The accounts of the robbery of the king’s treasury in the Chronicles
are vitiated by the obvious desire of the writers, who were mainly
monks, to minimise the scandal to “religion” involved in the suspected
complicity of the Westminster monks. This is seen even in the moderate
account originating at St. Alban’s Abbey, and contained in William
Rishanger’s _Chronicle_ (Rolls Series), pp. 222 and 225, and also in
the other St. Alban’s version in _Gesta Edwardi Primi_, published in
the same volume, pp. 420–1. The bias is naturally at its worst in the
Westminster Abbey Chronicle, printed in _Flores Historiarum_, III. 115,
117, 121, and 131 (Rolls Series), which is more valuable perhaps as
an index of Westminster opinion than as a dispassionate statement of
the facts. The chief manuscript of this chronicle is preserved in the
Chetham Library, Manchester [MS. Chetham No. 6712]. It was certainly
written by a Westminster monk, and, perhaps after 1302, by Robert of
Reading, who undoubtedly was the author of the account of the reign
of Edward II. If Robert wrote the story of the robbery, it should be
remembered that he was one of the forty-nine monks indicted and sent
to the Tower on a charge of complicity in it. There are useful and
more impartial notices in the non-monastic _Annales Londonienses_ in
Stubbs’ _Chronicles of Edward I and Edward II_, I. 130, 131, 132, and
134 (Rolls Series). These date the robbery on 2 May.
The Chronicles being thus under suspicion, we must go for our main
knowledge of the story to record sources, many of which are fortunately
accessible in print. Palgrave’s _Kalendars and Inventories of the
Exchequer_, I. 251–99 (Record Commission, 1836), publishes the writs
appointing the two commissions of enquiry and the verdicts of the
juries empanelled by them. The writs are also in Rymer’s _Fœdera_,
I. 956, 959 (Record Commission). The confession of Richard Pudlicott
is printed in an English translation in H. Hall’s _Antiquities of
the Exchequer_, pp. 25–8, and also in L. O. Pike’s _History of Crime
in England_, Vol. I. The French original can be read in _Exchequer
Accounts, K. R._, 332/8. Cole’s _Records_ (Record Commission, 1844)
prints the indenture in which Droxford, the Keeper of the Wardrobe,
specifies the jewels lost and recovered. Some entries in the _Calendar
of Patent Rolls_ and the _Calendar of Close Rolls_ usefully supplement
the continuous records.
There are several fairly full modern accounts, the majority of which
are not quite satisfactory. That in Dean Stanley’s _Memorials of
Westminster Abbey_ is more eloquent than critical. H. Harrod’s article
in _Archæologia_, LXIV. 375, “on the crypt of the chapter house at
Westminster,” is valuable for its clear identification of the crypt
under the chapter house with the scene of the robbery. Equally useful
is J. Burtt’s important paper “On some discoveries in connexion with
the ancient treasury of Westminster,” published in G. G. Scott’s
_Gleanings from Westminster Abbey_, pp. 18–33. The two fullest modern
accounts are in L. O. Pike’s _History of Crime in England_, I. 199–203
and 466–7, and Hubert Hall’s _Antiquities of the Exchequer_, pp. 18–33.
The latter is perhaps the better because, though telling the story in a
book dealing with the exchequer, it recognises that the treasury robbed
was the treasury of the wardrobe. There are, however, materials for a
more detailed critical narrative than has hitherto been attempted.