PUNISHMENT OF EDWARD OF CAERNARVON BY HIS FATHER.--CHARACTER OF EDWARD
I.
(Vol. iv., p. 338.)
I think considerable light is thrown upon this very remarkable incident
by a letter of the prince himself to the Earl of Lincoln, dated
Midhurst, June 14, which appears upon the Roll of that prince's letters
lately discovered at the Chapter House, Westminster. (See _Ninth Report
of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records_, App. II., No. 5.) This
letter has been printed in one of the volumes of the Sussex
Archaeological Society, having been written from that county. For such of
your readers as may not have either of these books at command, I will
give the material part of the letter, translated:
"On Sunday, the 13th of June, we came to Midhurst, where we found
the lord the king, our father; the Monday following, on account of
certain words which, it had been reported to the king, had taken
place _between us and the Bishop of Chester_, he was so enraged
with us that he has forbidden us, or any of our retinue, to dare
to enter his house; and he has forbidden all the people of his
household and of the exchequer to give or lend us anything for the
support of our household. We are staying at Midhurst to wait his
pleasure and favour, and we shall follow after him as well as we
are able, at a distance of ten or twelve miles from his house,
until we have been able to recover his good will, which we very
much desire."
The roll contains several letters which show how seriously the prince
was affected by his father's displeasure, and how the king was appeased.
By the letter above quoted, the "minister" appears to have been the
Bishop of Chester, then treasurer of the royal household. But the
connexion between the prince's case and that of William de Brewosa does
not appear, unless they were on intimate terms, as is not improbable:
and the punishment of the prince himself is, in my opinion, referred to
as a precedent or justification of the punishment imposed upon Brewes.
That the severe punishment so imposed was richly deserved none can doubt
who has read the report on the Roll: but an unfortunate error in the
press[2] makes it appear that the prince, and not De Brewes, was the
culprit, and performed the penance.
[Footnote 2: Page 339. col. 1. line 46., where "Edward" is printed
instead of "William de Brewes."]
To return to the prince's offence and punishment. He appears to have
been nearly starved into submission, as the royal prohibition against
supplying him with articles or money was obliged to be removed by a
Letter Close directed to all the sheriffs, dated Ospring, 22nd July.
The whole transaction is highly characteristic of the firmness of the
king. Whether the prince's letters which I have referred to make out a
case of _harshness_, as regards some other circumstances, I will not now
trouble you with. But while examining cotemporary documents illustrative
of the prince and his correspondents, I met with an entry upon the Close
Roll (33 Edw. I.) too strikingly illustrative of the determination and
caution of Edward I. to be allowed to remain in its present obscurity.
On the 27th November the prince addressed a letter to Master Gerard de
Pecoraria, earnestly begging him to favour and forward the affairs of
Ralph de Baldok, then Bishop Elect of London. The "affairs" in question
were the removal of certain scruples instilled into the Papal ear
against the approval of the bishop elect; a matter generally involving
some diplomacy and much money. Master Gerard was employed by the Pope to
collect various dues in England; and so his good will was worth
obtaining. But the following Letter Close will show how he received his
"quietus," as far as the King of England was concerned:
"The King to Ralph de Sandwich.--By reason of the excessive and
indecent presumption with which Gerard de Pecoraria is making
oppressive levies and collections of money in various places; by
whose authority we know not, for he will not show it; and inasmuch
as the same is highly derogatory to our crown, and injurious to
our people, and many complaints have been made against him on that
account; We command you to take the said Gerard before the Mayor
and Sheriffs of London, and there warn him to cease from making
the said levies, and to quit the kingdom in six days, _provided
that at such warning no public notary be present, so that the
warning be given to the said Gerard alone, no one else hearing.
And be you careful that no one but yourself see this letter, or
get a copy thereof._"
Who can doubt that such a mandate was strictly carried out?