every turn, the phrases, “It is said,” and “Tradition reports.”
Thus, Mr. Pearson writes: “Probably nothing has been attributed to
him without some real fact _underlying the mythical narrative_,
but it is not always easy to disentangle the one from the other”
(p. 173). Mr. Wright thus speaks: “It is _probable_ that the king,
during the period he remained at Athelney, was actively engaged in
watching the movements of the Danes. _Another legend_ represents
him,” etc. (p. 388). And Mr. Hughes, the latest biographer of the
great king, says of one fact, “This is related by Asser to have
happened,” “_which is clearly impossible_.” In another place, “Any
attempt to remove the miraculous element would take all life out of
the story.” A third story is described as “a sad tangle, which _no
man can unravel_.”
[184] Merivale, vol. i., 119, 490.
[185] Robertson’s Church History, vol. ii., p. 136.
[186] Gleig.
[187] Emerson.
APPENDIX.
I., _page 93_.
A YEAR’S EXPENDITURE OF THE KING.
It is now more than eighty years since the Society of Antiquarians
published “The Account of the Comptroller of the Wardrobe, of the
twenty‐eighth year of king Edward I., A.D. 1299-1300;” and it is
probable that few of the readers of this volume have ever seen that
publication. It seems desirable, therefore, to give, in this place, a
brief sketch of that Account, the whole details of which form a quarto
volume. We shall confine ourselves to a few general heads.
I.
The Keeper or treasurer of the Wardrobe acknowledges
the receipt, from various sources, of a total sum,
within the year, of £58,155 16s. 2d.
II.
He then gives an account of his disbursements, under twelve heads, as
follows:—
1. Alms and oblations, for the relief of the poor, £ s. d.
or as religious offerings. The payments fill
thirty‐one quarto pages, and are of every
description. The total for the year 1,166 14 9
2. The next head is that of necessaries bought
for the use of the king’s household, and for
charges and expenses of ambassadors, messengers,
etc.—the total being 3,338 19 3
3. Then follows the victualling and stores for the
king’s army in Scotland, and for the supplies
for the garrisons of his castles in that country 18,638 1 8
4. Next, gifts and rewards; and payment for
horses lost by knights and others in the
king’s service 4,386 4 5
5. Allowances to knights of the king’s household;
and of foreign troops retained in the king’s
service 3,077 19 0
6. Wages of the engineers, archers, and
sergeants‐at‐arms of the household 1,038 10 7
7. Wages of foot‐soldiers, archers, artificers,
and workmen 4,446 9 11
” Wages to seamen of the Cinque Ports and
other towns 1,233 9 8
8. Expenses of king’s messengers 87 11 1
9. Wages and expenses of the huntsmen, falconers,
hawks, etc. 77 6 11
10. Allowances to knights, bannerets, etc. of the
household, for robes 714 3 4
11. Goldsmiths’ and jewellers’ accounts 253 15 6
12. Includes cloth, furs, wax, and other things for
the use of the household 4,391 19 0
Wines and other liquors for the use of the
household 6,934 6 0
Separate account of the queen 3,668 2 9
Costs and charges of the king’s Chancery 581 9 0
---------------
£54,035 2 7
To which is added, for some current expenses of the household, the
particulars of which do not appear to have been preserved, the sum
of £10,969 16s. 0d.
So that the treasurer, on this account, would appear to have been
in advance. But there was, doubtless, money daily coming in, and he
probably had some bills not yet discharged.
The calculations of Bishop Fleetwood’s tables show the value of
money to have been fifteen times as great at that day as it is now.
This would make the royal revenue to amount to about £800,000 per
annum. Out of which the king paid, in 1300, what would now be about
£500,000, for his troops, seamen, garrisons, etc.; about £270,000
for the expenses of his household, exclusive of robes, jewels,
huntsmen, and charities; which last item, of alms and oblations, in
the money of our time, would be equal to nearly £18,000 a‐year.
II., _page 165_.
EDWARD’S OBTESTATION.
At first sight, remembering the constant and earnest attention to
religious duties shown by Edward, we were inclined to doubt whether the
chronicler might not be in error in ascribing this oath to the king;
the more especially since the person addressed was named BIGOD; so that
it would be easy to fall into such an error. But, looking a little
further, we found the pope himself, in a public reception of Edward’s
ambassadors, asseverating “per Deum,” that he would do the king
justice. So that it seems tolerably clear that even religious men, in
those days, thought it lawful to use language similar to that employed
by Abraham (Gen. xxiv. 3), by Joab (2 Sam. xix. 7), and by Nehemiah
(xiii. 25). As to Edward himself, his whole character assures us, that
he never used the Divine name lightly or irreverently.
III., _page 239_.
PARLIAMENT OF LINCOLN.
The requests preferred by the barons, and accorded by the king, were
the Ist, IInd, IIIrd, IVth, and Vth, the VIIIth, IXth, Xth, and XIth.
Those which he did not concede, were the following:—
VI.
“E ce ke mespris est par nul ministre soit amende solom ce ke le
trespas le demaunde par auditours a ceo assignez qe ne soient pas
suspecionus des Prelates, Contes, e Barons de la terre solom ceo
kil mesmes ainz ces houres ad fet e qe ce seit meintenant mis en
oevre.”
“Dominus Rex vult providere aliud remedium super hoc sed non per
tales auditores.”
VII.
“E qe Viscontes de cest houre en avant respoignet des issues solom
ce kil soleient fere en tens son Pere les queles issues unt este e
uncore ore sunt a grand apovrissement du peuple. E ke Viscontes ne
soient plus haut chargez.”
“Placet Dominus Rege quod de communi consilio provideatur super hoc
quam cito commode poterit remedium optimum.”
XII.
“E par ceste choses suzdites ne pount ne osent pas les Prelates de
seinte Eglise assenter ke contribucion seit fete de lur biens ne de
biens de la clergie en contre le defens le Apostoille.”
“Non placuit Regi: sed communitas Procerium approbavit.”
IV., _page 320_.
On the general question, of the character of Edward’s rule, it is
quite undeniable that _there is no reign in English history_ which can
compare with it for clemency.
If we turn to that of his weak and unworthy successor, we find it full
of hurried executions. Thus, when he took Ledes Castle, he hanged
up the governor and eleven knights. When he captured the earl of
Lancaster, the earl was immediately sent to the scaffold; and with him
fourteen knights and fourteen knights‐banneret.
In the reign of Edward III., we have the execution of the earl of Kent,
“son of the great Edward,” of Mortimer and Bereford, and of the earl of
Menteith.
In Richard II.’s reign, we find Tresillian and Brambre, Burley and
Beauchamp, Berners and Salisbury, and the earl of Arundel, sent to the
scaffold.
In Henry IV.’s reign we hear of the execution of the earls of Kent and
Salisbury, of lords Lumley and Despencer, of the earl of Huntingdon, of
the earl of Worcester, of lord Kinderton, of Sir Richard Vernon, of the
earl of Westmoreland, and of the archbishop of York.
Now Edward I.’s reign was not a calm or peaceful one. He had wars
abroad and at home, conspiracies, and earls and archbishops opposed to
him. Yet, during thirty years, and until the assassination of Comyn,
we find, as we have just said, but three political executions—1. David
of Snowdon, who in time of peace had stormed a castle, committing
high‐treason and murder; 2. Turberville, who had covenanted to assist
the landing of the French; and 3. Wallace, who had ravaged two counties
with fire and sword, “sparing neither sex nor age.” Say we not truly,
then, that for clemency, Edward’s sway is almost without a parallel.
For half a century past, we have had a popular cry for “the abolition
of the punishment of death”; and, very naturally, in our popular
histories we meet with expressions of indignation, because Edward, in
the course of thirty years, brought three persons to trial, and sent
them to the scaffold; and because he, in the last year of his reign,
capitally punished sixteen or eighteen others for their participation
in a murder.
Yet every one of these persons was brought to a fair and open trial,
and condemned by fit and competent judges. We censure the king now,
believing that in the advance of civilization we have grown vastly more
humane. Yet, what is our custom in this gentle and merciful reign of
Queen Victoria?
In India, a few years since, we had to deal with some rebel princes,
hardly better, but scarcely worse, than David of Snowdon. And how did
we treat them? Here is the published narrative of one of the English
officers engaged in suppressing the Sepoy rebellion.
Major Hodson writes, from India, in 1857:—“The next day I got
permission to go and bring in the king (of Delhi) and his favourite
wife and her son. This was successfully accomplished. I then set to
work to get hold of the villain princes. I started for the tomb of the
Emperor Humayoon, where they had taken sanctuary. After two hours of
wordy strife, they appeared, and I sent them away under a guard…. I
then went to look after my prisoners, who, with their guard, had moved
towards Delhi. I came up just in time, and seizing a carbine from one
of my men, I deliberately shot them one after another. I then ordered
the bodies to be taken into the city and thrown out on the Chiboutre,
in front of the Kotwallu. In twenty‐four hours, therefore, I had
disposed of the principal members of the house of Timur the Tartar.”
This narrative is published without the least expression of regret by a
clergyman of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Fourteen years more have passed away, and we have now a Republic
established in France, professing, of course, universal philanthropy,
benevolence, and kindness. And what is one of its latest acts? It has
tried deliberately, and has deliberately sentenced to death, a Paris
_litterateur_, for writing seditious articles in a newspaper!
And yet our great king is to be stigmatized as “vindictive” and
“cruel,” because he sent to the scaffold a deceitful rebel, on whom
he had conferred many favours, and who had attacked a castle, slaying
its defenders;—a marauder, who had ravaged two English counties,
“sparing neither sex nor age;” and a knot of Scottish traitors, who had
assassinated the first noble in Scotland in a church, because he stood
in the way of their treasonable purposes.
Simmons and Botten, Printers, 4A, Shoe Lane, E.C.
Transcriber’s Notes: The original spelling, punctuation, and hyphenation
has been retained, except for a small number of apparent printer’s
errors. The original accentuation has been retained except for:
Crecy changed to Crécy
and
Grosstete changed to Grosstête
for consistency with other occurrences.
There are some instances of Norman French, for example in Footnote 129;
these have been left as printed.