[MN 1262.] The king, as soon as he received the pope's absolution

from his oath, accompanied with menaces of excommunication against all

opponents, trusting to the countenance of the church, to the support

promised him by many considerable barons, and to the returning favour

of the people, immediately took off the mask. After justifying his

conduct by a proclamation, in which he set forth the private ambition,

and the breach of trust, conspicuous in Leicester and his associates,

he declared, that he had resumed the government, and was determined

thenceforth to exert the royal authority for the protection of his

subjects. He removed Hugh le Despenser and Nicholas de Ely, the

justiciary and chancellor appointed by the barons; and put Philip

Basset and Walter de Merton in their place. He substituted new

sheriffs in all the counties, men of character and honour: he placed

new governors in most of the castles: he changed all the officers of

his household: [MN 23d April.] he summoned a Parliament, in which the

resumption of his authority was ratified, with only five dissenting

voices: and the barons, after making one fruitless effort to take the

king by surprise at Winchester, were obliged to acquiesce in those new

regulations [t].

[FN [t] M. Paris, p. 668. Chron. T. Wykes, p. 55.]

The king, in order to cut off every objection to his conduct, offered

to refer all the differences between him and the Earl of Leicester,

to Margaret, Queen of France [u]. The celebrated integrity of Lewis

gave a mighty influence to any decision which issued from his court;

and Henry probably hoped, that the gallantry, on which all barons, as

true knights, valued themselves, would make them ashamed not to submit

to the award of that princess. Lewis merited the confidence reposed

in him. By an admirable conduct, probably as political as just, he

continually interposed his good offices to allay the civil discords of

the English: he forwarded all healing measures, which might give

security to both parties: and he still endeavoured, though in vain, to

soothe, by persuasion, the fierce ambition of the Earl of Leicester,

and to convince him how much it was his duty to submit peaceably to

the authority of his sovereign.

[FN [u] Rymer, vol. i. p. 724.]

[MN 1263.] That bold and artful conspirator was nowise discouraged by

the bad success of his past enterprises. The death of Richard, Earl

of Gloucester, who was his chief rival in power, and who, before his

decease, had joined the royal party, seemed to open a new field to his

violence, and to expose the throne to fresh insults and injuries. It

was in vain that the king professed his intentions of observing

strictly the great charter, even of maintaining all the regulations

made by the reforming barons at Oxford or afterwards, except those

which entirely annihilated the royal authority: these powerful

chieftains, now obnoxious to the court, could not peaceably resign the

hopes of entire independence and uncontrolled power, with which they

had flattered themselves, and which they had so long enjoyed. [MN

Civil wars of the barons.] Many of them engaged in Leicester's views;

and among the rest, Gilbert, the young Earl of Gloucester, who brought

him a mighty accession of power, from the extensive authority

possessed by that opulent family. Even Henry, son of the King of the

Romans, commonly called Henry d'Allmaine, though a prince of the

blood, joined the party of the barons against the king, the head of

his own family. Leicester himself, who still resided in France,

secretly formed the links of this great conspiracy, and planned the

whole scheme of operations.

The princes of Wales, notwithstanding the great power of the monarchs,

both of the Saxon and Norman line, still preserved authority in their

own country. Though they had often been constrained to pay tribute to

the crown of England, they were with difficulty retained in

subordination, or even in peace; and almost through every reign since

the Conquest, they had infested the English frontiers with such petty

incursions and sudden inroads, as seldom merit to have place in a

general history. The English, still content with repelling their

invasions, and chasing them back into their mountains, had never

pursued the advantages obtained over them, nor been able, even under

their greatest and most active princes, to fix a total, or so much as

a feudal subjection on the country. This advantage was reserved to

the present king, the weakest and most indolent. In the year 1237,

Lewellyn, Prince of Wales, declining in years, and broken with

infirmities, but still more harassed with the rebellion and undutiful

behaviour of his youngest son, Griffin, had recourse to the protection

of Henry; and consenting to subject his principality, which had so

long maintained, or soon recovered, its independence, to vassalage

under the crown of England, had purchased security and tranquillity on

these dishonourable terms. His eldest son and heir, David, renewed

the homage to England; and having taken his brother prisoner,

delivered him into Henry's hands, who committed him to custody in the

Tower. That prince, endeavouring to make his escape, lost his life in

the attempt; and the Prince of Wales, freed from the apprehensions of

so dangerous a rival, paid thenceforth less regard to the English

monarch, and even renewed those incursions, by which the Welsh, during

so many ages, had been accustomed to infest the English borders.

Lewellyn, however, the son of Griffin, who succeeded to his uncle, had

been obliged to renew the homage, which was now claimed by England as

an established right; but he was well pleased to inflame those civil

discords, on which he rested his present security, and founded his

hopes of future independence. He entered into a confederacy with the

Earl of Leicester, and collecting all the force of his principality,

invaded England with an army of thirty thousand men. He ravaged the

lands of Roger de Mortimer, and of all the barons who adhered to the

crown [w]; he marched into Cheshire, and committed like depredations

on Prince Edward's territories; every place where his disorderly

troops appeared was laid waste with fire and sword; and though

Mortimer, a gallant and expert soldier, made stout resistance, it was

found necessary that the prince himself should head the army against

this invader. Edward repulsed Prince Lewellyn, and obliged him to

take shelter in the mountains of North Wales: but he was prevented

from making farther progress against the enemy, by the disorders which

soon after broke out in England.

[FN [w] Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 354.]

The Welsh invasion was the appointed signal for the malecontent barons

to rise in arms, and Leicester, coming over secretly from France,

collected all the forces of his party, and commenced an open

rebellion. He seized the person of the Bishop of Hereford; a prelate

obnoxious to all the inferior clergy, on account of his devoted

attachment to the court of Rome [x]. Simon, Bishop of Norwich, and

John Mansel, because they had published the pope's bull, absolving the

king and kingdom from their oaths to observe the provisions of Oxford,

were made prisoners, and exposed to the rage of the party. The king's

demesnes were ravaged with unbounded fury [y]: and as it was

Leicester's interest to allure to his side, by the hopes of plunder,

all the disorderly ruffians in England, he gave them a general licence

to pillage the barons of the opposite party, and even all neutral

persons. But one of the principal resources of his faction was the

populace of the cities, particularly of London; and as he had, by his

hypocritical pretensions to sanctity, and his zeal against Rome,

engaged the monks and lower ecclesiastics in his party, his dominion

over the inferior ranks of men became uncontrollable. Thomas

Fitz-Richard, Mayor of London, a furious and licentious man, gave the

countenance of authority to these disorders in the capital; and having

declared war against the substantial citizens, he loosened all the

bands of government, by which that turbulent city was commonly but ill

restrained. On the approach of Easter, the zeal of superstition, the

appetite for plunder, or what is often as prevalent with the populace

as either of these motives, the pleasure of committing havoc and

destruction, prompted them to attack the unhappy Jews, who were first

pillaged without resistance, then massacred to the number of five

hundred persons [z]. The Lombard bankers wore next exposed to the

rage of the people; and though, by taking sanctuary in the churches,

they escaped with their lives, all their money and goods became a prey

to the licentious multitude. Even the houses of the rich citizens,

though English, were attacked by night; and way was made by sword and

by fire to the pillage of their goods, and often to the destruction of

their persons. The queen, who, though defended by the Tower, was

terrified by the neighbourhood of such dangerous commotions, resolved

to go by water to the castle of Windsor; but as she approached the

bridge, the populace assembled against her: the cry ran, DROWN THE

WITCH; and besides abusing her with the most opprobrious language, and

pelting her with rotten eggs and dirt, they had prepared large stones

to sink her barge, when she should attempt to shoot the bridge; and

she was so frightened, that she returned to the Tower [a].

[FN [x] Trivet, p. 211. M. West. p. 382, 392. [y] Trivet, p. 211.

M. West. p. 382. [z] Chron. T. Wykes, p. 59. [a] Ibid. p. 57.]

The violence and fury of Leicester's faction had risen to such a

height in all parts of England, that the king, unable to resist their

power, was obliged to set on foot a treaty of peace; and to make an

accommodation with the barons on the most disadvantageous terms [b].

[MN July.] He agreed to confirm anew the provisions of Oxford, even

those which entirely annihilated the royal authority; and the barons

were again reinstated in the sovereignty of the kingdom. They

restored Hugh le Despenser to the office of chief justiciary; they

appointed their own creatures sheriffs in every county in England;

they took possession of all the royal castles and fortresses; they

even named all the officers of the king's household; and they summoned

a Parliament to meet at Westminster, in order to settle more fully

their plan of government. [MN 1263. 14th Oct.] They here produced a

new list of twenty-four barons, to whom they proposed that the

administration should be entirely committed; and they insisted that

the authority of this junto should continue, not only during the reign

of the king, but also during that of Prince Edward.

[FN [b] Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 358. Trivet, p. 211.]

This prince, the life and soul of the royal party, had unhappily,

before the king's accommodation with the barons, been taken prisoner

by Leicester in a parley at Windsor [c]; and that misfortune, more

than any other incident, had determined Henry to submit to the

ignominious conditions imposed upon him. But Edward, having recovered

his liberty by the treaty, employed his activity in defending the

prerogatives of his family; and he gained a great party even among

those who had at first adhered to the cause of the barons. His cousin

Henry d'Allmaine, Roger Bigod, earl marshal, Earl Warrenne, Humphrey

Bohun, Eaff of Hereford, John Lord Basset, Ralph Basset, Hammond

l'Estrange, Roger Mortimer, Henry de Piercy, Robert do Brus, Roger de

Leybourne, with almost all the lords marchers, as they were called, on

the borders of Wales and of Scotland, the most warlike parts of the

kingdom, declared in favour of the royal cause; and hostilities, which

were scarcely well composed, were again renewed in every part of

England. But the near balance of the parties, joined to the universal

clamour of the people, obliged the king and barons to open anew the

negotiations for peace; and it was agreed, by both sides, to submit

their differences to the arbitration of the King of France [d].

[FN [c] M. Paris, p. 669. Trivet, p. 213. [d] M. Paris, p. 668.

Chron. T. Wykes, p. 58. W. Heming, p. 580. Chron Dunst. vol. i. p.

363.]

[MN Reference to the King of France.]

This virtuous prince, the only man who, in like circumstances, could

safely have been intrusted with such an authority by a neighbouring

nation, had never ceased to interpose his good offices between the

English factions; and had even, during the short interval of peace,

invited over to Paris both the king and the Earl of Leicester, in

order to accommodate the differences between them; but found, that the

fears and animosities on both sides, as well as the ambition of

Leicester, were so violent, as to render all his endeavours

ineffectual. But when this solemn appeal, ratified by the oaths and

subscriptions of the leaders in both factions, was made to his

judgment, he was not discouraged from pursuing his honourable purpose:

[MN 1264.] he summoned the states of France at Amiens; and there, in

the presence of that assembly, as well as in that of the King of

England, and Peter de Montfort, Leicester's son, he brought this great

cause to a trial and examination. It appeared to him, that the

provisions of Oxford, even had they not been extorted by force, had

they not been so exorbitant in their nature, and subversive of the

ancient constitution, were expressly established as a temporary

expedient, and could not, without breach of trust, be rendered

perpetual by the barons. [MN 23d Jan.] He therefore annulled these

provisions; restored to the king the possession of his castles, and

the power of nomination to the great offices; allowed him to retain

what foreigners he pleased in his kingdom, and even to confer on them

places of trust and dignity; and, in a word, re-established the royal

power in the same condition on which it stood before the meeting of

the Parliament at Oxford. But while he thus suppressed dangerous

innovations, and preserved unimpaired the prerogatives of the English

crown, he was not negligent of the rights of the people; and besides

ordering that a general amnesty should be granted for all past

offences, he declared that his award was not anywise meant to derogate

from the privileges and liberties which the nation enjoyed by any

former concessions or charters of the crown [e].

[FN [e] Rymer, vol. i. p. 776, 777, &c. Chron. T. Wykes, p. 58.

Knyghton, p. 2446.]

This equitable sentence was no sooner known in England, than Leicester

and his confederates determined to reject it, and to have recourse to

arms, in order to procure to themselves more safe and advantageous

conditions [f]. [MN Renewal of the civil wars.] Without regard to

his oaths and subscriptions, that enterprising conspirator directed

his two sons, Richard and Peter de Montfort, in conjunction with

Robert de Ferrars, Earl of Derby, to attack the city of Worcester;

while Henry and Simon de Montfort, two others of his sons, assisted by

the Prince of Wales, were ordered to lay waste the estate of Roger de

Mortimer. He himself resided at London; and employing, as his

instrument, Fitz-Richard, the seditious mayor, who had violently and

illegally prolonged his authority, he wrought up that city to the

highest ferment and agitation. The populace formed themselves into

bands and companies; chose leaders; practised all military exercises;

committed violence on the royalists; and to give them greater

countenance in their disorders, an association was entered into

between the city and eighteen great barons, never to make peace with

the king but by common consent and approbation. At the head of those

who swore to maintain this association were the Earls of Leicester,

Gloucester, and Derby, with le Despenser, the chief justiciary; men

who had all previously sworn to submit to the award of the French

monarch. Their only pretence for this breach of faith was, that the

latter part of Lewis's sentence was, as they affirmed, a contradiction

to the former: he ratified the charter of liberties, yet annulled the

provisions of Oxford; which were only calculated, as they maintained,

to preserve that charter; and without which, in their estimation, they

had no security for its observance.

[FN [f] Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 363.]

The king and prince finding a civil war inevitable, prepared

themselves for defence; and summoning the military vassals from all

quarters, and being reinforced by Baliol, Lord of Galloway, Brus, Lord

of Annandale, Henry Piercy, John Comyn [g], and other barons of the

north, they composed an army, formidable, as well from its numbers as

its military prowess and experience. The first enterprise of the

royalists was the attack of Northampton, which was defended by Simon

de Montfort, with many of the principal barons of that party; and a

breach being made in the walls by Philip Basset, the place was carried

by assault, and both the governor and the garrison were made

prisoners. [MN 5th April.] The royalists marched thence to Leicester

and Nottingham; both which places having opened their gates to them,

Prince Edward proceeded with a detachment into the county of Derby, in

order to ravage with fire and sword the lands of the earl of that

name, and take revenge on him for his disloyalty. Like maxims of war

prevailed with both parties throughout England; and the kingdom was

thus exposed in a moment to greater devastation, from the animosities

of the rival barons, than it would have suffered from many years of

foreign or even domestic hostilities, conducted by more humane and

more generous principles.

[FN [g] Rymer, vol. i. p 772. M. West. p. 385. Ypod. Neust. p. 469.]

The Earl of Leicester, master of London, and of the counties in the

south-east of England, formed the siege of Rochester, which alone

declared for the king in those parts, and which, besides Earl

Warrenne, the governor, was garrisoned by many noble and powerful

barons of the royal party. The king and prince hastened from

Nottingham, where they were then quartered, to the relief of the

place; and on their approach, Leicester raised the siege, and

retreated to London, which, being the centre of his power, he was

afraid might, in his absence, fall into the king's hands, either by

force, or by a correspondence with the principal citizens, who were

all secretly inclined to the royal cause. Reinforced by a great body

of Londoners, and having summoned his partisans from all quarters, he

thought himself strong enough to hazard a general battle with the

royalists, and to determine the fate of the nation in one great

engagement; which, if it proved successful, must be decisive against

the king, who had no retreat for his broken troops in those parts;

while Leicester himself, in case of any sinister accident, could

easily take shelter in the city. To give the better colouring to his

cause, he previously sent a message with conditions of peace to Henry,

submissive in the language, but exorbitant in the demands [h]; and

when the messenger returned with the lie and defiance from the king,

the prince, and the King of the Romans, he sent a new message,

renouncing in the name of himself and of the associated barons, all

fealty and allegiance to Henry. He then marched out of the city, with

his army divided into four bodies: the first commanded by his two

sons, Henry and Guy de Montfort, together with Humphrey de Bohun, Earl

of Hereford, who had deserted to the barons; the second led by the

Earl of Gloucester, with William de Montchesney and John Fitz-John;

the third, composed of Londoners, under the command of Nicholas de

Segrave; the fourth headed by himself in person. The Bishop of

Chichester gave a general absolution to the army, accompanied with

assurances that, if any of them fell in the ensuing action, they would

infallibly be received into heaven, as the reward of their suffering

in so meritorious a cause.

[FN [h] M. Paris, p. 669. W. Heming. p. 583.]

[MN Battle of Lewes. 14th May.]

Leicester, who possessed great talents for war, conducted his march

with such skill and secrecy, that he had well nigh surprised the

royalists in their quarters at Lewes in Sussex: but the vigilance and

activity of Prince Edward soon repaired this negligence; and he led

out the king's army to the field in three bodies. He himself

conducted the van, attended by Earl Warrenne and William de Valence:

the main body was commanded by the King of the Romans and his son

Henry: the king himself was placed in the rear at the head of his

principal nobility. Prince Edward rushed upon the Londoners, who had

demanded the post of honour in leading the rebel army, but who, from

their ignorance of discipline and want of experience, were ill fitted

to resist the gentry and military men, of whom the prince's body was

composed. They were broken in an instant; were chased off the field;

and Edward, transported by his martial ardour, and eager to revenge

the insolence of the Londoners against his mother [i], put them to the

sword for the length of four miles, without giving them any quarter,

and without reflecting on the fate which in the mean time attended the

rest of the army. The Earl of Leicester, seeing the royalists thrown

into confusion by their eagerness in the pursuit, led on his remaining

troops against the bodies commanded by the two royal brothers: he

defeated, with great slaughter, the forces headed by the King of the

Romans; and that prince was obliged to yield himself prisoner to the

Earl of Gloucester; he penetrated to the body where the king himself

was placed, threw it into disorder, pursued his advantage, chased it

into the town of Lewes, and obliged Henry to surrender himself

prisoner [k].

[FN [i] M. Paris, p. 670. Chron. T. Wykes, p. 62. W. Heming. p. 583.

M. West. p. 387. Ypod. Neust. p. 469. H. Knyghton, p. 2450. [k] M.

Paris, p. 670. M. West. p. 387.]

Prince Edward, returning to the field of battle from his precipitate

pursuit of the Londoners, was astonished to find it covered with the

dead bodies of his friends and still more to hear, that his father and

uncle were defeated and taken prisoners, and that Arundel, Comyn Brus,

Hamond L'Estrange, Roger Leybourne, and many considerable barons of

his party, were in the hands of the victorious enemy. Earl Warrenne,

Hugh Bigod, and William de Valence, struck with despair at this event,

immediately took to flight, hurried to Pevensey, and made their escape

beyond sea [l]: but the prince, intrepid amidst the greatest

disasters, exhorted his troops to revenge the death of their friends,

to relieve the royal captives, and to snatch an easy conquest from an

enemy disordered by their own victory [m]. He found his followers

intimidated by their situation; while Leicester, afraid of a sudden

and violent blow from the prince, amused him by a feigned negotiation,

till he was able to recall his troops from the pursuit, and to bring

them into order [n]. There now appeared no farther resource to the

royal party, surrounded by the armies and garrisons of the enemy,

destitute of forage and provisions, and deprived of their sovereign,

as well as of their principal leaders, who could alone inspirit them

to an obstinate resistance. The prince, therefore, was obliged to

submit to Leicester's terms, which were short and severe, agreeably to

the suddenness and necessity of the situation: he stipulated, that he

and Henry d'Allmaine should surrender themselves prisoners as pledges

in lieu of the two kings; that all other prisoners on both sides

should be released [o]; and that, in order to settle fully the terms

of agreement, application should be made to the King of France, that

he should name six Frenchmen, three prelates, and three noblemen:

these six to choose two others of their own country; and these two to

choose one Englishman, who, in conjunction with themselves, were to be

invested by both parties with full powers to make what regulations

they thought proper for the settlement of the kingdom. The prince and

young Henry accordingly delivered themselves into Leicester's hands,

who sent them under a guard to Dover castle. Such are the terms of

agreement commonly called the MISE of Lewes, from an obsolete French

term of that meaning: for it appears, that all the gentry and nobility

of England, who valued themselves on their Norman extraction, and who

disdained the language of their native country, made familiar use of

the French tongue till this period, and for some time after.

[FN [l] Chron. T. Wykes, p. 63. [m] W. Heming. p. 584. [n] Ibid.

[o] M. Paris, p. 671 Knyghton, p. 2451.]

Leicester had no sooner obtained this great advantage, and gotten the

whole royal family in his power, than he openly violated every article

of the treaty, and acted as sole master, and even tyrant of the

kingdom. He still detained the king in effect a prisoner, and made

use of that prince's authority to purposes the most prejudicial to his

interests, and the most oppressive of his people [p]. He every where

disarmed the royalists, and kept all his own partisans in a military

posture [q]: he observed the same partial conduct in the deliverance

of the captives, and even threw many of the royalists into prison,

besides those who were taken in the battle of Lewes: he carried the

king from place to place, and obliged all the royal castles, on

pretence of Henry's commands, to receive a governor and garrison of

his own appointment: all the officers of the crown and of the

household were named by him; and the whole authority, as well as arms

of the state, was lodged in his hands: he instituted in the counties a

new kind of magistracy, endowed with new and arbitrary powers, that of

conservators of the peace [r]: his avarice appeared bare-faced, and

might induce us to question the greatness of his ambition, at least

the largeness of his mind, if we had not reason to think, that he

intended to employ his acquisitions as the instruments for attaining

farther power and grandeur. He seized the estates of no less than

eighteen barons, as his share of the spoil gained in the battle of

Lewes: he engrossed to himself the ransom of all the prisoners; and

told his barons, with a wanton insolence, that it was sufficient for

them that he had saved them, by that victory, from the forfeitures

and attainders which hung over them [s]: he even treated the Earl of

Gloucester in the same injurious manner, and applied to his own use

the ransom of the King of the Romans, who, in the field of battle, had

yielded himself prisoner to that nobleman. Henry, his eldest son,

made a monopoly of all the wool in the kingdom, the only valuable

commodity for foreign markets which it at that time produced [t]. The

inhabitants of the cinque-ports, during the present dissolution of

government, betook themselves to the most licentious piracy, preyed on

the ships of all nations, threw the mariners into the sea, and, by

these practices, soon banished all merchants from the English coasts

and harbours. Every foreign commodity rose to an exorbitant price;

and woollen cloth, which the English had not then the art of dyeing,

was worn by them white, and without receiving the last hand of the

manufacturer. In answer to the complaints which arose on this

occasion, Leicester replied, that the kingdom could well enough

subsist within itself, and needed no intercourse with foreigners; and

it was found that he even combined with the pirates of the

cinque-ports, and received as his share the third of their prizes [u].

[FN [p] Rymer, vol. i. p. 790, 791, &c. [q] Ibid. p. 795. Brady's

Appeals, No. 211, 212. Chron. T. Wykes, p. 63. [r] Rymer, vol. i. p.

792. [s] Knyghton, p. 2451. [t] Chron. T. Wykes, p. 65. [u] Ibid.]

No farther mention was made of the reference to the King of France, so

essential an article in the agreement of Lewes; and Leicester summoned

a Parliament, composed altogether of his own partisans, in order to

rivet, by their authority, that power which he had acquired by so much

violence, and which he used with so much tyranny and injustice. An

ordinance was there passed, to which the king's consent had been

previously extorted, that every act of royal power should be exercised

by a council of nine persons, who were to be chosen and removed by the

majority of three, Leicester himself, the Earl of Gloucester, and the

Bishop of Chichester [w]. By this intricate plan of government, the

sceptre was really put into Leicester's hands; as he had the entire

direction of the Bishop of Chichester, and thereby commanded all the

resolutions of the council of three, who could appoint or discard at

pleasure every member of the supreme council.

[FN [w] Rymer, vol. i. p. 793. Brady's App. No. 213.]

But it was impossible that things could long remain in this strange

situation. It behoved Leicester either to descend with some peril

into the rank of a subject or to mount up with no less into that of a

sovereign; and his ambition, unrestrained either by fear or by

principle, gave too much reason to suspect him of the latter

intention. Meanwhile he was exposed to anxiety from every quarter;

and felt that the smallest incident was capable of overturning that

immense and ill-cemented fabric which he had reared. The queen, whom

her husband had left abroad, had collected in foreign parts an army of

desperate adventurers, and had assembled a great number of ships, with

a view of invading the kingdom, and of bringing relief to her

unfortunate family. Lewis, detesting Leicester's usurpations and

perjuries, and disgusted at the English barons, who had refused to

submit to his award, secretly favoured all her enterprises, and was

generally believed to be making preparations for the same purpose. An

English army, by the pretended authority of the captive king, was

assembled on the seacoast to oppose this projected invasion [x]; but

Leicester owed his safety more to cross winds, which long detained and

at last dispersed and ruined the queen's fleet, than to any resistance

which, in their present situation, could have been expected from the

English.

[FN [x] Brady's App. No. 216, 217. Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 373. M.

West. p. 385.]

Leicester found himself better able to resist the spiritual thunders

which were levelled against him. The pope, still adhering to the

king's cause, against the barons, despatched Cardinal Guido as his

legate into England, with orders to excommunicate, by name, the three

earls, Leicester, Gloucester, and Norfolk, and all others, in general,

who concurred in the oppression and captivity of their sovereign [y].

Leicester menaced the legate with death, if he set foot within the

kingdom; but Guido, meeting in France the Bishops of Winchester,

London, and Worcester, who had been sent thither on a negotiation,

commanded them, under the penalty of ecclesiastical censures, to carry

his bull into England, and to publish it against the barons. When the

prelates arrived off the coast, they were boarded by the piratical

mariners of the cinque-ports, to whom probably they gave a hint of the

cargo which they brought along with them: the bull was torn and thrown

into the sea; which furnished the artful prelates with a plausible

excuse for not obeying the orders of the legate. Leicester appealed

from Guido to the pope in person; but before the ambassadors,

appointed to defend his cause, could reach Rome, the pope was dead;

and they found the legate himself, from whom they had appealed, seated

on the papal throne, by the name of Urban IV. That daring leader was

nowise dismayed with this incident; and as he found that a great part

of his popularity in England was founded on his opposition to the

court of Rome, which was now become odious, he persisted with the more

obstinacy in the prosecution of his measures.

[FN [y] Rymer, vol. i. p. 798. Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 373.]

[MN 1265. 20th Jan.] That he might both increase and turn to

advantage his popularity, Leicester summoned a new Parliament in

London, where he knew his power was uncontrollable; and he fixed this

assembly on a more democratical basis than any which had ever been

summoned since the foundation of the monarchy. Besides the barons of

his own party, and several ecclesiastics who were not immediate

tenants of the crown, he ordered returns to be made of two knights

from each shire, and what is more remarkable, of deputies from the

boroughs, an order of men which, in former ages, had always been

regarded as too mean to enjoy a place in the national councils [z].

[MN House of Commons.] This period is commonly esteemed the epoch of

the House of Commons in England; and it is certainly the first time

that historians speak of any representatives sent to Parliament by the

boroughs. In all the general accounts given in preceding times of

those assemblies, the prelates and barons only are mentioned as the

constituent members; and even in the most particular narratives

delivered of parliamentary transactions, as in the trial of Thomas à

Becket, where the events of each day, and almost of each hour, are

carefully recorded by contemporary authors [a], there is not,

throughout the whole, the least appearance of a House of Commons. But

though that House derived its existence from so precarious and even

so invidious an origin as Leicester's usurpation, it soon proved, when

summoned by the legal princes, one of the most useful, and, in process

of time, one of the most powerful members of the national

constitution; and gradually rescued the kingdom from aristocratical as

well as from regal tyranny. But Leicester's policy, if we must

ascribe to him so great a blessing, only forwarded by some years an

institution, for which the general state of things had already

prepared the nation; and it is otherwise inconceivable, that a plant

set by so inauspicious a hand could have attained to so vigorous a

growth, and have flourished in the midst of such tempests and

convulsions. The feudal system, with which the liberty, much more the

power of the Commons, was totally incompatible, began gradually to

decline; and both the king and the commonalty, who felt its

inconveniences, contributed to favour this new power, which was more

submissive than the barons to the regular authority of the crown, and

at the same time afforded protection to the inferior orders of the

state.

[FN [z] Rymer, vol. i. p. 802. [a] Fitz-Stephen, Hist. Quadrip.

Hoveden, &c.]

Leicester having thus assembled a Parliament of his own model, and

trusting to the attachment of the populace of London, seized the

opportunity of crushing his rivals among the powerful barons. Robert

de Ferrars, Earl of Derby, was accused in the king's name, seized, and

committed to custody without being brought to any legal trial [b].

John Gifford, menaced with the same fate, fled from London, and took

shelter in the borders of Wales. Even the Earl of Gloucester, whose

power and influence had so much contributed to the success of the

barons, but who of late was extremely disgusted with Leicester's

arbitrary conduct, found himself in danger from the prevailing

authority of his ancient confederate; and he retired from Parliament

[c]. This known dissension gave courage to all Leicester's enemies

and to the king's friends, who were now sure of protection from so

potent a leader. Though Roger Mortimer, Hamond L'Estrange, and other

powerful marchers of Wales, had been obliged to leave the kingdom,

their authority still remained over the territories subjected to their

jurisdiction; and there were many others who were disposed to give

disturbance to the new government. The animosities, inseparable from

the feudal aristocracy, broke out with fresh violence, and threatened

the kingdom with new convulsions and disorders.

[FN [b] Chron. T. Wykes, p. 66. Ann. Waverl. p. 216. [c] M. Paris,

p. 671. Ann. Waverl. p. 216.]

The Earl of Leicester, surrounded with these difficulties, embraced a

measure from which he hoped to reap some present advantages, but which

proved in the end the source of all his future calamities. The active

and intrepid Prince Edward had languished in prison ever since the

fatal battle of Lewes; and as he was extremely popular in the kingdom,

there arose a general desire of seeing him again restored to liberty

[d]. Leicester, finding that he could with difficulty oppose the

concurring wishes of the nation, stipulated with the prince, that, in

return, he should order his adherents to deliver up to the barons all

their castles, particularly those on the borders of Wales; and should

swear neither to depart the kingdom during three years, nor introduce

into it any foreign forces [e]. The king took an oath to the same

effect, and he also passed a charter, in which he confirmed the

agreement or MISE of Lewes; and even permitted his subjects to rise in

arms against him if he should ever attempt to infringe it [f]. So

little care did Leicester take, though he constantly made use of the

authority of this captive prince, to preserve to him any appearance of

royalty or kingly prerogatives!

[FN [d] Knyghton, p. 2451. [e] Ann. Waverl. p. 216. [f] Blackstone's

Mag. Charta. Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 378.]

[MN 11th Mar.] In consequence of this treaty, Prince Edward was

brought into Westminster-hall, and was declared free by the barons:

but instead of really recovering his liberty, as he had vainly

expected, he found that the whole transaction was a fraud on the part

of Leicester; that he himself still continued a prisoner at large, and

was guarded by the emissaries of that nobleman; and that, while the

faction reaped all the benefit from the performance of his part of the

treaty, care was taken that he should enjoy no advantage by it. As

Gloucester, on his rupture with the barons, had retired for safety to

his estates on the borders of Wales, Leicester followed him with an

army to Hereford [g]; continued still to menace and negotiate; and

that he might add authority to his cause, he carried both the king and

prince along with him. The Earl of Gloucester here concerted with

young Edward the manner of that prince's escape. He found means to

convey to him a horse of extraordinary swiftness; and appointed Roger

Mortimer, who had returned into the kingdom, to be ready at hand with

a small party to receive the prince, and to guard him to a place of

safety. Edward pretended to take the air with some of Leicester's

retinue, who were his guards; and making matches between their horses,

after he thought he had tired and blown them sufficiently, he suddenly

mounted Gloucester's horse and called to his attendants, that he had

long enough enjoyed the pleasure of their company, and now bid them

adieu. They followed him for some time, without being able to

overtake him; and the appearance of Mortimer with his company put an

end to their pursuit.

[FN [g] Chron. T. Wykes, p. 67. Ann. Waverl. p. 218. W. Heming. p.

585. Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 383, 384.]

The royalists, secretly prepared for this event, immediately flew to

arms; and the joy of this gallant prince's deliverance, the

oppressions under which the nation laboured, the expectation of a new

scene of affairs, and the countenance of the Earl of Gloucester,

procured Edward an army which Leicester was utterly unable to

withstand. This nobleman found himself in a remote quarter of the

kingdom, surrounded by his enemies, barred from all communication with

his friends by the Severn, whose bridges Edward had broken down, and

obliged to fight the cause of his party under these multiplied

disadvantages. In this extremity he wrote to his son, Simon de

Montfort, to hasten from London with an army for his relief; and Simon

had advanced to Kenilworth with that view, where, fancying that all

Edward's force and attention were directed against his father, he lay

secure and unguarded. But the prince, making a sudden and forced

march, surprised him in his camp, dispersed his army, and took the

Earl of Oxford and many other noblemen prisoners, almost without

resistance. Leicester, ignorant of his son 's fate, passed the Severn

in boats during Edward's absence, and lay at Evesham, in expectation

of being every hour joined by his friends from London; when the

prince, who availed himself of every favourable moment, appeared in

the field before him. [MN Battle of Evesham and death of Leicester.

4th Aug.] Edward made a body of his troops advance from the road

which led to Kenilworth, and ordered them to carry the banners taken

from Simon's army; while he himself, making a circuit with the rest of

his forces, purposed to attack the enemy on the other quarter.

Leicester was long deceived by this stratagem, and took one division

of Edward's army for his friends; but at last, perceiving his mistake,

and observing the great superiority and excellent disposition of the

royalists, he exclaimed that they had learned from him the art of war,

adding, "The Lord have mercy on our souls, for I see our bodies are

the prince's!" The battle immediately began, though on very unequal

terms. Leicester's army, by living on the mountains of Wales without

bread, which was not then much used among the inhabitants, had been

extremely weakened by sickness and desertion, and was soon broken by

the victorious royalists; while his Welsh allies, accustomed only to a

desultory kind of war, immediately took to flight, and were pursued

with great slaughter. Leicester himself; asking for quarter, was

slain in the heat of the action, with his eldest son Henry, Hugh le

Despenser, and about one hundred and sixty knights, and many other

gentlemen of his party. The old king had been purposely placed by the

rebels in the front of the battle; and being clad in armour, and

thereby not known by his friends, he received a wound, and was in

danger of his life; but crying out, I AM HENRY OF WINCHESTER, YOUR

KING, he was saved, and put in a place of safety by his son, who flew

to his rescue.

The violence, ingratitude, tyranny, rapacity, and treachery of the

Earl of Leicester, give a very bad idea of his moral character, and

make us regard his death as the most fortunate event which, in this

conjuncture, could have happened to the English nation; yet must we

allow the man to have possessed great abilities, and the appearance of

great virtues, who, though a stranger, could at a time when strangers

were the most odious, and the most universally decried, have acquired

so extensive an interest in the kingdom, and have so nearly paved his

way to the throne itself. His military capacity and his political

craft were equally eminent: he possessed the talents both of governing

men and conducting business: and though his ambition was boundless, it

seems neither to have exceeded his courage nor his genius; and he had

the happiness of making the low populace, as well as the haughty

barons, co-operate towards the success of his selfish and dangerous

purposes. A prince of greater abilities and vigour than Henry, might

have directed the talents of this nobleman either to the exaltation of

his throne, or to the good of his people: but the advantages given to

Leicester by the weak and variable administration of the king, brought

on the ruin of royal authority, and produced great confusions in the

kingdom, which however, in the end, preserved and extremely improved

national liberty and the constitution. His popularity, even after his

death, continued so great, that though he was excommunicated by Rome,

the people believed him to be a saint; and many miracles were said to

be wrought upon his tomb [h].

[FN [h] Chron. de Mailr. p. 232.]

[MN Settlement of the government.]

The victory of Evesham, with the death of Leicester, proved decisive

in favour of the royalists, and made an equal, though an opposite,

impression on friends and enemies in every part of England. The King

of the Romans recovered his liberty: the other prisoners of the royal

party were not only freed, but courted by their keepers: Fitz-Richard,

the seditious Mayor of London, who had marked out forty of the most

wealthy citizens for slaughter, immediately stopped his hand on

receiving intelligence of this great event: and almost all the

castles, garrisoned by the barons, hastened to make their submissions,

and to open their gates to the king. The isle of Axholme alone, and

that of Ely, trusting to the strength of their situation, ventured to

make resistance; but were at last reduced, as well as the castle of

Dover, by the valour and activity of Prince Edward [i]. [MN 1266.]

Adam de Gourdon, a courageous baron, maintained himself during some

time in the forests of Hampshire, committed depredations in the

neighbourhood, and obliged the prince to lead a body of troops into

that county against him. Edward attacked the camp of the rebels; and

being transported by the ardour of battle, leaped over the trench with

a few followers, and encountered Gourdon in single combat. The

victory was long disputed between these valiant combatants; but ended

at last in the prince's favour, who wounded his antagonist, threw him

from his horse, and took him prisoner. He not only gave him his life,

but introduced him that very night to the queen at Guildford, procured

him his pardon, restored him to his estate, received him into favour,

and was ever after faithfully served by him [k].

[FN [i] M. Paris, p. 676. W. Heming, p. 588. [k] M. Paris, p. 675.]

A total victory of the sovereign over so extensive a rebellion

commonly produces a revolution of government, and strengthens as well

as enlarges, for some time, the prerogatives of the crown: yet no

sacrifices of national liberty were made on this occasion; the great

charter remained still inviolate; and the king, sensible that his own

barons, by whose assistance alone he had prevailed, were no less

jealous of their independence than the other party, seems thenceforth

to have more carefully abstained from all those exertions of power

which had afforded so plausible a pretence to the rebels. The

clemency of this victory is also remarkable: no blood was shed on the

scaffold: no attainders, except of the Montfort family, were carried

into execution: and though a Parliament, assembled at Winchester,

attainted all those who had borne arms against the king, easy

compositions were made with them for their lands [1]; and the highest

sum levied on the most obnoxious offenders exceeded not five years'

rent of their estate. Even the Earl of Derby, who again rebelled,

after having been pardoned and restored to his fortune, was obliged to

pay only seven years' rent, and was a second time restored. The mild

disposition of the king, and the prudence of the prince, tempered the

insolence of victory, and gradually restored order to the several

members of the state, disjointed by so long a continuance of civil

wars and commotions.

[FN [l] Id. ibid.]

The city of London, which had carried farthest the rage and animosity

against the king, and which seemed determined to stand upon its

defence after almost all the kingdom had submitted, was, after some

interval, restored to most of its liberties and privileges; and

Fitz-Richard the mayor, who had been guilty of so much illegal

violence, was only punished by fine and imprisonment. The Countess of

Leicester, the king's sister, who had been extremely forward in all

attacks on the royal family, was dismissed the kingdom with her two

sons, Simon and Guy, who proved very ungrateful for this lenity. Five

years afterwards, they assassinated, at Viterbo in Italy, their cousin

Henry d'Allmaine, who at that very time was endeavouring to make their

peace with the king; and by taking sanctuary in the church of the

Franciscans, they escaped the punishment due to so great an enormity

[m].

[FN [m] Rymer, vol. i. p. 879. vol. ii. p. 4, 5. Chron. T. Wykes, p.

94. W. Heming. p. 589. Trivet, p. 240.]

[MN 1267.] The merits of the Earl of Gloucester, after he returned to

his allegiance, had been so great in restoring the prince to his

liberty, and assisting him in his victories against the rebellious

barons, that it was almost impossible to content him in his demands;

and his youth and temerity, as well as his great power, tempted him,

on some new disgust, to raise again the flames of rebellion in the

kingdom. The mutinous populace of London, at his instigation, took to

arms; and the prince was obliged to levy an army of thirty thousand

men in order to suppress them. Even this second rebellion did not

provoke the king to any act of cruelty; and the Earl of Gloucester

himself escaped with total impunity. He was only obliged to enter

into a bond of twenty thousand marks, that he should never again be

guilty of rebellion: a strange method of enforcing the laws, and a

proof of the dangerous independence of the barons in those ages!

These potent nobles were, from the danger of the precedent, averse to

the execution of the laws of forfeiture and felony against any of

their fellows; though they could not, with a good grace, refuse to

concur in obliging them to fulfil any voluntary contract and

engagement into which they had entered.

[MN 1270.] The prince, finding the state of the kingdom tolerably

composed, was seduced, by his avidity for glory and by the prejudices

of the age, as well as by the earnest solicitations of the King of

France, to undertake an expedition against the infidels in the Holy

Land [n]; and he endeavoured previously to settle the state in such a

manner as to dread no bad effects from his absence. As the formidable

power and turbulent disposition of the Earl of Gloucester gave him

apprehensions, he insisted on carrying him along with him, in

consequence of a vow which that nobleman had made to undertake the

same voyage: in the mean time, he obliged him to resign some of his

castles, and to enter into a new bond not to disturb the peace of the

kingdom [o]. He sailed from England with an army, and arrived in

Lewis's camp before Tunis in Africa, where he found that monarch

already dead from the intemperance of the climate and the fatigues of

his enterprise. The great, if not only, weakness of this prince in

his government, was the imprudent passion for crusades; but it was his

zeal chiefly that procured him from the clergy the title of St. Lewis,

by which he is known in the French history; and if that appellation

had not been so extremely prostituted, as to become rather a term of

reproach, he seems by his uniform probity and goodness, as well as his

piety, to have fully merited the title. He was succeeded by his son

Philip, denominated the Hardy; a prince of some merit, though much

inferior to that of his father.

[FN [n] M. Paris, p. 677. [o] Chron. T. Wykes, p. 90.]

[MN 1271.] Prince Edward, not discouraged by this event, continued

his voyage to the Holy Land, where he signalized himself by acts of

valour; revived the glory of the English name in those parts; and

struck such terror into the Saracens, that they employed an assassin

to murder him, who wounded him in the arm, but perished in the attempt

[p]. Meanwhile, his absence from England was attended with many of

those pernicious consequences which had been dreaded from it. The

laws were not executed: the barons oppressed the common people with

impunity [q]: they gave shelter on their estates to bands of robbers,

whom they employed in committing ravages on the estates of their

enemies: the populace of London returned to their usual

licentiousness: and the old king, unequal to the burden of public

affairs, called aloud for his gallant son to return [r], and to assist

him in swaying that sceptre which was ready to drop from his feeble

and irresolute hands. [MN 1272. 16th Nov. Death,] At last,

overcome by the cares of government and the infirmities of age, he

visibly declined, and he expired at St. Edmondsbury, in the

sixty-fourth year of his age, and fifty-sixth of his reign; the

longest reign that is to be met with in the English annals. His

brother, the King of the Romans, (for he never attained the title of

Emperor,) died about seven months before him.

[FN [p] M. Paris, p. 678, 679. W. Heming. p. 520. [q] Chron. Dunst.

vol. i. p. 404. [r] Rymer, vol. i. p. 869. M. Paris, p. 678.]

[MN and character of the king.] The most obvious circumstance of

Henry's character is his incapacity for government, which rendered him

as much a prisoner in the hands of his own ministers and favourites,

and as little at his own disposal, as when detained a captive in the

hands of his enemies. From this source, rather than from insincerity

or treachery, arose his negligence in observing his promises; and he

was too easily induced, for the sake of present convenience, to

sacrifice the lasting advantages arising from the trust and confidence

of his people. Hence too were derived his profusion to favourites,

his attachment to strangers, the variableness of his conduct, his

hasty resentments, and his sudden forgiveness and return of affection.

Instead of reducing the dangerous power of his nobles, by obliging

them to observe the laws towards their inferiors, and setting them the

salutary example in his own government, he was seduced to imitate

their conduct, and to make his arbitrary will, or rather that of his

ministers, the rule of his actions. Instead of accommodating himself,

by a strict frugality, to the embarrassed situation in which his

revenue had been left by the military expeditions of his uncle, the

dissipations of his father, and the usurpations of the barons; he was

tempted to levy money by irregular exactions, which, without enriching

himself, impoverished, at least disgusted, his people. Of all men,

nature seemed least to have fitted him for being a tyrant; yet there

are instances of oppression in his reign, which, though derived from

the precedents left him by his predecessors, had been carefully

guarded against by the great charter, and are inconsistent with all

rules of good government. And on the whole, we may say, that greater

abilities, with his good dispositions, would have prevented him from

falling into his faults; or, with worse dispositions, would have

enabled him to maintain and defend them.

This prince was noted for his piety and devotion, and his regular

attendance on public worship; and a saying of his on that head is much

celebrated by ancient writers. He was engaged in a dispute with Lewis

IX. of France, concerning the preference between sermons and masses:

he maintained the superiority of the latter, and affirmed that he

would rather have one hour's conversation with a friend, than hear

twenty of the most elaborate discourses pronounced in his praise [s].

[FN [s] Walsing. Edw. I. p. 43.]

Henry left two sons, Edward, his successor, and Edmond, Earl of

Lancaster; and two daughters, Margaret, Queen of Scotland, and

Beatrix, Duchess of Britany. He had five other children, who died in

their infancy.

[MN Miscellaneous transactions of the reign.]

The following are the most remarkable laws enacted during this reign.

There had been great disputes between the civil and ecclesiastical

courts concerning bastardy. The common law had deemed all those to be

bastards who were born before wedlock; by the canon law they were

legitimate: and when any dispute of inheritance arose, it had formerly

been usual for the civil courts to issue writs to the spiritual,

directing them to inquire into the legitimacy of the person. The

bishop always returned an answer agreeable to the canon law, though

contrary to the municipal law of the kingdom. For this reason the

civil courts had changed the terms of their writ; and instead of

requiring the spiritual courts to make inquisition concerning the

legitimacy of the person, they only proposed the simple question of

fact, whether he were born, before or after wedlock? The prelates

complained of this practice to the Parliament assembled at Merton in

the twentieth of this king, and desired that the municipal law might

be rendered conformable to the canon; but received from all the

nobility the memorable reply, NOLUMUS LEGES ANGLIAE MUTARE! We will

not change the laws of England [t].

[FN [t] Statute of Merton, chap. 9.]

After the civil wars, the Parliament, summoned at Marlebridge, gave

their approbation to most of the ordinances which had been established

by the reforming barons, and which, though advantageous to the

security of the people, had not received the sanction of a legal

authority. Among other laws, it was there enacted, that all appeals

from the courts of inferior lords should be carried directly to the

king's courts without passing through the courts of the lords

immediately superior [u]. It was ordained that money should bear no

interest during the minority of the debtor [w]. This law was

reasonable, as the estates of minors were always in the hands of their

lords, and the debtors could not pay interest where they had no

revenue. The charter of King John had granted this indulgence: it was

omitted in that of Henry III., for what reason is not known; but it

was renewed by the statute of Marlebridge. Most of the other articles

of this statute are calculated to restrain the oppressions of

sheriffs, and the violence and iniquities committed in distraining

cattle and other goods. Cattle and the instruments of husbandry

formed at that time the chief riches of the people.

[FN [u] Statute of Marleb. chap. 20. [w] Ibid. chap. 16.]

In the thirty-fifth year of this king an assize was fixed of bread,

the price of which was settled, according to the different prices of

corn, from one shilling a quarter to seven shillings and sixpence [x],

money of that age. These great variations are alone a proof of bad

tillage [y]: yet did the prices often rise much higher than any taken

notice of by the statute. The Chronicle of Dunstable tells us, that,

in this reign, wheat was once sold for a mark, nay, for a pound, a

quarter, that is, three pounds of our present money [z]. The same law

affords us a proof of the little communication between the parts of

the kingdom, from the very different prices which the same commodity

bore at the same time. A brewer, says the statute, may sell two

gallons of ale for a penny in cities, and three or four gallons for

the same price in the country. At present, such commodities, by the

great consumption of the people, and the great stocks of the brewers,

are rather cheapest in cities. The Chronicle above mentioned

observes, that wheat one year was sold in many places for eight

shillings a quarter, but never rose in Dunstable above a crown.

[FN [x] Statutes at Large, p. 6. [y] We learn from Cicero's Orations

against Verres, lib. 3, cap. 84, 92, that the price of corn in Sicily

was, during the praetorship of Sacerdos, five Denarii a Modius; during

that of Verres, which immediately succeeded, only two Sesterces; that

is, ten times lower; a presumption, or rather a proof, of the very bad

state of tillage in ancient times. [z] Knyghton, p. 2444.]

Though commerce was still very low, it seems rather to have increased

since the Conquest; at least if we may judge of the increase of money

by the price of corn. The medium between the highest and lowest

prices of wheat, assigned by the statute, is four shillings and three

pence a quarter, that is, twelve shillings and nine pence of our

present money. This is near half of the middling price in our time.

Yet the middling price of cattle, so late as the reign of King

Richard, we find to be above eight, near ten times lower than the

present. Is not this the true inference, from comparing these facts,

that, in all uncivilized nations, cattle, which propagate of

themselves, bear always a lower price than corn, which requires more

art and stock to render it plentiful than those nations are possessed

of? It is to be remarked that Henry's assize of corn was copied from

a preceding assize established by King John; consequently, the prices

which we have here compared of corn and cattle may be looked on as

contemporary; and they were drawn, not from one particular year, but

from an estimation of the middling prices for a series of years. It

is true, the prices assigned by the assize of Richard were meant as a

standard for the accompts of sheriffs and escheators; and as

considerable profits were allowed to these ministers, we may naturally

suppose, that the common value of cattle was somewhat higher: yet

still, so great a difference between the prices of corn and cattle as

that of four to one, compared to the present rates, affords important

reflections concerning the very different state of industry and

tillage in the two periods.

Interest had in that age amounted to an enormous height, as might be

expected from the barbarism of the times and men's ignorance of

commerce. Instances occur of fifty per cent paid for money [a].

There is an edict of Philip Augustus near this period, limiting the

Jews in France to forty-eight per cent [b]. Such profits tempted the

Jews to remain in the kingdom, notwithstanding the grievous

oppressions to which, from the prevalent bigotry and rapine of the

age, they were continually exposed. It is easy to imagine how

precarious their state must have been under an indigent prince,

somewhat restrained in his tyranny over his native subjects, but who

possessed an unlimited authority over the Jews, the sole proprietors

of money in the kingdom, and hated, on account of their riches, their

religion, and their usury: yet will our ideas scarcely come up to the

extortions which, in fact, we find to have been practised upon them.

In the year 1241, twenty thousand marks were exacted from them [c]:

two years after money was again extorted; and one Jew alone, Aaron of

York, was obliged to pay above four thousand marks [d]. In 1250,

Henry renewed his oppressions; and the same Aaron was condemned to pay

him thirty thousand marks upon an accusation of forgery [e]: the high

penalty imposed upon him, and which, it seems, he was thought able to

pay, is rather a presumption of his innocence than of his guilt. In

1255, the king demanded eight thousand marks from the Jews, and

threatened to hang them if they refused compliance. They now lost all

patience, and desired leave to retire with their effects out of the

kingdom. But the king replied: "How can I remedy the oppressions you

complain of? I am myself a beggar. I am spoiled, I am stripped of

all my revenues: I owe above two hundred thousand marks; and if I had

said three hundred thousand, I should not exceed the truth: I am

obliged to pay my son, Prince Edward, fifteen thousand marks a year: I

have not a farthing; and I must have money, from any hand, from any

quarter, or by any means." He then delivered over the Jews to the

Earl of Cornwall, that those whom the one brother had flayed, the

other might embowel, to make use of the words of the historian [f].

King John, his father, once demanded ten thousand marks from a Jew of

Bristol; and on his refusal, ordered one of his teeth to be drawn

every day till he should comply. The Jew lost seven teeth, and then

paid the sum required of him [g]. One talliage paid upon the Jews in

1243 amounted to sixty thousand marks [h]; a sum equal to the whole

yearly revenue of the crown.

[FN [a] M. Paris, p. 586. [b] Brussel, Traité des Fiefs, vol. i. p.

576 [c] M. Paris, p. 372. [d] Ibid. p. 410. [e] Ibid. p. 525. [f]

M. Paris, p. 606. [g] Ibid. p. 160. [h] Madox, p. 152.]

To give a better pretence for extortions, the improbable and absurd

accusation, which has been at different times advanced against that

nation, was revived in England, that they had crucified a child in

derision of the sufferings of Christ. Eighteen of them were hanged at

once for this crime [i]: though it is nowise credible, that even the

antipathy borne them by the Christians, and the oppressions under

which they laboured, would ever have pushed them to be guilty of that

dangerous enormity. But it is natural to imagine, that a race,

exposed to such insults and indignities, both from king and people,

and who had so uncertain an enjoyment of their riches, would carry

usury to the utmost extremity, and by their great profits make

themselves some compensation for their continual perils.

[FN [i] M. Paris, p. 613.]

Though these acts of violence against the Jews proceeded much from

bigotry, they were still more derived from avidity and rapine. So far

from desiring in that age to convert them, it was enacted by law in

France, that if any Jew embraced Christianity, he forfeited all his

goods, without exception, to the king, or his superior lord. These

plunderers were careful, lest the profits, accruing from their

dominion over that unhappy race, should be diminished by their

conversion [k].

[FN [k] Brussel, vol. i. p. 622. Du Cange, verbo JUDAEI.]

Commerce must be in a wretched condition, where interest was so high,

and where the sole proprietors of money employed it in usury only, and

were exposed to such extortion and injustice. But the bad police of

the country was another obstacle to improvements; and rendered all

communication dangerous, and all property precarious. The Chronicle

of Dunstable says [l], that men were never secure in the houses, and

that whole villages were often plundered by bands of robbers, though

no civil wars at that time prevailed in the kingdom. In 1249, some

years before the insurrection of the barons, two merchants of Brabant

came to the king at Winchester, and told him that they had been

spoiled of all their goods by certain robbers, whom they knew, because

they saw their faces every day in his court; that like practices

prevailed all over England, and travellers were continually exposed to

the danger of being robbed, bound, wounded, and murdered; that these

crimes escaped with impunity, because the ministers of justice

themselves were in a confederacy was the robbers; and that they, for

their part, instead of bringing matters to a fruitless trial by law,

were willing, though merchants, to decide their cause with the robbers

by arms and a duel. The king, provoked at these abuses, ordered a

jury to be enclosed, and to try the robbers: the jury, though

consisting of twelve men of property in Hampshire, were found to be

also in a confederacy with the felons, and acquitted them. Henry, in

a rage, committed the jury to prison, threatened them with a severe

punishment, and ordered a new jury to be enclosed, who, dreading the

fate of their fellows, at last found a verdict against the criminals.

Many of the king's own household were discovered to have participated

in the guilt; and they said for their excuse, that they received no

wages from him, and were obliged to rob for a maintenance [m].

KNIGHTS AND ESQUIRES, says the Dictum of Kenilworth, WHO WERE ROBBERS,

IF THEY HAVE NO LAND, SHALL PAY THE HALF OF THEIR GOODS, AND FIND

SUFFICIENT SECURITY TO KEEP HENCEFORTH THE PEACE OF THE KINGDOM. Such

were the matters of the times!

[FN [1] Vol. i. p. 155. [m] M. Paris, p. 509.]

One can the less repine, during the prevalence of such manners, at the

frauds and forgeries of the clergy; as it gives less disturbance to

society, to take men's money from them with their own consent, though

by deceits and lies, than to ravish it by open force and violence.

During this reign the papal power was at its summit, and was even

beginning insensibly to decline, by reason of the immeasurable avarice

and extortions of the court of Rome, which disgusted the clergy as

well as laity, in every kingdom of Europe. England itself, though

sunk in the deepest abyss of ignorance and superstition, had seriously

entertained thoughts of shaking off the papal yoke [n]; and the Roman

pontiff was obliged to think of new expedients for riveting it faster

upon the Christian world. For this purpose, Gregory IX. published his

decretals [o], which are a collection of forgeries, favourable to the

court of Rome, and consist of the supposed decrees of popes in the

first centuries. But these forgeries are so gross, and confound so

palpably all language, history, chronology, and antiquities, matters

more stubborn than any speculative truths whatsoever, that even that

church, which is not startled at the most monstrous contradictions and

absurdities, has been obliged to abandon them to the critics. But in

the dark period of the thirteenth century they passed for undisputed

and authentic; and men, entangled in the mazes of this false

literature, joined to the philosophy, equally false, of the times, had

nothing wherewithal to defend themselves, but some small remains of

common sense, which passed for profaneness and impiety, and the

indelible regard to self-interest, which, as it was the sole motive in

the priests for framing these impostures, served also, in some degree,

to protect the laity against them.

[FN [n] M. Paris, p. 421. [o] Trivet, p. 191.]

Another expedient, devised by the church of Rome, in this period, for

securing her power, was the institution of new religious orders,

chiefly the Dominicans and Franciscans, who proceeded with all the

zeal and success that attend novelties; were better qualified to gain

the populace than the old orders, now become rich and indolent;

maintained a perpetual rivalship with each other in promoting their

gainful superstitions; and acquired a great dominion over the minds,

and, consequently, over the purses of men, by pretending a desire of

poverty and a contempt for riches. The quarrels which arose between

these orders, lying still under the control of the sovereign pontiff,

never disturbed the peace of the church, and served only as a spur to

their industry in promoting the common cause; and though the

Dominicans lost some popularity by their denial of the immaculate

conception, a point in which they unwarily engaged too far to be able

to recede with honour, they counterbalanced this disadvantage, by

acquiring more solid establishments, by gaining the confidence of

kings and princes, and by exercising the jurisdiction assigned them,

of ultimate judges and punishers of heresy. Thus, the several orders

of monks became a kind of regular troops or garrisons of the Romish

church; and though the temporal interests of society, still more the

cause of true piety, were hurt, by their various devices to captivate

the populace, they proved the chief supports of that mighty fabric of

superstition, and till the revival of true learning, secured it from

any dangerous invasion.

The trial by ordeal was abolished in this reign by order of council: a

faint mark of improvement in the age [p].

[FN [p] Rymer, vol. i. p. 228. Spellman, p. 326.]

Henry granted a charter to the town of Newcastle, in which he gave the

inhabitants a licence to dig coal. This is the first mention of coal

in England.

We learn from Madox [q], that this king gave, at one time, one hundred

shillings to master Henry, his poet: also the same year he orders this

poet ten pounds.

[FN [q] Page 268.]

It appears from Selden, that, in the forty-seventh of his reign, a

hundred and fifty temporal, and fifty spiritual barons were summoned

to perform the service due by their tenures [r]. In the thirty-fifth

of the subsequent reign, eighty-six temporal barons, twenty bishops,

and forty-eight abbots, were summoned to a Parliament convened at

Carlisle [s].

[FN [r] Titles of Honour, part ii. Chap. 3. [s] Parl. Hist. vol. i.

p. 151.]

NOTES.

NOTE [A]

This question has been disputed with as great zeal and even acrimony,

between the Scotch and Irish antiquaries, as if the honour of their

respective countries were the most deeply concerned in the decision.

We shall not enter into any detail on so uninteresting a subject, but

shall propose our opinion in a few words. It appears more than

probable, from the similitude of language and manners, that Britain

either was originally peopled, or was subdued, by the migration of

inhabitants from Gaul, and Ireland from Britain: the position of the

several countries is an additional reason that favours this

conclusion. It appears also probable, that the migration of that

colony of Gauls or Celts, who peopled or subdued Ireland, was

originally made from the north-west parts of Britain; and this

conjecture (if it do not merit a higher name) is founded both on the

Irish language, which is a very different dialect from the Welsh, and

from the language anciently spoken in South Britain; and on the

vicinity of Lancashire, Cumberland, Galloway, and Argyleshire, to that

island. These events, as they passed long before the age of history

and records, must be known by reasoning alone, which in this case

seems to be pretty satisfactory: Caesar and Tacitus, not to mention a

multitude of other Greek and Roman authors, were guided by like

inferences. But besides these primitive facts, which lie in a very

remote antiquity, it is a matter of positive and undoubted testimony,

that the Roman province of Britain, during the time of the lower

empire, was much infested by bands of robbers or pirates, whom the

provincial Britons called Scots or Scuits; a name which was probably

used as a term of reproach, and which these banditti themselves did

not acknowledge or assume. We may infer from two passages in

Claudian, and from one in Orosius, and another in Isidore, that the

chief seat of these Scots was in Ireland. That some part of the Irish

freebooters migrated back to the north-west parts of Britain, whence

their ancestors had probably been derived in a more remote age, is

positively asserted by Bede, and implied in Gildas. I grant that

neither Bede nor Gildas are Caesars or Tacituses; but such as they

are, they remain the sole testimony on the subject, and therefore must

be relied on for want of better: happily, the frivolousness of the

question corresponds to the weakness of the authorities. Not to

mention, that if any part of the traditional history of a barbarous

people can be relied on, it is the genealogy of nations, and even

sometimes that of families. It is in vain to argue against these

facts from the supposed warlike disposition of the Highlanders, and

unwarlike of the ancient Irish. Those arguments are still much weaker

than the authorities. Nations change very quickly in these

particulars. The Britons were unable to resist the Picts and Scots,

and invited over the Saxons for their defence, who repelled those

invaders: yet the same Britons valiantly resisted for one hundred and

fifty years, not only this victorious band of Saxons, but infinite

numbers more, who poured in upon them from all quarters. Robert

Bruce, in 1322, made a peace, in which England, after many defeats,

was constrained to acknowledge the independence of his country: yet in

no more distant period than ten years after, Scotland was totally

subdued by a small handful of English, led by a few private noblemen.

All history is full of such events. The Irish Scots, in the course of

two or three centuries, might find time and opportunities sufficient

to settle in North Britain, though we can neither assign the period

nor causes of that revolution. Their barbarous manner of life

rendered them much fitter than the Romans for subduing these

mountaineers. And, in a word, it is clear from the language of the

two countries, that the Highlanders and the Irish are the same people,

and that the one are a colony from the other. We have positive

evidence which, though from neutral persons, is not perhaps the best

that may be wished for, that the former, in the third or fourth

century, sprang from the latter: we have no evidence at all that the

latter sprang from the former. I shall add, that the name of Erse or

Irish given by the low-country Scotch to the language of the Scotch

Highlanders, is a certain proof of the traditional opinion delivered

from father to son, that the latter people came originally from

Ireland.

NOTE [B]

There is a seeming contradiction in ancient historians with regard to

some circumstances in the story of Edwy and Elgiva. It is agreed that

this prince had a violent passion for his second or third cousin,

Elgiva, whom he married, though within the degrees prohibited by the

canons. It is also agreed, that he was dragged from a lady on the day

of his coronation, and that the lady was afterwards treated with the

singular barbarity above mentioned. The only difference is, that

Osberne and some others call her his strumpet, not his wife, as she is

said to be by Malmesbury. But this difference is easily reconciled;

for if Edwy married her contrary to the canons, the monks would be

sure to deny her to be his wife, and would insist that she could be

nothing but his strumpet; to that, on the whole, we may esteem this

representation of the matter as certain, at least, as by far the most

probable. If Edwy had only kept a mistress, it is well known that

there are methods of accommodation with the church, which would have

prevented the clergy from proceeding to such extremities against him:

but his marriage contrary to the canons, was an insult on their

authority, and called for their highest resentment.

NOTE [C]

Many of the English historians make Edgar's ships amount to an

extravagant number, to three thousand, or three thousand six hundred:

see Hoveden, p. 426. Flor. Wigorn. p. 607. Abbas Rieval. p. 360.

Brompton, p. 869, says, that Edgar had four thousand vessels. How can

these accounts be reconciled to probability, and to the state of the

navy in the time of Alfred? W. Thorne makes the whole number amount

only to three hundred, which is more probable. The fleet of Ethelred,

Edgar's son, must have been short of one thousand ships; yet the Saxon

Chronicle, p. 137, says, it was the greatest navy that ever had been

seen in England.

NOTE [D]

Almost all the ancient historians speak of this massacre of the Danes

as if it had been universal, and as if every individual of that nation

throughout England had been put to death. But the Danes were almost

the sole inhabitants in the kingdoms of Northumberland and East-

Anglia, and were very numerous in Mercia. This representation,

therefore, of the matter is absolutely impossible. Great resistance

must have been made, and violent wars ensued; which was not the case.

This account given by Wallingford, though he stands single, must he

admitted as the only true one. We are told that the name LURDANE,

LORD DANE, for an idle lazy fellow, who lives at other people's

expense, came from the conduct of the Danes, who were put to death.

But the English princes had been entirely masters for several

generations; and only supported a military corps of that nation. It

seems probable, therefore, that it was these Danes only that were put

to death.

NOTE [E]

The ingenious author of the article GODWIN, in the Biographia

Britannica, has endeavoured to clear the memory of that nobleman, upon

the supposition, that all the English annals had been falsified by the

Norman historians after the Conquest. But that this supposition has

not much foundation, appears hence, that almost all these historians

have given a very good character to his son Harold, whom it was much

more the interest of the Norman cause to blacken.

NOTE [F]

The whole story of the transactions between Edward, Harold, and the

Duke of Normandy, is told so differently by the ancient writers, that

there are few important passages of the English history liable to so

great uncertainty. I have followed the account which appeared to me

the most consistent and probable. It does not seem likely, that

Edward ever executed a will in the duke's favour, much less that he

got it ratified by the states of the kingdom, as is affirmed by some.

The will would have been known to all, and would have been produced by

the Conqueror, to whom it gave so plausible, and really so just a

title; but the doubtful and ambiguous manner in which he seems always

to have mentioned it, proves that he could only plead the known

intentions of that monarch in his favour, which he was desirous to

call a will. There is indeed a charter of the Conqueror preserved by

Dr. Hickes, vol. i., where he calls himself REX HEREDITARIUS, meaning

heir by will; but a prince possessed of so much power, and attended

with so much success, may employ what pretence he pleases: it is

sufficient to refute his pretences, to observe that there is a great

difference and variation among historians, with regard to a point

which, had it been real, must have been agreed upon by all of them.

Again, some historians, particularly Malmesbury and Matthew of

Westminster, affirm that Harold had no intention of going over to

Normandy, but, that taking the air in a pleasure boat on the coast, he

was driven over, by stress of weather, to the territories of Guy,

Count of Ponthieu: but besides that this story is not probable in

itself, and is contradicted by most of the ancient historians, it is

contradicted by a very curious and authentic monument lately

discovered. It is a tapestry, preserved in the ducal palace of Rouen,

and supposed to have been wrought by orders of Matilda, wife to the

emperor: at least it is of very great antiquity. Harold is there

represented as taking his departure from King Edward in execution of

some commission, and mounting his vessel with a great train. The

design of redeeming his brother and nephew, who were hostages, is the

most likely cause that can be assigned; and is accordingly mentioned

by Eadmer, Hoveden, Brompton, and Simeon of Durham. For a farther

account of this piece of tapestry, see Histoire de l'Academie de

Littérature, tom. ix. p. 535.

NOTE [G]

It appears from the ancient translations of the Saxon annals and laws,

and from King Alfred's translation of Bede, as well as from all the

ancient historians, that COMES in Latin, ALDERMAN in Saxon, and EARL

in Dano-Saxon, were quite synonymous. There is only a clause in a law

of King Athelstan's (see Spellm. Conc. p. 406) which has stumbled some

antiquaries, and has made them imagine that an earl was superior to an

alderman. The weregild, or the price of an earl's blood, is there

fixed at fifteen thousand thrimsas, equal to that of an archbishop;

whereas that of a bishop and alderman is only eight thousand thrimsas.

To solve this difficulty we must have recourse to Selden's conjecture,

(see his Titles of Honour, chap. v. p. 603, 604,) that the term of

earl was in the age of Athelstan just beginning to be in use in

England, and stood at that time for the atheling or prince of the

blood, heir to the crown. This he confirms by a law of Canute, Sec.

55, where an atheling and an archbishop are put upon the same footing.

In another law of the same Athelstan, the weregild of the prince, or

atheling, is said to be fifteen thousand thrimsas. See Wilkins, p.

71. He is therefore the same who is called earl in the former law.

NOTE [H]

There is a paper or record of the family of Sharneborn, which

pretends, that that family, which was Saxon, was restored upon proving

their innocence, as well as other Saxon families which were in the

same situation. Though this paper was able to impose on such great

antiquaries as Spellman (see Gloss. in verbo DRENGES) and Dugdale,

(see Baron. vol. i. p. 118,) it is proved by Dr. Brady (see Answ. to

Petyt, p. 11, 12) to have been a forgery; and is allowed as such by

Tyrrel, though a pertinacious defender of his party notions (see his

Hist. vol. ii. introd. p. 51, 73). Ingulf, p. 70, tells us, that very

early, Hereward, though absent during the time of the Conquest, was

turned out of all his estate, and could not obtain redress. William

even plundered the monasteries. Flor. Wigorn. p. 636. Chron. Abb.

St. Petri de Burgo, p. 48. M. Paris, p. 5. Sim. Dun. p. 200.

Diceto, p. 482. Brompton, p. 967. Knyghton, p. 2344. Alur. Beverl.

p. 130. We are told by Ingulf, that Ivo de Taillebois plundered the

monastery of Croyland of a great part of its land, and no redress

could be obtained.

NOTE [I]

The obliging of all the inhabitants to put out their fires and lights

at certain hours, upon the sounding of a bell called the COURFEU, is

represented by Polydore Vergil, lib. 9, as a mark of the servitude of

the English. But this was a law of police, which William had

previously established in Normandy. See Du Moulin, Hist. de

Normandie, p. 160. The same law had place in Scotland. LL. Burgor

cap. 86.

NOTE [K]

What these laws were of Edward the Confessor, which the English, every

reign during a century and a half, desire so passionately to have

restored, is much disputed by antiquaries, and our ignorance of them

seems one of the greatest defects in the ancient English history. The

collection of laws in Wilkins, which pass under the name of Edward,

are plainly a posterior and an ignorant compilation. Those to be

found in Ingulf are genuine; but so imperfect, and contain so few

clauses favourable to the subject, that we see no great reason for

their contending for them so vehemently. It is probable, that the

English meant the COMMON LAW, as it prevailed during the reign of

Edward; which we may conjecture to have been more indulgent to liberty

than the Norman institutions. The most material articles of it were

afterwards comprehended in Magna Charta.

NOTE [L]

Ingulf, p. 70. H. Hunt. p. 370, 372. M. West. p. 225. Gul. Neub. p.

357. Alured. Beverl. p. 124. De Gest. Angl. p. 333. M. Paris, p. 4.

Sim. Dun. p. 206. Brompton, p. 962, 980, 1161. Gervase Tilb. lib. i.

cap. 16. Textus Roffensis apud Seld. Spicileg. ad Eadm. p. 179. Gul.

Pict. p. 206. Ordericus Vitalis, p. 621, 666, 853. Epist. St. Thom.

p. 801. Gul. Malmes. p. 52, 57. Knyghton, p. 2354. Eadmer. p. 110.

Thom. Rudborne in Ang. Sacra, vol. i. p. 248. Monach. Roff. in Ang

Sacra, vol. ii. p. 276. Girald. Camb. in eadem, vol. ii. p. 413.

Hist Elyensis, p. 516. The words of this last historian, who is very

ancient, are remarkable and worth transcribing: "REX ITAQUE FACTUS

WILLIELMUS, QUID IN PRINCIPES ANGLORUM, QUI TANTAE CLADI SUPERESSE

POTERANT, FECERIT, DICERE, CUM NIHIL PROSIT, OMITTO. QUID ENIM

PRODESSET, SI NEC UNUM IN TOTO REGNO DE ILLIS DICEREM PRISTINA

POTESTATE UTI PERMISSUM, SED OMNES AUT IN GRAVEM PAUPERTATIS AERUMNAM

DETRUSOS, AUT EXHAEREDATOS, PATRIA PULSOS, AUT EFFOSSIS OCULIS, VEL

CAETERIS AMPUTATIS MEMBRIS OPPROBRIUM HOMINUM FACTOS, AUT CERTE

MISERRIME AFFLICTOS, VITA PRIVATOS? SIMILI MODO UTILITATE CARERE

EXISTIMO DICERE QUID IN MINOREM POPULUM, NON SOLUM AB EO, SED A SUIS

ACTUM SIT, CUM ID DICTU SCIAMUS DIFFICILE, ET OB IMMANEM CRUDELITATEM,

FORTASSIS INCREDIBILE."

NOTE [M]

Henry, by the feudal customs, was entitled to levy a tax for the

marrying of his eldest daughter, and he exacted three shillings a hide

on all England. H. Hunt. p. 379. Some historians (Brady, p. 270, and

Tyrrel, vol. ii. p. 182) heedlessly make this sum amount to above

eight hundred thousand pounds of our present money: but it could not

exceed one hundred and thirty-five thousand. Five hides, sometimes

less, made a knight's fee, of which there were about sixty thousand in

England, consequently near three hundred thousand hides; and at the

rate of three shillings a hide, the sum would amount to forty-five

thousand pounds, or one hundred and thirty-five thousand of our

present money. See Rudborne, p. 257. In the Saxon times, there were

only computed two hundred and forty-three thousand six hundred hides

in England.

NOTE [N]

The legates À LATERE, as they were called, were a kind of delegates

who possessed the full power of the pope in all the provinces

committed to their charge, and were very busy in extending as well as

exercising it. They nominated to all vacant benefices, assembled

synods, and were anxious to maintain ecclesiastical privileges, which

never could be fully protected without encroachments on the civil

power. If there were the least concurrence or opposition, it was

always supposed that the civil power was to give way: every deed which

had the least pretence of holding of any thing spiritual, as

marriages, testaments, promissory oaths, were brought into the

spiritual court, and could not be canvassed before a civil magistrate.

These were the established laws of the church; and where a legate was

sent immediately from Rome, he was sure to maintain the papal claims

with the utmost rigour: but it was an advantage to the king to have

the Archbishop of Canterbury appointed legate, because the connexions

of that prelate with the kingdom tended to moderate his measures.

NOTE [O]

William of Newbridge, p. 383, (who is copied by later historians,)

asserts, that Geoffrey had some title to the counties of Maine and

Anjou. He pretends that Count Geoffrey, his father, had left him

these dominions by a secret will, and had ordered that his body should

not be buried, till Henry should swear to the observance of it, which

he, ignorant of the contents, was induced to do. But besides that

this story is not very likely in itself, and savours of monkish

fiction, it is found in no other ancient writer, and is contradicted

by some of them, particularly the monk of Marmoutier, who had better

opportunities than Newbridge of knowing the truth. See Vita Gauf.

Duc. Norman. p. 103.

NOTE [P]

The sum scarcely appears credible, as it would amount to much above

half the rent of the whole land. Gervase is indeed a contemporary

author; but churchmen are often guilty of strange mistakes of that

nature, and are commonly but little acquainted with the public

revenues. This sum would make five hundred and forty thousand pounds

of our present money. The Norman Chronicle, p. 995, says that Henry

raised only sixty Angevin shillings on each knight's fee in his

foreign dominions: this is only a fourth of the sum which Gervase says

he levied on England; an inequality nowise probable. A nation may, by

degrees, be brought to bear a tax of fifteen shillings in the pound,

but a sudden and precarious tax can never be imposed to that amount,

without a very visible necessity, especially in an age so little

accustomed to taxes. In the succeeding reign the rent of a knight's

fee was computed at four pounds a year. There were sixty thousand

knights' fees in England.

NOTE [Q]

Fitz-Stephens, p. 18. This conduct appears violent and arbitrary, but

was suitable to the strain of administration in those days. His

father Geoffrey, though represented as a mild prince, set him an

example of much greater violence. When Geoffrey was master of

Normandy, the chapter of sees presumed, without his consent, to

proceed to the election of a bishop; upon which be ordered all of

them, with the bishop elect, to be castrated, and made all their

testicles be brought him in a platter. Fitz-Steph. p. 44. In the war

of Toulouse, Henry laid a heavy and an arbitrary tax on all the

churches within his dominions. See Epist. St. Thom. p. 232.

NOTE [R]

I follow here the narrative of Fitz-Stephens, who was secretary to

Becket; though, no doubt, he may be suspected of partiality towards

his patron. Lord Lyttleton chooses to follow the authority of a

manuscript letter, or rather manifesto, of Folliot, Bishop of London,

which is addressed to Becket himself, at the time when the bishop

appealed to the pope from the excommunication pronounced against him

by his primate. My reasons, why I give the preference to

Fitz-Stephens, are, (1.) If the friendship of Fitz-Stephens might

render him partial to Becket, even after the death of that prelate,

the declared enmity of the bishop must, during his lifetime, have

rendered him more partial on the other side. (2.) The bishop was

moved by interest, as well as enmity, to calumniate Becket. He had

himself to defend against the sentence of excommunication, dreadful to

all, especially to a prelate: and no more effectual means than to

throw all the blame on his adversary. (3.) He has actually been

guilty of palpable calumnies in that letter. Among these, I reckon

the following:--He affirms that, when Becket subscribed the

Constitutions of Clarendon, he said plainly to all the bishops of

England, "It is my master's pleasure that I should forswear myself,

and at present I submit to it, and do resolve to incur a perjury, and

repent afterwards as I may." However barbarous the times, and however

negligent zealous churchmen were then of morality, these are not words

which a primate of great sense, and of much seeming sanctity, would

employ in an assembly of his suffragans: he might act upon these

principles, but never surely would publicly avow them. Folliot also

says, that all the bishops were resolved obstinately to oppose the

Constitutions of Clarendon, but the primate himself betrayed them from

timidity, and led the way to their subscribing. This is contrary to

the testimony of all the historians, and directly contrary to Becket's

character, who surely was not destitute either of courage or of zeal

for ecclesiastical immunities. (4.) The violence and injustice of

Henry, ascribed to him by Fitz-Stephens, is of a piece with the rest

of the prosecution. Nothing could be more iniquitous, than, after two

years' silence, to make a sudden and unprepared demand upon Becket to

the amount of forty-four thousand marks, (equal to a sum of near a

million in our time,) and not allow him the least interval to bring in

his accounts. If the king was so palpably oppressive in one article,

he may he presumed to be equally so in the rest. (5.) Though

Folliot's letter, or rather manifesto, be addressed to Becket himself,

it does not acquire more authority on that account. We know not what

answer was made by Becket: the collection of letters cannot he

supposed quite complete. But that the collection was not made by one

(whoever he were) very partial to that primate, appears from the tenor

of them, where there are many passages very little favourable to him:

insomuch that the editor of them at Brussels, a jesuit, thought proper

to publish them with great omissions, particularly of this letter of

Folliot's. Perhaps Becket made no answer at all, as not deigning to

write to an excommunicated person, whose very commerce would

contaminate him; and the bishop, trusting to this arrogance of his

primate, might calumniate him the more freely. (6.) Though the

sentence pronounced on Becket by the great council implies that he had

refused to make any answer to the king's court, this does not fortify

the narrative of Folliot. For if his excuse was rejected as false and

frivolous, it would he treated as no answer. Becket submitted so far

to the sentence of confiscation of goods and chattels, that he gave

surety, which is a proof that he meant not at that time to question

the authority of the king's courts. (7.) It may be worth observing,

that both the author of Historia quadripartita, and Gervase,

contemporary writers, agree with Fitz-Stephens; and the latter is not

usually very partial to Becket. All the ancient historians give the

same account.

NOTE [S]

Madox, in his Baronia Anglica, cap. 14, tells us, that in the

thirtieth of Henry II. thirty-three cows and two bulls cost but eight

pounds seven shillings, money of that age; five hundred sheep, twenty-

two pounds ten shillings, or about ten pence three farthings per

sheep; sixty-six oxen, eighteen pounds three shillings; fifteen

breeding mares, two pounds twelve shillings and sixpence; and

twenty-two hogs, one pound two shillings. Commodities seem then to

have been about ten times cheaper than at present; all except the

sheep, probably on account of the value of the fleece. The same

author, in his Formulare Anglicanum, p. 17, says, "that in the tenth

year of Richard I. mention is made of ten per cent. paid for money:

but the Jews frequently exacted much higher interest."

END OF VOL. I.