or viceroy of Ireland. In 1235 Henry Clement, a messenger from the Irish
peers to the king, was murdered in London. William Marsh was accused
of the murder, but he always protested his innocence. William was also
accused of being implicated in the attempted assassination of the king
at Woodstock (p. 30). His father, Geoffrey, was also suspected of being
privy to the attempt, and his lands being seized on this account, he fled
to Scotland, whence he was finally driven out at the king’s instance,
dying friendless and poor in France. This is the chronicler’s account of
the doings of William after his father’s fall:—
William sought refuge in a certain island not far from Bristol, Devon,
or Cornwall, named Lundy, an impregnable retreat. Here, having drawn to
himself a number of outlaws and fugitives, he lived by piracy; he gave
himself up to plunder and rapine, seizing the goods of merchants trading
in those parts, especially wine and provisions. He also made sudden
descents on the coasts, carrying off booty, injuring greatly thereby the
kingdom of England, by preying upon merchants, both native and foreign.
Now, a great number of nobles, English as well as Irish, who could not
honourably dwell at home while the king was engaged in war in parts
beyond the sea, journeyed across the countries not far distant from the
said island, and ascertained beyond doubt that the said William and his
band could be taken only by stratagem. They told the king that he must
proceed in the matter not violently, but cautiously, in order to capture
these devastators. The king therefore gave his orders to trusted men,
engaging them by the promise of a rich reward to undertake the capture
of this man and the deliverance of their country. The said William was
hateful to the king, because he suspected him of being privy, together
with his father, Geoffrey, to the attempted assassination, and to have
been wickedly guilty of treason by sending the wretch who went by night
to Woodstock to cut the king’s throat; also to have killed in London,
in the king’s presence, a certain messenger sent by an Irish nobleman.
William’s denial of the charges was not believed, nor even listened to.
Therefore he imprudently sought safety in remote places, living like an
outlaw and a fugitive.
After narrating other events, the chronicler continues:—
About this time, William Marsh, a knight, of whom mention has been made,
while he was still in the above-mentioned island, plundering and planning
ambushes, was himself captured by a stratagem, carried out by the king’s
loyal servants, loaded with chains, brought to London and thrown into
the Tower. His capture was brought about by the treachery of some of his
band. His stronghold was situated on a very high rock, surrounded on all
sides by the sea, absolutely impregnable, for none could get access to
it otherwise than by a ladder, and that in but one place. William sitting
down to table, during foggy weather, had imprudently left the watch of
this post to a man who, being detained by William by force, was therefore
ready to betray him.
[Illustration: SIR WILLIAM DE MARISCO (WILLIAM MARSH) DRAWN TO THE
GALLOWS IN 1242.]
On the eve of St. James [July 25], by virtue of the king’s mandate, the
said William and sixteen of his band, taken with him, were judicially
condemned, and put to death ignominiously, for so the king willed.
First, therefore, he was drawn from Westminster to the Tower of London,
and thence to that instrument of punishment, commonly called a gibbet:
when he had there breathed out his wretched soul, he was hanged on one of
the hooks, and when the body was stiff it was let down and disembowelled,
and the bowels were at once burnt on the spot. Then the miserable body
was divided into four parts, which were sent to four of the chief cities,
so that this lamentable spectacle might inspire fear in all beholders.
All his sixteen companions were drawn at the tails of horses through
the City of London, and hanged on the gallows. But the said William,
after sentence was passed on him, and when he was about to face death,
protested to his last breath, invoking the divine judgment, that he was
innocent, pure, and wholly without blame, as well in respect of the
criminal attempt on the king, as of the death of the above-mentioned
messenger, that is to say, Clement. Nor did he take refuge in the said
island except to avoid by his flight the king’s anger, which he had above
all things desired to appease, either by ordeal of any kind, or otherwise
by submission. But after he had fled to the said island, and had got
together his band, he had no choice but to plunder in order to maintain
a wretched existence. He poured out his soul to God, in confession to
John of St. Giles, a friar of the order of preachers: with contrition
and tears he admitted his sins, not seeking to extenuate them, but even
accusing himself. Therefore the friar preacher, a discreet man, who
received his confession, gave him gentle consolation, and dismissed him
in peace, exhorting him to suffer his punishment with patience, as a
means of penance. And, therefore, as has been said, he suffered—dreadful
to tell—not one death only, but several horrible deaths.[117]
=1255.= The story of Little St. Hugh, the Martyr of Lincoln, comes into
the Annals of Tyburn through the execution of eighteen Jews supposed to
have been guilty. It is interesting to see what Chaucer has made out of
this squalid tragedy in the Prioress’s Tale, one of the most beautiful
of the Canterbury Tales. The reader will not need to be reminded that
Norwich had its boy-martyr, St. William, supposed to be done to death in
the same way in 1144. Bury St. Edmund’s had also its boy-martyr.[118]
Matthew Paris tells the story:—
About the time of the feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul, the Jews of
Lincoln stole a boy named Hugh, about eight years of age. They kept him
shut up in a very secret room, where they gave him milk, and other food
such as is given to children, and sent word to most of the cities of
England in which Jews dwelt, summoning from each some Jews to be present
at the sacrifice which was to take place in Lincoln, in contempt and
derision of Jesus Christ. For, as they said, they had a child hidden in
preparation for the sacrifice. And many assembled at Lincoln; and when
they were gathered together, they appointed a Jew as judge, as it were
Pilate, by whose sentence, approved by all, the boy suffered various
tortures. He was beaten till blood was drawn and his body was black and
blue: crowned with thorns: spat upon and overwhelmed with jibes: then
each one pricked him with knives of the kind called anelaces: he was made
to drink gall, and, jeering at him, and grinding their teeth, they called
him false prophet. And when they had thus mocked him in many ways, they
crucified him, and thrust a lance into his heart. And when the boy was
dead, they took the body down from the cross and took the bowels out of
the little body, for what purpose is not known, but it is said that it
was for some practice of magic.
Now the mother of the child diligently sought for her son during many
days. In the end the neighbours told her that they had last seen the boy
playing with some Jewish boys of his own age, and that he went into the
house of a certain Jew. At once, therefore, the woman went into that
house, where she saw the body of her son, which had been thrown into a
well. The bailiffs of the city, having been cautiously got together, the
body was found and taken out of the well, and exhibited to the people.
But the mother of the boy, crying aloud and lamenting, excited to tears
and sighs, all, yes, all the citizens who had flocked together. Now
there was present Sir John of Lexinton, a man circumspect, discreet and
of elegant literary acquirements, who said: “We had already heard that
the Jews have not feared to do such things in contempt of our crucified
Lord, Jesus Christ.” And one Jew being arrested, into whose house the
boy had gone, in playing about, on whom therefore suspicion fell rather
than upon others, he said to him: “Wretch, thou knowest that all thou
hast to expect is swift destruction. All the gold of England cannot
suffice to free or redeem thee. Nevertheless, I tell thee, however
unworthy thou art, how thou canst save thy life, and thy limbs from
torture. Both things I promise to thee if thou dost not fear to tell me
without falsehood all that has taken place.” Then the Jew, whose name
was Copin, thinking he had found a way of escape, said: “Sir John, if
your deeds are as good as your words I will tell you strange things.”
And Sir John carefully heartened him and pressed him. Then said the Jew:
“What the Christians say is true. The Jews nearly every year crucify a
boy in derision and contempt of Jesus Christ. But this is not found out
every year, because it is done secretly and in remote and hidden places.
But our Jews have most pitilessly crucified this boy, named Hugh, and
when he was dead and they wished to conceal his death they knew not how
either to bury or to hide him. For they had no further need of the body
of the innocent for augury: for that purpose they had taken out the
bowels. But in the morning, when they thought it was hidden, the earth
rejected it and threw it up, and the body appeared for a while on the
earth, unburied, which frightened the Jews. Then they threw the body into
a well, but even so it could not be hidden. The mother, making enquiry,
found the body and gave notice to the bailiffs.” Sir John had the Jew put
in chains.
And when the canons of the cathedral church of Lincoln learnt of these
things, they begged that the little body might be given to them, and this
was done. And when it had been seen by a great number of people, the body
was buried in the church of Lincoln, as that of a precious martyr. It is
to be noted that the Jews had kept the boy alive ten days, and had fed
him upon milk, so that he might live to bear all kinds of torture.
When the king returned from the northern parts of England and was
informed of what had passed, he blamed Sir John for promising life
and limb to such a wretch, and he refused to ratify this, for this
blasphemer and murderer had deserved many deaths. And when the criminal
saw that an irrevocable sentence threatened him, he said: “Death
threatens me, nor can Sir John save me. Now will I tell the truth to all
of you. Almost all the Jews of England consented to the boy’s death of
which they are accused. And from almost every city of England in which
Jews dwell, certain men, chosen for the purpose, came to the immolation
of the child, as to a sacrifice of Passover.”
When he had said other hateful things, he was made fast to the tail of
a horse and drawn to the gallows, and given over body and soul to the
evil demons of the air. And other Jews, accomplices in the crime, to the
number of ninety-one, were taken in carts to London and put in prison.
If perchance some Christians shed tears for their fate, their lot was
bemoaned with dry eyes by the Caursins, their rivals.
Afterwards, by enquiry made by the justices of our lord the king, it was
discovered that the Jews of England, by common accord, had killed this
innocent boy by crucifixion, after having beaten him for several days.
Later, the mother of the said boy pressed upon the king her accusation
of those guilty of the death, and God, the Lord of Vengeance, meted out
to them retribution according to their deserts. For on the feast of St.
Clement, eighteen of the richest and greatest of the Jews of Lincoln were
drawn to new gallows, prepared for them, and left to the winds. And in
the Tower of London sixty more were kept in prison, expecting the same
fate.
=1256.= At this same time, certain Jews, infamous by reason of the
unhappy death of the boy crucified at Lincoln, found guilty by the oath
of twenty-five knights, and condemned to death, lay in prison, to the
number of three score and eleven, in order that they might be hanged.
They sent, as their rivals declare, secret messengers to the minorite
friars with the view that they should intercede for them, that they
might be released from prison, notwithstanding that they were worthy of
a most ignominious death. The friars, as the world said (if the world
is to be believed in such a matter), were induced by money to procure
the freedom of the Jews by their prayers and intercession, from the
imprisonment and death they had deserved. But in my opinion, it is to
be believed that the friars acted from piety, guided by a spirit of
compassion, because, so long as any one is alive in this world, he can
still use his will, so that there is hope of him. But for the devil and
for those manifestly damned, one can neither hope nor pray, because there
is no hope for them. Now death and a final sentence had irrevocably
ensnared them. But this way of looking at the matter cannot excuse the
friars, nor prevent scandal from blackening their character. The people
drew back their hands from giving them alms as they had before done. So
it fell out that the devotion of Londoners towards the minorites grew
lukewarm, just as the charity of the Parisians grew cold towards the
preachers, who there sought to weaken the ancient and approved customs of
the University.
In the same year, on the Ides of May, four score and eleven Jews were
released from the Tower of London, where they had lain in fetters, for
the crucifixion of Saint Hugh, the boy of Lincoln. These Jews, I say,
were found guilty upon oath, in accordance with the statement of the Jew
who at the first was hanged at Lincoln.[119]
=1267.= It happened about the Feast of Saint Katherine [November 25]
in this year, that a dispute arose between certain of the craft of the
goldsmiths and certain of the craft of tailors: to whom adhered, on the
one side and the other, some of the trade of the parmenters [dealers in
broadcloth] and some of the tawyers [who prepared fine leather], which
persons held great assemblages, and for three nights together went armed
through the streets of the City, creating most severe conflicts among
themselves. Hence, without doubt, as was said, more than five hundred of
these mischievous persons were collected together at night, and in the
affray many of them were wounded: but still, no one would act a part that
belongs only to the Bailiffs. For every one was waiting by force of arms
to take vengeance on his adversary, against the peace and his own fealty
to his lordship the King: the Bailiffs and discreet men of the City
understanding which, had more than thirty of them seized and imprisoned
in Newgate: and these, on the Friday next after the Feast of Saint
Katherine, appeared before Laurence de Broc, the Justiciar assigned for
gaol delivery, who took proceedings against them in the King’s behalf,
saying that they, against the peace and their fealty to his lordship
the King, had gone armed in the City, and had at night wickedly and
feloniously wounded some persons, and had slain others, whose bodies, it
was said, had been thrown into the Thames.
They however denied violence and injury, &c., and as to the same put
themselves upon the verdict of the venue. But on the morrow, those who
by the said venue were found to have been in the conflict aforesaid,
were, by the judgment of the said Justiciar, immediately hanged, although
not one among them had been convicted of homicide, mayhem, or robbery.
Hence, one Geoffrey, surnamed “de Beverley,” a parmenter by trade,
because certain of those misdoers had armed themselves in his house,
and he himself had been present with them in arms in the said affray,
was hanged, together with twelve others who had been indicted, as well
goldsmiths as parmenters and tawyers. All this however was done that
others, put in awe thereby, might take warning, that so the peace of
his lordship the King by all within the City might be the more rigidly
maintained.[120]
=1278.= In the month of November in this year all Jews throughout England
were seized on the same day, and imprisoned in London, for clipping the
king’s coin. And the Jews gave information as to very many Christians in
league with them, and chiefly among the more renowned of London. On this
occasion two hundred and eighty Jews of both sexes were hanged at London:
in other cities of England a very great multitude. The king exacted an
immense sum for the ransom of the Christians, some of whom also were
delivered to the gallows.[121]
=1284.= In this year Bow church, which, as we have seen, witnessed a
great tragedy in 1196, was once more the scene of a terrible affair. It
may be told mainly in the words of Stow:—
In the year 1284, the 13th of Edward I., Laurence Ducket, goldsmith,
having grievously wounded one Ralph Crepin in Westcheape, fled into Bow
church, into the which, in the night time, entered certain evil persons,
friends unto the said Ralph, and slew the said Laurence, lying in the
steeple, and then hanged him up, placing him so by the window as if he
had hanged himself, and so was it found by inquisition: for the which
fact Laurence Ducket, being drawn by the feet, was buried in a ditch
without the City: but shortly after, by relation of a boy, who lay with
the said Laurence at the time of his death, and had hid himself there for
fear, the truth of the matter was disclosed.
Wherefore a certain woman, Alice atte Bowe, the mistress of Crepin, a
clerk, the chief causer of the said mischief, and with her sixteen men,
were imprisoned, and later, Alice was burnt, and seven were drawn and
hanged, to wit, Reginald de Lanfar, Robert Pinnot, Paul de Stybbenheth,
Thomas Corouner, John de Tholosane, Thomas Russel, and Robert Scott.
Ralph Crepin, Jordan Godchep, Gilbert le Clerk and Geoffrey le Clerk were
attainted of the felony and remained prisoners in the Tower. The church
was placed under an interdict by the archbishop: the doors and windows
stopped up with thorns. But the body of Laurence was taken from the place
where it lay, and given burial by the clergy in the churchyard. After a
while, the bishop of Rochester, by command of the archbishop, removed the
interdict.[122]
=1295.= _October 6._ The Treason of Sir Thomas Turberville.
Sir Thomas Turberville, taken prisoner by the French, was released in
order that he might return to England and act as a secret agent for the
French government. He was detected in corresponding with the Provost of
Paris, tried and condemned. This was the manner of his execution: He
came from the Tower, mounted on a poor hack, in a coat of ray, and shod
with white shoes, his head being covered with a hood, and his feet tied
beneath the horse’s belly, and his hands tied before him: and around
him were riding six torturers attired in the form of the devil, one of
whom held his rein, and the hangman his halter, for the horse which bore
him had them both upon it: and in such manner was he led from the Tower
through London to Westminster, and was condemned on the dais in the
Great Hall there: and Sir Robert Brabazun pronounced judgment upon him,
that he should be drawn and hanged, and that he should hang so long as
anything should be left whole of him: and he was drawn on a fresh ox-hide
from Westminster to the Conduit of London in Cheapside, and then back to
the gallows: and there is he hung by a chain of iron, and will hang as
long as anything of him may remain.[123]
Here we have the first mention of drawing on an ox-hide, probably at this
time generally used in such cases. But as shown on p. 28, one of the
chroniclers expressly says that this method of drawing was adopted in the
present case in order that the sufferer should not die too soon.
The place of execution is not mentioned. In a footnote Mr. Riley says
that it was “probably the Elms in West Smithfield,” but, as has been
shown, the probability is all in favour of the Elms of Tyburn.
=1299.= Rishanger reports a strange occurrence not unconnected with our
subject: The King ordered to be brought into the Tower of London all the
iron manacles and chains which could be found in every place in England,
to an inestimable number, but the reason of this was wholly unknown.[124]
=1305.= _August 23._ William Wallace drawn from Westminster to the Tower
and thence to Tyburn, where he was hanged and quartered. In treating of
the punishment for high treason, mention has already been made of the
manner of carrying out the sentence on Wallace, “the man of Belial,”
as he is constantly called in the Chronicles. Wallace was hanged on a
very high gallows, specially made for the occasion. Edward was fond of
high gallows. At the siege of Stirling Castle, in 1300, he caused to be
erected two gallows, sixty feet high, before the gates of the castle,
and swore a great oath (jurra graunt serment) that if surrender was not
at once made, he would hang every one within the castle, were he earl,
baron, or knight, high or low. “On hearing which,” says the chronicler,
“those within at once opened the gates and surrendered to the king, who
pardoned them.”
The place of execution of Wallace was undoubtedly Tyburn. “The Elms” is
mentioned in Chronicles of the reigns of Edward I. and Edward II., ed.
Stubbs, i. 141-2. The sentence bore that Wallace’s head should be exposed
on London Bridge. This is the first recorded instance of a head being
exposed here.[125] In 1283 the head of David III. and of his brother
Llewellyn were fixed on the Tower of London.[126]
=1306.= Two other executions of Scotch leaders followed, both probably
at Tyburn, though the place is not expressly mentioned. Symon Frisel
[Fraser] was brought to London, and then, according to the chronicler,
drawn, on September 7, from the Tower, through the streets to the gallows
as traitor, hanged as thief, beheaded as murderer; then his body was hung
on a gibbet for twenty days, and finally burnt, the head being fixed on
a pole upon London Bridge, near the head of Wallace.
The execution of the earl of Athol followed on November 7. Edward,
grievously ill, found his pains relieved by learning of the capture of
the earl. Athol claimed to be of royal lineage. “If he is of nobler blood
than the other parricides,” said Edward, “he shall be hanged higher than
they.” He was carried to London, and condemned at Westminster. Then, as
being of royal descent, he was not drawn, but rode on horseback to the
place of execution, where he was hanged on a gallows fifty feet high.
Then let down, half alive, so that his torment might be greater, very
cruelly beheaded (the chronicler does not say what was done to make
the beheading unusually cruel), then the body was thrown into a fire
previously kindled in the sight of the sufferer, and reduced to ashes.
Then the head was placed on London Bridge among those of other traitors,
but higher than the rest, in regard to his royal descent.[127]
=1307.= In May, John Wallace was brought to London, condemned as a
traitor and hanged. His head was set on London Bridge near that of
William Wallace.[128]
=1330.= Edward III. was but a boy when crowned in February, 1327. All
power was in the hands of Isabella, his mother, queen of the deposed and
murdered king, Edward II., and of her lover, Roger Mortimer, baron of
Wigmore and earl of March. For the murder of Edward II. the queen-mother
and Mortimer are held to be specially responsible. In 1329 a powerful
confederation was formed to overthrow Mortimer. This was for the time
defeated, but Edward, now eighteen, chafed under his subjection and took
counsel with William de Montacute. It was resolved to seize Mortimer
in the castle of Nottingham, where, during the session of Parliament
held there, Isabella and her lover lodged. Mortimer was well guarded,
and it was necessary to bring into the confederation Sir William Eland,
the governor of the castle. He told the confederates of a subterranean
passage, unknown to Mortimer, and unwatched, through which a sufficient
force could be introduced. The rest of the story may be told in the words
of Stow:—