteenth century as
to excite jealousy or create disorder. At first, the class
so far bordered upon the baronage that its members
sate and perhaps voted along with them. As the great
nobles became fewer, richer and more exclusive, while
the knights of the shire were returned by larger and
more various constituencies, a sharper line of demarca
tion between the orders was drawn, and the county
members assumed their present place as members of
the Lower House. The change took place during the
reign of Edward II. In the reign of Henry VI. it was
found necessary to enact that men below the position
of yeomen should not be returned as county members.1
There are also signs of development in the theory of their
parliamentary powers between the thirteenth and the
fifteenth centuries. At first the writs stated, that two
discreet knights are to be sent to parliament, with
power to advise on, and consent to, whatever the earls,
barons, and other magnates have unanimously ordained.2
Afterwards their functions are said to be, to make and
consent to such things as shall be agreed on by the
make it highly improbable that they knights of shire might be elected by
all held immediately of the king, or knights, squires, and commons of the
were in the king's hand ; and, that respective counties. Now a squire
similarly it is difficult to believe, in might have the qualification of a
times when the crown lands were knight, or less, or none at all, in
neither very extensive nor very land. Rot. Pari., iv. p. 8 ; iii. p. 58.
valuable, that the crown tenants l Rot. Pari., v. p. 116. " An elec-
would be of sufficient importance to tion was set aside (39 Hen. VI.) be-
demand representatives, or perhaps cause the person returned was not of
even, that crown tenants could be gentle birth." HaUam's Middle Ages,
found in every county. In 1413 the iii. p. 119.
commons, wishing to restrict the 3 Parliamentary Writs, i. p. 26.
franchise to residents, petitioned that

476 BOROUGH MEMBERS.
common council of the realm.1 The author of a poli
tical treatise, written probably under Edward IIL, on
" the method of holding a parliament," observes that
the two knights of a shire had a greater voice in parlia
ment than an earl, and that the proctors of a diocese
could outvote their bishop. This seems to imply, that
at that time peers and commoners were intermingled
in voting, and, though this practice did not last long, it
must for the time have added largely to the importance
of all members of the Commons.
The cities and towns of England were rapidly rising
in wealth and influence. First, London and the Cinque
Ports, then a number of boroughs, more or less import
ant, were gradually invested with the right to send
representatives of their interests to parliament. Of a
hundred and sixty-five that received the privdege un
der Edward I., many must have been small places, with
only a few hundred inhabitants, and more than a third
either disregarded the writs, in spite of the pledges
taken for the attendance of members,2 or only made one
election in compliance with them. The numerous writs
issued are therefore chiefly valuable, as proving that our
first thoroughly constitutional king, finding the repre
sentatives of towns tractable, adopted a practice which
really implied, that all above the condition of serfs were
entitled to a voice in the national councils. Except on
the one occasion, when the landed proprietors and trad
ing classes were alike threatened with ruin by the illegal
1 Report on the Dignity of a Peer. p. 66. This, it is true, was the case
Appendix i. p. 934. of a county representative ; but the
2 "Walter le Rous is elected names of those who stand bail for bur-
knight, . . . and is held to bail in eight gesses are constantly given, though
oxen and four cart-horses, to come the bail required may not be speci-
before you on the day specified in fied with so much Homeric siin-
the writ." Parliamentary Writs, i. plicity.

THEIR FUNCTIONS. 477
and monstrous tax upon wool, amounting to half, at
least, of its selling value, Edward I. always seems to
have carried the representatives of towns with him. In
fact, the distant injury, that threatened the middle
classes from the legislation of this reign, about entads,
was amply compensated by the Mortmain Act, by the
larger facilities for investing in real property, by the
new processes for recovering debts, by the improved
police and reformed judicature, and by the public policy
that assisted Flanders and ruined Berwick, while it
made no unnecessary sacrifices for Gascony. The pri
mary function of the burgesses in our first parliaments
was to vote money aids. It is, at least, probable, that
their presence was also regarded as establishing the
validity of laws passed during the session; though
these would naturally be prepared in council, and only
discussed by the baronage. In the second year of Ed
ward II. we find them petitioning the king for a redress
of grievances ; and, as the clergy had before coupled a
grant with a petition against obnoxious laws and prac
tices, it is probable that this right is coeval with the in
stitution of parliament. The writs for summoning the
parliament of Acton Burnel seem also to imply, that
the Commons were associated in the act of high justice
upon David of Wales. These proceedings, however,
partook altogether of an extraordinary character, and it
would not be safe to infer from them, that the Commons
possessed a judicial character during the reign.
Reviewing the parliaments of the thirteenth and four
teenth centuries, it is curious to notice how many fea
tures they appear to possess, that are now regarded as
distinguishing marks of an advanced liberalism. An
upper house, composed largely of life peers, or high
officials; annual parliaments; payment of members;

478 ANCIENT AND MODERN PARLIAMENT.
a franchise, practically universal, among all freemen;
yeomen and tradesmen representing counties and cities ;
Ave may even add, women summoned to the upper house ;
are facts that seem to show a broad basis of consti
tutional liberty under the later Plantagenets. With
many important reservations, it is probably true, that the
circumstances of these times favoured a wider growth
of popular representation than had existed under the
early Norman kings, or than the Tudors permitted. It
is true, the life peers were all men with the same in
terests as the baronage ; annual parliaments were unim
portant, when there was so vast a power of packing
them ; payment of members was in the interest of the
crown, as it made towns unwilling to elect, and fur
nished ministers with means of corruption or annoy
ance ; the qualified voters can scarcely have numbered a
fourth part of the nation ; and the practice of returning
small squires or yeomen seems only to have come in,
when the constituencies had been swamped by whole
sale enfranchisements, and was checked by royal ordi
nance and by an act restricting the suffrage. Still, our
early parliaments do appear to have represented the
wealth and intelligence of the country in no ordinary
degree, comprising almost every man who was himself
a power in the State, from position or character, and
representing every interest of property, from the yeo
man who farmed sheep to the merchant who exported
wool. But the extent of their functions was undoubt
edly less than it has been in later times. They meddled
less with laws, because the occasions of change were
fewer, the powers of the judges in making change
greater ; and, there was a general feeling against statu
tory changes, except when they were unavoidable.
Their influence on foreign politics was rather indirectly

FINANCIAL EXPEDIENTS. 479
by refusing extraordinary supplies, than directly by
criticising the king's measures. The one great principle
which was the secret of their power afterwards, was the
English doctrine that the subject's property was his
own, and that no tax was just in principle unless the
man who paid it consented to it. This remarkable the
ory is so clearly implied in all our laws, and so much at
variance with Roman precedent and continental prac
tice, that we may fairly claim it as of native growth.
Now circumstances were perpetually throwing our
kings upon their people for support. There was a sort
of cycle by which taxes were imposed, stereotyped, re
mitted by special charters till they became worthless,
and finally given up. The charges, with which the Ro
mans had burdened land for the support of bridges and
walls, were so largely commuted during early Norman
times, that throughout the fourteenth century numerous
petitions were presented by rising towns for the right of
levying them anew. Danegeld, first imposed in a great
emergency, was a little later an important branch of re
venue, and fell into disuse in the reign of John, or perhaps
of Henry II.,1 evidently because the exemptions, granted
to the clergy and military tenants, were such as to make
the tax practically unproductive. Accordingly, in the
time of Edward I. the ordinary royal revenue would
have been reduced to the crown lands, much diminished
by his father's prodigality,2 to the extraordinary aids,
1 The last collection of Danegeld had been estimated at ,£8000 (see p.
that can be traced is in the twenty- 208). Under Henry V., in 1421,
first of Henry II. ; but exemptions the whole amount of casual revenue,
from it are inserted in charters un- as it was now called, from rents,
der John, perhaps pro forma. Madox, escheats, wardships, and fines of jus-
History of the Exchequer, pp. 479, tices, only amounted to £15,066 10*.
719. 9d. Proceedingsof the Privy Council,
2 Under Henry II. the crown lands p. 313. There may have been great

480 CHANGE IN FEUDAL TAXATION.
which were now fixed at a definite amount, and to the
fines, of whatever kind, for the settlement of estates, or
the composition of offences, if the king had not succeeded
in devising two new sources of revenue. The first of
these was the export duty on wool, which seems, during
this reign, to have been regarded as a permanent charge,
so long as it did not exceed half a mark a sack. As the
right to port dues was among the regalia, we owe it to
the fortunate circumstance, that towns like London had
purchased this privilege for themselves, that Edward
was obliged to apply to parliament for permission to
levy this tax.# Next, it seems certain that a great
change was made, probably under Henry III.,1 in the
theory of feudal taxation, so that whereas a knight
had formerly been a man owning a knight's fee, it
became obligatory on every man owning £20 worth
of land to take up his knighthood, do mflitary service,
and pay feudal aids.2 One result of this was, that men
holding by socage tenure took a part in the county
elections, and the distinction of dignified and undigni
fied tenures began gradually to disappear. The first of
fluctuations between these periods; that there was acertain laxity of prac-
but Edward I. is not likely to have tice. Thefirst statute of Westminster
begun his reign with a very large had made the same aid chargeable
rent-roll. on £20, land in socage, and on a
1 See p. 210. knight's fee ; this is the computation
3 A writ, dated May 6, 1285, be- followed in the Modus Tenendi Par-
gins by stating that " we and our liamentum (p. 7). Probably, when
ancestors" have been accustomed to it became a question of charging
order, that all men " having twenty land with personal service, as well as
pounds worth of land, or an entire with extraordinary aids, it was found
knight's fee to the value of £20," necessary to make the qualification
should be compelled to take up their larger. Of course, the fact that cer-
knighthood. Pari. Writs, i. p. 249. tain lands were the qualification of a
In a later writ of Feb. 6, 1292 (New knight, did not make them a knight's
Rymer, yol. i. part ii. p. 758), the fee, or affect the order of inherit-
qualification seems to be stated at ance.
forty librates, but this may only mean

SPECIAL TAXATION. 481
these changes in taxation had been recommended in the
preceding reign, and the second had been initiated; but
under Edward I. they passed into established practice.
Nevertheless, the king's income in one year (1300), for
which we have full accounts, did not reach £60,000
altogether ; and although this was sufficient for a time
of peace, it was quite inadequate for a campaign, how
ever small. The account of outgoings for the year in
question displays a deficit of nearly £6000; and the
wages of soldiers and officers seem further to have been
partly paid by separate accounts, or else left largely in
arrear.1 The plan of levying a scutage, or tax, on every
knight's fee died out gradually, as the knight's fee
ceased to be a term of any real meaning, the reasons, no
doubt, being, that it was inconvenient to collect from
fractions of fees, and impolitic to tax military tenants as
often as the State required money, while smaller free
holders were exempted. Special taxation now took the
form of a rate assessed on personalty, the citizens of
towns commonly paying in larger proportion than the
baronage and knights, on the ground, no doubt, that
the latter were more liable to personal service, and had
to pay special aids to their suzerain. The clergy were
only liable for their temporalities,2 unless, as was con
stantly the case under Henry IIL, the pope granted a

1 Thus, Thomas de Camville is en- in the proportion to his lay fee, and
tered as entitled to 1*. a day for a "not according to the quantity of
hundred and twenty-three days, of his ecclesiastical benefice." In 1264
which he receives from the Ward- a general tenth seems to have been
robe account 4{d. a day, the rest imposed on all ecclesiastical revenues
being assigned him on the marshal's by the king, " prelates and mag-
roll. Liber Contrarot. Garderobte, nates," but it was a time of emer-
p. 219. gency; it was found difficult or im-
2 This principle was affirmed in possible to collect the tax, and I
the provision of Magna Charta (22), know no other instance of the king
that a clerk was only to be amerced in council levying it.
II. I I

482 MINISTERS OF THE CROWN.
tax on their spiritualties. The exemption was no' ad
vantage to the order, whom the State repeatedly visited
with larger assessments, while whatever escaped the
crown, paid toll to Rome.
It results from all this, that, although the crown, under
a wise and fairly popular sovereign, was all but irresist
ible, its power was not of a kind that would bear severe
trial. Having lost its old proportion of the land of the
country ; a fixed tax, like Danegeld ; the profits of the
Jewry; and a tax, that could almost be levied at plea
sure, like scutage ; it was poorly compensated for these,
by a certain increase in fines, which were the fertile
source of heart-burnings, and by a moderate impost on
wool, derived from a parliamentary grant. Practically,
it was obliged on every great state occasion, from a war
to a coronation or a marriage, to ask its people for a
most obnoxious tax, involving an entry into every house
and the appraisement of all personalty. The expenses
of collection must always have absorbed a large portion
of the revenue; and made the royal judges and the
sheriff the especial objects of popular indignation, and the
scape-goats of every political crisis. The royal service
was eagerly coveted, as the road to honour and lands,
and it drew a disproportionate amount of the intellect of
the country into its ranks ; but it was difficult for any
man to serve the commonwealth and retain the king's
favour. Under Henry III. the good and bad, men like
Hubert de Burgh, or Peter des Roches, were equally
unsuccessful in their careers. It is highly honourable
to Edward I., that he never screened his ministers from
a fair enquiry; and that one of the most fiercely at
tacked, Walter de Langton,1 was also completely vin-
1 Walter de Langton, having offended prince Edward, was three

THEIR FUNCTIONS. 483
dicated in the issue. But Edward the First's ministers
were not popular.
In fact, the ministers of the crown were hi those days
rather counsellors and assistants, men who advised in
emergencies, provided means, and kept watch over
rights and privileges, than the great state officers who
now form a cabinet. In the case of Bigod and Bohun,
who held their offices by inheritance, the interest of the
landed proprietor outweighed those of the crown official
for a time. But the constable and marshal were the
subject of constant complaints from the Commons for
their encroachments on the common-law courts ; and a
statute was passed, in Richard II.'s time, to restrict
them to matters out of the realm, such as contracts in
time of war might be ; and to those cases of chivalry,
like duels, and the rights to armorial bearings, with
which the ordinary courts were not fitted to deal.
Partly, perhaps, because their functions were in some
sense international, partly because they dealt with cases
which the ordinary laws • of the kingdom had not con
templated, both these great officers administered justice
on the principles of Roman law ; and their proceedings
were therefore governed by a code of more arbitrary
temper than the English. The chancellor, as an eccle
siastic, had probably always been trained as a canonist ;
and the mixture of churchmen among the judges was
doubtless unfavourable to their independence or regard
for national rights. The secular spirit of the baronage and
the national feeling of all orders were our true preserva
tives, in the thirteenth century, against the systematic
growth of a modified imperialism. The crown named
times charged with the most heinous at Rome, afterwards in England.
offences. He was every time tri- Foss's Judges, iii. pp. 114, 115.
umphantly acquitted ; the first time

484 BALANCE OF POWER.
ministers and judges, and displaced them at pleasure ;
garrisoned castles, packed parliaments, and summoned
all contumacious subjects before the Continual Council :
but it dared not, for its own sake, weaken the repug
nance to papal encroachments, or alienate the large
classes who paid taxes and were represented in parlia
ment. Under a wise king, the opposite advantages of a
strong executive and a sensitive public feeling were
combined in a very different way from what exists in
any modern state, but with singular vitality and
success.1

1 For a fuller treatment of the subjects discussed in this chapter, I may
refer the reader to Professor Hearn's " Government of England."

485

Chapter XVI.
THE ENGLISH CHURCH OF THE THIRTEENTH
CENTURY.
Claims of the English Church. Partial Independence of the State.
Benefit of Clergy. Church Jurisdiction in Faith. Smaller
Ecclesiastical Courts and their Functions. Their Reputation
AMONG THE PEOPLE. EXTENT OF ChURCH PROPERTY. NUMBER OF
Parishes and Monasteries. Good and bad Influences of Church
Endowments. Lawsuits. Divisions within the' Church. Rise
and Growth of the Mendicant Orders. Some results affecting
Knowledge and Popular Theology. Balance of Spiritual and
Secular Influences in Actual Life.
THE position of the English Church between the
Conquest and the Reformation was rather that of a
separate state, owing allegiance and service to the Eng
lish crown, but governed by its own head and officials,
than such as the most powerful corporation of modern
times enjoys. Its theory of existence was so dis
tinct from those which regulated secular society and
the conditions of citizenship^ that only one of two issues
appeared possible. One ofthe rival powers must absorb
the other, and the Church make the State its instru
ment, or the State secularize the Church. In the code
of privileges of the clergy, which one of the ablest
English canonists compiled, for one of our most saintly
bishops, Grosseteste, the assumptions put forward strike
at the very roots of civil society. The temporal power
may not apprehend a priest unless he be caught red-

486 CLAIMS OF THE CHURCH.
hand in a felony; and a clerk may lawfully defend
himself on all other occasions against the ministers
of justice. If a jury find a true bill against a priest,
he must still not be dragged before the secular
courts, but be handed over to his diocesan. Whoever
violates his privileges is excommunicated. In civil
matters, a clerk may take his cattle out of the pound
without being made to answer in court for the trespass.
It is sacrilege if any man distrain on the lands or per
sonalty of a clergyman. AVhatever damage is done to
property owned by a clergyman is sacrilege. No new
taxes or tolls may be imposed on priests, or, above all,
on schoolmasters. From the churchyard to the altar
all consecrated ground is sanctuary, and whoever takes a
fugitive by force out of it, unless he be a burglar or
highway robber, is excommunicate. Whoever works
on a feast-day is excommunicated.1 These grievances,
comprehensive as they are, by no means exhaust all the
charges that Grosseteste brought against the civil power.
He complained, that it followed its own immemorial
laws of marriage against the church canons. He com
plained, that bishops were forced to discharge the secular
functions of their baronies, and to bring to judgment
the priests whom the common law by itself found it hard
to touch. Mixed up with these extravagant pretensions
are some notices of real abuses. The crown was apt
to plunder the temporalities of a vacant see ; to demand
large fines for the institution of abbots; to procure
presentations for favourites, without regard to their
qualifications ; and, to live at free quarters in religious
houses. The latter of these grievances was removed
by statute in the next reign. But, if the account be-
1 Annales de Burton, pp. 425-429.

ANTAGONISM OF CHURCH AND STATE. 487
tween the rival powers were balanced, it is certain that
the aggressions ofthe Church were more numerous and
more formidable than any encroachments that king or
council could attempt.
It is true the State, under Edward I., never actually
conceded what was asked of it. It habitually im
prisoned disorderly clerks on suspicion. It forbade lay
men to give evidence on oath at episcopal inquests. It
forced the bishops to refrain from holding secular pleas.
It compelled them to make returns of marriage after its
own fashion. It asserted the right of the officers of the
common law courts to distrain on the lands of eccle
siastics as freely as elsewhere. It posted up secular
proclamations on the church doors. It forced the
clergy to tax themselves, in at least fair proportion
to their wealth and special exemptions from active
service. It restricted the right of sanctuary, and dis
regarded it altogether in exceptional cases. It com
pelled refractory prelates to appear before council and
be admonished for seditious practices. Nevertheless,
when all this has been allowed, it was none the less a
crying evd, that separate jurisdictions should exist, or
that men should escape the punishment of their crimes
by privilege. Any clerk, imprisoned for any crime,
except high treason or bigamy,1 might be claimed by
his ordinary, and was then given up to the justice of the
diocesan courts. In many cases these were favourable
to the order, and an offender escaped. In a single
circuit of Edward the First's reign, ten clerks, accused
of different crimes, such as murder and burglary, were
demanded by their bishops, declared purged, and re-

1 Marrying a widow was bigamy. Year Books of Edward I., 30 and 31,
p. 530.

488 JUDICIAL IMMUNITIES OF THE CLERGY.
stored to their lands, benefices, and society.1 It is, of
course, possible, that they were all innocent, but it is
certain, that sterner justice was done in the temporal
courts, and that the practice of canonical purgation, by
witnesses swearing generaUy to good character, was
eminently favourable to a caste, whose members were
bound together by peculiar interests, a common dis
like of the law, and a feeling that much might be
strained to avoid scandals. In fact, when it became
the custom, at a later time, to go formally through the
trial, before an offender was suffered to plead his clergy,2
the number of men, convicted before the secular judge
and acquitted before the ecclesiastical, was so great, that
it became necessary to limit the obnoxious privilege.3
On the other hand, as the tendency of our jurispru
dence has commonly been merciful, the system was
extended to include, not only the vagrant clerk, who
had practically renounced orders, but the scholar,
whose reading appeared to show that he was in training
for the priesthood ;4 the number of condonable offences
was extended, till it included, all except treason against
1 Prynne's History, iii. pp. 272, son for life, unless he received a
273. special pardon from the crown.
2 This alteration was introduced Blackstone's Commentaries, book iv.
in the reign of Henry VI. by sir J. c. 28.
Prisot, C. J., and the other judges, 4 The Ordinacio Cleri (25 Edward
in order that, if the clerk were found IIL, c. 6) confines benefit of clergy
innocent, he might escape the for- to " all manner of clerks as well
feiture of goods and chattels, with secular as religious." But under
the profits of his lands, which were Henry VIL it was found necessary
otherwise sequestered till he had to enact, that persons not within
made purgation. Coke, 2 Inst. 164. orders should not be admitted to
Reeves, History of English Law, the benefit of clergy for more than
iii. p. 421. one offence. Murderers were to be
3 In such cases the temporal courts branded on the thumb with an M ;
handed over the offender to the or- other offenders with a T, that they
dinary, " absque purgatione facienda." might be recognized in case of a
He was then debarred from making second offence. (4 Henry VIL,
his purgation, and remained in pri- c. 13).

FLUCTUATIONS OF CHURCH INFLUENCE. 489
the king -,1 and the bishop was liable to be fined, if he
refused to claim an offender who prayed his clergy and
read.2 Generally it may be said, that the Church
always retrieved under a bad king, an Edward II. or
Richard II. , the ground which it lost under just and
competent sovereigns. Thus the worthless son of
Edward I. repealed a great part of his father's salu
tary legislation, renounced the right of distraint upon
old church lands, restrained the judges from forcing
clerks who had confessed a felony to abjure the realm,
and forbade them to take the confessions of clerks, who
were willing to turn king's evidence and renounce their
benefit of clergy.3 Our judges and barons did their
best to neutralize the effects of this partial legislation.
Sometimes the guilty clerk was remanded to prison, on
the ground that other charges against him were in
reserve, and must be enquired into before he was given
up. Clerks, against whom writs were out, were often
arrested in the most solemn functions of the Church.
But Edward IIL, a dissolute man, whose schemes of
foreign conquest required the support of the clergy,
legislated against both these practices, without pro
viding any remedy for the evils that had occasioned
them.4 There is a prevalent idea, that church privi
leges were mostly derived from the mistaken piety of
our kings. The theory is not borne out by history.
The most irreligious of our sovereigns, (William Rufus,
perhaps, excepted,) was John, who made himself the
1 Thus it was extended to include pp. 463, 464.
the felonious burning of houses, a Reeves, History of English Law,
though, on the other hand, it was re- iii. p. 420.
stricted by the statute (25 Edward 3 By the Articuli Cleri. Statutes
IIL, c. 2) that made false coining ofthe Realm, i. p. 171.
treason against the king's person. 4 25 Edward IIL, c. 6. Statutes
Reeves, History of English Law, ii. of the Realm, i. p. 326.

490 CHURCH JURISDICTION IN FAITH.
pope's bondsman, and the most profligate Edward II. ,
who conceded the Articles of the Clergy. But for
pure lives, and that devotion which finds expression in
upright conduct as well as in prayers and almsgiving,
none of our kings can bear comparison with the Con
queror, who first asserted the supremacy of the State
over the Church, and with Edward I., who passed the
Mortmain Act and established the independence of our
temporal courts. A bishop, claiming privileges for the
Church, was often a good man though a bad citizen;
but the kings, who allowed the Church to encroach on
the State, were, without exception, usurpers, tyrants,
or profligates.
As a separate order, the clergy claimed not only to
be independent of the State, but to have a jurisdiction
of their own in matters of faith and morals, in questions
of church dues, in testamentary matters and in con
tracts as having a moral side to them. The latter of
these claims, which would have given them all the civil
law business of the country, was too monstrous to be
carried out, and they were beaten back from it. But they
still retained a wide and important jurisdiction. For
tunately for England, there were few cases of heresy to
test the clemency of the Church in the first three cen
turies after the Conquest, and two merciful rules of
practice were established: first, that suspected per
sons were to be tried before a council, and next, that
confessions were not to be obtained by torture.1
In the case of those who abjured their heresy, im
prisonment, more or less long, in a monastery seems
1 Thus, in the case ofthe Templars, are to be subjected to the question
the archbishop enquired of a synod, and tortures, though this was never
summoned for the purpose, whether, seen or heard in the realm of Eng-
if the offenders will not confess, "they land." Hemingburgh, ii. p. 287.

AN OXFORD SYNOD. 491
to have been the regular punishment. Some Germans,
convicted before a synod at Oxford of denying the
Sacraments and authority of the Church, were branded
whipped, and outlawed, so that they died of cold and
hunger; but their one English proselyte was allowed to
recant, and taken back into the Church.1 Fifty years
later, a graver charge occupied a synod at Oxford. A
deacon, fascinated by the charms of a Jewish maiden,
apostatized at her bidding from the faith. He con
fessed and gloried in his offence, convincing his un-
wdling auditors by a public insult to the cross, and a
formal profession that he renounced the "new law"
and the "false prophet, Christ," and "despised his
mother." Then the archbishop, weeping bitterly, de
graded the renegade from holy orders, and cast him
out of the Church. By the earlier and more credible
account,2 Fawkes de Breaute, whose peculiar piety com
bined habitual sacrdege with a horror of false doctrine,
seized the wretched man as soon as he was in the
streets, dragged him out of the town and cut his throat,
with protestations of regret that he had not sent his
mistress with him to hell. But Bracton says3 he was
burned by the secular power ; and the statement at least
shows that an English judge regarded heresy as a
crime punishable at common law. False miracles
might be treated as heresy. This same councd of
Oxford convicted a wretch, who had copied the sacred
stigmata on his person, and inflicted some punishment
1 Newburgh, lib. ii. c. 13. other punishment than degradation.
2 Paris,' Hist. Minor, ii. p. 254. Sir F. Madden refers the Historian
I prefer this, on the whole, because Minor (i. p. xxxviii.) to 1250-1253.
it is given with a great deal of detail Bracton appears to have written be-
as if from an eye-witness, and be- tween 1262 and 1268. Reeves, His-
cause the deacon's conduct seems to tory of English Law, ii. p. 90.
prove, tnat he did not expect any 3 Bracton, f. 124.

492 ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.
upon him, the exact nature of which is not on record.1
Here the offence amounted to heresy, as the offender
seems to have claimed a supernatural character. But
smaller impostures were more summarily dealt with.
Under Edward III. (1340), bishop Grandison of Exe
ter enquired, in the manor court at Chudleigh, into a
supposed miraculous cure of blindness, and found that
its object was still blind of one eye, and could see no
better than formerly with the other.2 Here, of course,
the plea had a secular side, as the man was obtaining
money under false pretences.
Below the synod, provincial or national, there were
three main divisions of ecclesiastical courts. The arch
deacon's, held by himself or deputy, was for cases in
the archdeaconry, and an appeal lay from it to the
bishop. Such an appeal would be heard in the Con
sistory or Diocesan Court, held by the bishop's chan
cellor or commissary; and beyond this again was the
Court of Arches in either province, presided over by
its dean. The last resource was to the pope. What
ever sins could be made matter of penance by the
priest might become subject of plea in an ecclesiastical
court, with the single reservation, (intended to guard
the secular jurisdiction in contracts,) that the Church
should only impose penance, and not money damages, in
cases of broken faith. Questions of church dues, such as
tithes and mortuaries, and cases of marriage and divorce,
were within the recognized domain of the courts spiri
tual ; and in times when the peasant's tenth egg and the
tithe of the shepherd's wages were claimed, when the
corpse-sheet escheated to the priest,3 when the hus-

1 Paris, Hist. Major, p. 314. p. 75.
2 Oliver's MonasticonDioec. Corn., 3 Thus, in Henry the Eighth's reign,

SMALLER ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.

493

band might transfer his wife for money,1 or divorce
her because she had stood with him at the font,2 there
can be no doubt that the courts had ample occupation.
On an average, every district of forty to seventy thou
sand inhabitants had its smaller spiritual court, and
every three such districts their court of appeal.3 If the
archdeacon was strict, few indeed must have been the
households where one or other member was not, at one
time or another, cited before him. From incontinence
to foul speech, from perjury to angry words, from the
man guilty of witchcraft or sacrilege to the negligent
churchwarden or niggardly payer of tithes, there was
scarcely an offence or offender against the complex
ecclesiastical code, that was too small, or too great, to
form matter of enquiry. The summoners and other
minor officials, who eked out their living by their fees,

(1515) the curate of St. Margaret's,
claiming the sheet in which a dead
child was laid out, the father, one
Hun, a tailor, refused, and being cited
into the Ecclesiastical Court, was
prosecuted for heresy, and imprisoned
in Lollard's Tower, where he was
afterwards found dead under cir
cumstances of great suspicion. Hall's
Chronicle, p. 573. In 1380 the com
mons petitioned that parsons and
vicars might not be allowed to take
mortuaries of armour. Rot. Pari.,
iii. p. 82. The mortuary seems to
have been modelled from the heriot,
on the assumption that every man
owed service to the Church.
1 See vol. i. p. 601, note 2.
2 Gir. Camb., GemmaEccles.,p.46.
3 There were forty-eight arch
deaconries in seventeen English dio
ceses. It is possible that in some cases
the bishop did not constitute an arohi-
diaconal court, but no district was

without a court of some kind, and an
exempt abbey, like St. Alban's, might
have a separate jurisdiction. Gir.
Camb., Spec. Ecc, p. 96. Gesta Abb.,
Mon.S.Alb.,p.l3,&c.ProfessorRogershas expressed a strong opinion, that
" whether the number of the English
and Welsh people in the fourteenth
century was one and a half or two
or even two and a half millions, it is
certain that the rate- of production
precludes the possibility of its being
more than the highest estimate."
History of Agriculture, vol. i. p. 57.
On this assumption the population to a
court would only average from 30,000
to 50,000. But as the population of
England alone was nearly two mil
lions under the Conqueror, and seems
to have increased in the thirteenth
century, if we may judge from the
enclosures of commonage and the
growth of towns, I have adopted a
higher estimate.

494 FUNCTIONS OF MINOR COURTS.
were the sleuth-hounds of the court, scenting out the
secret sins of the neighbourhood, and extracting private
compositions from the perpetrators. Without accepting
Leighton's estimate, at a time when the church power
had been pruned, that these officials might be num
bered by thousands,1 it is certain they were sufficiently
numerous to establish a very real survefllance of opi
nions and morals in England. So long as they were
well administered, the general tone of public feeling
was in their favour. Men generally were so habituated
to minute supervision in their daily life, as tradesmen
or as mechanics, and to the exaction of personal service
in a dozen different ways, from the State or great land
lords, that that minute interference with action, which
is now regarded as the most intolerable of evds, was in
harmony with the whole State economy. That a man
should be kept moral by fines for loose language or a
disorderly life, was in no sense more oppressive than
the municipal laws, which constrained the baker to
knead his bread in presence of the servants of his sub
stantial customers, and to identify every loaf that
he sold by his seal.2 On the other hand, it might be a
great advantage that lords and gentlemen should be
restrained, by fines and penances, from attempts against
the honour of humble women.3 Nor must it be for-

1 "Some have summed them up courts, as late as the seventeenth cen
to the number of 22,000 or there- tury.
about." Syon's Plea against the 2 Liber Albus, i. Preface by Riley,
Prelacy, p. 121. But this calcula- p. lxvii.
tion includes all the " moths, drones, 3 " Also do these lordlings They
and caterpillars" incathedral and col- trespass much in two things, They
legiate churches. The record, pub- ravish a maiden against her will,
lished by the Surtees Society, of the And men's wives they lead away
visitations in the province of York theretill." Robert of Brunne's Hand-
under Charles I., gives an excellent lyng Synne. Ed. Furnivall, p. 231.
idea ofthe practical working of these

CHAUCER AND " PIERS PLOWMAN." 495
gotten that, in times when the criminal laws appraised
offences by a purely secular standard, and inflicted
heavier penalties on false coining than on homicide or
arson, it was of real importance to society, that some
courts should exist, which might hold up an ideal of
morals unconnected with the rights of property or
offences against the king's majesty. Unfortunately, the
church tribunals were too often noted for perversion
of justice. A people's poet of Edward the Second's
time declares, that a rich man might purchase licence
for any iniquity from his dean; might divorce himself
by false witness from his innocent wife, and take his
neighbour's wife to his own house.1 Chaucer, a little
later, describes, as a famfliar character, the Summoner
or Apparitor, who
" Would suffer for a quart of wine
A good fellow to have his concubine,"
and who said, that the sinner's purse was the archdea
con's hell. The author of " Piers Plowman" represents
Simony, in the train of Meed and Falsehood, as putting
a silver harness on deans, archdeacons, registrars, and
summoners, that they might bear the burden of di
vorces, adulteries, and usury.2 The " Ploughman's
Complaint," written about the same time, lashes the
" gadering proctor that can the poor people implead,"
and the court that sells its year's licence for forni
cation.3 Without attaching extreme importance to the
strong language of partisans, we may well believe that
it was impossible, in days when the restraints of public
opinion were small, to command integrity from the

1 Political Songs. Ed. Camden Wright, i. pp. 38, 39.
Society, p. 332. 3 Political Songs, i. p. 324. Pub-
2 Vision of Piers Plowman, ed. lie Record Series.

496 CHURCH PROPERTY.
many different officials of practically irresponsible
courts. Besides its jurisdiction in the spiritual courts, the
Church possessed the natural influence of a great landed
proprietor. At the time when "Domesday Book" was
compiled, it owned three-tenths in rental of the land of
the country. But as monasteries were founded in
every direction during the twelfth and thirteenth cen
turies, there must have been constant accessions to the
Church manors. Great in themselves, they were exag
gerated by public rumour, and two estimates of the
fourteenth century describe the Church as possessing
28,015 fees out of 60,215, or even 28,000 out of 53,215/
These estimates, taken strictly, stand or fall with the
number of knights' fees in the country, and this we now
know has been grossly exaggerated. Sixty thousand
fees, at an average of five hides a piece, would represent
very nearly the whole acreage of England,2 and would
leave no land under other than military tenures, and no
margin for rivers, or woods, or roads. The number
of knights' fees, actually held by tenants-in-chief in
the reign of Henry II. , was from seven to eight
thousand, and the proportion of these owned by the
Church was very much nearer a sixth than a fifth.3 In
1 Sprotti Chronica, p. 114. Robert income for a knight. By this the
of Avesbury, p. 264. military fees would equal in yearly
2 Taking the hide at 100 acres, value £1,200,000 in the thirteenth
(though it was probably often 120), century ; a perfectly incredible in-
30,000,000 acres. The acreage of crease from the values at the time of
England is put by Mr. Kemble at the Domesday Survey ,when the rental
31,770,615 acres. Saxons in Eng- of all England cannot have reached
land,i.p.l08. Mr.M'Culloch reckons £100,000.
it at 32,590,397 acres. Again, the 3 I find, from the Liber Niger
knight's fee is currently reckoned at Scaccarii, that in twenty counties
twenty librates, or pound's worth, there were 3991 fees, of which 410-1-
and this must mean annual value, as were held by bishops, and 261-!- by
the Commons, under Henry IV., es- monasteries.
timated 100 marks as the proper

THE church's wealth. 497
fact, the true charge against religious houses, and one
which reformers were never weary of bringing, was
that they did not contribute in the just proportion of
their wealth to the military strength of the country.
The tenure which they preferred to hold by was that of
frank-almoigne, which discharged them from all service
at council or in the field, and accepted their masses and
prayers in commutation. Moreover, while land gene
rally was perpetually parcelled out among fresh heirs,
so that the number of landoAvners required to take up
their knighthood rather increased than diminished, the
Church in later centuries had no reason for multiplying
its fees, and was very apt to procure exemptions. Be
tween Domesday and the taxation of pope Nicholas IV.
in 1291, the rental of church lands seems to have dou
bled;1 and, allowing for some change in the value of
money, we may probably assume that the Church
owned from a third to half the estated wealth of
England. But this was only a third of their certain
revenue. The value of their spiritualties was equal to
twice the royal revenue under Henry IIL, and to more
than twice the whole rental of the lands owned by the
baronage under the Conqueror. Where our kings found
it difficult to procure more than a twentieth on the
value of wool exported, the Church claimed and re
ceived a tenth of the wool shorn in the country. Nor
were its casual sources of income insignificant. The

1 My own calculation would make actually remitted some years later,
the proportion £51.429 19*. 0\d., in that the whole property of the clergy,
1291, to between 26,000 and 28,000 spiritualties and temporalities, was
at the time of Domesday. But the really valued at £208,553 12*. 6d.
first estimate is based entirely on the (Latin Christianity, v. p. 40). Either
taxation of pope Nicholas IV. (see we must assume, that the first returns
p. 209, note 3), and dean Milman are incomplete, or that some change
shows, from MS. records of the tithe was made in the method of valuation.
II. K K

498 CHURCH PROBATE ADMINISTRATION.
shrine of St. Thomas, at Canterbury, averaged £900
a year in two years for which we have accounts.
The offerings in St. Paul's seem to have been on an
equally liberal scale ; and the Church received in one
year more than £130 for the celebration of funeral an
niversaries.1 The Grey Friars of London estimated their
receipts from public charity at a third of their whole
income.2 But, above all, the power claimed by the
Church to give probate of wills, and to administer to
the personalty of intestates, was scandalously abused.
In defiance of Parliament, the probate was raised from
a small and fixed fee8 to a charge of one per cent, on
the property, and even these limits were not always ob
served, as in one recorded case one thousand marks were
exacted.4 In the case of an intestate, the canons laid it
down as a principle, that one-third of the personalty, or
all that remained after the legal dues of wife and chil
dren had been satisfied, should go to the Church and the
poor. Under Edward I. it was found necessary to pro
vide, that the ordinary should discharge the intestate's
debts out of his property, in such manner as executors
were bound to do.5 But even the provident gentleman,
who executed a formal will, could not discharge his
estate from church dues. He was bound to leave a
special legacy to the parson, for such tithes and obla-

1 Milman's Latin Christianity, vi. teries, p. 67.
pp. 203, 204. 3 2*. 6d. or 5s. 3 Henry V., c. 3.
2 "Heretofore," says Cromwell's (Compare 31 Edward IIL, i. c. 4).
commissioner, " the proctor hath ac- The charge of one per cent, seems to
counted for £1000 a year, their have been fixed by the synod of
rent of assise being but as above, London, in 1342.
£642 0s. 4\&., which costly fare, 4 The case of sir W. Compton
buildings, and other, was then borne brought before parliament, in 1529,
of the benevolence and charity of by sir H. Guildford. Hall's Chroni-
the city of London." Wright's Let- cle, p. 765.
ters on the Suppression of Monas- 6 13 Edward I., Stat. West., c. 16.

THE SECULAR CLERGY. 499
tions as he might have forgotten or omitted during his
life. The second best of his live stock went as a mor
tuary to the church in which he communicated, and
this claim was afterwards extended to articles of dress,
and even to arms. Men remarked, with bitterness,
that the ministers of the Church discriminated be
tween a "lean" and a "fat corpse." The friars, said
the popular song, would fight for the rich man's
body. How many persons shared this enormous revenue, or
what was the proportion of ecclesiastics to laymen, can
not now be certainly known. Where a single prelate
might receive £3000 a year, like the bishop of Winches
ter, or ride to battle, like the bishop of Durham, with
twenty-six bannerets and a hundred and forty knights
in his train,1 it is obvious that the inequalities of posi
tion were great. The Commons, in Henry IV.'s time,
in bringing forward a scheme for the confiscation of
church revenues, proposed that the parish priest should
be paid at the rate of seven marks; but, unless they
made allowance for tithes and oblations, this would
have reduced his yearly income below that of an or
dinary yeoman ;2 and we know that comparatively few
livings were, in fact, of as small value. We tread on
rather firmer ground when we come to the number of
parishes. This was stated, in official returns of Ed
ward III.'s time, to be less than nine thousand; and, as
many of them were served by monks, it is probable
that the number of the secular clergy, (after all allow
ance for those who were unbeneficed), was rather under

1 Anglia Sacra, i. p. 746. Monarchy, p. 133. It is true the
2 Fortescue, fifty years later, speaks priest was not expected to support a
of " five pounds of rent yearly " as family.
" a fair living for a yeoman." On

500 RELIGIOUS HOUSES.
than over ten thousand.1 Unhappily, we are by no means
equally able to fix, even approximately, the numbers of
the regular clergy. Our imperfect lists show, that from
sixteen hundred to seventeen hundred religious foun
dations have existed, at one time or another, in England,
during the period vaguely known as the Middle Ages ;
and from fifteen hundred to sixteen hundred of these
can be traced between the Conquest and the Reforma
tion.2 Out of these, 628 were of native monks, and 249 of
friars; 120 were attached to foreign monasteries, and
426 were hospitals,8 designed for the sick and aged, but
worked by a staff of clergy, chaplains and others,
with whom hospital nurses were sometimes associated.
The other houses were either foundations of canons
(71), or belonged to the Knights Templars or Hospital
lers (59). Even these latter, who were undoubtedly
the most secular by profession, took vows of chastity,
obedience, and community of goods, and were therefore,
in tone and feeling, exclusive societies, having interests
and a life that were not those of the State. The Oxford
and Cambridge colleges have not been included in this
list, as, though the rules and discipline of these founda
tions were more or less influenced by the monastic
model, the fellows and scholars were mostly seculars,
and the traditions of the schools of learning were always
wider and more national than the conventual. But
1 In 1371, a tax of £50,000 was val statistics.
assessed on the parishes at the rate 2 A hundred and fifteen that are
of £1 2s. 3d., the assumption being known to have existed perished, or
that there were 45,000. The absurd- were absorbed at uncertain dates.
ity of the calculation was soon de- See Godwin's Archaeologists' Hand-
monstrated by the returns, and the book (pp. 178-180), which I have
rate was raised to £5 16s., which followed for most of my numbers.
would make the real number 8620. 3 Dugdale's Monasticon, vi. part
Rot. Pari., ii. p. 304. The instance ii. pp. 607-783.
illustrates the uncertainty of media?-

CHURCH LANDS. 501
they swell the vast aggregate of the extra-parochial
clergy ; and, while it is pretty certain that the regulars
very much outnumbered the seculars, it is probable
that the parish priests, the men of all others whom
thoughtful reformers like Chaucer regarded as a good
influence, were not more than a third of the clergy
generally. In other words, whde the most moderate
estimate would assign a parish and separate church to
every four hundred or five hundred of the population,1
and seven men dedicated to religious duties then where ~
one would be found now,2 there were many parishes
which had no resident priest, where confessions were
constantly heard by strolling friars, and the sacraments
administered by a monk coming on festivals, or by an
underpaid deputy.
In the fifteenth century, when a strong party in the
State regarded the great endowments of the Church
with displeasure, bishop Pecock, a man of rare though
dangerous abdity, came forward as the apologist of his
order. He argued that the church lands generally
were better managed and farmed than the estates of
the lay lords ; and though his theory, that many
managers are likely to be wiser than one, would now
be regarded as a doubtful axiom in economy, we may
easily believe that resident proprietors, who supplied
less than their fair quota of soldiers, were at an ad
vantage, compared with barons, in a period of fre-

1 Thisv it will be seen, is taking clergy, it could not have been much
the population at the highest con- under 30,000 or 40,000." History of
ceivable estimate of 2,000,000. Agriculture, i. p. 38. I have reck-
2 Professor Rogers says, " We do oned it at between 20,000 and
not indeed know what was the num- 30,000, for fear of overstating the
ber of professed monks and nuns, case.
but, reckoned along with the parish

502 LITIGATIONS AND DISPUTES
quent wars. The argument, however, became less and
less true, as the times grew more quiet and the gentry
better economists. If the church manors had a less
martial population, they supported all the more yeomen
and husbandmen, the sinews of the country's industrial
greatness. The great church corporations were easy
landlords, and their tenants often acquired customary
rights, only short of possession, over the lands they
farmed. On the other hand, a few wealthy men were
buying up all the small properties and extinguishing
the inferior landowners, so that the position of an
abbey tenant might prove in the long run more durable,
if a little less dignified, than that of an independent
squire or yeoman.1 There can be little doubt, that
some causes of this kind contributed to reconcde men's
minds to the disproportionate revenues enjoyed by
churchmen, and there is reason to believe, that the con
fiscation of monastery lands was partly an economical
revolution, at a time when their raison d'etre had very
much passed away. But against these secular pleas for
church proprietorship we must set some of its palpable
disadvantages. It was the occasion of constant litiga
tion, which certainly did not increase the people's love
to religion. The abbey of Meaux in Yorkshire bought
a disputed title to some neighbouring property, and
pushed its suit to a judicial duel, for which it had
retained seven champions, though it seems only one
was engaged.2 In the records of St. Alban's abbey, we
find it once successfully reclaiming a country tenant
1 So I understand the sentence, come into the hands of temporal
praising the perpetuity of church lords." Pecock's Repressor, ii. p.
endowments, "rather than the said 371,
endowing were had in the laymen's 2 Chron. de Melsa, ii. pp. 97-102.
hands, and by process of time should

WITH RELIGIOUS HOUSES. 503
into servitude; and, on another occasion, forcing the
townsmen to grind their corn and full their cloths at
the abbey mills only.1 The townsmen, in this quarrel,
rated themselves all round by forced assessments to
maintain their plea, and tried to enlist the queen's
sympathies by a passionate demonstration during a royal
visit to the abbey ; but the weight of prescription was
with the convent, and it prevafled. At Dunstable the
leading townsmen agreed, that only two of them should
attend marriages, churchings, or burials, in order that
they might escape the obnoxious fees. The prior ex
communicated them, and, finding that they were sup
ported by their fellow-citizens, called in the bishop,
who reduced them summarily to obedience (1228).
But, in the very next year, there was a new emeute
against a tax unjustly assessed by the prior's officers ;
and the people withdrew their tithes and offerings,
refused to pay more than a penny for a churching or
funeral, published a notice in church that no one was
to grind at the prior's mill, resumed their rights of way
through his fields, pounded his horses, and threatened
the abbey officers who wanted to distrain for the tax.
The bishop was again called in, and excommunicated
the offenders; but the sturdy townsmen declared, that
they would sooner go to hell than give way and be taxed.
They even negotiated for land on which they might
build a new town. The judges could not be brought
to interfere, either not liking to indict a whole town
ship, or believing in their hearts that the abbey was to
blame. A compromise was patched up by the arch
deacon of Bedford, and the abbey sold its obnoxious
privileges to the town for sixty pounds.2 Truly said
1 Gesta Abbat. Mon. S. Alb., 2 Annales de Dunstaplia, pp. 110,
pp. 410-423, 459-464. 111,121-124.

504 HOSTILITY OF ORDER
the mediasval tradition, that when Constantine endowed
" holy kirke with lands and people, lordships and rents,"
an angel was heard wailing over the ruined Church.1
The scandals of money unjustly taken, and the Eucha
rist profaned into a process of law, were sapping faith
among the thinking classes of society, at a time when
all weight of evidence was overwhelmingly for the
believer against the infidel.
Moreover, the Church was a house divided against
itself. Bishops and monasteries, monks and friars,
while they made common cause against the State, were
all anxious to encroach on the other's domain. From
the first renewal of Christianity in the island, it had
been the ambition of every religious foundation to pro
cure special privileges for itself, and the policy of the
popes had promoted the formation of jurisdictions only
subject to their own authority. Thus there were at
least six exempt abbots,2 who had episcopal rights in
their convent estates, and whose lands were little terri
tories detached from the dioceses. By the privilege
of Innocent IV. the Cistercian monks were exempted
from all visitations except under papal legates, and
from all citations to synods or bishops' courts except
for matters of faith, or perhaps in questions of con-

1 Sprotti Chronica, p. 43. Piers exemption, and though the claim was
Ploughman, ed. Wright, p. 326. Quo- disallowed by the pope, it was con-
ted in Pecock's Repressor (ii. p. 350) firmed by Henry II. (Chronicon de
as from Giraldus Cambrensis, but Bello, pp. 25, 77-104). But I can-
with a false reference. Bishop Pecock not find the abbot inserted in any
tries to prove that it was not a good list of exempt abbots during the
angel. thirteenth century, the reason pro-
2 The abbots of St. Augustine's, bably being that, as he did not hold
(Canterbury), St. Alban's, St. Ed- by barony, his name does not often
mund's, Waltham, Westminster, and occur in writs. St. Alban's was not
Evesham. Riley's Pleadings, pp. exempted till the twelfth century.
463, 509. Battle Abbey also claimed Gir. Camb., Spec. Ecc, p. 94.

AGAINST ORDER. 505
tract.1 The Templars, who were technically laymen,
were supposed to claim and exercise the right of
hearing confessions in the order and enjoining pe
nances. But perhaps nothing better exhibits the hos-
tdity of one order to another, than the history of the
long struggle by which the monks of Christ Church,
Canterbury, during the reigns of Richard I. and John,
foiled the design of two primates to establish a large
collegiate church for canons, who should be men
of learning. No plan, it might be thought, could
be more harmless or pious. But the monks dreaded,
that estates, improperly alienated to their foundation
from the see, would be reclaimed for the new endow
ment : and foresaw, that a body of canons, largely re
cruited from the English bishops, might in time claim
to elect the primate in exclusion of the convent. They
appealed to the pope's jealousy, by representing it as a
scheme for making an English patriarch with a body
of suffragans, whose jurisdiction would gradually su
persede the Roman. Every resource of chicanery, and
even violence, was resorted to on the two sides. Frau
dulent inductions, tampering with envoys, appropriate
visions, bribes to the pope's household, alternated with
excommunications, and even with a blockade of the
monks, who were kept prisoners for eighty-four weeks,
receiving all their supplies from the alms of the faithful.
Our kings sided with the archbishops, and a similar

1 An - amusing instance of the diction. But the nuns refused to
working of rival privileges occurs appear before the pope's commis-
in a lawsuit between the abbey of sioners, and were only reduced to
Meaux and the nunnery of Swine. terms at last, on finding that the
The abbey being cited into the arch- sentence of excommunication pro-
bishop's court procured a papal com- nounced against them would be en-
mission, and forced the archbishop's forced by the secular arm. Chronica
official to renounce his claim of juris- de Melsa, ii. pp. 12-22.

506 MONASTERIES.
political instinct decided the popes to give judgment
for the monastery. The dignity of the country was so
far saved, that the decision was pronounced formally as
the verdict of arbitrators, but the English Church, in its
most national form and its highest representative, was
none the less beaten decisively.1
By the beginning of the thirteenth century the mo
nasteries had already been tried and found wanting.
They were demoralized by their own success; and,
while many were discredited by crying scandals,2 the
more estimable could only put forward the claims of de
corous lives, large properties well administered, and
perhaps traditional learning. Six hundred foundations
were scarcely needed for the support of harmless re
spectability and a few schools and libraries, at a time
when the people of England had shown themselves able
to dispense with a Church altogether, and when the
pauper, the leper, and the fugitive slaves were multi
plying with terrible rapidity upon our growing cities.
In the absence of all efficient church reform, the Men
dicant orders arose to supply the new needs by a new
machinery. There are few grander pages in history,
than the record of the privations and sufferings, by

1 For an excellent review of this Chron. de Evesham, p. 250. The
struggle, I must refer the reader to Speculum Ecclesias of Giraldus Cam-
Professor Stubbs's preface to the Can- brensis, and the book De Nugis Cu-
terbury Letters, in the Memorials rialium, ascribed to Mapes, are per-
of Richard I., vol. ii. feet repertories of scandalous stories
2 Thus the charges brought against against the monks, especially the
Roger Norreys, abbot of Evesham, Cluniacs and Cistercians. In gene-
include homicide, notorious unchas- ral our monastic annals, which seem
tity, perjury, habitual neglect ofthe candidly written, point rather to the
rule, and ill-treatment of the monks, love of money and litigation, neglect
He was deposed after much diffi- of religious duties, and love of good
culty, the legate giving, as his sole living, than to that habitual imniora-
reason, that it would be more scan- lity of which public opinion is most
dalous to keep than to dismiss him. jealous.

THE MENDICANT ORDERS. 507
which the Franciscans triumphed over public opinion
in England. When the sister of the first novice brought
him out the dole of food he begged at her door, she
turned her face from him and cursed the hour in which
she had ever seen him. Taking no thought for the
morrow, living on meagre pittances often of the most
repulsive food, huddled together that they might fight
through the bitter winters by animal warmth, walking
barefoot through deep snows, tried by all the diseases
which austerities can induce in weak frames, disliked,
envied, and annoyed by the established orders, and sus
tained through every difficulty by the faith that sees
visions, and whose inner life is the miraculous, these
men retrieved two generations to the Church, renewed
decaying learning, and broke up the rotten conven
tions of the decrepit hierarchy.1 The Dominicans,
especially, as preachers, the Franciscans as confessors,2
invaded every parish where there was work neglected
or work to be done, and their missionaries went into all
lands to bring back the knowledge, that was then price
less to merchants as now to scholars. It is good proof
of the ability with which the new orders met the new
necessities of their time, that their success was especially
great among the three classes who were most essentially
modern, the thinker, the merchant, and the unprivi
leged townsman. St. Francis himself distrusted secular
1 SeetheMonumentaFranciscana, Eccles., pp. 14, 47. The seculars,
pp. 1-33, or, still more, Professor however, never admitted this. Grosse-
Brewer's admirable preface, which teste would not allow deacons to
I have plundered freely. hear confessions. Epistola}, p. 160.
2 It must be remembered that, in And all priests have not power For
the opinion of so learned a theologian to assoil thee right clear, But it be
as Giraldus Cambrensis, a layman thy parish priest, Or have his leave
might baptize, hear confessions, and at the least. Robert of Brunne's
administer the host and extreme Handlyng Sin, ed. Furnivall, p.
unction in cases of necessity. Gemma 360.

508 THE SCHOOLMEN.
learning. "The habit and one little book" were to
content the first brethren. But this dislike attached
especially to the profane legal studies, which attracted
so many churchmen, and to the classical scholarship,
whose associations were all of un-Christian culture.
Adam de Marsh, one of the first Franciscans, was
undoubtedly a learned man, but he rarely or never
quotes a classical author.1 Roger Bacon had laboured
from his youth up " at the sciences and the tongues,"
with a devotion that modern times can scarcely com
prehend, not only dedicating his own fortune, without
reserve, to the cost of books and experiments, but
borrowing largely from his family and friends. Among
the precursors of modern science there is no greater
name than his, who seems to have measured the capa
bilities of human thought. But he yielded to the
strange fascinations of an order, that could not yet
understand its sublime proselyte, and when he was at
last permitted to give to the world, what his heart
burned within him to say, his conceptions of science
had lost their secular import, he regarded all phdosophy
as contained in the word of God, and desired that all
church government should be framed upon the model
of the Hebrew polity.2 In Duns Scotus, " the subtle
doctor," we find the professed theologian; and, in his
disciple Ockham, the political churchman. Both are so
far influenced by the scientific tendency, that they dis
regard the realistic conception of a necessary order of
the world. Christ, says Duns Scotus, might have
taken the nature of a stone, as well as of a man, to save

1 Monumenta Franeiscana, p. to Epistolas Grosseteste, p. xc.
cxxxvii. Mr. Luard has, I think, 2 Bacon, Opera Inedita, pp. 82-
pointed out one exception. Preface 84.

THEIR TENETS. 509
the world.1 Ockham carries the same view further, by
observing that God might have made a different moral
world.2 Each regards religion as the one real force in
the world, to which every other interest must be sacri
ficed; but, while Duns Scotus applies this, in the in
terests of intolerance, to baptizing the children of Jews
forcibly, Ockham, whom circumstances had made more
revolutionary, concludes from it, that religion is of more
importance than its ministers, and that the Church may
depose the pope.3 Both have derived from their founder
a little of the large charity that inspired him. Duns
Scotus believes in a future, though inferior, state of
beatitude for animals ; and Ockham decides, that no man
can be called a heretic, unless he deliberately reject the
first principles of religion.4 The distinctive doctrine of
either thinker is also connected with the secret of his
order's popularity. Duns Scotus was specially devoted
to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception;5 and their
peculiar reverence for the Virgin made the Franciscans
favourites among women everywhere.6 In return, they
were the one religious order that promoted marriages.
Ockham, on the other hand, held the doctrine promul
gated by Michael di Cesena, that as St. Francis professed
absolute poverty, and the antitype could not be greater

1 Duns Scotus, In Lib. Sent., iii. 4 Duns Scotus, In Lib. Sent., iv.
Dist. ii. Compare Novalis (Band. ii. Dist. xlix. Ockham, Dialogus, lib.
s. 185.) "Wenn Gott Mensch wer- vii. c. 7.
den konnte, kann er auch Stein, 5 Duns Scotus, In Lib. Sent., iii.
Pflanze, Thier, und Element wer- Dist. iii. q. 1.
den ; und vielleicht gibt es auf diese e There is a curious and rather
Art 'eine fortwahrende Erlosung in fine passage in the Dialogus of Ock-
der Natur." nam (lib.v. c. 32) in which he argues,
2 Ockham, Cent. Theol., Cone. that the Church might consist of
In Lib. Sent, ii. Qusest. xix. o. women alone, as " at the time ofthe

vi.

3 Duns Scotus, In Lib. Sent., iv. Passion of Christ, the whole faith of
Dist. iv. Qusest. 9. Ockham, Dia- the Christian Church abode in the
locus, lib. vi. c. 64. Mother of Christ."

510 INFLUENCE OF MENDICANT ORDERS.
than the type, the renunciation of all wealth was an
absolute condition of Christianity. ' The opinion was the
sublime of unreason, but it came with terrible cogency
at a time, when one pope had left nearly 2,000,000
florins of gold, and another was trying to seize the in
heritance to his own use. All the vague communistic
feeling, that wells up from the bitter waters of poverty,
was in alliance throughout Europe with the Fran
ciscans. The gradual decline of the brethren from their first
high purpose and exemplar of holy life is only the often-
told tale of institutions perverted from their expressed
design, and enthusiasm replaced by a mechanical dis
cipline. But the very prosperity, that proved fatal to
the Mendicant orders, is proof of their wide influence
upon society. The rule of poverty, which was the one
condition of unimpaired moral excellence, proved im
possible to enforce, when the friars were the most
welcome guests of every vdlage and farm. The irre
gularities of licentious hypocrites escaped punishment,
because the order had become a power in the State
before it forfeited respect. And, during the first cen
tury of their foundation, there is little doubt that the
influence of the Mendicants was powerfully in favour
of religion. Before their rise, infidelity had become
fashionable at the universities and among the clergy;2
there were signs in France and Germany, that the lower
classes were thinking out strange heresies in default of
doctrinal teaching from their appointed guides; and
simony, incontinence, and habitual disregard of their
' Milman's Latin Christianity, v. Philosophie (Band iv.), upon which
p. 276. For a full account of the this notice is partly based.
systems of Duns Scotus and Ock- 2 Gir. Camb., Gemma Eccles., pp.
hara, I must refer the reader to Rit- 148, 149, 285. Compare a story in
ter's Geschichte der Christlichen Wood's Antiq. Univ. Ox., p. 71.

COMPLAINTS AGAINST ECCLESIASTICS. 511
duties were common characteristics of priests and
monks. But between Giraldus Cambrensis and the
author of Piers Ploughman there is an entire change.
Bishop Grosseteste is at least as good a man and as
ardent a reformer as either, but his energies are mainly
directed to putting down the abuses of pluralities and
non-residence, to asserting his episcopal jurisdiction
against the civil power and the rival church courts, and
to promoting Biblical learning and the observance of
Sunday. He complains, from time to time, of disorderly
monks, or of priests who insist on living as married
men; but his censures are rather directed against a
faulty discipline, than against actual connivance at gross
scandals.1 Of infidelity or false doctrine, neither he nor
the writers of the next two reigns know anything;
and when the English Templars were tried on charges
of this sort, by a court resolved to convict them, it was
impossible to procure evidence, except of so loose a kind,
that a modern court of justice would not listen to it. As
the teachers disappeared, the impulse they had given to
education, divested of their restraining influence, turned
thought again into the old channels, and young men
began to talk against the Trinity, or to doubt the story
of Eve tempted by the serpent, and the consequences of
primal sin to the human race.2 But it was long before
the parochial clergy forgot the wholesome lesson which
they had received. Exposed to the invasions of an
organized and highly popular dissent, that shared their

1 Grosseteste, Epistolse, pp. 317, stoke, pp. 157, 164). Offensive terms,
319. In spite of all canons, there is imputing concubinage to thera, must
no question that many of the clergy therefore be taken with large reser-
were actually married, the Council vations.
of Oxford.in 1222, legislating against 2 Piers Ploughman, ed. Skeat, p.
this, and Grosseteste renewing the 125.
prohibition sixteen years later. (Epi-

512 POWER OF THE MEDIAEVAL CHURCH.
duties and usurped their influence without dividing
their responsibilities, they reverted to the ideal of a
blameless life, and, with the instinct of class, made
themselves the exponents of the growing national
feeling, and were steadily for England against Rome.
It is a little difficult not to exaggerate the wide
power which the Church of the Middle Ages undoubt
edly exercised over society. Its tribunals, its wealth,
its control of learning, and its numbers amply justified
its position as a separate estate of the realm, and partly
gave it the control over spiritual freedom, for which it
undoubtedly contended. But human nature is apt to
revenge itself on artificial systems by asserting an irre
gular liberty. The Church could compel congregations,
but they carried secular life with them to the very pre
cincts of the altar, and chaffered or told tales during
the sacred service.1 The priest was inviolable before
the law, but if he were put out of its pale he became at
once fair prey for the laity, and was plundered without
regard to his orders. The sentence of excommunica
tion, that seems so terrible when we read of it, was
habitually disregarded by any man who could put in a
legal plea to show that it had been unrighteously pro
nounced ; and it was in fact nothing more than a church
writ. Nor were the terrors of hell a weapon that the
clergy could wield unreservedly. The merciful doc
trine of the Middle Ages taught, that penitence and
prayer were stronger than the powers of evil; that
Judas had been damned, not for betraying Christ, but
for doubting of God's love; and, that shrift was the
gate of heaven which opened even upon the pit of hell.2

1 Robert of Brunne's Handlyng 2 Robert of Brunne's Handlyng
Sin, p. 143. Sin, pp. 377, 385.

ITS TOLERATION OF OPINION. 513
In proportion as students multiplied, the incongruity
of connecting learning with the profession of orders
became apparent, and lawyers, physicians, and poets
pursued their separate callings without aid from the
Church. The assistance which Edward I. invoked
from the universities against the pope was in itself
ominous of the time, when the great seats of learning
should not only be a separate power within the hie
rarchy, but rival influences in thought and faith. It
was not till the evd days, during which the declining
Church rested for support upon its privileges and the
secular arm, that it can be said in any real sense to
have retarded human progress. During the thirteenth
century, at least, it was so sure of its strength, so deeply
rooted in sentiment and traditions of culture, so fruitful
in thinkers and martyrs, that it could tolerate the largest
discrepancies of opinion and encourage the most fearless
enquiry. The most wretched among men of genius was
Roger Bacon, whom the jealousy and formalism of his
order condemned to a virtual inaction of ten years ; yet
we may fairly set against this temporary deprivation the
facts, that Roger Bacon had been familiar at court, had
spent a large fortune in his pursuits, was the friend of
the greatest prelate of those times, and was finally drawn
from his obscurity by a pope.1 Among the opponents
of papal power no modern writer has been more au
dacious than the Franciscan Ockham, who proved, in the
ponderous dialectics of his day, that the actual pope
1 The reason of Bacon's suspension fiance of their prohibition, it seems
from literary work seems to have certain that he was not imprisoned.
been, that he could not find copyists Opera Inedita, ed. Brewer, pp. 13,
ofthe order, and his superiors would 15. For an anecdote of his jesting
not allow him to dictate to strangers, with Henry IIL, see Paris, Hist.
for fear ofhis treatises being pirated. Major, p. 386.
But, as he set to work at last in de
ll. L L

514 PROGRESS OF FREE THOUGHT.
was a heretic, and that it was possible for all the Church
of adult men and women to fall away from the faith ;
yet Ockham escaped all punishment during his life, and
died with the reputation of an orthodox doctor. The
Church, which persecuted the Albigenses because it
regarded them as dangerous, would, no doubt, have
suppressed free thought in the small class of highly
educated men, if it had believed that its own existence
was at stake. But, it was the singular fortune of the
times, when all progress might have perished in a
retrograde movement, that the established faith was
so intimately bound up with the highest philosophy,
that no man anticipated a coming time of separation.
It is not till the twilight of dawn is broken, that some
thing is found to have faded away, something to have
changed its outline, where much has become clearer
and more beautiful in the new light.

INDEX.

ACRE, relieved, 289.
Aigremont, reduced, 193.
Alban's, St. , synod at, 39 ; John visits,
59 ; papal tax refused at, 185 ; law
suits of, 305.
Albemarle, earl of, 126, 127, 129;
countess of, 249, 403, note 1.
Albigenses, edict against, 76 ; Louis
VIII. wishes to attack, 131.
d'Albiney, William, takes command at
Rochester, 97 ; surrenders, 98 ; his
castle of Belvoir taken, 99.
Alencon, besieged, 23.
.Alexander II. of Scotland, married to a
daughter of John, 52, 125 ; disaffected,
80 ; does homage to Louis, 105 ; is
reconciled to Henry IIL, 118 ; makes
the treaty of Newcastle, 361.
Alexander III. of Scotland, refuses un
conditional homage, 297, 353-355,
358 ; dies, 362.
Algais, Martin, 19.
Amiens, Mise of, 238.
Andelys, Les, described, 21 ; taken,
22-25.
Angers, burned, 5, 34; captured, 71.
Anglesey, ravaged, 321 ; reduced, 326 ;
incorporated, 331.
Anjou, invaded by John, 5 ; claimed by
Arthur, 7 ; awarded to John, 13 ;
John summoned as count of, 14;
revolt in, 18.
Anjou, Charles of, favours the barons,
255 ; receives Edward I., 290 ; pro
tects Guy de Montfort, 291 ; tries to
conquer Sicily, 343.
Anjou, Charles of, the younger, released
at Edward l.'s intercession, 343 ; pro
motes war with England, 379 ; in
vades Gascony, 386.
Aquitaine, accepts John, 4 ; revolt in,
13, 18 ; civil war in, 31 ; invaded by
Philip, 34 ; partially abandoned by
John, 35.
Arthur, his title to the crown, 2-4;

supported by Philip, 7, 8 ; receives
Brittany, 10; forced to make peace,
12,13; makes war in Poitou, 15 ; is
taken, and privately killed, 15-18, 49.
Athol, earl of, John de Strathbolgie,
supports Bruce, 438 ; made prisoner,
441 ; put to death, 444 ; his parent
age, 444, note 1.
Athy, Gerard of, 32 ; banished, 90.
Bacon, Roger, 508, 513.
Balliol, John, summoned to do mili
tary service, 366 ; claims the crown of
Scotland, 368-372; is declared king,
372 ; character of his royalty, 374-
376 ; cited to the English courts, 376,
377 ; visits England, 380 ; makes a
treaty with France, 388 ; is summoned
to Newcastle, 390 ; makes war and is
reduced, 390-393 ; is liberated, 419.
Baronage, numbers and position of, 460-
463.
Barons' war, first, chapter iv. ; second,
chapter vii., 250-276.
Bath, Henry of, justiciary, punished,
198, 199.
Beam, Gaston de, rebels against Henry
IIL, 193-196; against Edward I.,
292, 293.
Beauvais, bishop of, 73.
Bedford castle, siege of, 136, 137.
Bedford, G. Neville, duke of, degraded
from the peerage, 464.
Bere castle, reduced, 329.
Benefit of clergy, 487, 488.
Berengaria, 39.
Bigod, Hugh, earl of Norfolk, his mar
riage, 129, note 3.
Bigod, Raoul, taken at Bouvines, 74.
Bigod, Roger, I., earl of Norfolk, on the
barons' committee, 220 ; justiciary,
223.
Bigod, Roger, II., earl of Norfolk, op
poses Edward, 397-403 ; surrenders
his estates, 403, note 1, 431, note 1 ;

516

INDEX.

does not sign the barons' letter,
421.
Binham priory, besieged, 47, 56, 59,
note 2.
Bisset, Walter, case of, 361.
Bogis, Peter, 25.
Bohun, Humphrey de, IL, earl of Here
ford, makes private war, 349 ; opposes
Edward, 397-403.
Bohun, Humphrey de, III., earl of
Hereford, surrenders his estates, 403,
note 1, 431, note 1.
Boniface of Savoy, archbishop of Canter
bury, 170.
Boniface VIIL, negotiates peace between
France and England, 400, 417; ob
tains Balliol's liberation, 419 ; claims
the kingdom of Scotland, 419-422.
Borough members, 476, 477.
Boulogne, count of, allied with John,
10; his character, 53; often excom
municated, 56 ; at war with Philip, 64,
72, 73 ; taken at Bouvines, 74 ; rigor
ously treated, 76.
Bourg-sur-mer, reduced, 34.
Bouvines, battle of, 73-75.
Brabant, merchants of, robbed, 197.
Braose, Giles de, goes into exile, 49 ;
fines for his restoration, 52 ; sides with
the barons, 81.
Braose, Matilda de, offends John, 48;
captured, 50 ; her fate, 51.
Braose, William de, I., supports John,
5; protects Arthur's life, 16; holds
in France of Philip, 29 ; his ante
cedents, 48 ; quarrel with John and
ruin, 49-51.
Braose, William de, II. , captured, 50;
starved, 51.
Braose, William de, III., hanged, 153.
Braybroke, Henry de, 136.
Breaute, Faukes de, in John's service,
99; at Lincoln, 113; in the govern
ment, 129; hangs Constantine, 130;
opposes de Burgh, 134; rebels and is
crushed, 135-138 ; his apology, 138-
141 ; his marriage, 87, 138; supported
by Peter des Roches, 164.
¦ Briwere, William, receives a barony,
30, note 4 ; his daughter's marriage,
51 ; speaks against the charter, 133.
Bristol, 134 ; garrisoned by royalists,
257; recovered, 263; fined, 211,
note 3.
Bruce, Robert, IV., tries to seize the
Scotch throne, 362, 363; appeals to
Edward, 364, 365; recognizes Edward
as suzerain, 367 ; claims the crown of
Scotland, 368-372; dies, 390, note 1.
Bruce, Robert, V., his Scotch lands con
fiscated, 390; governor of Carlisle,

390, note 2; asks for the Scotch
crown, 393 ; trusted by Edward I.,
405 ; serves at Falkirk, 414.
Bruce, Nigel, captured, 441 ; beheaded,
444.
Bruce, Robert, VL, of Annandale, and I.
of Scotland, rebels, 406 ; guardian of
Scotland, 415 ; conspires with Comyn,
434 ; summoned to England, 435 ;
murders Comyn, 436, 437 ; is crowned,
437-439 ; makes war with England,
439-447 ; tries to negotiate, 450.
Bruce, Mary, queen, 438, 439 ; captured,
441 ; imprisoned, 446.
Bruce, Alexander and Thomas, captured,
442 ; beheaded, 444.
Buc, Walter, 99.
Buchan, countess of, joins Bruce, 438 ;
imprisoned, 445, 446.
Burgh, Hubert de, his family antece
dents, 124; saves Arthur, 17; defends
Chinon, 31; and Dover, 105 ; defeats
the French, 115, 116 ; justiciary, 124 ;
sides with Langton, 127 ; married to
a Scotch princess, 129 ; quells a riot,
130 ; reduces Faukes de Breaute, 136-
140; his conduct as royal minister,
144-151, 168; his disgrace and ruin,
151-156; his character, 156,- 157; his
liberation, 161 ; and partial pardon,
167.
Burgh, Aymer de, earl of Ulster, 438,
439, 446.
Bury St. Edmund's, conference at, 76,
77.
Byrdeley, Thomas de, 404, note 1.
Caen, 17.
Caerlaverock castle, taken, 418.
Caernarvon, Constantine buried at, 332 ;
queen Eleanor confined at, 333.
Caernarvonshire, part of the land of
Snowdon, 327, 331 ; placed under
English law, 331.
Carlisle, parliament of, 447-459.
Cesena, Michael di, 509.
Chalons, tournament of, 290, 291.
Chamberleyn, Robert, hanged as a
felon, 344.
Charta, Magna, extorted, 81 ; its pro
visions, 81-92 ; general character, 92,
93; published again, 121-123; con
firmed, 133, 134 ; confirmed again,
199; constantly infringed, 206; its
spirit, 238 ; stipulated in the Mise of
Lewes, 248 ; conservative element in,
307 ; confirmed by Edward I., 401 ;
posted up on church doors, 469, 487.
Chateau Gaillard, built by Richard I.,
omitted from the treaty of Goleton, 9 ;
besieged and taken by Philip, 20-25.

INDEX.

517

Cherbourg, burned, 388.
Chester, Ranulph, earl of, bought over
by John, 5 ; has charge of the earl of
Leicester's lands, 173 ; takes side
against H. de Burgh, 129, 134 ; is re
duced to order, 135; opposes papal
exactions, 149; brought over to the
king's party, 160; dies, 173.
Chinon, defended by Hubert de Burgh,
31.
Christ Clmrch, monks of, try to elect an
archbishop, 41-43 ; expelled, 44.
Church, see chapter xvi., contest of with
Edward I., 395, 396.
Cinque Ports, John popular in, 96
prince Edward reduces, 269, 270
make war with France, 379-381
write to the king, 379, 380.
Circumspecte agatis, statute of, (so
called), 311.
Cistercians, evade the interdict, 46.
Clare, Gilbert de, I. earl of Gloucester,
his marriage, 129.
Clare, Richard de, earl of Gloucester,
his marriage, 175, 233 ; on the barons'
committee, 221 ; opposed to prince
Edward, 229, 234 ; joins the king,
230, 232 ; dies, 233.
Clare, Gilbert de, III. earl of Gloucester,
sides with De Montfort, 233 ; at Lewes,
246, 247 ; counsellor, 252 ; quarrels
with De Montfort, 260, 261 ; joins
the royalists, 262-264; rebels, 272,
273 ; promises to join the crusade,
278 ; secures the crown for Edward,
282, 286 ; furnished for private war,
349 ; provokes a rebellion in Wales,
335.
Clare, Gilbert de, IV. earl of Gloucester,
said to have assisted Bruce, 435, note 5.
Clare, Thomas de, makes alliance with
Bruce, 362, 436.
Clergy, parliamentary rights of, 470-
473.
Clifford, Roger de, 387.
Colchester, taxation of, 385.
Comyn, John the Black, regent in Scot
land, 364, 366.
Comyn, John the Red, flies at Falkirk,
414; guardian of Scotland, 415; at
Roslin, 419 ; covenants with Bruce,
434 ; betrays him, 435 ; is murdered,
436.
Conditional gifts, statute of, 337-339.
Constance of Brittany, 3, 18; dies, 13.
Constantine, body of, 332.
Corbridge, burning of boys at, 392.
Cornwall, Richard, earl of, and king of
the Romans, sent to France, 140, 141 ;
in opposition, 146; reconciled, 160;
opposes De Montfort, 174 ; in Pales

tine, 186 ; in the French war, 187,
189, 191 ; supports De Montfort,
194; absent from parliament, 201;
unpopular, 206; imports corn, 219;
returns to England, 226 ; in the barons'
war, 244, 246, 248; his property se
questered, 259 ; released, 270 ; arbi
trates, 277 ; dies, 281.
Cornwall, Edmund, earl of, 460 ; in
Gascony, 389.
Council, continual, 455, 456; great,
456,457.
Danegeld, 479.
David ap Owen, marries Henry II.'s
sister, 314 ; deprived of his kingdom,
315.
David ap Llewellyn, succeeds Llewellyn
ap Jorwerth, 315; dies, 316.
David ap Griffith, flies into England,
320; endowed by Edward I., 322;
rebels, 326 ; refuses terms, 327 ; is
taken and hanged, 329-331.
Denbigh castle, given to David ap Grif
fith, 322 ; lordship given to the earl
of Lincoln, 331.
Despenser, Hugh, how married, 269,
note 1 ; killed at Evesham, 266.
Devizes, H. de Burgh prisoner at, 161.
Douglas, William, surrenders Berwick,
392 ; joins Wallace, 405.
Douglas, James, joins Bruce, 438 ;
makes reprisals, 447.
Dover, besieged, 105, 113; captured by
prince Edward, 269.
Dreux, John de, earl of Richmond, made
viceroy of Scotland, 429 ; superseded,
439.
Dunbar, battle of, 393.
Duns Scotus, 508, 509.
Dysarth, 216.
Earls, number of, 459, 460 ; palatine
power of, 358, 359.
Ecclesiastical courts, 490-496.
Edmund, archbishop, appointed, 163 ;
goes into exile, 181.
Edward I., his early character, 206, 207,
216, 295-297; provokes a war in
Wales, 216-218 ; opposes the barons,
225, 226 ; forms a royalist party, 229,
230 ; sides openly with his father, 234 ;
seizes Bristol, 236; and Gloucester,
240; fights and is taken at Lewes,
244-249 ; escapes, 262 ; defeats De
Montfort, 263-266 ; crushes the re
bellion, 269-276; joins the crusade,
277-279,289,290; his reign, chapters
ix-xiv.
Edward of Carnarvon, born, 333 ; be
trothed, 396 ; regent, 401; knighted,

518

INDEX.

439, 440 ; serves in Scotland, 450 ;
his character, 432, 443, 450.
Eleanor of Anjou, quarrels with Con
stance, 3 ; supports John, 4 ; at Mira-
bleau, 15 ; dies, 31.
Eleanor of Brittany, 16.
Eleanor, princess, marries earl Marshal,
129; De Montfort, 174; her character,
175, 176, 228; allowed her dower,
320.
Eleanor of Castile, legend concerning,
289, note 3 ; her death and character,
351, 352.
Ely, war of the disinherited in, 272, 274,
276.
English language, use of, 223, 235.
Englishmen, regarded as cowards, 378.
Estates, the three, 459.
Ferrars, W. de, earl of Derby, how
married, 129.
Ferrars, R. de, earl of Derby, makes
private war, 241 ; imprisoned, 260 ;
defeated, 271 ; mulcted in title and
lands, 272.
Fitz-Thomas, John, quarrels with De
. Vesci, 387.
Flanders, countess of, confiscates English
property, 280 ; is met with prohibi
tive measures, 280, 288.
Flanders, earl of, allied with John, 10,
64 ; invades France, 72, 73 ; a prisoner,
76.
Flanders, earl of, makes submission at
Montreuil, 294; an ally of Edward I.,
396, 397, 403, 404.
Fraser, sir Simon, joins Bruce, 438 ;
captured, 441 ; executed, 444.
Friars, circumstances ofthe rise of, 506-
508 ; secret of the success of, 508-510;
decline of, 510; influence of, 511;
houses of, 500.
Fulke Fitz- Warenne, or Warine, at feud
with John, 19 ; threatens the papal
collector, 182.
Furnivall, Thomas de, case of, 462,
note 3.
Gascony, De Montfort's government of,
193-196 ; Henry III.'s campaign in,
196, 202; Edward I. pacifies, 292,
293 ; seized by Philip, 382 ; war to
recover, 383, 385-387, 396, 397 ; re
stored, 417, 418, 423.
Giffard, John, 240, 242, 260.
Giffard, John or Walter, 385, 386.
Gray, Reginald, justice of Chester, 324 ;
obtains Ruthyn, 331.
Gray, John de, bishop of Norwich, his
character, 108 ; enthroned at Canter
bury, 42.

Gregory IX., pope, appoints a primate,
149 ; taxes the English clergy, 149-
151, 181 ; gives De Montfort a dis
pensation, 175.
Grosmont, run of, 161, 162.
Grostete, or Grosseteste, the friend ot
De Montfort, 175, 197 ; supports
canon law-, 179, 487; denounces
abuses in the church, 185, 186.
Gualo, papal legate, denied a safe-con
duct, 102, 103; lands in England,
104; supports Henry III., Ill, 118;
punishes the clergy, 119 ; interferes
in government, 120, 121.
Guido of Sabina, legate, 256.
Guildhall, attended by soldiers, 273.
Gurdon, Adam, 270, 271.
Havering, sir J., 384.
Hengham, Ralf de, 346.
Henry III., made king, 109-112 ; his
reign, chapters v.-viii. ; policy to
the Church, 179-186; his character,
283, 296 ; his revenue, Appendix A,
209-213.
Henry, prince, joins the barons, 235 ;
wavers, 239 ; deserts,'242 ; envoy to
France, 255 ; governor of Gascony,
278; murdered, 279.
Honorius IIL, pope, John writes to, 107 ;
guardian of Henry III., 120, 1 2 1 ; his
policy in England, 128, 139, note 1.
Hubert, archbishop, supports John, 5 ;
makes a speech, 6 ; dissuades from
war, 32, 33 ; dies, 40.
Innocent III., pope, interferes between
England and France, 8 ; lays France
under interdict, 9 ; his early relations
with John, 12, 18, 38, 39 ; annuls the
Canterbury election, 42-45 ; lays Eng
land under interdict, 45-47; excom
municates John, 54, 55; declares his
crown forfeit, 57 ; admits him to
terms, 61-63; relaxes the interdict,
69, 70 ; supports John against the
barons, 79 ; annuls the charter, 96 ;
excommunicates the barons, 100, 101 ;
dies, 104.
Innocent IV., taxes the English clergy,
182-184.
Interdict, published, 45, 46 ; effects of,
54-57.
Iolenta of Brittany, 168.
Ireland , Magna Charta extended to, 1 12 ;
earl Marshal's war in, 165, 167 ; con
nection of prince Edward with, 216,
217, 295; money raised in, 333; le
gislation of Edward I. for, 340-342.
Isabella of Angouleme marries John, 1 1 ;
is unfaithful, 57 ; marries Hugh De

INDEX. 519

la Marche, 125 ; provokes a war, 186,
187.
Isabella of Gloucester, 11, 12, 124.
Jews, taxed by John, 55 ; by Henry III.,
199-201, 211; massacred in London,
241 ; forbidden usury and to hold
land, 303-306 ; expelled England, 347-
John, reign of, chapters, i.-iv. : revenue
of, 208.
Justice, administration of under Henry
HI., 198 ; under Edward I., 323, 324,
344-347, 349-351, 452.
Kemereu, battle of, 217.
Kenilworth, battle at, 263, 264 ; holds
out, 268-270; invested, 271; parlia
ment of, 271, 272.
Kenmeis, battle of, 21 7.
Keri, petition from men of, 317.
Kildrummie castle, 430, note 1, 435,
441.
Kilwardby, Robert de, archbishop of
Canterbury, at Lyons, 294.
King's power, theory of, 453, 454.
Knights, made, 440 ; petition of, 225.
Knights' fees, number of, 209, 496, 497;
value of, 210, note 4.
Knights of the shire, 475, 476.
Laci, Maud de, 233.
Laci, Roger de, defends castle Gaillard,
24, 25.
Lambeth, treaty of, 117.
Lanercost priory, 447, 450.
Langley, Geoffrey de, 216.
Langton, Stephen, appointed primate,
43 ; how regarded, 55 ; counsels war
against John, 57 ; received in Eng
land, 61, 65, 66; agitates for the
charter, 67, 68, 77; mitigates the in
terdict, 69 ; mediates, 95 ; is sum
moned to Rome, 96; suspended, 97 ;
censured, 100 ; translates Becket's
bones, 126 ; procures the reversal of
Pandulph's policy, 128 ; supports the
charter, 133; and the king, 135-141;
resists the legate, 144; judges a he
retic, 491 ; dies, 148.
Langton, Simon de, 119, note 1.
Limerick, 49.
Lincoln, Henry.de Laci, earl of, receives
Denbigh, 331 ; surrenders his estates,
403 ; commands in Gascony, 401 ;
ambassador to the pope, 421.
Lincoln, taken, 113, 114.
Lisbon, envoys to, 11.
Llewellyn ap Jor werth,reign of, 3 1 4,3 1 5 ;
marries Joanna, 52; revolts, 59; makes
peace, 118; troubles the regency, 129,

134, 135, 137 ; makes war, 146 ; hangs
W. de Braose, 153; supports earl
Marshal, 162; makes peace, 165-
168.
Llewellyn ap Griffith, succeeds David,
316; makes war with England, 216,
217; joins the barons, 240, 257; his
treaty with De Montfort, 263 ; invades
England, 269; makes peace, 317 ; re
fuses homage, 318-320 ; is reduced to
submission, 320-323 ; his grievances,
323-325; makes war, 326; refuses
terms, 327 ; is killed, 328.
London, during the first barons' war
94, 95, 97, 98, 100, 104, 110, 113-116,
118; John's partisans in, 67, 108;
French party in, 130, 131 ; feeling
against H. de Burgh, 153, 154; taxed
by Henry IIL, 200-202, 211 ; famine
in, 218, 219; takes part against the
king, 235-237, 241, 243, 246, 249, 256,
272, 274; punished, 269, 273, 274;
consents to the tax on woo], 303.
Louis VIIL, as dauphin, defeats John,
71, 72 ; invades England, 97-116 ;
makes peace, 116-118; refuses to sur
render Normandy, 131 ; reduces the
English dominions, 132; renews the
war, 141, 142; dies, 142.
Louis IX, forbids Henry III.'s marriage,
169; and De Montfort's, 174; at war
with England, 186-192 ; arranges the
English claims, 228, 229 ; is referee,
233; arbitrates, 237-239; named as
umpire, 248, 261 ; founder of Gallican
liberties, 253 ; intercedes for the De
Montforts, 272; goes on a crusade,
277,278.
Lyons, councils of, 185, 293, 294.
March lordships, privileges of, 313, 314,
349, 365.
Margaret, princess, asked in marriage
by Edward I., 382 ; married to him,
418.
Marsh, Adam de, 176, 508.
Marsh, Geoffrey de, 166, 205.
Marsh, William de, 205, 206.
Marshal, William, I. earl of Pembroke,
(commonly called earl Marshal), dis
suaded from invadingofFrance,32, 33;
steadily royalist, 81, 110, 112; wins
"the fair of Lincoln," 113; regent,
121.
Marshal, William, II. earl of Pembroke,
sides with the barons, 81, 125 ; mar- ,
ries princess Eleanor, 129 ; quarrels
with Llewellyn, 130, 134, 135 ; in op
position, 146 ; dies, 153, 156.
Marshal, Richard, earl of Pembroke,
guardian of H. de Burgh, 156 ; iu

520

INDEX.

opposition, 159, 160 ; in rebellion, 161,
162; killed, 165,166.
Marshal, John, 81, 136.
Marshal, Gilbert, earl of Pembroke,
167.
Mauleon, Savari de, 31 ; deserts John,
65 ; takes service with him, SI ; ra
vages England, 99, 107 ; betrays Ro
chelle, 132 ; renews his allegiance,
142.
Meaux, abbey of, 309.
Medoc and Morgan, revolt of, 335.
Melun, viscount de, 106.
Merlin, prophecies of, 325.
Merton, Walter de, 287, 288.
Merton, council of, 177, 178.
Methuen, rout of, 441.
Moine, Eustace de, 115, 116.
Monasteries, their number, 500 ; and
sources of wealth, 496-498 ; influence
as landed proprietors, 502-504 ; rival
privileges, 504-506.
Montfort, Simon de, earl of Leicester,
59, 172; his early life, 173, 174; his
marriage and preferments, 174-177;
governs Gascony, 192-197 ; on the
barons' committee, 220, 221, 223;
commissioner in France, 228 ; joined
by prince Edward, 229, 230 ; tries to
bring in troops, 231 ; amnestied, 232 ;
conducts the barons' war, 234-249 ;
administers the government, 250-262 ;
is defeated and slain, 263-266 ; his
character, 267, 268.
Montfort, Simon de, sacks Winchester,
263 ; surprised at Kenilworth, 264 ;
his fortunes after Evesham, 269-272 ;
murders prince Henry, 278, 279.
Montfort, Guy de, patronized by Charles
of Anjou, 255 ; murders prince Hen
ry, 278, 279 ; imprisoned, 290, 291.
Montfort, Henry de, has a monopoly of
- wool, 260.
Montfort,- Aymeri de, 288; captured,
320.
Montfort, Eleanor de, captured, 320 ;
married to Llewellyn, 323 ; intercedes
for him, 324.
Mortimer, Ralf de, marries Gladys
Dhu, 316.
Mortimer, Roger, ravages De Montfort's
lands, 240 ; his wife's conduct, 266 ;
connected with Welsh royalty, 316;
invades Wales, 321.
Mortmain, statute of, 308, 309.
Mount-sorel, siege of, 113.
Nantes, 71.
Nefyn, tournament at, 333.
Newcastle, council at, 375.
Nicholas, pope, taxation of, 209.

Nicholas, legate and bishop, 69, 70, 78.
Niort, 127, 189.
Nobles, English, members of, 459-463 ;
compared with French, 463-467; offi
cial, 467, 468.
Norham, parliament at, 366-372.
Norman, Simon, 170.
Normandy, accepts John, 4, 7 ; invaded
by Philip, 15, 18; overrun and re
duced, 19-28 ; its pacification, 28-30 ;
connection with England, 30, 31 ;
party in it invites John, 32.
Norman sailors, quarrel with English,
379-381.
Northampton, council of, 58 ; captured,
242.
Norwich, bishop of, tries to hold spiritual
pleas, 311.
Norwich, archdeacon of, killed, 54.
Ockham, William of, 508-510,513, 514.
Otho, king of the Romans, 1 ; at war with
Philip, 7 ; provided for in the treaty
of Galeton, 10 ; abandoned by John,
13 ; supported by Innocent, 39 ; court
ed by John, 53 ; invades Franco, 72 ;
beaten at Bouvines, 73.
Otho, papal commissioner, 143, 144;
nuncio, 179-182.
Oxford, Robert de Vere, earl of, 421,
460.
Oxford, besieged, 97; surrendered, 112;
riots in, 180, 181, 303, 304; parlia
ment of, 220 ; provisions of, 221-222 ;
annulled, 238 ; political feeling in,
241; representatives of, 420 ; attempt
to exempt colleges from the Mortmain
law, 309.
Pandulph, pope's envoy, 57, 58; pro
cures John's submission, 60-62 ; leaves
England, 64 ; arrives at Rome, 69 ;
legate, 126 ; his conduct and removal,
126-128.
Parliament, how constituted, 457-479.
Paul's, St., council of, 121.
Peckham, John, archbishop of Canter
bury, reprimanded in council, 469.
Philip Augustus, supports Arthur, 7, 8;
makes peace with John, 9, 10 ; advises
John's marriage, 11 ; receives him at
Paris, 13; summons him, 14; invades
Normandy, 15 ; declares Normandy
forfeited, 18 ; reduces it, 19-30 ;
marches south, 31-34; grants an ar
mistice, 35 ; at war with the count of
Boulogne, 53 ; prepares to invade
England, 57, 59, 60, 63; invades
Flanders, 64, 65 ; wins the battle of
Bouvines, 72-75; reduces Poitou, 75;
makes peace with John, 75, 76 ; en.

INDEX.

521

courages the invasion of England,
102, 103; dies, 131.
Philip IIL, receives Edward's homage,
292 ; decides against Gaston de Be
am, 293.
Philip IV., receives Edward's homage,
342 ; his policy, 343 ; and treatment
of the Jews, 348 ; demands redress,
381 ; seizes Gascony, 382, 383 ; con
cerned in Turberville's conspiracy,
387, 388 ; offends the count of Flan
ders, 396 ; makes a truce, 400 ; makes
peace, 417, 418, 423; offers to give
up Wallace, 425.
Prince of Wales, title of, 317.
Private war, cases of, 349, 350.
Querci, ceded to England, 192, 343.
Quillebeuf, ceded to France, 9.
Qumcy, Saher de, earl of Winchester,
surrenders Rueil, 20 ; protected by
John, 25, 460, note 2 ; barons' envoy,
98.
Quo Warranto commissions, 297-301 ;
annoyance caused by, 326 ; revived,
402.
Radepont, 20 ; taken, 23.
Randolph, Thomas, 445.
Reading, abbot of, 96.
Rees ap Meredith, 334.
Reginald, sub-prior of Christ Church,
41.
Rhuddlan, fortified, 321 ; cantred of,
322 ; reduced, 326 ; statute of (so-
called), 332.
Richard I., policy of, 1, 2, 7.
Richmond, fee of, 169.
Rivaux, Peter des, largely preferred,
158.
Roches, Peter des, bishop of Winchester,
his character,! 25 ; supports Pandulph,
127 ; ordered to give up his castles,
134, 139 ; an enemy of H. de Burgh,
152, 157,161; powerful at court, 158,
159 ; threatens the nobles, 159 ; alien
ates the pope, 1 63 ; is denounced and
disgraced, 164, 165.
Rochester, sieges of, 97, 98, 242, 243.
Roslin, battle of, 419.
Routiers, employed by John, 22 ; by Ed
ward, 295.
Rubeo, pope's agent, 181.
Rueil, taken, 20.
Sabina, Peter, cardinal of, 449.
Salisbury, William, earl of, at Swine-
miinde, 64 ; at Bouvines, 73, 74, 76;
released, 78; supports John, 99 ; and
joins the barons, 104 ; goes on a cru
sade, 125 ; his enemies, 127, 129 ; re-

II.

M

lations with H. de Burgh, 144, 145,
153.
Salisbury, Ela, countess of, 144, 145.
Salisbury, parliament of, 395, 396, 468.
Scotland, relations of, with England,
353-361 ; condition of, during the in
terregnum, 362-366 ; conquered by
Edward I., 389-394 ; freed by Wallace,
404,412; war in, 412-419; again in
vaded and conquered, 423-425 ; set
tlement of, 429-431 ; revolts under
Bruce, 437-439 ; again overrun, 44C-
442, 446.
Segrave, John de, beaten at Roslin,
419 ; judges Wallace, 426.
Segrave, Nicholas de, 276.
Segrave, Stephen de, chief justiciary,
158, 159 ; statement made by, 210.
Setons, the, join Bruce, 439 ; taken
captive, 441 ; executed, 444.
Shrewsbury, parliament of, 329, 333.
Sicily given to Henry IIL, 214-216;
visited by Edward I., 289, 290 ; war
for, 343.
Siward, Bichard, 160.
Sowin, 289.
Stafford, Roger, denied the dignity of
baron, 464.
Stradewi castle, 221.
Stratton, Adam de, case of, 345, 346.
Taxation, under Henry III., 199-203,
208-213 ; under Edward I., 479-482.
Temporalities of the clergy, their ex
tent, 209, 496,'497 ; how taxed, 481.
Testa, William, papal proctor, 447-449.
Tithes, how enforced, 492, 493; their
comprehensiveness, 492, 497.
Tournaments, put down, 261, 288 ; held,
333.
Trailbaston, commission of, 350, 351.
Treaty of Goleton, 9 ; between Philip
and John, 75 ; of Lambeth, 167 ; be
tween Louis IX. and Henry III., 192;
of Paris, 417,418.
Turberville, sir Thomas, treason and
punishment of, 387-389.
Turnham, Robert of, 32.
Twenge, Robert, 151.
Twenge, Marmaduke, 408, 409, 412.
Valence, William of Champagne, bishop
elect of, 169.
Valence,' William de, earl of Pembroke,
his character, 171, 172, 218; driven
out of England, 223.
Vesci, William de C. J., accused of trea
son, 387.
Wales quieted by John, 52 ; invaded
M

522

INDEX.

by Henry IIL, 146,204 ; revolts, 216-
218 ; conquest of, chapter x.
Wallace, William, heads an insurrec
tion, 405, 406 ; wins the battle of
Stirling, 407-409 ; invades England,
410; his government and character,
410, 411 ; reduces Stirling, 412 ; de
feated at Falkirk, 413-415 ; present at
Roslin, 419 ; asks grace, 424 ; out
lawed, 425 ; taken and executed, 426,
427 ; his position, 428, 429.
Warenne, John de, earl of Surrey, his
family, 460, note 2 ; and lands, 251,
note 1 ; opposes the Quo Warranto
commission, 298; pleads, 299; in Scot
land, 363 ; guardian of Scotland, 405 ;
defeated at Stirling, 407-409.

Welsh bards, not massacred, 336.
Westminster abbey, 201 , 283.
Westminster hall, 398.
Westminster, statutes of, 301, 302, 337-
3*0. . . „
Weyland, Thomas de.justiciary, caseot,
344, 345.
Winchelsea, Robert of, archbishop ot
Canterbury, opposes Edward's taxa
tion, 395, 396 ; behaves ambiguously,
398, 401 ; his character and fortunes,
431-433.
Winchester, sacked, 263.
Woodstock, parliament of, 219.
Wool tax proposed, 284 ; imposed, 302;
increased, 397 ; its augmentation re
nounced, 401.

CHISWICK PRESS : — PRINTED BY WHITTINGHAM AND WILKINS,
TOOK3 COURT, CHANCERY LANE.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08561 0062

& 1 A

; v*-* «2^ a*^ V. *?*/»" Vo-

.\* .

'^.^A^ JU'