Southern Anthology

Families on the Frontiers of the Old South


Matches 201 to 250 of 2,228

      «Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 45» Next»

 #   Notes   Linked to 
201 BOHUN, HUMPHREY VII de, third Earl of Hereford, and second Earl of Essex (d. 1298), constable of England, was bom about the middle of the thirteenth century, the grandson of Humphrey V [q. v.], second earl, and son of Humphrey V I, wno predeceased his father, 27 Aug. 1265, immediately after the battle of Evesham, at which he was made prisoner, fighting on de Montfort's side. Humphrey VII served in 1286 in the army of occupation in Wales. In 1289 he was found levying private war against the Earl of Gloucester, and was peremptorily ordered to keep the peace. In 1292 he was fined and imprisoned. In 1296-7 he was sent as escort to John, the young earl of Holland, who had lately married the English princess, Elizabeth, and was now returning to his own country to claim his inheritance. The princess, who was only in her fourteenth year, was married two years afterwards to Humphrey de Bohun, the earl's son. From this time to the date of his death Hereford played a conspicuous part, in conjunction with Roger Bigod, fifth earl of Norfolk, in opposing Edward I's measures for arbitrary taxation, and in at length obtaining the confirmation of the charters, being, however, chiefly moved by the alarm given to the barons by Edward's reforms. At the assembly of the magnates at Salisbury early in 1297, he, with Bigod, refused to serve in Gascony on the plea that they were not bound to foreign service except in company with the king [see Bigod, Roger, fifth earl of Norfolk]. At a levy of the military forces of the kingdom, the two earls refused to do their duty as constable and marshal, and were both deprived. The list of grievances which their party then presented was only partially inquired into when Edward sailed for Flanders; but the confirmation of the charters was agreed to by Prince Edward acting as regent, and was allowed by the king himself in Flanders. On Edward's return to England in 1298, he was required by the two earls, as the price of their attendance in the invasion of Scotland, to promise a re-confirmation of the charters. After the battle of Falkirk, 22 July, Hereford had leave to return to England; and soon after he died at Pleshy, in Essex, and was buried at Walden. He married Maud, daughter of Ingelram de Fienes, and was succeeded by his son, Humphrey VIII.

[Chronicles of Will. Rishanger, Th. Walsingham, Walt, de Hemingburgh; Dugdale's Baronage, i. 182 ; Stubbs's Constitutional History.]

E. M. T 
Bohun, Humphrey VII de 3rd Earl Hereford and 2nd Essex, Lord High Constable (I11347)
202 BOHUN, HUMPHREY VIII de, fourth Earl of Hereford, and third Earl of Essex (1276?1322), constable of England, was son of Humphrey VII, third earl of Hereford. He was born in 1276. In 1291 he appears among the barons who addressed the letter of protest to the pope from the parliament of Lincoln. In 1302 he married Elizabeth, daughter of Edward I, and widow of John, earl of Holland, and on the occasion made surrender to the crown of all his lands and title, receiving them back in tail. In a great tournament held at Fulham in 1305 he took a leading part, and again in 1307 he was present at another passage of arms at Wallingford, held against the king's favourite, Piers Gaveston. In 1308 he was sent north, in company with the Earl of Gloucester, to oppose Robert Bruce. The next year he joined with other barons in a letter of remonstrance addressed to the pope. In 1310 Humphrey de Bohun was one of the twenty-one ordainers appointed on 20 March to reform the government and the king's household. The ordinances which they presented were finally accepted in October 1311; but three months later, January 1312, the king recalled his banished favourite, Gaveston. Immediately Thomas, earl of Lancaster, and the confederate barons, including Hereford, took up arms and besieged Gaveston in Scarborough. On 19 May Gaveston surrendered, and was shortly afterwards beheaded by Lancaster's party at Blacklow Hill. Edward was powerless to punish the rebellious lords; negotiations for a peace were opened, and in October 1313 the earls and their followers were pardoned. In 1314 the war with Scotland was renewed, and the battle of Bannockburn was fought on 24 June. Here Gloucester was slain and Hereford taken prisoner. He was exchanged for the wife of Robert Bruce, who had long been a captive in England.

The jealousy of the barons was now moved by the growing power of the two Despensers, father and son. At a parliament held at York, September 1314, Edward was called upon to confirm the ordinances of 1311, and the elder Despenser was removed from the council. In 1315 Hereford was engaged upon the Welsh border, and was successful in quelling a rising. The factions which now sprang up among the barons threatened to bring about a state of civil war, when the movements of Robert Bruce, who had advanced south and captured Berwick, 2 April 1318, compelled the different parties to submit to a reconciliation. A general pardon was granted to Lancaster and his followers, and a new council was appointed August 1318. Of this council Hereford was a member, and he also took part in the military operations against Scotland, which, however, were hampered by Lancaster's perverse refusal to assist. A truce was concluded in 1319.

The feeling against the Despensers now broke out in open revolt. Bohim and Roger Mortimer, the principal lords on the Welsh border, prepared to attack Hugh le Despenser the younger, who held Glamorgan, in the autumn of 1320. Early in the next year the king issued writs forbidding unlawful assemblies; and a parliament was summoned to meet at Westminster on 15 July 1321. Bohun appeared in London at the head of an armed force, and took the lead in denouncing the favourites, who were sentenced to forfeiture and exile. But in October the king appeared in the field, and with unwonted vigour attacked his enemies in detail. They were driven north, and at the battle of Boroughbridge, in Yorkshire, 10 March 1322, they were totally defeated. Hereford was among the slain, and was buried in the church of the Friars Preachers of York.

By his wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Edward I, Humphrey de Bohun had six sons and four daughters. He was succeeded by his second son, John, who, dying in 1335, was followed by his brother, Humphrey IX, as sixth earl. In 1361 Humphrey X, earl of Northampton, succeeded, being the son of William de Bohun, another son of the fourth earl of Hereford. With Humphrey X the title became extinct in 1372, but was revived as a dukedom in 1397, in the person of Henry Bolingbroke, who married Mary, daughter and coheir of the last earl.

[Chronicles of Thomas Walsingham and Walt. Hemingburgh; Dugdale in Baronage, i. 183; Stubbs's Constitutional History.]

E. M. T. 
Bohun, Humphrey VIII de 4th Earl of Hereford and 3rd Essex (I10993)
203 BOHUN, WILLIAM de, Earl of Northampton (d. 1360), was the fifth son of Humphrey de Bohun VIII [q. v.], fourth earl of Hereford, and Elizabeth Plantagenet, daughter of King Edward I, and was a distinguished soldier. He was probably born about 1310. He is said to have taken part with the young king, Edward III, in 1330, in the suppression of Mortimer. In 1337 upon the advancement of Edward, prince of Wales, to the duchy of Cornwall, William de Bohun was created earl of Northampton on 16 March, and received grants of the castle and manor of Stamford and lordship of Grantham, Lincolnshire, and the castles and manors of Fotheringhay, Northamptonshire, and Okeham, Rutlandshire, in male tail. In the same year he was appointed one of the commissioners to treat with Philip of France on Edward's claim to the French crown, and subsequently a commissioner to treat with David Bruce. He took part in Edward's expedition which sailed for Antwerp in July 1388, and in 1340 was present at the naval victory of Sluys on 24 June. In 1342 he was appointed the king's lieutenant and captain-general in Brittany, and defeated the French at Morlaix and took La Roche Qarrien by assault, On the conclusion of a truce for three years he returned to England, and next year accompanied Henry, earl of Lancaster, into Scotland, marching to the relief of Loughmaben Castle, in Dumfriesshire, of which he was governor. He was again in Brittany at the close of the year, and again in 1345 and 1346; and took part in Edward's campaign the latter year, distinguishing himself in a skirmish on the Seine, and being present at the battle of Cressy on 26 August. During the next two years he continued to serve in France, and in 1349 was a commissioner for concluding a truce. In 1350 William de Bohun was appointed warden of the marches towards Scotland, and the next year was appointed to negotiate a peace with that kingdom. In 1352 he was conunissioner of the arrav of troops in Essex and Hertford to oposse the landing of the French. He was again in the north in 1353 and following years, and in 1355 served in the French campaign In 1356 he was commissioned to treat for the ransom of David Bruce, and in 1357-9 was abroad in Gascony. He died 16 Sept. 1360, and was buried at Walden in Essex.

William de Bohun married Elizabeth, daughter of Bartholomew de Badlesmere, and widow of Edmund Mortimer. Hisson, Humphrey, succeeded him, and in 1361, as heir to his uncle Humphrey, earl of Hereford and Essex, united in his person the three earldoms of Hereford, Essex, and Northampton.

[Chronicles of Walt, de Hemingburph and Thos. Walsingham ; Dugdale's Baronage, i. 185.]

E. M. T. 
Bohun, William de 1st Earl of Northampton, KG (I10994)
204 BRAOSE, WILLIAM de (d. 1211), rebel baron, was the descendant and heir of William de Braose (alias Braiose, Breause, Brehus, &c.), lord of Braose, near Falaise in Normandy, who had received great estates in England at the Conquest. The family fixed their seat at Bramber in Sussex, and were lords of its appendant rape. Through his grandmother, a daughter of Judhael de Totnes, lord of Totnes and Barnstaple, William had also a claim to one of those fiefs and through his mother, Bertha, second daughter of Miles and sister of Roger, earls of Hereford, he inherited the vast Welsh dominions of her grandfather, Bernard de Neufmarché [q. v.] He has been confused by Dugdale and Foss with his father and namesake; it was, however, as 'William de Braiose, junior,' that he made (as lord of the honour of Brecon) a grant to Walter de Clifford (Reports, xxxv. 2, but there wrongly dated), and that he tested a charter at Gloucester in 1179 (Mon. Angl. vi. 457), so that his father must have been then alive. It was probably, however, he, and not his father, who in 1176 invited the Welshmen to Abergavenny Castle, and there slew them, nominally in revenge for the death of his uncle Henry de Hereford the previous Easter (Matt. Paris, ii. 297), a crime avenged on Braose's grandson by Llewelyn in 1230 (Ann. Marg. 38). Under Richard I, though withstanding the royal officers on his own estates in Wales, he was sheriff of Herefordshire in 1192-9 (Rot. Pip.), and a justice itinerant for Staffordshire in 1196. In 1195 he was with Richard in Normandy, and in 1196 he secured both Barnstaple and Totnes for himself by an agreement with the other coheir. In 1198 he was beleaguered by the Welsh in Castle Maud (alias Colwyn) in Radnorshire, but relieved by the justiciary, Geoffrey Fitz Piers, who defeated the Welsh in Elvael (Roa. Hov. iv. 53; Matt. Paris, ii. 447). According, however, to the Welsh authorities, Castle Maud was taken, and he fell back on Pains Castle, where he had to save himself by a compromise (Brut y Tywysogion). On John's accession, William was foremost in urging that he should be crowned (Ann. Marg. 24). High in the king's favour, he accompanied him into Normandy in the summer of 1200 (Cart. 2 John, m. 31), and there had a grant of all such lands as he should conquer from the Welsh in increase of his barony of Radnor, and was made sheriff of Herefordshire for 1206-7 (Rot. Pip. 2 John). On 12 Jan. 1201 he obtained the honour of Limerick (without the city), as his uncle Philip had received it in 1172 from Henry II (Cart. 2 John, m. 15), for which he agreed to pay 5,000 marks at the rate of 500 a year (Obl. 2 John, m. 15). This was the origin of the misleading statement [see Butler, Theobald] that John sold him all the land of Philip de Worcester and Theobald Walter (Roe. Hov. iv. 152-3; Walt. Cov. ii. 179-80). He next received (23 Oct. 1202) the custody of Glamorgan Castle (Pat. 4 John, m. 8), and four months later (24 Feb. 1203) he had a grant of Gowerland, which he claimed as his inheritance (Plac. Parl. 30 Ed. I, 234). He was in close attendance on John at the time of Arthur's death, being at Rouen on 1 April (Cart. Ant. [Chancery] 20, 26), and at Falaise on 11 April 1203 (Cart. 4 John, m. 1), but he publicly refused to retain charge of the prince, suspecting that his life was in danger (Bouquet, xvii. 192), and it may have been in order to silence him that he received on 8 July 1203 a grant of the city of Limerick at ferm. He was still at the king's court on 18 Nov. (Cart. 5 John, m. 18). Three years later (16 Dec. 1206) he was placed in possession of Grosmont, Llantilio (or White Castle), and Skenfrith Castles (Cart. 7 John, m. 3), but shortly after his fall began. Its causes and details have always been obscure. The chief authority on the subject is an ex-parte statement put forward by John after William's ruin (i.e. circ. 1211), entered in the ' Red Book ' of the exchequer and printed in Rymer's 'F?dera' (i. 162-3). From this it would appear that the quarrel was pecuniary in its origin. Checking the king's assertions by the evidence of the 'Pipe Rolls,' it is clear that in 1207 (i.e. six years after obtaining the honour of Limerick), he had only paid up 700 marks in all (Pip. 8 John, rot. 6), instead of 500 a year. He was also in arrear for the ferm of Limerick itself, and Mr. Pearson (England in the Middle Ages, ii. 49), on the evidence of the Worcester Annals, holds him to have been suspected of conniving at the capture of the town in Geoffrey Marsh's rebellion: but that rebellion did not take place till later. On his becoming five years in arrear, the crown had recourse to distraint on his English estates. He had, however, removed his stock, and the king's bailiff was then ordered to distrain him in Wales. His friends, however, met the king at Gloucester (i.e. in November 1207), and on their intercession William was allowed to come to him at Hereford, and to surrender his castles of Hay, Brecknock, and Radnor in pledge for his arrears. But he still paid nothing further (Pip. 9 John, rot. 4, dors.), and upon the interdict being laid on England on 26 April 1208, his younger son Giles, bishop of Hereford (since 1200), was one of the five bishops who withdrew to France with the primate (Matt. Paris, ii. 522; Ann. Wig. 396). John, suspecting the conduct of the family, sent to demand hostages of William, but his wife (it is said against his advice) refused them (Matt. Paris, ii. 523-524). Thus committed to resistance, he strove to regain his three castles by surprise, and, failing in this, stormed and sacked Leominster. On the approach of the royal forces he fled with his family into Ireland (ib.; Ann. Wav. 261-2; Mon. Angl. i. 557), whereupon his estates were seized into the king's hands.

In Ireland he was harboured by William Marshall and the Lacys, who promised to surrender him within a certain time, but failed to do so till John's invasion of Ireland became imminent, when he was sent over with a safe-conduct to the court. He came, however, no nearer than Wales, where he harried the country till John's arrival at Pembroke in June 1210; he then offered 40,000 marks for peace and the restoration of his lands. But John declared he must treat with his wife, as the principal, in Ireland. William, refusing to accompany him, remained in Wales in rebellion. His wife, besieged by John in Heath (Matt. Paris, ii.530), fled to Scotland, but was captured in Galloway, with her son and his wife, by Duncan of Carrick, and brought back to John at Carrickfergus by the end of July. John extorted from her a confirmation of her husband's offer, and took her with him to England. William met them at Bristol on 20 Sept. 1210, and finally agreed to pay the 40,000 marks; but as neither he nor his wife would pay anything, he was outlawed in default, and fled from his port of Shoreham in disguise (' quasi mendicus ') to France (Ann. Wav. 265; Ann. Osn. 54). He died at Corbeuil the following year (9 Aug. 1211), and was buried the next day in St. Victor's Abbey, Paris (Matt. Paris, ii. 532), by Stephen Langton, the exiled primate (Ann. Marg. 31). His wife, Maud de St. Valerie, or De Haye, to whose arrogance his fall was largely attributed, was imprisoned, with her eldest son, by John in Windsor Castle, where they are said to have been starved to death (Ann. Wav. 265; Ann. Osn. 54). Matthew Paris (ii. 531) states, but erroneously, that the son's wife shared their fate, while Mr. Pearson (England in the Middle Ages, p. 53, n.} denies even the mother's death, on the ground that she appears as living in 1220 (Royal Letters, i. 136); but the Maud there mentioned was clearly her son's wife (as is proved by Coram rege roll Mich. 3 Hen. III, No. 1, m. 2, Sussex), who, with the third son Reginald, had escaped capture.

The second son, the bishop of Hereford, returned to England with the primate on 16 July 1214, and paid a fine of 9,000 marks for his father's lands on 21 Oct. 1215 (Pat. VI John, m. 14). As he died very soon after, John allowed the lands to pass without further fine to the third son Reginald on 26 May 1216 (Pat. 18 John, m. 9), who also, under Henry III, recovered the Irish estates.

William's daughter, Margaret, married Walter de Lacy, and on 10 Oct. 1216 received a license' to found a religious house for the souls of her mother Maud and her brother William, the victims of John's revenge.

[Matthew Paris (ed. Luard); Annales Monastici (Rolls Series); Chronica R. Hovedeni (ib.); Brut y Ty wysogion (ib.); Shirley's Royal Letters (ib.); Pipe Rolls temp. John; Charter and Patent Rolls; Reports of the Deputy-keeper; Rymer's F?dera; Monasticon Anglieanum; Dugdale's Baronage; Genealogist, vol. iv.]

J. H. R. 
de Briouse, William III 4th Lord of Bramber (I11334)


Partial reports of a terrible occurrence near the line of the Mobile and Montgomery Railroad reached us by telegraph from the Junction on Tuesday morning. Yesterday we were called upon by Mr. W.J. VAN KIRK, of Millvue, a surveyor, who was on duty near the scene of the tragedy, but not a witness to its occurrence. He visited the battleground, however, was present at the funeral of the victims, and gave us an intelligent report of the dreadful affair. Greenberry BRYERS and James HADLEY, two men of considerable means and both large owners of stock, had been at feud for some years in consequence of misunderstandings caused by the intermixing of their cattle which "used" in the same range. On Monday, BRYERS, Sr., with his son, Larry, was plowing about 150 yards from the house, when HADLEY, Sr., accompanied by a party of five others comprising his son, "Dink", two other sons, and his sons-in-law, Bud PRICHER and Thomas STEWART, all armed with shotguns, rode up near the fence and said they had "come to settle the matter". BRYERS and his son were unarmed, but the father, after some angry words had been exchanged, caught up a piece of pine root, a foot and a half long, and getting over the fence, his son following him, advanced toward the party. As he approached them he was shot down and instantly killed, and his son who ran to his father as he fell was instantly killed. Joseph BRYERS then came out of the house with a double barrel shotgun, but both barrels missed fire and he was shot dead. Meanwhile Dink HADLEY rode toward the house, sprang from his horse and got behind a pine tree to await the coming of another son, John BRYERS, who advanced from the house under fire with two guns. He dropped one of them and sprang to a post in the road which did not shelter more than a third of his person, and exchanged fires with Dink HADLEY about thirty yards off, the rest of the attacking party meanwhile firing on him from a distance. At his second fire HADLEY fell, and attempted to reload, but seeing BRYERS run back and get his other gun he scrambled upon his horse and rejoined his party and rode away with them, John firing into them as they left and wounding old HADLEY in the shoulder. Dink HADLEY's wound was in the knee. John was wounded in the head, arm and foot, but not dangerously? While the fight was going on near the house, Wylie, the youngest son of the BRYERS family, ran to where his father and brother Larry had fallen and was shot down, the wound being in the thigh and dangerous. The summary of the affair is a father and two sons murdered and two sons wounded, on one side; and on the other, a father and one son wounded. We are told that Mr. BRYERS was much respected being a leading man in religious affairs in the neighborhood, and that HADLEY had always been deemed a respectable person. The dead were buried on Tuesday, a large assemblage being present? Tuesday a posse of men, provided with warrants for the arrest of the murderers, went to the HADLEY settlement but found their residences deserted. The locality of these occurrences is near the Florida line, four miles west of Perdido station, or about midway between the Junction and Tensas Bridge.

-Pensacola Gazette

Source: Birmingham Iron Age, July 29, 1875

* * * *

The details of Green Berry's death are recounted at Hadley v. Alabama, 55 Ala. 31 (Ala. 1876):

Supreme Court of Alabama.
Hadley v. The State.
December Term, 1876.

Indictment for Murder.
FROM the Circuit Court of Baldwin.
Tried before the Hon. H. T. TOULMIN.

*1 The defendants in this case, James Hadley and James M. Hadley, were jointly indicted and tried, together with Jesse Hadley, Thomas Stewart, and Howell Pitcher, for the murder of Green B. Bryars; pleaded not guilty to the indictment; were convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of ten years, while a verdict of not guilty was returned as to the other defendants. The circumstances attending the homicide, as disclosed by the evidence adduced on the trial, are thus stated in the bill of exceptions: "There was evidence tending to show, on the part of the State, that the parties lived about seven miles apart in the northern part of Baldwin county, and were stock-raisers; that on the Saturday before the killing they (that is, James Hadley, James M. Hadley, Jesse Hadley, and Green B. Bryars) were together at the house of said Green B. Bryars, and were friendly, and parted friendly, to meet again on Monday morning, and to go to a fork two or three miles from the house, to drive out some sheep belonging to Hadley, and separate them from the sheep of said Bryars. On Monday morning, all five of the defendants came to the fence of one of Bryars's lots, which was near the road leading from, and about one hundred yards from his house. All of them were mounted except one, and all armed with guns, and were first outside of the fence, opposite said Green B. Bryars, who stood by his plow, just inside of his lot, where he had been plowing before the defendants came up. Larry Bryars, one of his sons, had been to the house for water, and had just returned to his father, whom he had been helping to plow, as the defendants came up, and was standing outside of the fence, a few steps from his father. Wiley J. Bryars, another son, came from the house towards the place where his father and the defendants were; and when he came within about thirty steps of them, the deceased had left his plow, and got over the fence, and walked a few steps in the direction of the house, when he called out, 'Boys, come here.' This call attracted the attention of John and Joseph Bryars, who were at the house, and of his wife and daughter, Mrs. Elizabeth Bryars and Bettie Bryars, who were in the yard, near the gate. Immediately on the deceased calling for his boys, the defendants dismounted from their horses, and James Hadley, being about five steps from the deceased, leveled his gun at the deceased, and shot him with both barrels. The deceased fell instantly; and about the same time, James M. Hadley shot him with one barrel of his gun, and then shot the other barrel at Larry, who stood near his father; from which shot Larry fell. About the same time, all the other defendants pointed their guns in the direction of Larry and Wiley, who were in the same direction from the defendants, and fired; Larry being then down on the ground, and Wiley going towards the house. Wiley was shot in the back of the thigh and head. The deceased, Green B. Bryars, Larry, and Wiley, were dressed in their working clothes, were in their shirtsleeves, and had no arms or weapons of any sort. The evidence tended to show that the deceased, at the time he was shot, had in his left hand a small stick, about two feet long, and an inch and a half in diameter. Very soon after this shooting, Joseph Bryars started from the house, with his gun, and had reached within about fifty yards of the defendants, when he was shot in the head, and killed; and the evidence tended to show that he did not fire his gun. John Bryars was advancing a short distance behind Joseph, with two guns, and he received a shot in the arm. He immediately returned the fire, discharging both barrels of his gun, and turned to get the other gun, which he had put down, when he received a second shot in the foot. Green B. Bryars, Larry Bryars, and Joseph Bryars were all killed, and Wiley and John wounded, in a few moments of time, and within a short time, not exceeding ten minutes, after the defendants arrived there. The defendants remounted their horses, and left in the direction whence they came; and the evidence tended to show that they went towards the house of James Hadley, and from there to the woods. One Renfro testified, on the part of the State, that the defendant Pitcher was in his employ, getting timber, and came by his camp about sunrise on the morning of the killing, and told him 'that he was going to fight a duel with old man Bryars that morning, and would be back to his work about twelve o'clock that day'; that said Pitcher then left his camp, with a gun, and went in the direction of Bryars's house, which was two or three miles distant. The killing took place about eight o'clock in the morning.

*2 There was evidence tending to show, on the part of the defense, that the defendants were at the house of said Bryars on the Saturday before the killing, and, in a conversation between him and James Hadley, reference was made to a dispute previously existing, about a sheep of Hadley's, which Bryars said Hadley had accused him of marking; and Bryars insisted on his retracting the charge, and admitting it to be a falsehood; while Hadley denied that he had said Bryars had stolen his sheep, but only that Bryars had made a mistake in marking one of his sheep. At the solicitation of James M. Hadley, they made friends, and parted as friends, and agreed to come Monday morning, and get Hadley's sheep out of 'the fork'; James Hadley saying that he would send the boys, and, Bryars insisting that he should come too, he then consented to come. Immediately after they had left, Green B. Bryars said, in the presence of one Weakley, 'James Hadley seems like he wanted to compromise and make friends; but he can't make friends with me on any consideration, unless he acknowledges that he told a lie on me. He thinks he is coming here Monday to get them sheep, but he can't do it: he either has to acknowledge he told a lie, or fight.' Larry Bryars said to a friend on Sunday evening, when taking leave of him, 'I don't know that you'll ever see me any more. The Hadleys are coming on Monday to get them sheep; but old Jim will have to take back what he said, and admit he told a lie, or there will be a fight,' or 'a fuss.' Joseph Bryars said, on Sunday, that he could not go to the house of one King, his brother-in-law, 'because the Hadleys were coming to the house on Monday morning, and there would be hell.' There was evidence tending to show on the part of the defendants, by three witnesses, that when they started Monday morning, they were prepared and furnished with provisions for two days and one night in camp; that two of them were to drive home some sheep, and the others were after cattle; that Bryars was in the field when they rode up to the fence, and advanced towards them, with a pine root, about two and a half feet long, and one and a half or two inches in diameter, and jumped on the fence with it, calling towards the house, 'Come on, boys,' or 'Come with your guns, boys,' and attacked James Hadley with the stick; and that at the same time, while Hadley was backing his mule out of the way, several discharges of guns were made to and towards the defendants from persons on the premises of Bryars, and James Hadley and James M. Hadley were shot, and the clothes of the other defendants were a good deal cut by shot; and that Green B. Bryars was not shot, nor either of the others, until after this assault and these discharges from the Bryarses, and that twelve or fifteen shots were fired in two or three minutes. There was evidence on the part of the defendants, also, tending to show that Mrs. Elizabeth Bryars, on the evening after the difficulty and the death of Green B. Bryars, made statements of details of the rencontre different from those made by her as as witness on the trial."

*3 "D. C. Byrne, a justice of the peace in said county, who was examined as a witness for the defense, testified, that he is a native of said county, and had known Hadley all his life, who is also a native of the county, and lives about eight miles from him; that he did not know the reputation of the defendants in the community in which they live, but had never known or heard anything against them, and until this occurrence had never heard his character for peaceableness discussed; that of his own knowledge he knew nothing against them; that James Hadley, so far as he knew, was a peaceable, good man, but he could not say what his reputation for peaceableness was in the neighborhood in which he lived. The court thereupon ruled, on motion of the State, that said witness was not competent to testify as to
the character of said Hadley, and excluded his evidence from the jury; to which ruling the defendants excepted." "When John B. Bryars was offered as a witness on the part of the State, the defendants objected to his competency as a witness, and offered to show that he was a son of the deceased, and a brother of Larry and Joseph Bryars, and had brought an action of attachment in the Circuit Court of said county for $10,000 damages, for an assault and battery on him at the time and place the deceased was killed, against all the defendants, which action was still pending. The court overruled the objection, and allowed the witness to testify; to which ruling the defendants excepted. The defendants offered to prove, on cross- examination of said witness, that he was the plaintiff in a suit against them for an assault and battery committed on him by them, being the same suit mentioned above; but the court sustained an objection to this evidence on the part of the State, and the defendants excepted. The defendants also objected to the examination of Mrs. Elizabeth Bryars, the widow of the deceased, as a witness for the State, on the ground of incompetency, and offered to show that she, as the administratrix of said deceased, had brought an action in said court against all these defendants, for $20,000 damages for the wrongful killing of said deceased, and had also brought another action in said court, as next friend for Wiley Bryars, her son, to recover $10,000 damages for an assault and battery committed on him by them at the same time and place; which said actions are still pending in said court. The court overruled the objection, and allowed the witness to testify; to which the defendants excepted. The defendants also offered to prove these facts on cross-examination of said witness, but the court sustained an objection to said evidence by the State; to which the defendants also excepted." Similar objections were made to the testimony of Wiley J. Bryars, and exceptions duly reserved to the overruling of them. "John Bryars, Wiley J. Bryars, Mrs. Elizabeth Bryars, and Bettie Bryars, were the witnesses for the State who testified as to the facts of the rencontre. After the evidence for the State was closed, the defendants offered to show the same facts as to said pending suits, claiming $70,000 in all, separately, and all together as to each of them, and to produce the full record in each case, and that their attorneys in said suits were also their attorneys in this case. But the court refused to permit the defendants to prove any or all of these facts, and excluded them from the jury; to which ruling of the court the defendants excepted."

*4 "The court charged the jury, among other things, as follows: 'If one man shoot another with a gun, or other deadly weapon, and death ensues, the law implies, or considers, or presumes, that the act was done maliciously, and imposes upon the slayer the burthen of rebutting this presumption, unless the evidence which proves the killing itself shows it to have been done without malice. Hence, if you believe, from the evidence, that the prisoners at the bar shot Green B. Bryars with a shot gun, or other deadly weapon, and thereby caused his death, the law presumes that the act was done maliciously, and imposes upon the prisoners the burthen of rebutting this presumption, unless the evidence which proves the killing itself shows it to have been done without malice. Now, then, if you believe from the evidence that the prisoners took the life of Green B. Bryars with a shot gun, or other deadly weapon, willfully, deliberately, maliciously, and premeditatedly, as tested by what I have said to you, and you find that it was done in this county, and before the finding of this indictment, they would be guilty of murder in the first degree, and it would be your duty so to find them. Should you find them guilty of murder in the first degree,' etc. To this charge the defendants excepted."

ALEX. MCKINSTRY and D. C. ANDERSON, for the defendants, cited the following authorities:

1. As to error in the charge of the court--Wharton's Criminal Law, vol 1, §§ 711, 712; Wharton on Homicide, § 671; Stokes v. People, 53 N. Y. 164; Ogletree v. The State, 28 Ala. 701; Oliver v. The State, 17 Ala. 587; Martin v. The State, 47 Ala. 564; Harrington v. The State, 45 Ala. 82; Maher v. The People, 10
Mich. 212-25; Hurd v. The People, 25 Mich. 416.

2. As to the admissibility of Byrne's testimony as to the character of the deceased--1 Phil. Ev. 468-9, 471; 3 Ib. 482; 22 Ala. 37-41; 31 Ala. 320; 40 Ala. 211; 7 Car. & P. 298.

3. As to the admissibility of the records of the pending civil suits, for the purposes for which they were offered--1 Stew. 399; 9 Porter, 126; 31 Ala. 32; 40 Ala. 204; 43 Ala. 339; 47 Ala. 607; 2 Halst. 220, 234.

JNO. W. A. SANFORD, Attorney-General, for the State.


Mr. Wharton, the able author of the works on Criminal Law, and on Homicide, has contributed an article to the "Forum," April number, 1875, in which he attempts to show that there has been a revolution in criminal law, in the matter of presumed malice. In his work on Homicide, 2d ed., § 671, he asserts the same doctrine, and says, "If it be said that the use of a weapon, likely to inflict a mortal blow, implies, as a presumption of law, in its technical sense, a deadly design, this is an error; and a fortiori is it so, when it is said the use of such a weapon implies a malicious design."

*5 Malice, design, and motive, are, as a rule, but inferential facts. They are inferred from facts and circumstances, positively proven. If direct, positive proof of them were required, it could rarely be given. Still, we know they exist; and when sufficient facts are in evidence to justify us in drawing such inference, we rest as securely in the conviction, as if it were forced upon us by positive proof. The measure of evidence, however, to justify such abiding conviction, must be very full,--so full as to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis.

That every one must be held to intend the known onsequences of his intentional act, is a recognized canon of moral accountability, and of municipal law. Malice, as an ingredient of murder, is but a formed design, by a sane mind, to take life unlawfully, without such impending danger, to be averted thereby, as will render it excusable, and without such provocation as will repel the imputation of formed design. Hence, when life is taken by the direct use of a deadly weapon, the canon, stated above, comes to its aid; and, if there be nothing else in the transaction--no qualifying or explanatory circumstance--the conclusion is irresistible, that the killing was done pursuant to a formed design; in other words, with malice aforethought; for malice, in such connection, is but the absence of impending peril to life or member, which would excuse the homicide, and of sufficient provocation to repel the imputation of its existence.

In Foster's Crown Law, it is said, "In every charge of murder, the fact of killing being first proved, all the circumstances of accident, necessity, or infirmity, are to be satisfactorily proved by the prisoner, unless they arise out of the evidence produced against him; for the law presumeth the fact to have been founded in malice, until the contrary appeareth; and very right it is that the law should so presume." The same doctrine is affirmed in all the older writers and adjudications on criminal law.

Sir Wm. Blackstone (4 Com. 201) says: "We may take it for a general rule, that all homicide is malicious, and, of course, amounts to murder, unless when justified, excused, or alleviated into manslaughter; and all these circumstances of justification, excuse, or alleviation, it is incumbent on the prisoner to make out to the satisfaction of the court and jury."

In the case of Webster v. Commonwealth, 5 Cush. 206, the case stood on the naked proof of the homicide, without any of the attendant circumstances. Ch. J. Shaw declared the law as above quoted.

The case of People v. Schryver, 42 N. Y. 1, is a very careful and full collection and collation of authorities, English and American, and fully sustains the doctrine above declared. See, also, Tweedy v. State, 5 Iowa, 433; Silvus v. State, 22 Ohio St. 90. The case of Stokes v. The People, 53 N. Y. 164, properly understood, is not materially opposed to this view. The charge of the judge in that case invaded the province of the jury; and, in addition to this, the case was made to turn materially on the statutes of New York. The charge in that case went much beyond the principle above copied from the old authors.

*6 The charge in the present case is precisely that which was given in the case of Murphy v. The State, 37 Ala. 142. In that case, this court held, that the charge was free from error. We are unwilling to depart from that decision, and, in doing so, from an old landmark which has, for centuries, withstood the test of time, and the combined wisdom of jurists on both sides of the Atlantic. There is a lamentable and growing laxity in the administration of the criminal law, which is seen and deplored by all good men. Life is not sufficiently cared for; its destruction not punished with sufficient severity. Until the reckless and rash are taught, by firm judges and stern juries, that the slayer of his brother can invoke the shield of elf-defense, only when, without sufficient provocation from him, his life was in peril, or his body exposed to grievous injury; that homicide by him cannot be mitigated to the lesser offense of manslaughter, unless the jury are convinced that the killing was unpremeditated, and the result of sudden passion, excited by present injury more grievous than words--we fear that the calendar of bloody crimes is destined to know no diminution in its numbers. The terrors of certain punishment are the only sure means of restraining the evil-minded.

2. The evidence offered of the character of the accused was properly rejected. The witness admitted he did not know the general character of the prisoner in the neighborhood in which he lived. Such knowledge is a necessary predicate to the introduction of evidence of character. 1 Brick. Dig. 513, §§ 910, 914. This knowledge of general character may be acquired, and frequently is, without hearing the subject discussed by a majority of the neighbors. Still, the witness must be able to say he knows the general character, before he can be allowed to speak of it.

3. We can perceive no principle, or reason, why the records of the civil suits, offered in evidence, should have been received. They could not have shed any legitimate light on the merits of the renco

Bryars, Green Berry (I0674)


Partial reports of a terrible occurrence near the line of the Mobile and Montgomery Railroad reached us by telegraph from the Junction on Tuesday morning. Yesterday we were called upon by Mr. W.J. VAN KIRK, of Millvue, a surveyor, who was on duty near the scene of the tragedy, but not a witness to its occurrence. He visited the battleground, however, was present at the funeral of the victims, and gave us an intelligent report of the dreadful affair. Greenberry BRYERS and James HADLEY, two men of considerable means and both large owners of stock, had been at feud for some years in consequence of misunderstandings caused by the intermixing of their cattle which "used" in the same range. On Monday, BRYERS, Sr., with his son, Larry, was plowing about 150 yards from the house, when HADLEY, Sr., accompanied by a party of five others comprising his son, "Dink", two other sons, and his sons-in-law, Bud PRICHER and Thomas STEWART, all armed with shotguns, rode up near the fence and said they had "come to settle the matter". BRYERS and his son were unarmed, but the father, after some angry words had been exchanged, caught up a piece of pine root, a foot and a half long, and getting over the fence, his son following him, advanced toward the party. As he approached them he was shot down and instantly killed, and his son who ran to his father as he fell was instantly killed. Joseph BRYERS then came out of the house with a double barrel shotgun, but both barrels missed fire and he was shot dead. Meanwhile Dink HADLEY rode toward the house, sprang from his horse and got behind a pine tree to await the coming of another son, John BRYERS, who advanced from the house under fire with two guns. He dropped one of them and sprang to a post in the road which did not shelter more than a third of his person, and exchanged fires with Dink HADLEY about thirty yards off, the rest of the attacking party meanwhile firing on him from a distance. At his second fire HADLEY fell, and attempted to reload, but seeing BRYERS run back and get his other gun he scrambled upon his horse and rejoined his party and rode away with them, John firing into them as they left and wounding old HADLEY in the shoulder. Dink HADLEY's wound was in the knee. John was wounded in the head, arm and foot, but not dangerously? While the fight was going on near the house, Wylie, the youngest son of the BRYERS family, ran to where his father and brother Larry had fallen and was shot down, the wound being in the thigh and dangerous. The summary of the affair is a father and two sons murdered and two sons wounded, on one side; and on the other, a father and one son wounded. We are told that Mr. BRYERS was much respected being a leading man in religious affairs in the neighborhood, and that HADLEY had always been deemed a respectable person. The dead were buried on Tuesday, a large assemblage being present? Tuesday a posse of men, provided with warrants for the arrest of the murderers, went to the HADLEY settlement but found their residences deserted. The locality of these occurrences is near the Florida line, four miles west of Perdido station, or about midway between the Junction and Tensas Bridge.

-Pensacola Gazette

Source: Birmingham Iron Age, July 29, 1875

* * * *

The details of Green Berry's death are recounted at Hadley v. Alabama, 55 Ala. 31 (Ala. 1876):

Supreme Court of Alabama.
Hadley v. The State.
December Term, 1876.

Indictment for Murder.
FROM the Circuit Court of Baldwin.
Tried before the Hon. H. T. TOULMIN.

*1 The defendants in this case, James Hadley and James M. Hadley, were jointly indicted and tried, together with Jesse Hadley, Thomas Stewart, and Howell Pitcher, for the murder of Green B. Bryars; pleaded not guilty to the indictment; were convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of ten years, while a verdict of not guilty was returned as to the other defendants. The circumstances attending the homicide, as disclosed by the evidence adduced on the trial, are thus stated in the bill of exceptions: "There was evidence tending to show, on the part of the State, that the parties lived about seven miles apart in the northern part of Baldwin county, and were stock-raisers; that on the Saturday before the killing they (that is, James Hadley, James M. Hadley, Jesse Hadley, and Green B. Bryars) were together at the house of said Green B. Bryars, and were friendly, and parted friendly, to meet again on Monday morning, and to go to a fork two or three miles from the house, to drive out some sheep belonging to Hadley, and separate them from the sheep of said Bryars. On Monday morning, all five of the defendants came to the fence of one of Bryars's lots, which was near the road leading from, and about one hundred yards from his house. All of them were mounted except one, and all armed with guns, and were first outside of the fence, opposite said Green B. Bryars, who stood by his plow, just inside of his lot, where he had been plowing before the defendants came up. Larry Bryars, one of his sons, had been to the house for water, and had just returned to his father, whom he had been helping to plow, as the defendants came up, and was standing outside of the fence, a few steps from his father. Wiley J. Bryars, another son, came from the house towards the place where his father and the defendants were; and when he came within about thirty steps of them, the deceased had left his plow, and got over the fence, and walked a few steps in the direction of the house, when he called out, 'Boys, come here.' This call attracted the attention of John and Joseph Bryars, who were at the house, and of his wife and daughter, Mrs. Elizabeth Bryars and Bettie Bryars, who were in the yard, near the gate. Immediately on the deceased calling for his boys, the defendants dismounted from their horses, and James Hadley, being about five steps from the deceased, leveled his gun at the deceased, and shot him with both barrels. The deceased fell instantly; and about the same time, James M. Hadley shot him with one barrel of his gun, and then shot the other barrel at Larry, who stood near his father; from which shot Larry fell. About the same time, all the other defendants pointed their guns in the direction of Larry and Wiley, who were in the same direction from the defendants, and fired; Larry being then down on the ground, and Wiley going towards the house. Wiley was shot in the back of the thigh and head. The deceased, Green B. Bryars, Larry, and Wiley, were dressed in their working clothes, were in their shirtsleeves, and had no arms or weapons of any sort. The evidence tended to show that the deceased, at the time he was shot, had in his left hand a small stick, about two feet long, and an inch and a half in diameter. Very soon after this shooting, Joseph Bryars started from the house, with his gun, and had reached within about fifty yards of the defendants, when he was shot in the head, and killed; and the evidence tended to show that he did not fire his gun. John Bryars was advancing a short distance behind Joseph, with two guns, and he received a shot in the arm. He immediately returned the fire, discharging both barrels of his gun, and turned to get the other gun, which he had put down, when he received a second shot in the foot. Green B. Bryars, Larry Bryars, and Joseph Bryars were all killed, and Wiley and John wounded, in a few moments of time, and within a short time, not exceeding ten minutes, after the defendants arrived there. The defendants remounted their horses, and left in the direction whence they came; and the evidence tended to show that they went towards the house of James Hadley, and from there to the woods. One Renfro testified, on the part of the State, that the defendant Pitcher was in his employ, getting timber, and came by his camp about sunrise on the morning of the killing, and told him 'that he was going to fight a duel with old man Bryars that morning, and would be back to his work about twelve o'clock that day'; that said Pitcher then left his camp, with a gun, and went in the direction of Bryars's house, which was two or three miles distant. The killing took place about eight o'clock in the morning.

*2 There was evidence tending to show, on the part of the defense, that the defendants were at the house of said Bryars on the Saturday before the killing, and, in a conversation between him and James Hadley, reference was made to a dispute previously existing, about a sheep of Hadley's, which Bryars said Hadley had accused him of marking; and Bryars insisted on his retracting the charge, and admitting it to be a falsehood; while Hadley denied that he had said Bryars had stolen his sheep, but only that Bryars had made a mistake in marking one of his sheep. At the solicitation of James M. Hadley, they made friends, and parted as friends, and agreed to come Monday morning, and get Hadley's sheep out of 'the fork'; James Hadley saying that he would send the boys, and, Bryars insisting that he should come too, he then consented to come. Immediately after they had left, Green B. Bryars said, in the presence of one Weakley, 'James Hadley seems like he wanted to compromise and make friends; but he can't make friends with me on any consideration, unless he acknowledges that he told a lie on me. He thinks he is coming here Monday to get them sheep, but he can't do it: he either has to acknowledge he told a lie, or fight.' Larry Bryars said to a friend on Sunday evening, when taking leave of him, 'I don't know that you'll ever see me any more. The Hadleys are coming on Monday to get them sheep; but old Jim will have to take back what he said, and admit he told a lie, or there will be a fight,' or 'a fuss.' Joseph Bryars said, on Sunday, that he could not go to the house of one King, his brother-in-law, 'because the Hadleys were coming to the house on Monday morning, and there would be hell.' There was evidence tending to show on the part of the defendants, by three witnesses, that when they started Monday morning, they were prepared and furnished with provisions for two days and one night in camp; that two of them were to drive home some sheep, and the others were after cattle; that Bryars was in the field when they rode up to the fence, and advanced towards them, with a pine root, about two and a half feet long, and one and a half or two inches in diameter, and jumped on the fence with it, calling towards the house, 'Come on, boys,' or 'Come with your guns, boys,' and attacked James Hadley with the stick; and that at the same time, while Hadley was backing his mule out of the way, several discharges of guns were made to and towards the defendants from persons on the premises of Bryars, and James Hadley and James M. Hadley were shot, and the clothes of the other defendants were a good deal cut by shot; and that Green B. Bryars was not shot, nor either of the others, until after this assault and these discharges from the Bryarses, and that twelve or fifteen shots were fired in two or three minutes. There was evidence on the part of the defendants, also, tending to show that Mrs. Elizabeth Bryars, on the evening after the difficulty and the death of Green B. Bryars, made statements of details of the rencontre different from those made by her as as witness on the trial."

*3 "D. C. Byrne, a justice of the peace in said county, who was examined as a witness for the defense, testified, that he is a native of said county, and had known Hadley all his life, who is also a native of the county, and lives about eight miles from him; that he did not know the reputation of the defendants in the community in which they live, but had never known or heard anything against them, and until this occurrence had never heard his character for peaceableness discussed; that of his own knowledge he knew nothing against them; that James Hadley, so far as he knew, was a peaceable, good man, but he could not say what his reputation for peaceableness was in the neighborhood in which he lived. The court thereupon ruled, on motion of the State, that said witness was not competent to testify as to
the character of said Hadley, and excluded his evidence from the jury; to which ruling the defendants excepted." "When John B. Bryars was offered as a witness on the part of the State, the defendants objected to his competency as a witness, and offered to show that he was a son of the deceased, and a brother of Larry and Joseph Bryars, and had brought an action of attachment in the Circuit Court of said county for $10,000 damages, for an assault and battery on him at the time and place the deceased was killed, against all the defendants, which action was still pending. The court overruled the objection, and allowed the witness to testify; to which ruling the defendants excepted. The defendants offered to prove, on cross- examination of said witness, that he was the plaintiff in a suit against them for an assault and battery committed on him by them, being the same suit mentioned above; but the court sustained an objection to this evidence on the part of the State, and the defendants excepted. The defendants also objected to the examination of Mrs. Elizabeth Bryars, the widow of the deceased, as a witness for the State, on the ground of incompetency, and offered to show that she, as the administratrix of said deceased, had brought an action in said court against all these defendants, for $20,000 damages for the wrongful killing of said deceased, and had also brought another action in said court, as next friend for Wiley Bryars, her son, to recover $10,000 damages for an assault and battery committed on him by them at the same time and place; which said actions are still pending in said court. The court overruled the objection, and allowed the witness to testify; to which the defendants excepted. The defendants also offered to prove these facts on cross-examination of said witness, but the court sustained an objection to said evidence by the State; to which the defendants also excepted." Similar objections were made to the testimony of Wiley J. Bryars, and exceptions duly reserved to the overruling of them. "John Bryars, Wiley J. Bryars, Mrs. Elizabeth Bryars, and Bettie Bryars, were the witnesses for the State who testified as to the facts of the rencontre. After the evidence for the State was closed, the defendants offered to show the same facts as to said pending suits, claiming $70,000 in all, separately, and all together as to each of them, and to produce the full record in each case, and that their attorneys in said suits were also their attorneys in this case. But the court refused to permit the defendants to prove any or all of these facts, and excluded them from the jury; to which ruling of the court the defendants excepted."

*4 "The court charged the jury, among other things, as follows: 'If one man shoot another with a gun, or other deadly weapon, and death ensues, the law implies, or considers, or presumes, that the act was done maliciously, and imposes upon the slayer the burthen of rebutting this presumption, unless the evidence which proves the killing itself shows it to have been done without malice. Hence, if you believe, from the evidence, that the prisoners at the bar shot Green B. Bryars with a shot gun, or other deadly weapon, and thereby caused his death, the law presumes that the act was done maliciously, and imposes upon the prisoners the burthen of rebutting this presumption, unless the evidence which proves the killing itself shows it to have been done without malice. Now, then, if you believe from the evidence that the prisoners took the life of Green B. Bryars with a shot gun, or other deadly weapon, willfully, deliberately, maliciously, and premeditatedly, as tested by what I have said to you, and you find that it was done in this county, and before the finding of this indictment, they would be guilty of murder in the first degree, and it would be your duty so to find them. Should you find them guilty of murder in the first degree,' etc. To this charge the defendants excepted."  
Hadley, James (I7570)
207 CATHERINE of Arragon (1485-1536), first queen of Henry VIII, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, was born at Alcala de Henares on 15 or 16 Dec. 1485. She was the youngest of a family of one son and four daughters, and at her birth her parents had already done much to consolidate their united kingdoms by victories over the Moors. Henry VII of England, who had obtained possession by conquest of an insecure throne in the very year she was born, naturally sought the alliance of sovereigns whose affairs seemed so prosperous, and his eldest son Arthur, born in September 1486, could hardly have been much more than a year old when he was proposed by his father as a future husband for their youngest daughter. They sent commissioners to England to negotiate as early as 1488. A return embassy sent by Henry VII to Spain met with a magnificent reception at Medina del Campo; but for many years nothing was positively concluded, as it was Ferdinand's object to bind the king of England to make war in his behalf against France without incurring any corresponding obligation himself. In truth, Ferdinand was not well enough assured of the stability of Henry's throne to be willing to commit himself irrevocably.

Catherine was in her fifth year when her sister Isabel was betrothed at Seville to Don Alfonso of Portugal on 18 April 1490. She and her other sisters, Juana and Mary, were present at the ceremony (Bernaldez, i. 279, 280; Mariana, ed. 1780, ii. 587).

In 1492, when the Moors were driven out of Granada, she entered the city with her parents, and it became her home. From Granada came the device of the pomegranate so well known afterwards in England in connection with her. Her education, especially in Latin, was personally superintended by her mother, and in later years Erasmus bore witness to her scholarship. All difficulties as to the match with Arthur had been finally cleared away in 1500, when the bridegroom had completed his fourteenth year. She left Granada on 21 May 1501, and embarked at Corunna on 17 Aug. After many delays from contrary winds she reached Plymouth on 2 Oct.

Great preparations had been made for her reception. Lord Broke, steward of the king's household, was despatched into the west to provide for her retinue; and afterwards the Earl of Surrey and the Duchess of Norfolk were sent to attend her. The king himself on 4 Nov. removed from Richmond to go and meet her, but, owing to bad weather and doubtless equally bad roads, he was compelled the first night to find a lodging at Chertsey. Next day his son, Prince Arthur, met him at Easthampstead, and proceeded in his father's company to meet his bride. The meeting took place at Dogmersfield in Hampshire, where the prince and his father conversed with her through the medium of two Spanish hishops, who interpreted 'the speeches of both countries' by means of Latin. A formal betrothal then took place, and the whole party returned towards London, which Catherine entered on 12 Nov. On Sunday the 14th the marriage was celebrated at St. Paul's, and jousts were held on the Thursday after, at Westminster, in honour of the event.

It was necessary in those days for a prince of Wales to justify his title by keeping court on the Welsh borders. Arthur had already resided at Ludlow, and written thence diplomatic love letters to Catherine in Spain (Mary A. E. Wood, Letters of Royal and Illustrious Ladies, i. 121); and it was decided that he should return thither next month. The king at first hesitated to send his bride along with him. The prince was still so young that cohabitation seems not to have been allowed, and some thought the princess would be less solitary in the king's court than living under her husband's roof in the Welsh marches. The point was referred to herself, but she said she would do as the king thought best; and ultimately, as we learn from a contemporary despatch, both departed together on 21 Dec. to spend their Christmas at a place described as about forty miles from London. In February following the king wrote to Ferdinand and Isabella that he had sent the young couple into Wales, not wishing them to live apart, notwithstanding the objections raised by many on account of his son's tender age, and they must regard it as a great proof of his affection for their daughter that he studied her comfort at some risk even to his own son (Duke of Manchester, Court and Society, i. 59). But that this letter was distinctly intended to convey a false impression is beyond all question; for although it is true that the young couple did go together to reside in the borders of Wales, it is clear from the solemn declarations of Catherine herself long afterwards that Prince Arthur never was her husband except in name. On 2 April following he died at Ludlow, a victim apparently to the sweating sickness, and Catherine was left a virgin widow.

When the news reached Spain, the Spanish sovereigns despatched a new ambassador to England to urge that she should be sent back to her native country, and repayment made of the one instalment of 100,000 scudos of her marriage portion. But the ambassador was further empowered to conclude a new treaty with the king of England for the marriage of Catherine to his second son Henry.

On this subject negotiations appear to have gone on for several months, when Henry VII became a widower by the death of his queen, Elizabeth of York. A suggestion was im; mediutely made of a particularly revolting character, that Catherine might become the wife of her father-in-law. It is scarcely credible that such a thing was seriously intended; but it greatly shocked Queen Isabella, who was more anxious than ever to secure, if it were possible, her daughter's return to Spain, or at least the conclusion of the marriage with the Prince of Wales. The latter at last was agreed upon, and a treaty for it was drawn up and signed by the two Spanish ambassadors on 23 June 1503. Two days later the parties were solemnly betrothed to each other 'in the Bishop of Salisbury's house in Fleet Street' (Speed, 973). The marriage was to be solemnised whenever the prince completed his fourteenth year. In consequence, however, of the close affinity between the parties, a papal dispensation was requisite, which the sovereigns of both countries bound themselves to solicit from the court of Rome. It was obtained next year mainly at the instance of Queen Isabella, for whose comfort a copy was sent into Spain just before she died. But the king of England had no intention of being too strictly bound to fulfil the marriage treaty, and, hoping to gain an advantage over King. Ferdinand in other ways, discovered 'scruples of conscience' about the match.

If the treaty had been strictly fulfilled, the marriage would actually have taken place on 28 June 1505, the day the Prince of Wales completed his fourteenth year. But on the 27th the prince made a formal protest before Fox, bishop of Winchester, that the match was against his will, and the treaty was at once rendered nugatory. It was quite understood, however, that this was only a trick of state, and that the marriage might still take place if King Henry were once satisfied that he could not dispose of his son's hand elsewhere more advantageously. Ferdinand did not keep faith about the marriage portion. He intended, if possible, that the whole burden of his daughter's support should rest upon the king of England, and when King Henry disowned this responsibility, he allowed her to remain for years in debt, even for the very necessaries of life. Her maids had not the means to procure clothes. She herself complained, after she had been four and a half years in England, that she had only had two new dresses.

In the early part of 1506 she had an unexpected opportunity of meeting with her sister Juana and her husband, Philip of Austria, who had been proclaimed king and queen of Castiie. They had embarked in January to take possession of their new kingdom, but had been driven by storms upon the coast of England, and Henry had shown them much politic hospitality at Windsor. Later in the year Catherine fell ill of a fever, and Henry gave up to her use for the time a house at Fulham, which he had intended for an embassy expected from Philip after his arrival in Castile. At this time she seems to have been very miserable. She was aware that her marriage depended upon a heartless game of diplomacy, into which she was drawn herself by her own necessities. For Henry VII having made in 1507 an offer for the hand of her sister Juana, the widowed Queen of Castile (though he must have known her to be a maniac), with the view of taking the government of that kingdom out of Ferdinand's hands, Catherine affected to favour his suit, and wrote to Ferdinand in behalf of her father-in-law, advising him at least to temporise until her own marriage with the Prince of Wales could take effect. Other matches had been talked of for the prince, and Catherine was in serious dread of being abandoned altogether. She was then living in the same house with the Prince of Wales at Richmond, but was permitted to see less of him than before, and in one letter she complains that for four months she had not seen him at all.

Her misery arose from an unpleasant state of relations between King Henry and her father. Subtle and unscrupulous as Ferdinand was in the game of diplomacy, he had found a match in Henry VII, who had not only forced him at last to send to England the second instalment of Catherine's marriage portion, but declined even then to allow the marriage to take effect except upon new conditions by no means agreeable to Ferdinand, so that the latter, checkmated in his aims, wished his ambassador as a last resource to insist on Catherine being sent back to Spain. Henry had arranged a marriage of his daughter Mary with Charles, prince of Castile, which made him very independent of Ferdinand's friendship, and Catherine met with a neglect which almost drove her to despair. But relief was at hand, for just at this time Henry VII died. Her affianced bridegroom, now Henry VIII, apparently desired the union. His council, for the most part, approved the match, and on 11 June 1509, seven weeks after his accession, though he was only eighteen, the marriage was duly celebrated. On the 24th of the same month she was crowned along with him in Westminster Abbey.

There is no reason to doubt that for some years after their marriage Henry felt real affection for her, and she was a thoroughly devoted wife. 'The king, my lord, adores her, and her highness him,' was the opinion of Catherine's confessor in 1510. Ferdinand seems to have relied partly on her influence over him in procuring a league against France; and for two or three years, whether from natural impulse or from policy, Henry was a very firm ally of his father-in-law. Catherine's happiness would have been unalloyed but for some petty annoyances to which recent writers have attached altogether undue importance; but even these belonged much more to the time when she was princess than to her married life. She had a Spanish confessor who, perhaps, was rather young for such a function, and may have been a little indiscreet. The Spanish ambassador thought so, but there is no evidence that even he entertained the strange suspicions that it has pleased some persons in our day to attribute to him. Catherine had been used for years as a political agent by her father, and being a really devout woman, it was natural that she should take frequent counsel with her confessor. It was equally natural that the ambassador, under the circumstances, should find the confessor to be a nuisance, that he should write to Ferdinand to complain of him, and that Catherine should stand firmly by him.

The first three years of Henry's reign went by in feasts and pageants; but then began a succession of cruel disappointments. On 31 Jan. 1510 Catherine was prematurely delivered of a stillborn daughter. On 1 Jan. 1511 she gave birth to a son, who was christened Henry, declared prince of Wales, and had a household assigned him, but died on 22 Feb. following. In 1513 she had another son, who soon died, and in November 1514 she had again a premature delivery. At last, on 18 Feb. 1516, there came one child that lived?the Princess Mary; and in November 1518 another daughter was born, who must have died early. In the interval between the second and third confinements Henry had gone to war with France, greatly at the instigation of his father-in-law. In 1513 he invaded France in person, and James IV invaded England and was killed at Flodden on 9 Sept. 1513. Before crossing the Channel the king had appointed Catherine regent in his absence. She threw herself heartily into the business of arraying a force to oppose the Scotch. 'I am horribly busy,' she wrote, 'making standards, banners, and badges.' She harangued the troops sent forward to the north. The king, too, sent over to her his important prisoner, the Duke of Longueville, whom he had taken at the battle of Spurs, and wished Catherine to keep in her household, a responsibility which she respectfully declined. After the victory she wrote to Henry, sending him 'a piece of the king of Scots' coat,' and regretting she was unable to send the king of Scots himself alive to him as a prisoner. 'Our Englishmen's hearts,' she said,' would not suffer it.'

When the king returned from France in the end of September, he rode in post to his queen at Richmond, 'where,' says the contemporary chronicler, Hall, 'there was such a loving meeting that every creature rejoiced.' But even in the following year a rumour got abroad that Henry, disappointed at her having no children, had begun to think of a divorce, and there is reason to believe that it arose from some very real evidences of a diminution of Henry's love, even at this early period. The main cause appears to have been his continued experience of her father's treachery. Ferdinand had concluded a separate truce with France to the prejudice of his ally at the very moment when Henry's success seemed most completely assured. Henry vented his anger in reproaches of which his own wife had to bear the full bitterness, and it was owing to this, as Peter Martyr was told, that she had her second premature confinement.

The supposition of the late Mr. Rawdon Brown (Cat. State Papers, Venetian, i. pref. pp. xc, cviii) that a vague expression in Sanuto's diary, 'Fanno nuovi pensieri,' points to whispers of a divorce being circulated even in 1510, before Henry and Catherine had been quite a twelvemonth married, seems altogether unwarrantable. The words clearly have quite a different application. A vivid description is given by Hall of the way in which she and the king went a-maying to Shooter's Hill in 1515, and met in the woods Robin Hood and his merry men dressed in green. These were archers of the king's own guard, and the performance was witnessed by a vast multitude of people. Some additional particulars of it are given in letters from the Venetian embassy. The senior ambassador, Pasqualigo, then about to leave for France, had an audience afterwards with the queen, and to her great delight spoke to her in her native Spanish. The secretary of the embassy describes her as 'rather ugly than otherwise' (Rawdon Brown, Four Years at the Court of Henry VIII, i. 79-81, 90). Two years later occurred the 'Evil May day,' when the Londoners sacked the houses of foreigners. The offenders were tried by summary process, and many of them hanged within three days at their own or their masters' doors. Others remained still in prison, till Catherine threw herself on her knees before the king to intercede for them, and induced his sisters Mary and Margaret, queens dowager of France and Scotland, to do the same.

The visit of her nephew Charles V to England in 1520 gave Catherine the most lively satisfaction. She knew, however, that great preparations were then making for another meeting with which she had no great sympathy?that of Henry VIII and Francis I at the Field of the Cloth of Gold. Henry was playing off the two rivals, Charles and Francis, one against the other, and it was unknown whether a French or an imperial alliance would prove the main feature of his policy. It was, in fact, to interrupt the French interview, or, at least, to prevent an Anglo-French alliance, that Charles had been induced to think seriously of visiting England. The friendship of Henry was to him of the utmost importance, and to secure it he had become a suitor for the hand of the Princess Mary, although she had already been affianced to the Dauphin. There is no doubt that the nobles and the people generally were with the queen in preferring greatly an alliance with him to the friendship of France. One day, in anticipation of the French interview, she called to her some of the lords to discuss matters, and set before them such strong arguments against its being held at all, that those present were struck with amazement. During the conference the king made his appearance and asked what it was all about, on which Catherine frankly told him, and declared the line she had taken in the matter. What answer the king made at the moment we are not informed, but the result was that both he and his council held her in higher esteem than they had ever done before (Cat. State Papers, Henry VIII, iii. 256).

The emperor landed at Dover late in the evening of Saturday, 26 May 1520, and next morning Henry conducted him to Canterbury to the queen's presence. There he remained during the few days he spent in England, and on Thursday the 31st he embarked at Sandwich for Flanders. That same day Henry and Catherine also took ship and crossed from Dover to Calais for the long projected interview with Francis. On Sunday, 10 June, each king went to dine with the other's queen, the one from Guisnes to Ardes, and the other by a different route from Ardes to Guisnes, the departure of each being announced to the other by salvoes of artillery. Three weeks were spent in these splendid courtesies, and shortly after they were concluded Henry held another meeting with the emperor at Gravelines, and brought him and his aunt, Margaret of Savoy, to Calais, where the queen received them. Two years later war was declared against France, and the emperor paid a second visit to England, when he was feasted and entertained with great magnificence at Canterbury, London, and Windsor.

In 1521, the year between the emperor's first and second visit to England, occurred the arrest and execution of the Duke of Buckingham, and it is not improbable that Shakespeare followed a true tradition when he represented Catherine as present at the examination of that unfortunate nobleman's surveyor, pleading for something like fair play to the accused. The fact, as regards Catherine, seems to rest on no other authority; but there is distinct evidence that Buckingham's servants were examined by the king himself, before the apprehension of their master, very much in the way that the surveyor is examined by Henry in the play; so that we may not unreasonably believe the whole scene to be substantially true. Sir Thomas More reports in 1524 how Catherine rejoiced to hear of the success of her countrymen the Spaniards in Italy, and Bishop Longland writes to Wolsey at the beginning of the following year how he had explained to her by the king's desire the cardinal's magnificent scheme for setting up a new college at Oxford. The bishop also told her that she was to be specially mentioned in the prayers of the college chapel, for which she desired him to give Wolsey her cordial thanks.

Her constant obedience to her husband had won for her such universal esteem that he himself could not but share that sentiment, though he had now lost all other feeling for her. That he had been untrue to her years before we know, perhaps very early in their married life. Possibly the birth of the Princess Mary did something to restore his lost affection, but only for a time. He was becoming a perfect libertine. On 15 June 1525, much to Catherine's distress, he created his natural son Henry Fitzroy duke of Richmond, and gave him precedence of all the nobility of England, even of the Princess Mary. He was a child of six years, the son of one Elizabeth Blount, whom the king afterwards married to Sir Gilbert Tailbois. The king bestowed much care upon his education, and sent him into Yorkshire as viceroy or president of the north. About the same time his half-sister Mary, whom the king, in default of legitimate male issue, seemed disposed to recognise as Princess of Wales, was sent in like manner to Ludlow, with a household and a council to keep rule upon the Welsh marches. But her household was inferior to that of the duke.
Indications exist that some secret steps had been taken by Henry towards getting his marriage declared invalid as early as 1526. All that was said afterwards officially as to the origin of the king's scruples, and the doubts of Mary's legitimacy said to have been suggested by the Bishop of Tarbes, is unworthy of serious refutation. The bishop's own report of his conferences with Wolsey upon Mary's proposed marriage to Francis I shows clearly that no such objection ever entered his mind. A totally different objection occurred to him?that the king might still have a legitimate son; and Wolsey was taking pains to convince him that this was highly improbable, while he knew quite well that the king was privately seeking to invalidate his marriage and thus make his daughter illegitimate. In May a collusive suit was instituted by Wolsey as legate, who with great secresy summoned the king to appear before him at his house at Westminster for having cohabited with his brother Arthur's wife. A formal complaint, he said, had been preferred to him, and he called upon Henry to say what he could in his defence. The king handed in a written reply, and the cardinal declared that the case was one of considerable difficulty, on which he required to take counsel with some learned theologians?among others with the bishops of Rochester, Lincoln, and London. The proceedings were never resumed probably for a reason which has not hitherto been suggested, though the fact is absolutely certain. The queen and the Spanish ambassador, somehow or other, had got wind of them before they were a day old (Cal. State Papers, Spanish, iii. (pt. ii.) 193).

The king saw that he must take a different course, and on 22 June informed Catherine that he had come to the conclusion that they must separate. He begged her to keep the matter secret meanwhile, as if it was against her interest to divulge it. His strategy was useless. The news got abroad, and became, in the words of the Spanish ambassador, 'as notorious as if it had been proclaimed by the public crier' (ib. 276). Still Catherine had not a friend who could aid her against the king, unless she could inform the emperor how she was situated, and great pains were taken that she should not speak to the Spanish ambassador except in the presence of Wolsey. She dissembled her anxieties; her 'merry visage,' as one observer notes, 'returned, not less than was wont,' and cordiality towards the king appeared to be renewed. Then one of her Spanish servants, Francis Felipe or Philips, desired license of her to go to Spain and see his mother, who, he said, was very ill. Catherine refused the permission, and urged the king not to grant it. Henry, rightly suspecting that there was collusion between them, dissembled also, and persuaded her to let him go. Thus the king won her confidence; but he at the same time sent a message to Wolsey, then in France, to find means to get Philips detained in that country, in spite of any safe-conduct. On his way to France, Wolsey contrived artfully to misrepresent the case to Fisher, bishop of Rochester, Catherine's confessor, whom he induced to believe that the rumours of an intended divorce had been spread abroad by the queen's own indiscretion; for the king only wanted, he said, to test the validity of an objection raised by others. When the bishop offered to remonstrate with her upon her conduct, Wolsey persuaded him to leave the matter to the king. But whatever art might be used to promote the divorce, it was impossible to avoid application to Rome, and equally impossible to do without Wolsey's aid; yet Henry gave the cardinal but half his confidence, and made an abortive effort to obtain a commission from the pope through another agent. At last Cardinal Campeggio arrived in England with a joint commission for himself and Wolsey to try the cause in October 1528, and the king and Anne Boleyn both looked for the realisation of their wish.

They did not know that before he left Rome Campeggio had secretly pledged himself not to give sentence in the cause without communicating first with the pope. He was only authorised to endeavour to dissuade the king from his purpose, or, if he could arrange a compromise, to induce the queen to enter a nunnery. To this latter object he accordingly addressed himself in some conferences that he had with Catherine soon after his arrival; but she insisted on the matter being decided judicially. The king was at first no less anxious to press forward the trial, and on Sunday, 8 Nov., he summoned the lord mayor and aldermen to his palace at Bridewell to explain his scruples of conscience. But meanwhile Catherine had information of the existence in Spain of a brief granted by Julius II for her marriage, more full and satisfactory than the bull of dispensation which Henry was trying to invalidate, and she produced a copy of it given her by the Spanish ambassador. The king insinuated that it was a forgery, and he got the queen's own counsel to inform her that she must send for the original brief to Spain. She actually wrote to the emperor as desired, requesting him to send the brief to England. Thomas Abell [q. v.], by whom she sent the letter, wrote himself to inform the emperor before he delivered it that she had written only under compulsion.

The king and his council sent to Rome to try and collect evidence against the genuineness of the brief, and they made much of the fact that it did not appear entered on the papal registers. But his agents were also instructed to sound the papal lawyers as to whether, if the queen could be induced to retire into a nunnery, without taking the vows, the pope could not, 'by his mere and absolute power,' allow him to proceed to a second marriage. Thus, after protesting the pope's incompetence to legalise marriage with a brother's widow, Henry was prepared to admit without question his competence to legalise bigamy. He was really in despair how to accomplish his object. He had drawn up a paper of advice which was to be pressed upon the queen as if in her own interest, apparently by her own counsel, if not by the legates who were to try her cause, in which they were to warn her that some ill-disposed persons seemed to be conspiring in her behalf against the king and Wolsey, and that she ought to be on her guard against giving them any countenance. If she did not act more discreetly, it was urged, the king might not only feel it right to abandon her company himself, but also to withdraw the princess from her mother's society. All these cruel suggestions, however, were only meant to prepare the way for one more strong appeal to her to solve the difficulty by going into a nunnery. And she need not fear, the speakers were to urge, that by so doing she would enable the king to take another wife, for he could certainly not marry again while she lived. Thus the king indirectly endeavoured to make her take a false step in reliance on the strength of her own cause.

Henry compelled even the most staunch friends of Catherine to reveal their conversations with her. He had allowed her the use of counsel, and among them was the renowned scholar Ludovicus Vives; but Vives was required by the king to relate all that had passed between them. This demand he justly protested against, although, as he said, it could injure no one even if their whole conversations were posted on church doors. Being forced to report them, however, he did so, and said the queen had sought his counsel as her countryman who spoke her language. The main point was that she begged him to ask the imperial ambassador to write to the emperor to secure a fair hearing for her at Rome. 'Who,' Vires adds,'will not admire the queen's moderation? When others would have moved heaven and earth, she merely seeks from her sister's son that he will not let her be condemned unheard.'

It was useless for the king to proceed with the cause before the legates unless the brief in Spain could be discredited, and the most frantic diplomat efforts were made to induce the pope to declare it a forgery, which, of course, he refused to do until he had heard the arguments on both sides. Then there was nothing for it but to proceed. Meanwhile the emperor was doing his utmost to get the cause removed from England that it might be more fairly heard at Rome. Catherine, however, was not aware of this, and appealed for advice to Cardinal Campeggio himself in a private interview. He answered coldly that she might rely upon justice being done to her, but again strongly suggested that she might extricate herself from further annoyance by retiring from the world. But to this she was as firmly opposed as ever, and the trial proceeded. The legatine court formally opened on 31 May 1529 in the great hall of the Black Friars, and the king and queen were cited to appear on 18 June. The former had two proxies to represent him; the latter came in person, but only to protest against the jurisdiction of the court. The court registered her protestation, and appointed both parties to appear in person on Monday, 21 June, to hear its decision. On that day the king and queen both appeared; the former stated his ease to the judges. The latter threw herself at his feet in sight of all the court, and begged him to consider her helpless position as a foreigner, her long and tried obedience as a wife, her own and her daughter's honour, and that of the king himself. Further, as he continually professed he was anxious to find their marriage valid, she appealed to Rome as the only tribunal before which the case could be properly discussed, and thereupon withdrew.

The legates had overruled her objections to jurisdiction of the court; so she was called again, and on her refusal to come back, was pronounced contumacious. The case was continued through different sittings of the court in June and July affidavits were taken as to the circumstances of the marriage with Prince Arthur, and matters were pressed on in a way not at all to Campeggio's taste. Yet even at this time, if Cavendish be right, a further appeal was made to Catherine by the two cardinals who were her judges, They came to her at Bridewell without notice, and found her at work among her maids, with a skein of white thread about her neck. They asked for a private interview, but she replied that whatever they had to say they might speak it before all. Wolsey then addressed her in Latin. 'Nay, good my lord, speak to me in English,' she said, 'for I can, I thank God, both speak and understand English, although I do understand some Latin.' Wolsey told her they had come to know her mind in the matter between the king and her, and give her secret advice, Catherine said she was naturally not prepared to answer them without taking counsel on such a weighty question. And who was there to counsel her? 'What think you, my lords?' she said. 'Will any Englishman counsel me or be friendly to me against the king's pleasure that is his subject? Nay, forsooth.' She was willing, however, to listen to whatever counsel the cardinals had to give her, and led them into her privy chamber to hear what they had to say (Cavendish, Life of Wolsey, ed. 1852, pp. 137-140).

We are not told, for Wolsey's biographer did not know, the precise nature of the advice given by the two cardinals. Meanwhile, the king having expressed a desire to, see his scruples removed, Fisher, bishop of Rochester, came forward and declared his readiness to justify the validity of the marriage. Other things went against the king's purpose. The pope revoked the cause to Rome, and Campeggio, even before he was informed of the fact, had prorogued the court for the holidays according to the custom at Rome. Every one knew that, although it was only prorogued, it was never to meet again. Not many months after this the ambassador, Chapuys, then just newly arrived in England from the emperor, records that on St. Andrew's day, 1529, the queen dined with the king, and complained that he had for a long time so seldom allowed her that privilege. The king excused himself partly by the pressure of business, but as to visiting her in her own apartments, she must know that he was now assured by innumerable doctors and lawyers that he was not her lawful husband, and he could never share her bed again. He was waiting for further opinions, and if the pope did not declare their the court in June and July. Affidavits were marriage void, he would denounce his holiness as a heretic, and marry whom he pleased. Catherine told him in reply that those opinions were not worth a straw, for he himself had owned on more than one occasion that he had found her a virgin when he married her. Moreover, the principal doctors in England had written in her favour. The king left the room not a little disconcerted, and at supper Chapuys was informed Anne Boleyn said to him reproachfully, 'Did I not tell you that whenever you disputed with the queen she was sure to have the upper hand?,'

For a time Henry still treated Catherine as his queen. She went with him to Woodstock, and from that in September to Grafton in Northamptonshire, where Cardinal Campeggio took his leave of him, and where Wolsey was admitted at the same time to his last interview. But in February 1530 Catherine's treatment had become visibly worse. The king absented himself much from her company, and left her at Richmond while he was dallying with Anne Boleyn in London. It was at this time he began consulting the universities, applying first to Cambridge and Oxford, then to Paris and other foreign seats of learning; but still he kept company with Catherine to some extent, and even took her out hunting with him. In August or the beginning of September she fell ill of a fever, probably brought on by alarm at the king's increasing recklessness. She kept Christmas with him at Greenwich; but in January following (1531) she suffered much anxiety lest something should be done to her prejudice in the parliament which then met. Nothing, however, was said, and Henry allowed and even advised her to summon counsel to her aid at Richmond. He did this, as Chapuys believed, in order to discover whether she had not secretly received a brief from Rome in her favour. For it would appear that about this time Henry, or at least his ministers, really thought the game a desperate one. A brief was expected from Rome which would have ordered Henry to dismiss Anne Boleyn from the court, and it was the general belief that he would be obliged to comply. But the brief when it came was feeble and ineffective, so that the king was encouraged to persevere, and the clergy were forced to acknowledge him as supreme head of the church of England. This, of course, involved the consequence that the decision of a Roman tribunal could not be acknowledged in an English matrimonial cause.

Catherine saw that her only hope lay in procuring a speedy sentence from Rome in her favour, and she wrote urgently to that effect to the emperor on 5 April. Henry's conduct towards her varied from day to day. One day when she dined with him he spoke in unwonted terms of the power of the emperor, and afterwards, changing the subject, told her she had not been kind to her daughter Mary, because she had not made her physician reside with her continually. Altogether he showed himself so gracious on this occasion that next day Catherine asked him to allow the princess to see them; but Henry answered with a rude rebuff, telling her she might go and see the princess if she wished, and also stop with her. The queen replied in gentle tone that she would not leave him for her own daughter or any one else in the world. But things now were coming to a climax. The king was using every art to delay the cause at Rome while refusing to put in any appearance, except by allowing an 'excusator' to plead for him that he was not bound to appear there at all. On 31 May upwards of thirty privy councillors, headed by the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, waited on Catherine by the king's command to remonstrate with her, and urged that she ought to consent to have the matter tried elsewhere than in Rome by judges above suspicion. According to Hall, they actually suggested a tribunal of four prelates and four temporal lords of England, which, of course, was what was wanted; but by the very full report of the interview sent by Chapuys to the emperor it does not appear that they proposed anything so definite. Catherine completely met every one of their jesuitical arguments, and fully justified her resolution to abide entirely by the decision of the pope.

Shortly after this the court removed from Greenwich to Windsor, and there,on 14 July, Henry finally left his wife, never to see her again. He removed to Woodstock without even bidding her adieu, but left orders that she was to remain at Windsor. Deserted by her husband, she complained bitterly of the pope's neglect. But the weakness of the pope inspired Henry with greater boldness. He had got the opinion of the university of Orleans and of some Parisian lawyers also that he could not be compelled to appear at Rome; while Anne Boleyn, who accompanied him wherever he went, spoke confidently of the prospect of being married to him within three or four months at least. In August the king again sent notice to Catherine that he was coming to hunt about Windsor, and that she must dislodge thence and go to the Moor in Hertfordshire. The Princess Mary was ordered at the same time to leave her mother and go to Richmond. Two months later another deputation of the king's council was sent to the queen with the same object as before; but she refused more firmly than ever, saying, now that she knew him to be influenced only by passion, she would not desist from demanding justice where alone it could be obtained.

She was now absolutely without a friend in England who could do anything for her except Chapuys. All her counsel had refused absolutely to have anything more to do with her cause after it was revoked to Rome. Still, she carefully maintained her position as a wife, and sought opportunities of vindicating it quietly and without reproaches. At the beginning of 1532 she sent her husband a gold cup as a New Year's gift, 'with honorable and humble words.' She had been strictly forbidden to write to him or send any messages; and Henry was so far from pleased that he refused it angrily; but fearing that the servant who had presented it would return it to the queen's messenger, and that the latter might take an opportunity of presenting it himself before all the court, he sent for it again, praised its workmanship, and ordered that it should not be returned till the evening.

The people felt much for the queen's wrongs. Even Dr. Benet, the king's agent at Rome, when in England at the end of 1531, sent her a secret message desiring her pardon. He heartily prayed, he said, for the success of her cause. The women even broke out into tumults in her behalf, and insulted Anne Boleyn; shouts were also heard when the king went about, calling upon him to take back his queen; and even in the House of Commons two members made the same suggestion. In answer to a demand for aid to strengthen the frontier against the Scots, they said that the king would protect the realm much more effectively if he would only take back his queen and cultivate the friendship of the emperor. The aid demanded was refused, nor does it seem that Henry ever dared to punish the offenders. On Easter day, 31 March 1632, William Peto, the provincial of the Grey Friars, preached before the king at Greenwich, strongly opposing the divorce. The king dissembled his displeasure, and gave the friar, who desired to go to Toulouse, permission to leave the kingdom; then next Sunday got a chaplain of his own, named Dr. Curwen, to preach in a manner more agreeable to himself. Dr. Curwen fulfilled his task, and replied to Peto's sermon, insinuating that Peto had withdrawn himself for fear, and expressing a wish that he were present to answer him. On this another friar, Elstowe, started up, and offered to confirm by scripture all that Peto had said. The king was intensely irritated, and both friars (for Peto had only reached Canterbury) were soon after called before the council, where one nobleman told them that they deserved to be put into a sack and thrown into the Thames. 'Make these threats to courtiers,' Elstowe replied; 'for as to us, we know right well the way to heaven lies as open by water as by land.'

Bishop Fisher both wrote and preached in the queen's favour, and by a sermon at the beginning of June very nearly subjected himself to that imprisonment which he actually underwent a year later. Abell wrote a book in her behalf; Peto, moreover, was preparing another, and his reason for desiring to go abroad was to arrange for its publication. The pope meanwhile had sent Henry a brief 1 rebuking him for having not only put away his wife, but cohabited with Anne Boleyn. But none of these things produced much effect upon the king. Catherine was removed from the Moor, and sent to reside at Bishop's Hatfield, a place belonging to the Bishop of Ely, and there she remained at the time the king crossed to Calais with Anne Boleyn in October, in great anxiety lest they should marry over there during the interview with Francis I.

This interview was designed mainly to convince the pope that the kings of England and France were so united that he could not offend one without offending both. It was very unpopular in England. The emperor, to counteract the alliance of the two powers, held a meeting with the pope at Bologna at the close of the year. Two French cardinals sent by Francis to Bologna before the meeting was over induced Clement to avoid going further in the affair of Catherine than he had done already. Henry took advantage cf the pope's irresolution, and secretly married Anne Boleyn on 25 Jan. 1533. He also obtained from the pope bulls for Cranmer's promotion to the see of Canterbury. As soon as these were secure, he got his parliament to pass an act that no appeals in ecclesiastical causes should henceforth be carried out of the kingdom to Rome. The new archbishop was made use of to declare the nullity of the king's marriage with Catherine, and the validity of his marriage with Anne Boleyn. Even before this was done, an intimation was sent to Catherine that she must no longer call herself queen, but only princess dowager. At Easter (13 April) the marriage was divulged, and Anne Boleyn openly took upon her the name of queen. Yet it was not till 10 May that Cranmer opened his court at Dunstable to try whether the first marriage was a valid one or not! Catherine, by the advice of Chapuys, took no notice of the proceedings, I and the archbishop pronounced her contumacious. The court was three times adjourned, and sentence was finally pronounced upon the 23rd, declaring the marriage invalid. Yet it appears by a letter which he wrote to Cromwell that during the progress of the suit the archbishop felt some anxiety lest the 'contumacious' woman should change her mind and put in an appearance at the last.

On 3 July Lord Mountjoy, Catherine's chamberlain, accompanied by four other gentlemen of her household, waited on Catherine at Ampthill by the king's command to remonstrate with her on having used the name of queen after having orders to the contrary. They found her lying on a pallet, having hurt her foot with a pin, and troubled with a severe cough. On addressing her as princess dowager and showing their instructions, she at once took exception to the title. They in vain hinted that her obstinacy might even make the king withdraw his favour from her daughter Mary. They came again next day and showed her the report of their interview which they were going to send to the king, and she with her own hand struck out the words 'princess dowager' wherever they occurred. She declared she would accept no decision in her cause except that of the pope, and demanded a copy of the instructions that she might have them translated into Spanish and sent to Rome.

On being told of her reply, as Chapuys's despatches inform us, the king caused a proclamation to be printed and published in London by sound of trumpet. We know from a letter of the Earl of Derby on 10 Aug. following that it must have been to forbid people calling Catherine queen; for it appears that a priest named James Harrison, on hearing it read, declared defiantly 'that Queen Catherine was queen, and that Nan Bullen should not be queen,' for which he was brought before the earl and examined. Soon afterwards Catherine was removed to Buckden in Huntingdonshire, a seat of the Bishop of Lincoln. She was saluted as queen all the way along. The king and his council next took into consideration the reduction of her household, and of the allowance originally assigned for her dower by express treaty with Ferdinand. The severity of her treatment was so much increased that she became anxious for the utmost pressure to be put upon the pope, whose authority, she believed, might still avail to do her justice; but she was so surrounded by spies, that she hardly found it possible to write.

The indignities to which she had to submit were most galling. In July Anne Boleyn, looking forward to her own confinement, was eager to possess a very rich cloth brought by Catherine from Spain, and used by her at the baptism of her children. She was not ashamed to urge Henry to ask Catherine for it, and Henry was not ashamed to comply; but Catherine positively refused to give up her property for a use so scandalous. Aft the birth of Elizabeth, Mary was told that she must give up the name of princess, just as her mother had been warned to give up that of queen. When she refused, the whole of her servants were dismissed, and she herself was compelled to dislodge and become a sort of waiting-woman attached to the train of her infant sister. Then, as it drew near Christmas, it was determined to make Catherine herself dislodge from Buckden and place her with a reduced household at Somersham in the Isle of Ely. The commissioners only failed to satisfy the king because they had not sufficient inhumanity or firmness to overcome Catherine's resistance by force. Buckden was by no means a healthy situation, but Somersham was worse, and it was hardly possible to avoid a suspicion that the king and Anne Boleyn were seeking to hasten her death. The commissioners dismissed a number of Catherine's servants who declined to be sworn to her anew as princess of Wales; but they failed with all the menaces they could use to get her to consent to her own removal. For six days they remained hoping to conquer her obstinacy; but she locked herself up in her own chamber, and told them through a hole in the wall that if they meant to remove her they must break open the doors and carry her off by force. They at length returned to the king with a confession that they had only been able to execute one part of their charge. Henry was very angry at their want of thoroughness!

It seems to have been about the beginning of November 1533 that the king saw fit to imprison Elizabeth Barton [see Barton, Elizabeth], Nothing whatever was found in her evidence to implicate Catherine.

The life which she was then leading at Buckden was passed, as we are informed by Harpsfield, 'in much prayer, great alms, and abstinence. And when she was not in this way occupied then was she and her gentlewomen working with their own hands something wrought in needlework, costly and artificially, which she intended to the honour of God to bestow upon some churches. There was in the said house of Buckden a chamber with a window that had a prospect into the chapel, out of which she might hear divine service. In this chamber she enclosed herself, sequestered from all other company, a great part of the day and night, and upon her knees used to pray at the said window leaning upon the stones of the same. There was some of her gentlewomen that did curiously mark and observe all her doings, who reported that oftentimes they found the said stones so wet after her departure as though it had rained upon them. It was credibly thought that in the time of her prayer she removed the cushions that ordinarily lay in the same window, and that the said stones were imbrued with the tears of her devout eyes' (Pretended Divorce, 200). He adds: 'I have credibly also heard that at a time when one of her gentlewomen began to curse the lady Anne Boleyn she answered, "Hold your peace. Curse her not, but pray for her; for the time will come shortly when you shall have much need to pity and lament her case."'

On 17 Jan. 1534 Chapuys writes that Catherine had never left her own room since that visit of the Duke of Suffolk, just a month before, except to hear mass in a gallery. She was at this time careful not to eat or drink anything placed before her by some new servants who had been assigned to her by Suffolk in place of those dismissed, and the little food she ventured to take was cooked by her chamberwomen in what was now alike her bedroom, her sitting-room, and her kitchen. The king, on the other hand, was anxious that she should not eat or drink anything that was not supplied by him, and her custodians, as Chapuys remarked, seemed anxious to give her an artificial dropsy. Her situation was but little improved when at last judgment was pronounced. On 23 March 1534 sentence waa given by the pope in a secret consistory at Rome that her marriage with Henry was valid. But parliament had not only declared Anne Boleyn queen and Catherine princess dowager, but had passed two separate acts taking away the jointure of the latter and giving it to the former. Some opposition, indeed, was made to this in the commons, the representatives of London and some other cities fearing that as their constituencies had stood pledges for the fulfilment of the terms of the marriage treaty, English merchants might be illtreated in Spain; but they were assured that the obligation had been abolished by a modification of the treaties to which the emperor had given his consent. Moreover the king produced a roll of certain lands, which he intended to give Catherine in exchange for those of her jointure, to the value of three thousand crowns a year, and the commons resisted no longer.

It was probably to announce the passing of this act that we find, by one letter of the period, the Duke of Norfolk and Fitzwilliam left the court on 14 March and rode towards Catherine; and towards the end of the month Chapuys indicates that both she and her daughter Mary had thought it advisable 'to show the king their teeth a little.'
This Mary did by refusing to accompany her infant sister on her removal from one house to another. Two doctors were sent to Catherine to summon her to swear to the new Act of Succession. She replied by intimating to the doctors the sentence given in her favour at Rome. She was forbidden to hold her maundy on Maundy Thursday, and about the end of April or beginning of May she was removed to Kimbolton, a house which had belonged to Sir Richard Wingfield, an English ambassador who had died in Spain some years before, and was still in possession of his heirs. It was a small mansion, but she was better lodged here than she had been at Buckden, for the king, we find, was anxious to contradict the rumours that had got abroad as to her ill-treatment. Here, on 21 May, she was visited by Lee, archbishop of York, and Tunstall, bishop of Durham, sent to her by the king with a message. They were to explain and justify to her what had been done in parliament lest she should plead ignorance of the effect of the Act of Succession. Tunstall was frequently interrupted in his speech by Catherine, who with great anger and bitterness contradicted him on several points, and reminded him that he himself had given her opinions directly at variance with those he then attempted to justify. He replied that the decisions of universities and the proceedings of the legislature had since altered his judgment, and he counselled her to alter hers as well.

These sophistries, however, were but to smooth the way for the dreadful warning that disobedience to the statute involved the penalty of death. When this was intimated to her by the bishops, she became still more firm, and said if any one was ready to carry out the sentence upon her, let him come forward at once. It was clearly hopeless to intimidate her, and the king had to alter his policy. Only certain maids who had refused the oath were removed from her, and shut up in a chamber, while her confessor, physician, and apothecary were forbidden to leave the house. These three were Spaniards who had been long in her service; and Catherine, apparently by Chapuys's advice, sent her steward and gentleman usher to the king requesting that she might have their services again on their simply swearing allegiance to the king and to her as their mistress. She, however, sent another and evidently more important message as well, the exact terms of which we do not know. Her servants returned to her on 4 June bearing an answer from the privy council, which they had been ordered to put into writing and read to her. The king and council first expressed their surprise at her obstinacy in persisting, in spite of all presumptions to the contrary, that she had been a maid when she married him. To this she replied by affirming it all the more strongly, and calling God to witness its truth. Secondly, she was told that her reliance on the sentence given at Rome was a mistake. It was delivered after the king had appealed to a general council; moreover the 'bishop of Rome' had no authority in England. She answered that she would hold by the pope's sentence. Thirdly, as to the request that her Spanish servants should be restored to her on swearing fealty to the king and herself 'and no other woman,' she must express herself more definitely; for the king could by no means allow them to swear to her as queen, though he might possibly consent to let them swear to her as princess dowager.

The strict imprisonment in which both she and her daughter were kept, and the harsh refusal to each of the natural comfort of the other's company, was intended to break down their opposition to the king piecemeal. For the same reason Chapuys, whom Catherine had desired to come to her, remained for weeks soliciting in vain license of the king to go, till he at length went of his own accord, setting out with sixty horses in his company through the whole length of London, and taking care that his object should be known as widely as possible. Even then he was met by messengers who told him that an interview could not be allowed; but he and his company went on and presented themselves before the place, where the queen and her suite, to the great satisfaction of all the country people, spoke to them from the battlements and windows.

Of sympathy there was no lack; several lords expressed their disappointment that the emperor did not send an expedition to England to vindicate the rights of his aunt and cousin. But the emperor was engaged in other matters. Cromwell was not ashamed to hint to the imperial ambassador that it was a pity the friendly relations between Henry and Charles should be in any danger from the regard of the latter for two ladies, who after all were mortal, seeing that if they were removed there could be no obstacle to cordiality. 'You may be sure,' writes Chapuys to Granville, 'they think day and night of getting rid of these good ladies.' In March 1535 the queen again determined to keep a maundy, and messengers were despatched in haste to court to know whether it should be allowed, on which the council determined that she might do so as princess dowager, but not as queen, which of course was to Catherine practical prohibition.

There seemed little wanting to till up the cup of Catherine's misery. And yet the relentless course of the king's tyranny in 1535 inspired her with a new terror. First the Carthusian monks were dragged to execution for denying the king to be supreme head of the church of England; then Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas More suffered the same fate. Till now she had never realised to herself how far her husband would dare to outrage the common feelings of all Christendom, or how he could even do so with impunity. The whole civilised world was shocked, and the pope fulminated a sentence against Henry to deprive him of his kingdom; but no relief came to Catherine.

About the beginning of December 1535 she became seriously unwell, and though she recovered for a time, she had a relapse the day after Christmas. She was believed then to be on the point of death, and the fact being intimated to Chapuys, he obtained the king's permission to visit her. He arrived on the morning of New-year's day, and was at once admitted to her presence; after which she desired him to rest, and thought she could sleep a little herself, for she had not had more than two hours' sleep altogether during the previous six days. On the evening of that same day a devoted countrywoman of her own found means to be admitted to her presence without a passport. It was Lady Willoughby, formerly Maria de Salinas, one of her maids of honour, who came with her from Spain, now mother-in-law to Henry VIII's favourite, the Duke of Suffolk. She appeared before the gates of Kimbolton Castle, saying she had travelled in haste fearing she would be too late to see Catherine again alive. She begged leave at once to come in and warm herself, as she suffered bitterly from the cold, and also from a fall from her horse. It was impossible to disoblige a lady of such high social position. She was admitted to the hall, and even to Catherine's chamber; and once there, she remained with her old mistress to the end. 'We neither saw her again, nor beheld any of her letters,' wrote Bedingfield, who, under the name of steward, was Catherine's custodian (Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials, i. pt. i. 372).

Chapuys stayed four days at Kimbolton, during which time he had an audience of Catherine every day. Her spirits revived, she took better rest and nourishment, and her physician thought her out of immediate danger. Chapuys accordingly took leave of her on Tuesday night, 4 Jan., and left Kimbolton on the Wednesday morning after learning that she had slept well. After midnight, in the early hours of Friday, 7 Jan., she became restless, and asked frequently what o'clock it was, merely, as she explained, that she might hear mass. George Athequa, the Bishop of Llandaff, offered to say it for her at four o'clock, but she objected, giving him reasons and authorities in Latin why it should not be at that hour. At daybreak she received the sacrament. She then desired her servants to pray for her, and also to pray that God might forgive her husband. She caused her physician to write her will, which she dictated to him in the form of a supplication to her husband, because she knew that by the law of England a married woman had no right to make a will of her own. She desired to be buried in a convent of Observant friars, not knowing, in all probability, that the whole order of the Observants had been suppressed and driven but of the kingdom more than a year before. She also desired five hundred masses to be said for her soul, and ordained a few small legacies. At ten o'clock she received extreme unction, repeating devoutly all the responses. At two o'clock in the afternoon she passed away.

These particulars are derived from a despatch of Chapuys written a fortnight later. The will which she dictated is still extant in two forms, French and English. From Polydore Vergil, likewise a contemporary, we learn that she also dictated to one of her maids a last letter to the king, forgiving him all he had done to her, and beseeching him to be a good father to their daughter Mary. 'Lastly,' she concludes, 'I vow that mine eyes desire you above all things.' This brief epistle, of which the text is given in a Latin form by Polydore Vergil, is said by him to have brought tears into Henry's eyes. Unhappily, this does not harmonise with Chapuys's report of the way in which Henry received the news of her death. 'God be praised!' he exclaimed, 'we are now delivered from all fear of war.' The possibility that the emperor might at last lead an expedition against England to avenge the wrongs of his aunt was now at an end. The only cause that could disturb their friendship or interfere with Henry's perfect freedom of action was removed. And the king was at no pains to conceal his satisfaction, appearing next day at a ball attired in yellow from head to foot, with a white feather in his cap.
Perhaps this indecent joy of Henry's affords in itself a reasonable presumption that a certain not unnatural suspicion of Chapuys's was really without foundation. More than two mouths before the king had declared to some of his privy councillors that he really could remain no longer a prey to such anxiety as he had endured on account of Catherine and her daughter, and they must devise some means of relieving him at the coming parliament. The death of Catherine, therefore, furnished precisely the relief which he required; and there was much in the circumstances besides to suggest the idea of poison. Even before her death her physician, in answer to Chapuys's inquiries, owned that he suspected it. She had never been well, he said, since she had drunk a certain Welsh beer. Yet the symptoms were unlike ordinary poison, and he could only suppose that it was something very special. Such an opinion, of course, is of very little weight when we consider the low state of medical science at the time. But after her death steps were at once taken to embalm the body and close it up in lead with a secresy that does seem rather to suggest foul play. Eight hours after she died the chandler of the house with two assistants came to do the work, everybody else being turned out of the room, including even the physician and the Bishop of Llandaff, the deceased lady's confessor. The chandler afterwards informed the bishop, but as a great secret, which would cost him his life if it were revealed, that he had found all the internal organs sound except the heart, which was black and frightful to look at; that he had washed it three times, but it remained of the same colour, then cut it open and found the inside black also; and further, that he had found a certain round black object adhering to the outside of the heart.

The bishop took the physician into his confidence, and the latter was distinctly of opinion that the symptoms indicated poison. But it must be said that (as has been shown by Dr. Norman Moore) the medical science of the present day is quite opposed to this conclusion, and that the symptoms now are known to be those of a disease called by the profession melanotic sarcoma, or more popularly, cancer of the heart (Athenæum, 31 Jan., 1885, p. 152; 14 Feb. p. 215; 28 Feb. p. 281). We may therefore put aside the suspicions of murder. Abroad in the world Henry had not the temerity to express his joy. He gave orders for a stately funeral becoming the person of one whom he recognised as a sister-in-law, besides being daughter of the late King Ferdinand of Arragon (Arch?ol. xvi. 23). The abbey church of Peterborough was appointed to receive her remains, and thither on 27 and 28 Jan., three weeks after her death, they were conveyed with much solemnity and heraldic pomp, accompanied by a numerous train of noblemen, gentlemen, and ladies. At night on the 27th the body rested at Sawtry Abbey, about midway between Kimbolton and Peterborough. The rest of the journey was accomplished next day. The interment itself took place on the 29th. Her own daughter was not allowed to attend the ceremony, and the place of chief mourner was filled by Henry's niece. Eleanor, the daughter of the Duke of Suffolk.

Catherine was of a fair complexion and, to judge by her portraits, the best known of which is by Holbein, somewhat plump. Her constitution must have been naturally strong, but her tastes do not appear to have been such as commonly go with a vigorous habit of body. She seems to have cared little for hunting and field-sports, and loved to occupy herself with her needle. Her piety, which she inherited from her mother, was nursed by misfortune and neglect from her earliest years. She relied mainly for spiritual advice on 
de Castilla y Aragón, Katherine Queen consort of England (I10453)
208 Civil War Service

Company I, 13th Regiment
Spalding County
"Stark Volunteers"

Stewart, John D. -- 2nd Lieutenant - July 8, 1861. Resigned, disability, November 2, 1861. Elected Captain of Company D, 10th Regiment Georgia State Troops February 14, 1862. Mustered out May 1862. Elected 1st Lieutenant of Company K, 6th Regiment Georgia State Guards Infantry August 4, 1863; Captain September 19, 1863. Roll for January 31, 1864, last on file, shows him present. No later record.



Mustered into service, July 8, 1861 at Griffin, GA, served with Floyd's Brigade in West Virginia, reassigned to Lawton's Brigade at Savannah, arriving January 1, 1862, reorganized May 1862. The Lawton-Gordon-Evans Georgia Brigade (so-named for its three principal commanders) was one of the premier brigades of Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, serving with distinction from the Seven Days battles around Richmond (May-June 1862) until its surrender at Appomattox Court House (April 9, 1865). The brigade was initially comprised of six regiments (13th, 26th, 31st, 38th, 60th, and 61st Georgia), which were raised at the call of Governor Joe Brown for the defense of the Georgia coast following the bombardment of Fort Sumter. The 13th Georgia had initially mustered into Confederate service on July 8, 1861 and served briefly with Brig. Gen. John B. Floyd's brigade in West Virginia, seeing minor action at the Battles of Sewell Mountain and Laurel Hill before being returned to Georgia due to sickness and lack of clothing suitable for the harsh winter climate in the West Virginia mountains. While on coastal duty, they engaged in a number of skirmishes, including the capture of a gunboat that afterwards bore their name and a brush-up with the 8th Michigan on Whitemarsh Island, Georgia on April 16, 1862. The six regiments were placed under the command of Brig. Gen. Alexander Lawton, commander of the Georgia Military District, who had proposed formation of an "elite brigade" of Georgia troops to answer Richmond's call for troops to repel the threat posed by McClellan's advance from Williamsburg on the Confederate capital (i.e. the Peninsula Campaign). In May 1862, the six regiments, which mustered between 6,000-7000 men, were moved by train to Lynchburg and the Shenandoah Valley to re-enforce Stonewall Jackson as part of a deception planned by General Lee to mask his planned offensive against McClellan's forces around Richmond.


Malvern Hill (July 1, 1862); Bristoe Station (August 27, 1862); Groveton (or Brawner's Farm) (August 28, 1862); Second Manassas (or Bull Run) (August 29-30, 1862); Antietam (or Sharpsburg) (September 17,1862); Fredericksburg (December 13, 1862); Chancellorsville (April 29-5, 1863); Wincester (2nd Battle of) (June 13-15, 1863); York & Wrightsville (June 28-29, 1863); Gettysburg (July 1-3, 1863); Mine Run Campaign (Skirmishes of Nov. 26-Dec 2, 1863); Wilderness (May 5-6, 1864); Spotsylvania Court House (May 10-12, 1864); Monocacy (July 9, 1864); Winchester (3rd Battle of)(or Opequon Creek) (Sept. 19, 1864); Fisher's Hill (September 22, 1864); Cedar Creek (October 19, 1864); Hatcher's Run (Feb. 5-7,. 1865); Hares Hill (Fort Steadman) (March 25, 1865); and Appomattox Court House (April 9, 1865)


Company A - Confederate Guards (Pike County)
Company B - Meriwether Volunteers (Meriwether and Troup Counties)
Company C - Ringgold Rangers (Ringgold, Georgia and Catoosa County)
Company D - Upson Volunteers (Upson County)
Company E - Randolph Volunteers (Randolph and Terrell Counties)
Company F - Fayette Rangers (Fayette County)
Company G - Early Guards (Early County)
Company H - Panola Rifles (Terrell County)
Company I - Stark Volunteers (Spalding County)
Company K - Evans Guards (Troup County)

Stewart, Hon. John David (I0613)
209 CLARE, de, Family of. The powerful and illustrious family of De Clare, 'a house which played so great a part alike in England, Wales, and Ireland' (Freeman, Norm. Conq. v. 212), descended directly from Count Godfrey, the eldest of the illegitimate sons of Richard the Fearless, duke of Normandy (Cont. Will. Jum. viii. 87). To him was given, says Ordericus (iii. 340), Brionne cum toto comitatu, but, according to William of Jumièges and his continuator (iv. 18, viii. 37), the Comté of Eu. His son Gilbert inherited Brionne (Ord. Vit. iii. 340), and tested, as 'Brioncensis comes,' the foundation charter of the abbey of Bee, whose founder, Herluin, was his vassal. William of Jumidges, however, styles him Count of Eu ('comes Ocensis') at his death (vii. 2), the Comté he states, having passed at his father's death to his uncle William, but being eventually recovered by him (iv. 18). On this point Stapleton (i. Ivi) may be consulted, but with caution, for his version is confused. Count Gilbert was one of the guardians (Will. Jum. vii. 2) to whom the young duke was conunitted by his father (1036), but was assassinated in 1039 or 1040 (ib.) Thereupon his two young sons fled, with their guardians, to Baldwin of Flanders (Ord. Vtt. iii. 340). The marriage of the Conaueror with Baldwin's daughter restored the exiles to Normandy, where William took them into high favour, and assigned to Richard Bienfaite and Orbec, and to Baldwin Le Sap and Meules (ib.) Ordericus (ii. 121) mentions the two brothers as among the leading men in Normandy on the eve of the conquest.

Both brothers were in attendance on their kinsman during his conquest of England. The one, as Baldwin de Meules, was left in charge of Exeter on its submission (1068), and made sheriff of Devonshire. Large estates in Devonshire and Somersetshire are entered to him in Domesday as 'Baldwin of Exeter' or 'Baldwin the Sheriff.' His brother Richard [see Clare, Richard de (d. 1090?)] was the founder of the family of De Clare. Their surname, which they derived from their chief lordship, the castle and honour of Clare, was not definitely adopted for some two or three generations, and tnis, with the fact that several members of the family bore the same christian names, has plunged the history of the earlier generations into almost inextricable confusion. Dugdale is perhaps the chief offender, but, as Mr. Planché rightly observed, 'the pedigree of the Clares as set down by the genealogists, both ancient and modern, bristles with errors, contradictions, and unauthorised assertions' (p. 150). His own paper (Journ, Arch. Assoc. xxvi. 150 et seq.), so far as it goes, contains probably the best version, that of Mr. Clark on 'The Lords of Morgan' (Arch. Journ. xxxv. 325) beings though later, more erroneous. Mr. Ormerod also, in his 'Strigulensia,' and Mr. Marsh, in his 'Chepstow Castle,' examined the subject, the latter treating it in great detail.

The leading facts, however, are these : On the death of Richard, the founder of the house, his English estates passed to his son Gilbert (d. 1115?) [q.v.], who acouired by conquest possessions in Wales. Of his children, Richard, the eldest son, was the ancestor of the elder line, the earls of Hertford and Gloucester [see Clare, Richard de, d. 1136 ?] ; while Gilbert, a younger brother, establishing himself in Wales, acquired the earldom of Pembroke, and was father of the famous Strongbow, the conqueror of Ireland [see Clare, Richard de, d. 1176]. With him this line came to an end, his vast Irish and Welsh possessions passing to his daughter Isabel, who left by her husband, William Marshal, five daughters and coheiresses. The elder line obtained (from Stephen probably) the earldom of Hertford, ana were thenceforth known as earls of Hertford or of Clare, just as the yoimger line were known as earls of Pembroke or of Striguil. It is implied, in the 'Lords' Reports' (iii. 124) and elsewhere, that they were styled earls of Clare before they were earls of Hertford, but investigation disproves this. By the death of the other coheirs of William, earl of Gloucester (d. 1173), the succession to that earldom, with the honour of Gloucester and lordship of Glamorgan, opened (1217-20) to Gilbert de Clare, earl of Hertford or Clare (d. 1230) [q. v.], and from that time the heads of the house were earls of Gloucester and Hertford. Gilbert had already inherited, through his grandmother, the honour of St. Hilary, and through his ancestress Rohaise (Giffard) a moiety of the Giffard estates, and both he and his father had been among the barons appointed as guardians of Mugna Carta. The accession ot the Gloucester inheritance now further increased their power, and 'from this time the house of Clare became the acknowledged head of the baronage' (Arch. Journ. xxxv. 337). Their vast possessions were again increased by Gilbert'smarriagewith one of the heiresses of the Marshalls, earls of Pembroke, a granddaughter of his kinsman Strongbow. In his grandson Gilbert, 'the Red Earl' [q. v.], his house attained its highest glory. Almost the arbiter of the barons' war, he became under Edward I the most powerful subject in the kingdom, and married, in 1290, the king's daughter Joan. With the death of his son Gilbert [q. v.], who fell gloriously at Bannockburn (24 June 1314), there passed away this famous house, of which it has been said with much truth that ' for steady hereditary influence, supported on the whole by moderation of conduct, and always by great personal valour, no family at all approached to that of the earls of Gloucester and Hertford' (ib. p. 338).

The vast possessions of the De Clares were divided among the three sisters of the last earl, of whom Elizabeth [q. v.], inheriting Clare, became lady of Clare (' Domina Clarae'), and after losing three husbands became in her widowhood foundress of' Clare College,' Cambridge (1347). Her granddaughter and heiress, by her first husband, Elizabeth de Burgh, was in turn lady of Clare, and married Lionel, son of Edward III (1360), who was hence created (1362) duke of Clarence ('de Clarentia'), the style of whose herald is still preserved in Clarenceux king of arms. Their descendant and heir, the Duke of York, ascended the throne as Edward IV (1461), by which 4 the honour of Clare' became merged in the crown, and formed part, as it still does, of the duchy of Lancaster.

The dukedom of Clarence was conferred on Thomas, son of Henry IV (1411), and on George, brother of Edward IV (1461-2), and was finally revived (1789) for Prince William, afterwards William IV. The title was also conferred, as an earldom, on the late Duke of Albany (1881).

The town, county, and river of Clare in Ireland also derive, through Strongbow, their name from this family. Thus this name ' became, through them, so incorporated in our national history and literature that in one or more of its forms it is familiar wherever the English language is spoken' (Antiquary, v. 60).

Clare as a place-name is of doubtful origin. It was certainly a stronghold of early date, and a seat of power before the Conquest. A description of the castle a century ago will be found in the 'Gentleman's Magazine' for 1787 (lvii. 789), and a curious deed by the lady of Clare in that for 1793 (Ixiii. 30). The latter is of interest as illustrating the quasi-regal position of its lords.

[William of Jumieges and his continuator; Ordericus Vitalis (ed. Soeiete de l'Histoiro de France); Monasticon Anglicanum; Stapleton's Rolls of the Norman Exchequer; Lords' Reports on the Dignity of a Peer t1829), iii. 124-9; Gent. Mag.; Planchi's Earls of Gloucester tJournal of the Archaeological Association, vol. xxvi.); Clark's Lords of Glamorgan (Archaeological Journal, vol. xxxv.); Parkins's Clarence (Antiquary, vol. v.); Notes and Queries, 10th ser., v. 424; Freeman's Norm. Conq.; Ormerod's Strigulensia; Marsh's Chepstow Castle.]

J. H. R. 
de Brionne, Geoffrey Comte d'Eu (I11383)
210 CLARE, GILBERT de, called the 'Red,' ninth Earl of Clare, seventh Earl of Hertford, and eighth Earl of Gloucester (1243-1295), the son of Richard, eighth earl of Clare [q. v.], by his wife, Maud, daughter of John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, was born at Christchurch in Hampshire, 2 Sept. 1243 (Teickes. Ann. 130). In the early part of 1253 he was married to Alice of Angouleme, Henry IIFs niece, and, though but nine years old, is said to have taken part in the Paris tournament held in honour of the occasion (matt. Paris, v. 366; Tewkei.Ann. 152; Duodale, Baronage, i. 213). He succeeded to his father's estates in July 1262, and became Earl of Gloucester. Early in 1263 (22 March) he refused to take the oath of allegiance to Prince Edward at Westminster. De Montfort returned to England about 25 April, and with him Gloucester acted in the Oxford parliament (20 May), when the opponents of the provisions were declared public enemies. Shortly afterwards, being dissatisfied with the king's attitude, he helped Be Montfort in his attack on the Bishop of Hereford (Dunst. Ann. 220-2 ; Rymer, i. 426; Wykes, i. 133), but held aloof from politics for a few months afterwards. He was probably among the many nobles who, according to Rishanger (Camd. Soc. 15), went over to the royal side about October (cf. Wykes, 140). But by the early part of April 1264 he must have been in open rebellion against the king, for he seems to have conducted the massacre of the Jews in Canterbury about the same time that de Montfort was slaughtering those of London (c. 10 April). A little later Henry seized his castle of Eangston on his way to the relief of Rochester, and very shortly after this captured the Countess of Gloucester at Tunbridge Castle. The lady, however, being the king's cousin, was set free (Dunst. Ann. 230 ; Rishangeb, Rolls Series, 22). Gloucester was now recognised as the second leader of the baronial party. The negotiations immediately preceding the battle of Lewes were conducted in his name and that of De Montfort, and both were publicly denounced as traitors on 12 May. Just before the engagement (14 May) Smion knighted Gilbert and his brother Thomas (Ann. Wint. 451). In the actual battle the young earl led the centre of the baronial army (Prothero, 277) ; and it was to him that the king surrendered his sword when the day was lost, knowing him to be 'nobiliorem et ceteris potentiorem' (Wav. Ann. 357).

From this moment the Earls of Leicester and Gloucester were supreme. The mise of Lewes contained a special clause exempting them from any punishment for their conduct (Rishanger, Camd. Soc. 38). By the arrangement of 9 June they were empowered to nominate a council of nine, in concert with the Bishop of Chichester ({sc|Rymer}}, 444). On 20 Not. Guido, the papal legate, excommunicated Gloucester along with other rebels (ib. 447). Ten days later (30 Nov.) the first mutterings of disagreement between Leicester and Gloucester may have broken out at the Oxford parliament, which was called to discuss the conduct of the royal partisans who had taken refuge in the marches (Oseney Ann. 154). Gilbert was with the king and Simon at Gloucester when the marcher lords were banished to Ireland for a year. Owing to the quarrel of the two earls the lords neglected to obey the order of exile, and by Gilbert's connivance remained in the kingdom (Lib. de Ant. Leg. 70 ; Wtkes, 159). According to Robert of Gloucester (550) it was owing to Earl Gilbert's opposition to Leicester's measures that the great London parliament (14 Jan. 1265) was summoned. The quarrel was already notorious, and Simon openly charged Gloucester with protecting the marchers. According to one chronicler a reconciliation was now effected ; but at the best it was only momentary (Ann. Wav. 358 ; Wykes, 159 ; Robert of Gloucester, 152). A rumour went abroad that Leicester meditated shutting up Gilbert in prison. The young earl was required to find surety for his future conduct; a tournament that he had made arrangements for holding with young De Montfort at Dunstable was abruptly forbidden (17 Feb.), and Llewellyn was suffered to ravage his Welsh lands (Wykes, 159 ; Rymer, 450 ; Wav. Ann. 358). Indignant at such treatment, the earl fled to the marches.

Besides the general complaint that Simon monopolised too much of the government, Gilbert complained that the forfeited lands were not fairly divided, that the king was led about at the beck of the Earl of Leicester, and that the prisoners made by himself and his men had been taken from them. Two charges against the Earl of Leicester are specially noteworthy : first, that the royal castles were kept in Leicester's hands, and garrisoned by French troops; secondly, that the provisions of Oxford were not properly carried out. These complaints reappear frequently in Gilbert's history, and seem in later years to have inspired his whole political conduct (Rishanger, Rolls Series, 82 ; Trivet, 203 ; Ann. Wig. 453 ; Lib. de Ant. Leg. 73).

From a comparison of texts it would seem that Gilbert ned to the marches between 17 Feb. and 24 Feb. ( Wav. Ann. 358, with which cf. Rtxeb, 450) ; but the feud does not seem to have been recognised till he refused to appear at a tournament to be held at Northampton (13 April or 21 April), immediately after which (25 April) the king, Prince Edward, and Simon started for the marches (Dunstable, 238 ; Wykes, 161-2; Wav. 36l), and entered Gloucester, from which town they held a fifteen days' negotiation with Gilbert, who was then in the Forest of Dean. On 12 May the two earls were nominally once more at peace (Wav. 361-2 ; cf. Rymer, 455). It was probably between May 12 and 20 that Gilbert attempted to seize the king and Simon on their way to Hereford ; but the attempt failed, and there does not appear to have been open warfare till the escape of Prince Edward (26 May). At Ludlow tne prince and the young earl met ; the former took an oath that, if victorious, he would renew the 'old good laws,' and remove the aliens from the royal council and the custody of the royal castles. By 8 June Gilbert and Edward were both proclaimed rebels, and about the same time got possession of Gloucester (Pat. Rolls, 37a; Wav. 361-2 ; Lib. de Ant. Leg. 73 ; Rishanger, Camd. Soc. 43; Rymer, 456-7 ; Wykes, l64-5). In the ensuing campaign, Gloucester?s most brilliant opierations were; the destruction of the Bristol s ips (by which De Montfort had hoped to escape from Newport) and the Severn bridges, a movement which confined Leicester to the west of this river (Wykes, 160; Rishanger, Camd. Soc. 43). According to more than one chronicler Gloucester shared in Prince Edward?s victory at Kenilworth (1 Aug.), and he certainly, led the second division of the army at Evesham. His previous military experience with De Montfort seems to have had much to do with Edward?s method of marshalling his troops (Rishanger, Camd. Soc. 44-5 ; Dunst. Ann. 288). It was the attack of Gloucester that decided the day (John de Oxenedes, 229; Prothero, 342).

A month later Gilbert was present at the Winchester parliament, when the rebel lords were disinherited of their estates (8 Sept.) Rishanger declares that it was mainly owing to the greed of Mortimer and Gloucester, who were ?gaping? after the forfeited lands, that so harsh.; sentence was pronounced, contrary 'to the wish of the king, who was inclined to mercy (Camd. Soc. 49, with which cf. 51). But such a charge is alien from his general character, and is probably merely an expression of the chronicler's personal hostility. The same charge is repeated with details when young Simon presented himself at Northampton (c. Christmas, 1265). Gloucester was then accused of being envious when the king gave his nephew the kiss of peace, and of being the great obstacle to his complete pardon: and all this, according to Rishanger, because he dreaded the vengeance young Simon would take for his father's death (Rishanger, Rolls Series, 32, and Camd. Soc. 51). Gloucester next year accompanied Prince Edward in his expedition against the Cinque Ports-a movement probably induced by the fact that it was to this neighbourhood that De Montfort had escaped-and, at the fall of Pevensey (c. 7 March 1266), saved the life of a rebel knight (whom Edward would have hanged) in the hopes of inducing others to surrender by such an act of mercy (War, 369). It is probable that Gloucester looked upon the younger Montforts as aliens. and demanded their extradition as part of the political programme which he had set himself to work out. Added to which he may have had something of a personal grudge (cf. Lib. de Ant. Leg. 44).

About 24 June Henry laid siege to the disinherited barons at Kenilworth, and three months later Gilbert was appointed one of the twelve commissioners for settling the terms of surrender (Statutes of Realm, i. 12: Dunst. Ann. 242). Their decision was given 31 Oct., and from this moment Gloucester took the side of the vanquished. He probably hoped to secure more favourable terms than were actually given. So great was the enmity of the extreme party against him, that it is said Mortimer conspired to slay him (ib. 532, and before 12 Dec. Gilbert fearing for his life withdrew to his own estates (ib, with which cf. John de Oxen. 232; Walt. Heming. 327).

Henry at once called the great lords to Oxford for Christmas, in the hopes of making peace between the two nobles. Gloucester was summoned to London for 5 Jan., but refused to come, being engaged, it was said, in raising forces on the Welsh borders for a war against Mortimer (Rishanger, Camd. Soc. 59). Before the St. Edmunds Parliament (20 Jan.) he sent to the king's messengers his demands, which ran on the old lines: 1. The removal of the aliens. 2. The fulfilment of the provisions of Oxford and the promises of Evesham. 3. The restitution of their lands to all the disinherited on payment of penalties assessed by jury in proportion to the offence. The earl disclaimed all intention of warring against the king or the prince (Richanger, Camd. Soc. 59; Dunst. Ann. 245). A sudden march from the Welsh borders made Gilbert master of London, to which town he was admitted (8 April) on showing letters patent from the king. Next day he laid siege to the papal legate in the Tower. On 12 April he was joined by D'Eyville and others of the disinherited lords from the north, whom, however, Gilbert would not admit into the city till after Easter (17 April 1267). He allowed no plundering among his followers, but countenanced the deposition of the great men of the city, and the tempprary institution of what a contemporary ndon chronicler calls a ?commune? of the ?homines minuti.? Henry at once came south with his army, rescued the legate, apparently by water, but, being unable to effect an entrance within the walls, encamped at Stratford. After several weeks a peace was concluded between the earl and the king, owing to the mediation of the king of the Romans (16 June). It is to Gilbert's credit that he not only secured liberal terms for himself and the 'disinherited,? but received the royal pardon for those citizens who had taken 'his side (Lib. de Ant. Leg. 90-3; Rishanger; John of Oxenedes, 233, &c.: Wykes, 205, &c.)

Shortly afterwards the earl was reconciled to Prince Edward at Windsor (Lib. de Ant. Leg. 95), and 24 June 1268 they both took the cross at Northampton (Rishanger, Rolls Series. 59 ; Wykes, 218). Towards the end of next year Gloucester refused to attend a parliament) on the plea that Prince Edward was watching an opportunity of imprisoning him ; and the king of the Romans' intervention was once more required. By his decision (17 July 1270) the earl was to take ship for the Holy Land immediately after Prince Edward under in of forfeiting twenty thousand marks. Tlie prince sailed on 20 Aug., but Gloucester seems to have avoided both the expedition and the penalty (Wykes, 229-31, &c. ; Ann, Wint. 109). In January 1271 the earl was mainly instrumental in securing the restoration of all their estates to the 'disinherited' (ib. 110).

On the death of Henry III Gloucester was foremost in declaring his fealty to Edward, in accordance with the oath he made to the dying king (16 Nov.) (Lib. de Ant. Leg. ii. 162, 156 ; Ann, Wint, 112). Next day (17 Nov.), in company with the Archbishop of York, he entered the city and proclaimed peace to all, both Jews and christians, thus securing, for the first time in English history, the acknowledgment of the accession of the eldest son of the king immediately on the death of his father. It is curious to find the earl once more supporting the claims of Walter Hervey, who had been elected mayor of London by the 'communitas,' against those of Philip le Tayllur, the candidate appointed by the city magnates. Here he seems again to be advocating the cause of the weaker citizens, as he had done in 1267, and so helping to sustain a popular movement, which appears to have originated in the times of Simon de Montfort. It was at last decided (18 Nov.) that Walter Hervey should take office after promising that he would not injure any of those who had opposed his election (Lib. de Ant. Leg. 149-63).

It was about this time that Gilbert seems to have first contemplated a divorce from his first wife, Alice, to whom he had been married when a boy. She appears to have leaned rather to the king's party than to her husband's. In the early part of 1267 she sent from London news of her husband's descent on the city to the king (Dunst. Ann. 246). According to John de Oxenedes he was divorced from her at Norwich on 17 July 1271 (p. 239). But the transaction does not seem to have been completed till nearly twenty years later, as documents in Rymer, dated May 1283 and May 1286, speak of a papal dispensation as being still necessary before the second marriage with the Princess Joan can take place (Rymer, ii. 244, 299), and discuss the dowry of the discarded Alice. The second wedding took place on 30 April 1290; but the earl seems not to have been entirely reconciled to his new father-in-law even then, as he at once left Westminster for his castle of Tunbridge (Dunst. Ann. 368 ; Ann. Wig. 602 ; Green, ii. 330, with which cf. the 'abducta uxor' of ^7171. Oseneg, 326). In July he and his wife took the cross at the hands of Archbishop Peckam, and, if we may interpret the chronicler's words literally, actually started for the Holy Land (Cotton, 177-8).

In 1276 Gilbert was summoned against Llewellyn of Wales (Rymer, ii. 73), with whom, though his ally in 1267, he had been engaged in disputes in the Westminster courts some five years previouslv (26 Oct. 1271) about Caerphilly Castle (Pat. Rolls, 43 b; Brut, 366). In 1278 he is found disputing -with the Bishop of Hereford as to the right of hunting in Malvern Hills (Ann. Wig. 476). In December he received a summons to take the field against Llewellyn (Rymer, ii. 76). Four years later he was serving with his soldiery near Lantilowhir, on which occasion (16 June) the king's nephew, William de Valence, was slain (Rishanger, Rolls Series, 100). Next year (1283) he was summoned to Shrewsbury, to assist in the trial of Llewellyn's brother David (Rymer, ii. 200, 247). With Rhys ap Meredith, prince of Ystrad Towy, against whom he led the English baronage, his relations seem to have been more ambiguous; so much so that in 1287 he was suspected of affording a shelter to this prince on his Irish estates, although he had been appointed (July) one of the two leaders of the English expedition against him (Wykes, 311 ; Rymer, ii. 342 ; cf. Rishanger, 144). Eight years later (1294-96) all his Welsh tenants rose up against the Earl of Gloucester, and drove him out of Wales with his wife. Rhys ap Morgan and Maddos appears to have profited by this opportunity ; and when Gilbert took steps for recovering his estates he found that his greater tenants were unwilling to serve under him. Finally the king was forced to come and take the rebellious vassals into his peace against the earl's will (Ann. Dunst, 387 ; Ann. Wig. 626).

Gilbert incurred the king's displeasure by levying private war against the Earl of Norfolk, who in 1276 had got jpossession of Brecknock, which the Earl of Gloucester claimed as his own (Ann, Cambr, 366). About Ascension day 1291 both nobles were consigned to prison, and placed 'in misericordiâ regis' for 1,000l. and 10,000l. respectively (Ann. Dunst, 370 ; Abbrev, Plac, 286). The same year he was present at Norham, where Edward decided the claims to the Scotch crown. He died on 7 Dec. 1296, leaving one son, Gilbert (1291-1314) [q.v.], and three daughters, Eleanor, Marret, and Elizabeth [q. v.] Eleanor mamed (1) Hugh le Deepenser, (2) William le Zouch of Mortimer; Margaret married (1) Piers Gaveston, (2) Hugh d'Audley, afterwards Earl of Gloucester; Elizabeth married (1) John de Burgh, earl of Ulster, (2) Theobald de Verdun, (3) Roger d'Amory (Ann. Wig. 524; Escheat Rolls, i. 271; cf. Knyghton, 2584, and Trokelowe, 86; Green, ii. 360, &c.; see Gilbert De Clare, tenth earl).

Gilbert de Clare was the most powerful English noble of his day. Besides his immense estates in Wales and Ireland, he possessed lands in twenty-two English counties (Escheat Rolls, i. 131). In his early years he appears to have been very fickle in his political attachments, and want of loyalty to his leaders was strikingly exemplified in his conduct towards Simon de Montfort and Prince Edward. There was something chivalrous, however, in his attitude towards the disinherited barons, and in his care to secure the safety of his adherents among the London citizens. His position as leader of the baronage during the later years of his life is best illustrated by the events of 1288, when, on Edward's demand of a subsidy, he refused, as the spokesman of his fellow-magnates, to grant anything till the king's return (Wykes, iv. 316). The ?Chronicon de Lanercost? (p. 168) describes him as ?prudens in consiliis, strenuus in armis, et audacissimus in defensione sui juris;? and ascribes to him the famous story of the rusty sword, which is more commonly assigned to Earl Warenne. He was buried at Tewkesbury, where his picture, painted on glass, is still to be seen (Ann. Wig. 624; Green, ii. 343).

[Annals of Margam, Tewkesbury, Winchester, Waverley, Burton, Dunstable, Wykes, Oseney and Worcester (Wigorn), in Luard's Annales Monastici, i. ii. iii. iv. (Rolls Series); Rishanger, ed. Ryley (Rolls Series) and Halliwell for Camden Society; Matthew Paris, ed. Luard (Rolls Series); John of Oxenedes, ed. Ellis (Rolls Series); Annales Cambriæ and Brut y Tywysogion, ed. Williams ab Ithel (Rolls Series); Liber de Antiquis Legibus, ed. Stapleton (Camd. Soc.); Rymer's F?dera, i. ii. ed. 1704, i. ed. 1816; Statutes of Realm, i. (Patent Rolls); Escheat Rolls; Trivet (Eng. Hist. Soc.); Walter of Hemingford (Eng. Hist. Soc.); Stubbs's Select Charters; Prothero's Simon de Montfort; and authorities cited above.]

T. A. A. 
Clare, Gilbert de 6th Earl of Hertford, 7th Earl of Gloucester (I11022)
211 CLARE, GILBERT de, seventh Earl of Clare, fifth Earl of Hertford, and sixth Earl of Gloucester (d. 1230), was the son of Richard, sixth earl of Clare and Hertford (d. 1217?), by his wife Amicia, one of the three coheiresses of William, earl of Gloucester. On the death of his mother and the failure of issue to her two sisters, Mabel and Isabella (the divorced wife of King John, afterwards married to Geoffrey de Mandevil and Hubert de Burgh), he succeeded to the vast Gloucester estates apparently in the year 1217 (Annals of Margam, p. 33). He also inherited the estates of his grandmother, Maud de St. Hilary, and a moiety of the honour of Giffard from his father, who had been confirmed in this possession by Richard I as one of the coheirs of his ancestress, Rohais, daughter of Walter Giffard, earl of Buckingham (Clark, Land of Morgan, p. 332; Marsh, Chepstow Castle, p. 78). According to Dugdale his father died in 1206; but this is evidently a mistake, as both Richard, earl of Clare, and his son Gilbert appear in the patent rolls of 14 John (ed. Hardy, p. 192); while the Earl of Clare and Gilbert de Clare are to be found among the twenty-five barons appointed to carry out the great charter in June 1215, and were both excommunicated by Innocent III in the beginning of 1216 (Matt. Paris, ii. 605, 643). After the death of John he sided with the dauphin, and is said to have been taken prisoner at the battle of Lincoln by William Marshall, the earl of Pembroke, who married him to his daughter Isabella (Walsingham, Ypod. Neust. p. 137) on St. Denis's day, 9 Oct. 1217 (Annals of Margam, p. 33). In February 1225 he was present at the confirmation of the great charter at Westminster (Burton Annals, i. 232). Two years later we find him taking the part of Richard, earl of Cornwall, in his quarrel with the king, demanding a renewal of the forest acts and ascribing all the faults of the government to Hubert de Burgh (Matt. Paris, iii. 124; cf. Walter of Coventry, ii. 261, sub anno 1225). About May 1230 he appears to have attended Henry III abroad on his expedition to Brittany; but died in ipso reditu, at Penros in that duchy, 25 Oct. 1230 (Tewkesbury Annals, p. 76; Waverley Annals, p. 308). He seems to have made his first will before starting on this campaign, 30 April 1230, at Suwik-super-Mare; his second, just before his death, on 23 Oct. His body was conveyed to Plymouth, and thence, by way of Cranborne, to Tewkesbury, where he was buried before the great altar on the Sunday following St. Martin's day, in the presence of an innumerable concourse (Tewkes. Ann. p. 76). To Tewkesbury Abbey he was a great benefactor in his lifetime, and bequeathed it a silver cross and the wood of Mutha (ib. pp. 74, 76). His widow Isabella set up a memorial stone 28 Sept. 1231. In the course of the same year she married Richard, earl of Cornwall (ib. pp. 38, 78). Clare was engaged in many Welsh expeditions. He is found fortifying Builth Castle in 12 John. In 1228 he set out with a great army against the Welsh, on which occasion we read that he found silver, iron, and lead (ib. p. 70). The same year he captured Morgan Cam and sent him prisoner to England (Marg. Ann. i. 36); but a little later released him for hostages. Clare had three sons by his wife Isabella: (1) Richard, [see Clare, Richard de, 1222-1262]; (2) William; and (3) Gilbert; and three daughters: (1) Amicia (b. about 1220), who in October 1226 was betrothed to Baldwin de Redvers (Clark, p. 335); (2) Agnes; and (3) Isabel (b. 2 Nov. 1226), who married Robert de Bruce of Annandale (ib.). His widow, Isabel, died 17 Jan. 1239-40, and was buried at Beaulieu. Her heart, however, was brought to Tewkesbury by the prior in a silver-gilt casket (cuppa) and interred before the great altar (Tewkes. Ann., pp. 113-14).

[The Land of Morgan, by G. T. Clark, in Archæological Journal (1878), xxxv. 332-8; Marsh's Annals of Chepstow Castle; Annals of Margam, Tewkesbury, Burton, and Waverley in vols. i. and ii. of Annales Monastici, ed. Luard (Rolls Series); Matthew Paris, ed. Luard (Rolls Series); Walsingham's Ypodigma Neustriæ, ed. Riley (Rolls Series); Dugdale's Baronage, vol. i.; Patent Rolls (John), ed. Hardy (1835); Close Rolls, ed. Hardy (1833), i. 606; Walter of Coventry, ed. Stubbs (Rolls Series).]

T. A. A. 
Clare, Gilbert de 4th Earl of Hereford, 5th Earl of Gloucester (I11366)
212 CLARE, GILBERT de, tenth Earl Of Clare, eighth Earl of Hertford, and ninth Earl of Gloucester (1291?1314), the son of Gilbert, ninth earl of Clare [q. v.], by his wife Joan, daughter of Edward I, was born about 10 May 1291 (Osney Annals, p. 325; Cal. Genealog. i. 530). His father died 7 Dec. 1295, and within a year his mother married Ralph de Monthermer, who was appointed guardian to the young earl, and was summoned to parliament by the title of Earl of Gloucester (WA Lt. Hest. ii. 70; Part. Writs, vol. ii. div. iii. p. 676). As a boy Gilbert de Clare was the companion of Edward II, his uncle (sturrs, ii. 314). In 1306 he is found serving against Scotland, and some six months later was granted seisin of his property in London, 23 June 1307 (Dig. of Peer, ii. 171; Rylri, 371). He was called to the parliament of March 1308 by the title of Earl of Gloucester and Hertford (Purl. Writs, ib.), his mother being now dead. In the same year he was ordered to attend the muster against the Scots at Carlisle, and sent to negotiate a truce with Robert Bruce (ib.; Walt. Hem. p. 274). On 3 Dec. he was made commander of the troops destined for the relief of Rutherglen Castle in Scotland, and next year was required to raise 800 soldiers from his lordship in Glamorgan (Parl. Writs, vol. ii. div. iii. p. 676). In the same autumn (September 1309) he was appointed commander of the English army on both sides of the Forth (ii.) Meanwhile' the Gaveston troubles had been drawing to a head. Gilbert is said to have observed a strict neutrality when the favourite was banished in 1308 (Auct. Malmesb. p. 158). This was perhaps due to the fact that Gaveston had married his sister Margaret. He seems to have at least acquiesced in the important Westminster articles presented by the parliament of April 1309 (Rot. Parl. i. 443): but had been won over to the king's side by July, when the barons met at Stamford, on which occasion his influence secured Gaveston's return. Here he pledged himself for the performance of the ordinances, and a letter is still extant in which he complains to the king of their non-fulfilment, and thus prevents the raising of the promised twentv-nfth (STURRS, ii. 325; Parl. Writs, ib.) In March 1310 he joined in the petition for the appointment of ordainers; and, when it was feared that the partisans of Lancaster would attend the Westminster council in arms, he was appointed to maintain order (Ann. Paul. i. 170; Rymer (ed. 1818), ii. 103; Sturrs, ii. 326). His name appears first of the eight earls among the ordainers, in which body he must to some extent be regarded as representing the king's party. He soon resigned his appointment, after having offered an ineffectual resistance to the extreme measures of his colleagues (Ann. land. p. 172; Auct. Brid. pp. 37, 39; Parl. Writs, p. 676). Later on in this year, when Edward II was so shamefully deserted by the great lords, he was one of the only three earls who attended the summons to Berwick (Auct. Malmsb. pp. 164,165; Ann. Lond. ed. Paul. pp. 174, 269). Next year, on the Earl of Lincoln's death, he was made ?guardian' of England (March 1811). When Gaveston was once more banished (October 1311) by the ordainers, Clare at first affixed his seal to the king's letters of recommendation, but almost immediately revoked his act on the plea that he was still a minor (Auct. Malmesb. p. 174; Parl. Writs, vol. ii. div. iii.) On the favourite's return (January 1312) he was appointed by the barons to defend Kent, London, and the south-eastern parts of England; but he refused to take any active part in the league against Gaveston, though he let it be understood that he was prepared to confirm the acts of Lancaster. When Gaveston was taken from the custody of the Earl of Pembroke, who had pledged his word and lands to the king for his safety, this nobleman appealed to Gloucester to aid him in securing the restoration of his prisoner; but only received the contemptuous advice that if he should forfeit his estates, it would teach him to be a better trader another time (Chr. of Ed. I and II, i. 203, ii. 178). Later in the year (July 1312), when both parties were mustering their forces for war, Clare again came forward as a mediator and persuaded Edward to hear Lancaster?s defence (ib. i. 210, 221, ii. 185-6). By Christmas he had succeeded in making terms (ib.; cf. Trokelowe, p. 74. In May 1313 Gloucester was again appointed regent during the king's absence in France (Chr. of Ed. I and II, ii. 191). Next year he was slain at the battle of Bannockburn. In this expedition he equipped 500 soldiers at his own expense, and was placed at the head of the vanguard in company with the Earl of Hereford. It was contrary to his advice that Edward joined battle on 24 June instead of allowing his troops the festival as a day of rest. For this prudent counsel the king taunted him with treachery and cowardice, to which the earl made answer that he would on that day prove the falsehood of this charge. The battle opened with Douglas's attack on his division, and, according to one chronicler, the weight of the whole combat rested on him. He rushed on the enemy's ranks ?like a wild boar, making his sword drunk with their b1ood.' His horse appears to have stumbled and to have trodden its rider beneath its hoofs. In this predicament he was pierced with many lances and his head battered to pieces. Robert Bruce sent back his dead body to Edward for burial without demanding any ransom (ib. ii. 203-l; Trokelowe, pp. 85, 98; Barbour, p. 263). The vast estates of the house of Clare extending over twenty-three English counties, to say nothing of his immense posseasions in Wales and in Ireland, were divided among his three sisters [see Gilbert de Clarke, ninth earl]. His three earldoms fell into abeyance for a time; later that of Gloucester was renewed (l) in the person of his brother-in-law, Hugh de Spencer; (2) for another brother-in-law, Hugh de Audley (March 1337), on whose death it became once more extinct (1 Ed. III); and thirdly in 21 Rich. II for his sister Eleanor's great-grandson, Thomas de la Spencer (Trokelowe, p. 86; Chr. of Ed. I and II. i. 356, ii.; Dignity of a Peer, iv.; but cf. Nicolas, Hist. Par. p. 214). Clare married Matilda, the daughter of Richard de Burgh, second earl of Ulster, in 1308, but left no children (Trokelowe, p. 86; Ann. Paul. p. 264). He seems to have shared in his father's and grandfather's excessive love for tournaments; but on the whole appears, both intellectually and morally, to have been the noblest member of his great house.

[Osney Annals ap. Luard's Annales Monastici, iv. (Rolls Series); Annals of London and Annals of St. Paul's (in vol. i.); the Malmesbury and Bridlington authors of tha Life of Ed. II in Chronicles and Memorials of Ed. I and II, ad. Stubbs (Rolls Series); Trokelowe, ed. Riley (Rolls Series); Waller of Hemingburgh. ed. Hamilton (English Hist. Soc.); Rolls of Par1iament, vol. i.; Barbour's Bruce. ed. Skeet for Early Eng. Text Society; Lords' Report on the Dignity of a Peer, vol. ii. iv.; Rymer's F?dera, cd. 1818; Chronicle of Lanercost.]

T. A. A. 
Clare, Gilbert de 10th Earl of Clare, 7th of Herford, 8th of Glouchester (I11354)
213 CLARE, RICHARD de, or RICHARD STRONGBOW, second Earl of Pembroke and Strigul (d. 1176), was son of GILBERT STRONGBOW, OR DE CLARE, whom Stephen created earl of Pembroke in 1138, and grandson of GILBERT DE CLARE, d. 1115? [q. v.] (Ord. Vit. xiii. 37). His mother was ELIZABETH, DAUGHTER OF ROBERT DE BEAUMONT, earl of Leicester and Mellent (Will. of Jumièges, viii. 37; Dugdale, i. 84). He appears to have succeeded to his fathers estates in 1148 (Marsh, p. 55; Dugdale, i. 208) ; but the name of "Richard, count of Pembroke," first appears among the signatures to the treaty of Westminster (7 Nov. 1153), which recognised Prince Henry as Stephen?s successor (Brompton, 1039n. 60). It appears that he was allowed to retain his title even aft er the accession of Henry II, when so many of Stephen's earldoms were abolished; but according to Giraldus Canibrensis he had either forfeited or lost his estates by 1167-8 (Expugn. Hib. i. cxii). We learn from Ralph de Diceto (i. 330) that he was one of the nobles who accompanied Princess Matilda on her marriage journey to Minden in Germany early in 1168.

According to the Irish historians it was in 1166 that Dermot [see MacMurchada Diarmid], driven from Leinster by the combined forces of Roderic O'Connor, king of Connaught, and Tighernan O?Ruarc, of Breifni, appealed to Henry for aid in the recovery of his Kingdom (Annals of Four Masters, i. 1161). This date, to Giraldus, seems two years too early. Henry gave letters empowering any of his subjects to assist the dethroned monarch, who secured the services of Earl Richard, pilqgiising in return for his assistance to give his eldest daughter in marriage, together with the succession to Leinster (Gib. Camb. v. 227-8; Anglo-Norman Poet, l1. 328, &c.) The earl engaged to cross over with an army in the ensuing spring; but stipulated that he must have express permission from Henry before starting (Gir. v. 228; Anglo-Norman Poet, ll. 356-7). Earlier aid was promised by Robert FitzStephen and Maurice FitzGera1d, who appear to have crossed over to Wexford about 1 May 1169 Gir. 230; A. F. M. i. 1173). If this date correct, the meeting of Dermot and the earl must have taken place about July 1168, to which year Hoveden assigns the invasion of Ireland (i. 269; Gir. 229, with which cf. A.-N. P. pp. 16-19). In the conquest of Wexford and the expeditions against Ossory and Dublin Earl Richard took no part; but according to Giraldus he was represented in this campaign by his nephew, Hervey de Mountmaurice.

It was apparently towards the close of this year that Dermot, despairing of the arrival of the Earl of Strigul, offered his daughter to Robert FitzStephen and Maurice FitzGerald, and on their refusal sent a pressing invitation to the earl: "The swallows have come and gone, yet you are tarrying sti1l." On receiving this letter, Earl Richard, "after much deliberation," crossed over to Henry and received the requisite permission to carve out a heritage for himself in foreign lands; but, according to Giraldus, the king granted his request ironically rather than seriously (246-8). A much later writer, Trivet (c. 1300), has preserved a tradition that the earl had been an exile in Ireland previous to this (Trivet, 66-7). Before crossing to Ireland himself, Earl Richard sent forward a small force under one of his own men, Raymond le Gros, the nephew of FitzStephen and FitzGerald. Landing near Watertford about the beginning of May 1170, he was immediately joined by Herve de Mountmaurice (Gir. 248, &c.; A.-N.P. pp. 67, &c.) According to the Anglo-Norman Poet, Earl Richard crossed very soon alter' (ll. 1500-3); both accounts agree that he apeared before Waterford with from twelve to teen hundred men on St. Bartholomew's eve (23 Aug.) Within two days the city had fallen; but Dermot, accompanied by Maurice and Robert, came up in time to save the lives of the captives. The marriage between Eva and the earl was celebrated at once, and the whole army set out for Dublin, after setting an English guard at Waterford {A.-N.P. 11. 1508-1569; Gib. 265-6). If the Anglo-Norman Poet may be trusted, there were from four to five thousand English who took part in the march to Dublin, before which town they arrived on 21 Sept. (1. 1626). Meanwhile, Koderic of Connaught had mustered thirty thousand men for its relief. While peace negotiations were going on, Milo de Cogan and Raymond le Gros took the city by assault, wimout the consent of either Dermot or the earl (A.N.P. 11. 1680-2 ; Gir. 266-7). Asculf MacTurkill, the Danish ruler, was driven into exile, and his town handed over to Earl Richard, who appears to have resided here till the beginning of October, when he started to attack O'Ruarc in Meath, leaving Dublin in charge of Milo de Cogan (Gib. 257; A.-N.P. 11. 1709-23; A.F.M. 1171). From Meath he seems to have withdrawn to Waterford for the winter; while Dermot took up his abode at Ferns, where he died on 1 May 1171 (Gib. 263 ; A.-N.P. 1724-31).

Meanwhile, Henry II, who had grown jealous of his vassal's success, had forbidden the transport of fresh forces to Ireland, and ordered all who had already crossed to return by Easter 1171 (28 March). To prevent the enforcement of this decree, the earl despatched Raymond le Gros to the king in Aquitane, with instructions to place all his conquests at the king's disposal (Gib. 259).

On the death of Dermot there was a general combination against the English. All the earl's allies, excepting some three or four, (A.-N.P. 11. 1732^3), deserted him, and a force of sixty thousand men was collected under Roderic O'Connor to besiege Dublin about Whitsuntide (16 May) 1171. Earl Richard, to whose assistance Raymond le Gros had already returned, sent for aid to FitzStephen at Wexford, from which place he received a reinforcement of thirty-six men, a step which so weakened the Wexford garrison, that it had to surrender later (P c. 1 July). On hearing of this disaster the earl, fearing starvation, offered to do fealty to Roderic for Leinster. Roderic, however, refused to concede more than the three Norse towns, Waterford , Dublin, and Wexford ; if these tetms were rejected, he would storm the town on the morrow (A.-N.P. pp. 85-9; Gib. 266, &c.^ In this emergency the earl ordered a sudaen sally in three directions, led by Milo, Raymond, and himself. A brilliant success was achieved ; the siege was raised, and the earl was left free to set out to the relief of FitzStephen, whom the Irish had shut up in the island of Becherin. Dublin was once more entrusted to Milo de Cogan. On his march through Idrone he was attacked by O'Ryan, the king of this district; but hearing that the Irish had left Wexford for Becherin, he proceeded to Waterford, whence he sent a summons to his brother-in-law, the king of Limerick, to aid in an attack on MacDonchid, the king of Ossory. The 'Anglo-Norman Poet' (pp. 97-101) says that it was only the chivalrous honour of Maurice de Prendergast that now prevented the earl from acting with the utmost treachery to the latter king. The earl then departed for Ferns, where he stayed eight days before going in pursuit of Murrough O'Brien, who was put to death at Ferns, together with his son. About the same time, acting as the over-king of Leinster, he confirmed Muirchertad ('Murtherdath') in his kingdom of Hv-Kinsellagh (near Wexford), and gave the 'pleis' of Leinster to Donald Kevenath, the faithful son of Dermot (A.-N.P. pp. 103-5).

Probably about the middle of August Hervey de Mountmaurice returned from a second mission to the king, and urged the earl to lose no time in makingpeace witn Henry personally (Gib. 273; A.-N, P. pp. 105). After entrusting Waterford to Gilbert de 6orard, Strongbow crossed over to England with Hervey, found the king at Newnham in Gloucestershire, and, after much trouble, succeeded in pacifying him, by the resignation of all his castles and maritime cities. On 18 Oct. the king reached Waterford, which was at once handed over to Robert FitzBernard (Gib. 273 ; Bened. i. 24, &c.; A.-N. P. 126). From Waterford the king marched through Ossory to Dublin, receiving the homage of the Irish princes as he went. He spent Christmas at Dublin, which on his departure he gave in charge to Hugh de Lacy (A.-N.P. 11. 2713-16). It would seem that during the greater part of the six months Henry spent in Ireland Earl Richard kept his own court at Kildare.

A Dyvelin esteit li reis Henriz
Et à Kildare li quens gentils
(11. 2695-6).

That the king to some extent distrusted the intentions of hb great vassal is evident by the steps he took to weaken the earl's party and power (Gib. 284).

Towards the beginning of Lent (c. 1 March 1172) Henry reached Wexford. Three or four weeks later came the news of the threatened rebellion of his sons; but his passage to England was delayed till Easter Monday (17 April). Before leaving Ireland he had made Hugh de Lacy lord of Meath, and entrusted Wexford to William FitzAldhelm. Meanwhile, Earl Richard withdrew to Ferns, where he married his sister Basilia to Robert de Quenci, who was given the constableship of Leinster (Bened. i. 25; Gir. 287; A.-N.P. ll. 2741-50).
For the next two years Kildare seems to have been Earl Richard?s headquarters (ll. 2760-72), whence he appears to have made forays on the district of Offaly. On one of these expeditions Robert de Quenci was slain, upon which Raymond le Gros demanded the widow in marriage. This request, which implied a claim to the constableship of Leinster and the guardianship of Basilia's infant daughter, was refused, allthough the refusal seems to have cost the earl ?the services of Raymond and his followers, who at once retumed to Wales (A.-N.P. pp. 133-6 ; but cf. (Gir. 310).

On the breaking out of the rebellion of 1178 (c. 15 April 1173) Henry summoned the earl to his assistance in Normandy, where, according to the ?Anglo-Norman Poet,? he was given the castle of Gisors to guard. From Ralph de Diceto we know that he was present at the relief of Verneuil (9 Aug.) (cf. Eyton, 172, l76). 1[e was apparently dismissed before the close of the first year of war, and as a reward of his fidelity received the restoration of Wexford, Waterford, and Dublin. On reaching Ireland he atonce despatched Robert Fitzllernard, FitzStephen, and others tn aid against. the rebels in llngland, where, if we may trust, the Anglo-Norman Poet, the Irish forces were present at the overthrow of the Earl of Leicester (17 Uct.) at- Bury St.. Edmunds (A.-N.P. pp. 130-4l; Diceto, i. 375, 377; Gir. 298, but cf. remarks in list of authorities at end of article).

On Raymond's departure Earl Richard gave the eoustableship to llervey de Mountmaurice (Gir. 308). Dissatisfied with his generalship, the troops clamoured for the reappointment of Raymond, whom Henry had sent back to Ireland with the earl, and their request was granted (ib. 298). About the latter part. of 1174 the earl led his army into Munster, against Ronald of Limerick, and met with the great disaster that forced him back to Waterford, where he was closely besieged by the Irish, while Roderic O'Connor advanced to the very walls of Dublin. In this emergency the earl sent over a messenger begging that Raymond would come to his aid, and promising him his sister's hand. The two nobles met in an island near Waterford. Earl Richard was brought back to Wexford, where the marriage was celebrated. On the next day Raymond started to drive the of Counaught out of Meath (A.F.M. ii. 15-19, with which cf. Gib. 310-12; A.-N.P. pp. 142-4). It was now that, at Raymond?s suggestion, the earl gave his elder daughter Alina to William Fitzmaurice. To Maurice himself he Wicklow Castle; Carbury to Meiler FitzHenry, and other estates to various other knights. Dublin was handed over to the brothers from Hereford. With his sister Earl Richard granted Raymond Fothord, Idrone, and Glaskarrig (Gir. 314; for full list, see A.-N.P. pp. 144-8). It appears that the earl was now supreme in Leinster, having hostages of all the great Irish princes (ll. 3208, &c.)
It was robably in 1175 that Earl Richard was called) upon to relieve Hug; de Lacy?s newly built castle of Trim. After this success he withdrew to Dublin, having determined to send his army under Raymond against Donald O?Brien of Limerick. He does not seem to have taken any personal share in the latter expedition (c. 1 Oct. 1175), and indeed may possibl have been in England in this very month (Eyton, 196). After the fall of Limerick Hervey persuaded the king to recall his rival Ra ond, whom, however, the peril of the English garrison detained in Ireland long after the receipt of the summons, since the earl's men refused to advance under any other leader. On Tuesday, 6 April 1176, Raymond once more entered Limerick, from which town he soon started for Cork, to relieve Dermot Macarthy, rince of Desmond. While thus engaged he received a letter from his wife, Basilia, informing him that "that huge grinder which had caused him so much pain had fallen out." By this phrase be understood that Earl Richard was dead (c. 1 June according to Giraldus; but 5 April according to Diceto). After Raymond`s arrival the earl was buried in the church of the Holy Trinity, where his tomb is still shown. Other accounts make him buried at Gloucester (A.-N.P. 11. 3208, &c.; Giraldus; Diceto, i. 407).

Earl Richard seems to have left an only daughter, Isabella by name. At the age of three she became the heiress to her father's vast estates, and was married by King Richard to William Marshall in 1189. (Hoveden, iii. 7; Dicento, i. 407). The question as to whether he had other issue has been fiercely contested by genealogists; but there seems to be no reason for doubting that he was married before espousing Dermot's daughter. The earl's daughter, Alina, mention above, cannot well have been his child by Eva. In the Irish Annals we read (a.d. 1171) of a predatory expition led into Kildare by the ear1's son (A.F.M. 1185). A Tintern charter granted by the younger William Marshall, and dated Strigul 22 March 1206, makes mention of "Walter, filius Ricardi, filii Gilberti Strongbowe, avi mei" (Dugdale, v. 267). But even this evidence can hardly be considered to confirm the current story as to how the earl met his son fleeing before the enemy and, enraged at such cowardice, clave him asunder with his sword. A tomb is still shown in Christ Church, Dublin, which passes for that of Richard Strongbow. This monument, which is described as displaying "the cross-legged effigy of a knight," is said to have been restored by Sir Henry Sidney in 1570. On the left lies a half-figure "of uncertain sex," which is popularly supposed to represent the earl's son. On it are inscribed the lines: Nate in te mihi pugnanti terga dedisti:Non mihi sed genti, regno quoque terga dedisti." [O son, you have given me to fight back: It is not me, but to the nation, the kingdom of his back, too, you have given.]

But there is no evidence as to the original state of this monument or the extent of Sir Henry's 'restorations.' The whole legend was well known to Stanihurst in 1584; but it may date much further back than the sixteenth century (Marsh, 62).

According to Giraldus's rhetorical phrase, Richard de Clare was "vir plus nomims hactenus habens quam ominis, plus genii quam ingenii, plus successionis quam possessionis [The man has had more names than luck, more genius than genius, more than that of succession]." More trustworthy, perhaps, is Giraldus's personal descritption o the earl: "A man of a somewhat orid complexion and freckled; with grey eyes, feminine features, a thin voice and short neck, but otherwise of a 'good stature." He was rather suited, continues the same historian, for the council chamber than the field, and better fitted to obey than to command. He repaired to be urged on to enterprise by his followers; but when once in the press of the fight his resolution was as the standard or the rallying-point of his side. No disaster could shake discourage, and he showed no undue exhilaration when things went well. In the pages of Giraldus the earl appears as a mere foil to the brilliant characters of the Fitzgeralds, and is never credited with any very remarkable military achievement. On the other hand, in the pages of the ?Anglo-Norman Poet? he fills a much more prominent position; he leads great expeditions, and is specially distinguighread at the siege of Dublin. But even in the verse of this writer his special epithets are, "li entils quens," "le bon contur." It is more rarely that we find him styled "li quens vailland."

[The two principal authorities for the career of Richard Strongbow are Giraldus Cambrensis and a poet who, towards the close of the twelfth century, wrote an account of the conquest of Ireland in Norman-French verse. The narrative of the latter, according to its author?s statement, is largely based on theinformationderived from Dermot?s interpreter or clerk, Maurice Regan. In many points these two writers are not in absolute accord, and the chronology is rendered still more obscure by the fact that the Anglo-Norman Poet gives no yearly dates at all, while Giraldus is not entirely consistent with himself. Each author supplies much that is peculiar to himself; at other times, when they seem to differ it may be that they refer to different occasions. The latter view has been taken in the article in the case of Raymond?s return to England. Giraldus Cambrensis, Expugnatio Hibernica, ed. Dimock (Rolls Series), v.; Anglo-Norman Poet, ed. Wright and Michel (London, 1837); Eyton?s Itinerary of Henry II; Green?s English Princesses, i.; Benedict of Peterborough and Ralph de Diceto, ed. Stubbs (Rolls Series); Trivet, ed. Hog (Engl. Hist. Soc.) ; Dugdale?s Baronage, i., and Monasticon (ed. 1817-1846); William of Jumieges, ap. Migne, cxxxix. col. 906; Brompton?s Chronicon, ap. Twysden?s Decem Scriptores; Annals of the Four Masters, ed. Donovan; Marsh?s Chepstow Castle; Urleric Vitalis (Bohn), iv. 203 ; Journal of Archæological Association, x. 265.]
Clare, Richard FitzGilbert de 2nd Earl of Pembroke (I11104)
214 COURTENAY, PETER (d. 1492), bishop successively of Exeter and Winchester, was the third son of Sir Philip Courtenay of Powderham, and his wife Elizabeth, daughter of Walter, lord Hungerford. Sir Philip (d. 1463) was the heir of his uncle, Richard Courtenay, bishop of Norwich [q. v.], and, though representing a younger branch of his illustrious family, a man of considerable wealth (see the list of his manors in Cal. Inquis. post mortem, 3 Edw. IV, iv. 322). Peter prosecuted his studies at Oxford and in Italy, where it is said he became a doctor of both laws at Padua. At Oxford he became a member of the local foundation of Exeter College (Wood, Colleges and Halls, p. 109). In 1457, being then a student of civil law, he obtained a dispensation from the university, relieving him from some of the statutable residence and exercises required before admission to read 'in the institutes' (Anstey, Munimenta Academica, Rolls Ser., pp. 744?5). He had already resided three years in the faculty of arts, and the same time in that of civil law. On his admission as bachelor of laws he 'kept great entertainment for the academicians and burgher' (Wood, Hist. and Antiq. of Oxford, i. 66, ed. Gutch; cf. Mun. Ac. p. 745). He afterwards became a doctor. His rank secured him rapid preferment. In 1453 he was made rector of Moreton Hampstead and archdeacon of Exeter (Le Neve, i. 395). In 1463 he became prebendary of Lincoln (ib. ii. 124, 221). In 1464 he was also appointed archdeacon of Wiltshire (ib. ii. 630). He was master of St. Anthony's Hospital, London (Godwin, De Præsulibus (1743), p. 414). In 1476?7 he was made dean of Windsor, and in 1477 dean of Exeter. On 5 Sept. 1478 he was appointed by papal provision bishop of Exeter; on 3 Nov. his temporalities were restored (F?dera, xii. 945), and on 8 Nov. he was consecrated, by license from the archbishop, by Bishop Kemp of London, at St. Stephen's Chapel, Westminster (Le Neve, i. 376). As bishop he showed a good deal of activity in building. He completed the north tower of his cathedral at his own cost, and put in it a great bell, still called Peter's bell, and a curious clock showing the state of the moon and the day of the month. He also built the tower of Honiton church, besides largely assisting in the erection of the church itself. Courtenay also took considerable part in politics. Of a Yorkist family and in the service of Edward IV, he even acquiesced in the revolution which made Richard III king, and was present at the house of the Duchess of York when Richard gave the great seal to John, bishop of Lincoln (F?dera, xii. 189). He joined, however, the party of Buckingham, and in conjunction with his kinsmen, Edward Courtenay of Boconnock and Walter Courtenay of Exeter, and many others of the western gentry, endeavoured in vain to excite a rising in Devonshire and Cornwall (Polydore Vergil, p. 551, ed. 1570, and Hall, p. 393, ed. 1809, erroneously call Edward the bishop's brother). On their failure they escaped to Brittany to share the exile of Henry of Richmond. Spared his life with Bishops Morton and Wydville out of consideration for their office, Courtenay was condemned in Richard III's parliament to lose his temporalities and estates (Rot. Parl. vi. 250). He returned to England with Henry VII, and received from that monarch great favours to compensate for his sufferings in his cause. Edward Courtenay was made Earl of Devon. Peter was put on the commission which was to perform the duties of seneschal at Henry's coronation (F?dera, xii. 277); received the custody of the temporalities and the disposal of the preferment of the Yorkist bishop of Salisbury (Campbell, i. 81), and on 8 Sept. was appointed keeper of the privy seal with a salary of twenty shillings a day (ib. i. 151). He was present at the first parliament of Henry VII, where the sentences of Richard's time against him and his confederates were reversed (Rot. Parl. vi. 273), and where he served as a trier of petitions of Gascony and other places beyond sea (ib. 268 a). In 1486 he was appointed a commissioner of the royal mines and placed with the Earl of Devon and others on a commission to inquire into the seizure of certain Hanse ships by the men of Fowey, contrary to the existing amity (Campbell, i. 315, 316). On the death of William of Waynfleet he received the grant of the temporalities of Winchester (F?dera, xii. 322), and on 29 Jan. 1487 was translated to that important see by papal bull (Le Neve, iii. 15?16). He now ceased to be privy seal, but was still a good deal engaged on state affairs. In 1488 he was one of the commissioners appointed to muster archers in Hampshire for the expedition to Brittany (Campbell, ii. 385), and in 1489 was put on a special commission of the peace for Surrey (ib. ii. 478). He received as a gift from the king ?a robe made of sanguine cloth in grain, furred with pure menever, gross menever, and byse? (ib. ii. 497). He was a witness to the creation of Arthur as prince of Wales in 1490 (ib. ii. 542), and was present at the ratification of the treaty with Spain in the same year (F?dera, xii. 428). An unsuccessful attempt was made in 1487 to appoint him chancellor of Oxford, against John Russell, bishop of Lincoln (Wood, Fasti Oxonienses, ed. Gutch, p. 65). He died on 23 Sept. 1492, and was probably buried at Winchester, though the exact spot is uncertain, and local writers have conjectured his tomb to be at Powderham.

[F?dera, vol. xii. original edition; Rolls of Parliament, vol. vi.; Campbell's Materials for the History of Henry VII, Rolls Series; Wood's History and Antiquities of Oxford, ed. Gutch; Boase's Register of Exeter College, Oxford; Collins's Peerage, vi. 255 (ed. 1779); Le Neve's Fasti Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ, ed. Hardy; Cleaveland's Genealogical History of the Family of Courtenay (1735). The biographies in Prince's Worthies of Devon, p. 166, and Cassan's Lives of the Bishops of Winchester, i. 314?16, contain practically no additional information.]
Courtenay, Bishop Peter (I11222)
215 COURTENAY, WILLIAM (1342?-1396), archbishop of Canterbury, fourth son of Hugh Courtenay, earl of Devon, and Margaret Bohun, daughter of Humphrey Bohun, earl of Hereford, by his wife Elizabeth, daughter of Edward I, was born in the parish of St. Martin's, a suburb of Exeter, in or about 1342. After receiving his early education in his father's house, he was sent to Stapledon Hall, Oxford, where he graduated in law, being described both as Doctor Decretorum and D.C.L. (Fasciculi Zizaniorum, pp. 288, 498). In 1367 he was chosen chancellor, and the university having successfully resisted the claim of the Bishop of Lincoln to control its right of election, he was admitted without the episcopal confirmation. He obtained a bull of confirmation from Urban V, declaring that the election of a chancellor by the university was valid without the interference of the diocesan (Munimenta Academica, i. 229). His election displeased the friars; for he had taken part with the university in its struggle to enforce upon them obedience to its rules; and in spite of an agreement into which they had lately entered, they cited the chancellor to Rome. This, however, was an infringement of the rights of the crown, and the citation was quashed (ib. 226; Wood, Antiquities of Oxford, i. 480). Courtenay held prebends in the churches of Exeter and Wells, and on 24 March 1369?70 was made a prebendary of York. In this year also he was elected bishop of Hereford, and his defect in age having been made up by a papal bull dated 17 Aug., he was consecrated on 17 March 1370, and enthroned on 5 Sept. following. As bishop he allied himself with the party of the Prince of Wales and William of Wykeham, bishop of Winchester, who opposed the attacks made on the clergy by John of Gaunt, and he vigorously upheld the rights of the national church against the twofold oppression of the pope and of the crown, to which it was exposed. Neither at this, nor indeed at any other period of his career, does his conduct appear to warrant the assertion that he was ?influenced by party, not principle? (Hook, Lives, iv. 322). The welfare of the church of England and good government in church and state seem to have been the ends for which he laboured; and though, judged by the light of after days, some parts of his policy, such as his opposition to Lollardism, may fail to command sympathy, they certainly were not held to be contrary to the principles that became a loyal churchman or a constitutional statesman. He took a prominent part in vindicating the rights of the church in the convocation of 1373. When the king's demand for a subsidy was laid before the clergy, they declared that they were utterly undone by the exactions, not merely of the crown, but of the papacy, which were repeated nearly every year, and that they could help the king better ?if the intolerable yoke of the pope were taken from their necks,? and on this condition only they promised a tenth. Then Courtenay rose in anger, and loudly declared that neither he nor any of the clergy of his diocese would give anything until the king found a remedy for the evils from which the church suffered (Wilkins, Concilia, iii. 97; Wake, State of the Church, p. 303). The course of action seems to have been settled by agreement between him and Sudbury, bishop of London, who belonged to the Duke of Lancaster's party.

On the promotion of Sudbury to Canterbury in 1375, Courtenay was translated to the see of London on 12 Sept., and received the temporalities on 2 Dec. following. The struggle between the constitutional party and the court came to a climax on the meeting of the ?Good parliament? in the next year, and Courtenay was appointed a member of the committee of magnates associated with the commons to assist them in their deliberations (Rot. Parl. ii. 322; Stubbs, Constitutional History, ii. 428). The dispersion of the parliament was followed by the failure of its work. In the course of this year Courtenay served on a commission to settle a dispute that had arisen at Oxford between the faculty of law and the rest of the university (Wood, History and Antiquities, i. 488). About this time a bull of Gregory XI against the Florentines, with whom the pope was then at war, was brought into England. Wherever they were, the Florentines were to be pronounced excommunicate, and their effects were to be forfeited. Courtenay published this bull at Paul's Cross. He was always ready to obey the pope when the interests of the national church were not at stake. As a constitutional politician, he probably was glad to forward the downfall of the Italian merchants, from whom the king had long derived the money he wasted in extravagance, and as bishop of London he was no doubt willing to gratify the citizens, who were jealous of foreign traders. The Londoners pillaged the houses of the Florentines, and made a riot. This caused the interference of the city magistrates, and they sided with the king, who took the foreigners under his protection. The bishop was summoned before the chancellor to answer for his conduct. He was reminded that he had acted in defiance of the laws of the realm in publishing the bull, and was ordered to revoke certain words he had used at Paul's Cross. With some difficulty he obtained leave to do this by one of his officials, who declared from the pulpit that the people had misunderstood the words complained of (Chronicon Anglae, p. 109; Foedera, viii. 103, 135; Hook). At the meeting of convocation, on 8 Feb. 1377, Courtenay made a vigorous protest against the conduct of the archbishop in withholding the summons that should have been sent to the Bishop of Winchester. He pointed out the injustice with which the bishop had been treated by the government, and urged the clergy to make no grant to the crown until he had received his summons. His opposition was successful. Wykeham took his seat, and John of Gaunt, in whose interest the archbishop had acted, was foiled. The quarrel between the two parties was carried on by the prosecution of Wycliffe, who was allied with the duke in the attempt to bring humiliation on the churchmen. Courtenay virtually attacked Lancaster when he cited Wycliffe to appear before the archbishop at St. Paul's on 23 Feb. The bishops sat in the lady chapel, and many nobles were with them. The church was crowded with the Londoners. Wycliffe appeared attended by the duke and Lord Percy, the earl marshal. They could scarcely pass through the crowd, and the earl ordered his men to clear the way. His order was obeyed with some roughness, and Courtenay, indignant at his conduct, declared that had he known he would have so acted he should not have entered the church if he could have prevented it. Hearing this, the duke declared that he would exercise his authority there whether the bishop would or no. When they came to the lady chapel, the marshal with a sneer called for a seat for Wycliffe. Courtenay objected to this, saying that it was contrary to law and reason that an accused clerk should be seated when before his judges. The duke grew red with anger, for he saw that the bishop had the better in the dispute. He shouted that he would pull down the pride of all the bishops in England, and, addressing Courtenay, added: ?Thou trustest in thy parents, who can profit thee nothing; for they shall have enough to do to defend themselves.? Coutenay answered with some dignity that he trusted in God alone. Still more enraged, the duke muttered that, rather than bear such things, he would drag the bishop out of the church by the hair. The Londoners heard the threat, and cried out angrily that they would not have their bishop insulted, and that they would sooner lose their lives than that he should be dishonoured in his own church, or dragged from it by violence. The court broke up in confusion. Later in the day the citizens rose against the duke, and proposed to slay him and burn his residence of the Savoy; but Courtenay interfered, reminding them that it was Lent, and no season for such doings. At his bidding the riot ceased, though not before many insults had been heaped upon Lancaster (Chron. Angliæ, p. 119, from which Foxe, Acts and Monuments, ii. 801, and the writer of the early translation in Arcaeologia, xxii. 257, took their accounts; Walsingham, i. 325).

Although Courtenay was appointed a member of the council of government formed on the accession of Richard II, he appears for a while to have absented himself from it, on account of a fresh offence committed by the duke. Robert Hale, a squire with whom Lancaster had a quarrel, escaped from the Tower, where he was confined, and took refuge in Westminster Abbey. In defiance of the privilege of sanctuary, an attempt was made to drag him from the church, and when he resisted, both he and a servant of the abbey were slain. The archbishop excommunicated the offenders, and Courtenay published the sentence, with full solemnity, at St. Paul's every Sunday, Wednesday, and Friday. The duke, to whom the outrage was generally attributed, persuaded the council to order him to desist. To this order, however, Courtenay paid no attention, and Lancaster declared that he was ready, if he received permission, to go to London and drag the bishop to the council, in spite of the ?ribalds? of the city. Meanwhile the archbishop and Courtenay received bulls from Gregory XI urging them to take measures against Wycliffe, and accordingly they cited him to appear before them at St. Paul's on 18 Dec., though a later date was afterwards named, and Lambeth was appointed for the place of hearing. Wycliffe, however, at this date had considerable influence at court (Fasciculi Zizaniorum, p. 258), and a strong party among the Londoners, headed by John of Northampton, was favourable to him. The Princess of Wales sent a peremptory message forbidding the prelates to proceed against him, and the prosecution came to nought. In the course of this year (1378) Courtenay, it is said, was offered the cardinalate. A large body of cardinals withdrew their obedience from Urban VI at a meeting held at Anagni on 9 Aug. The pope hastily appointed twenty-six others, and wished to strengthen his party by gaining the most powerful of the English churchmen. If the story of the offer is true, and there seems no reason to doubt it, Courtenay was too sincerely devoted to the national interest to be dazzled by it (Walsingham, i. 382; Godwin, De Præsulibus, 794 n.) On the suppression of the peasants' insurrection, in 1381, he obtained a respite of two days for John Ball (d. 1381) [q. v.], who was sentenced to death on 13 July; for he was anxious about the state of the rebel's soul (Walsingham, ii. 32).

On 30 July Courtenay was elected to the see of Canterbury, vacant by the murder of Simon Sudbury. The royal confirmation was given on 5 Aug., the translation was made by a papal bull dated 9 Sept., and the temporalities were granted on 23 Oct. The archiepiscopal cross was presented by the prior and convent of Christ Church on 12 Jan. following; on the 14th Courtenay, though he had not yet received the pall, married Anne of Bohemia [q. v.] to the king, and on the 22nd crowned the new queen. He received the pall on 6 May. The great seal was committed to him on 10 Aug., and accordingly he opened parliament on 9 Nov., delivering the sermon in English (Rot. Parl. iii. 98). In this parliament the charters granted to the villeins were annulled. Courtenay resigned the chancellorship on the 18th, and it has been suggested that his retirement, which was completed by the surrender of the seal on the 30th, may have been connected with a desire to see some amelioration effected in the condition of the villeins (Stubbs). Early in 1382 Courtenay received a formal complaint from parliament against Wycliffe, dwelling, as it seems, not merely on his heretical opinions, but on the disturbance of the peace of the realm occasioned by his preachers, demanding that the archbishop and his suffragans should take decisive measures against him, and promising them the support of the crown. Accordingly, on the close of the parliament, Courtenay nominated a committee of bishops, doctors, friars, and others to pronounce on the opinions of the reformers. This council, as it was called, held its first session for business on 21 May, in the monastery of the Black Friars, at London, in the presence of the archbishop. Its proceedings were disturbed by the shock of an earthquake; and from this circumstance, to which each party gave a different meaning, it was called the ?Synod of the Earthquake.? Wycliffe's opinions were condemned, and on the following Whitsuntide a solemn ?procession? or litany was performed in London, at which Courtenay appointed Dr. John Kynyngham to preach against them. The archbishop further attacked the whole Lollard party at Oxford. While proceeding against a prominent member of it named John Aston [q. v.] at the Black Friars, on 20 June, he was interrupted by the Londoners, who broke into the room where he and his council were sitting. At Oxford his commissioner, Dr. Peter Stokys, was so terrified that he believed his life to be in danger. Courtenay recalled him, and compelled Dr. Rygge, the chancellor, who favoured the Lollards, to beg pardon on his knees. On Rygge's return to Oxford he again acted with the Wycliffites. The archbishop now appealed to the council, and after a short struggle brought the whole party to submission. On 18 Nov. he held a convocation of the clergy at St. Frideswide's, and received the recantation of the leading men of the party. It is asserted that Wycliffe appeared before him. This is highly doubtful. It is certain that if he did so he did not, as his enemies pretended, make any recantation, and that he was allowed to depart unmolested (Knyghton, col. 2649). In this year Courtenay obtained a statute commanding the sheriffs and other officers of the king, on the certification of a bishop, to arrest and imprison all preachers of heresy. This statute did not receive the assent of the commons, and on their petition it was repealed in the next parliament, as an infringement of their right of legislation. Courtenay, however, held royal letters empowering the bishops to imprison persons accused of heresy in their own prisons, and to keep them there until the council should determine what should be done with them. In 1388 the king, at the demand of parliament, issued letters calling on the archbishops and bishops to seize heretical books, and to imprison teachers of heresy. Accordingly the next year Courtenay made an attack on the Leicestershire Lollards, in virtue of the letters of 1382. He laid the town of Leicester under an interdict until the offenders were discovered, and having found them received their recantations on 17 Nov., imposing slight penances on them. In 1392, while the king was sitting in council at Stamford, the archbishop held a council of bishops and clergy at the house of the Carmelites in that town, and received the abjuration of a heretic. The failure of the attempt at legislation in 1382 had, however, left the churchmen no other means of enforcing submission than that which belonged to their old spiritual jurisdiction (Stubbs, Constitutional History, ii. 488, iii. 356).

In 1382 Courtenay began a visitation of his province, and after he had visited Rochester, Chichester, Bath and Wells, and Worcester, he proceeded to hold a visitation of Exeter. Here he met with resistance; for after he had, according to custom, ordered the ordinary jurisdiction of the bishops to be suspended, he delayed his visitation so long that the period during which such suspension could lawfully be continued had elapsed, both in this and in other dioceses. The bishop, Thomas Brentingham, therefore warned the clergy and people of his diocese to pay no heed to the archbishop's visitation, and finally appealed to Rome on the matter. Nevertheless Courtenay proceeded with his visitation, and excommunicated all who disobeyed him, the bishop himself among them. The bishop's men caught one of his officials near Topsham as he was carrying a citation directed to their master, ordering him to appear before the metropolitan, and this they forced the man to eat, wax seal and all. The king was so enraged at this, that the bishop was glad to make his peace with the archbishop and to drop his suit at Rome. The Bishop of Salisbury tried to secure himself by pleading that the right of visitation had lapsed with the death of Pope Urban VI, who had granted bulls empowering the archbishop to hold it, and by procuring an exemption for himself and his diocese from Boniface IX. Courtenay, however, was a better canonist than his suffragan. He knew that though he had obtained these bulls as a cautionary measure, his right did not depend on the papal permission, and he declared that he would make a visitation of the diocese in spite of the exemption. Accordingly, he dealt so sharply with the bishop that he soon brought him to submission. In 1389 he gave notice of his intention to visit the Benedictines of Oxford, who resided in Gloucester College. This announcement created great excitement, both in the university and among the order throughout England. An elaborate scheme was devised by the abbot of Westminster for defeating his claim, and the abbot of St. Albans sent a monk with an urgent letter, begging him not to prosecute it. The archbishop asked the messenger to dinner in a kindly fashion, and afterwards tried to prove to him that the house was really a college. He went to Oxford, and met the monks in the church of St. Frideswide's. Although they refused to admit his claim, they treated him with respect. Courtenay, though quick-tempered and jealous of any attempt to slight his authority, was at the same time generous and good-natured, and when the monks appealed to his kindness, he freely abandoned his design (Walsingham, ii. 190?2; Vita Ricardi, ii. 115; Wood, History and Antiquities, i. 522. For another illustration of Courtenay's character see the Chron. of a Monk of Evesham, p. 58). He gave considerable offence by his attempt to levy procurations at the uniform rate of 4d. in 20s. throughout the province, to defray the expenses of his visitation. This demand was resisted, especially in the diocese of Lincoln, and the question remained unsettled at his death.
In the part taken by Courtenay in the limitations placed on the exercise of papal authority in England during the reign of Richard II there is no proof of the assertion that his ?principles and character had changed? from what they were in his earlier years (for the contrary view see Hook, iv. 383). When the statute of provisors was confirmed and enlarged (13 Ric. II, st. 2, c. 2) in 1390, he joined with the Archbishop of York in entering ?a formal protest against it, as tending to the restriction of apostolic power and the subversion of ecclesiastical liberty.? Three years later, when the conduct of the pope called forth the statute of præmunire (16 Ric. II, c. 5), the sharpest check placed on the interference of Rome until the time of Henry VIII, Courtenay had a hand in carrying the measure, and drew up a protest, not against the allegation contained in the preamble, but guarding the lawful and canonical exercise of papal authority, by words which are embodied in the statute itself (Stubbs, Constitutional History, ii. 598, iii. 330). In both these cases his conduct was consistent with the most jealous regard for national rights, and any apparent inconsistency is to be explained by his sense of what was demanded of him by his office. And though in 1389 he took some measures to collect a subsidy in obedience to the pope's orders, his action in the matter in no way proves his approval of the tax?it was simply what he was bound to do, unless he wished to embroil himself in a personal quarrel with the pope. The king ordered that the subsidy should not be levied, and the archbishop obeyed the command, which he may possibly have instigated, and which he probably approved. He regarded the king's extravagance and bad government with sorrow, and while he successfully resisted the attempt of the commons in 1385 to seize on the temporalities of the clergy, he faithfully adhered to the party opposed to the luxury of the court, and so upheld the cause with which the commons were led to identify themselves (ib. ii. 468, 470). In this year he was instigated by the lords of his party to reprove the king for his evil conduct, and he fearlessly told him that unless he ruled differently he would soon bring ruin on himself and on the kingdom. Richard fell into a rage, and would have struck the archbishop had he not been restrained by his uncle, Thomas of Woodstock. He abused him violently, and declared that he would take away the temporalities of his see. Courtenay was forced to take refuge in Devonshire. According to one account, the king pursued him on the Thames, and he was forced to flee in the habit of a monk (Walsingham; {sc|Mon. Evesham}}; Adam of Usk). He was one of the eleven commissioners appointed by parliament towards the end of the next year to regulate the household and the general administration of the kingdom. Richard took active steps to overthrow the authority of these commissioners, and war became imminent. The archbishop acted as mediator between the two parties. He persuaded the king not to resist the lords, and on 17 Nov. 1387 brought them into Richard's presence in Westminster Hall, and prevailed on him to give them audience (Chron. Angliæ p. 387). Courtenay died at Maidstone, Kent, on 31 July 1396. He left directions that he should be buried there, and a flat stone, part of an altar-tomb, in Maidstone church is said to have been placed there in memory of him. It was probably intended that he should lie there; but his body was taken to Canterbury, and buried, in the presence of the king and of a great number of bishops, earls, and barons, at the feet of the Black Prince, near the shrine of St. Thomas (Thorn, col. 2197; Hook). Courtenay founded the college of St. Mary and All Saints in the parish church of the archiepiscopal manor of Maidstone, leaving the residue of his property for the erection of the college, and joining with it the hospital established by Archbishop Boniface of Savoy [q. v.] He repaired the church at Meopham, Kent, and founded five scholarships in Canterbury College, Oxford.

[Munimenta Academica, ed. Anstey, i. 229 (Rolls Ser.); Fasciculi Zizaniorum, ed. Shirley, (Rolls Ser.); Wood's Antiquities of Oxford (Gutch), i. 480, 488; Wake's State of the Church, 303; Wilkins's Concilia, p. 111; Chronicon Angliæ, ed. E. M. Thompson (Rolls Ser.); T. Walsingham, Historia Anglicana (Rolls Ser.); Knyghton ap. Decem Scriptt. (Twysden); Chron. Mon. de Evesham, ed. Hearne; Vita Ricardi II, ed. Hearne; Chron. Adæ de Usk, ed. E. M. Thompson (Royal Soc. of Literature); Rolls of Parliament, ii. 322, iii. 98, 141; Rymer's F?dera, viii. 103, 135; Foxe's Acts and Monuments, ii. 801 (ed. 1843); Archæologia, xxii. 257; Le Neve's Fasti (Hardy), ii. 292; Godwin, De Præsulibus, 120, 186, 489, 497; Dugdale's Monasticon, vi. 1394; Chron. W. Thorn ap. Decem Scriptt.; Stubbs's Constitutional History, ii. 428?38, 460?488, 598, iii. 330, 356; Hook's Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, iv. 315?98.]
de Courtenay, William Archbishop of Canterbury (I11042)
216 Critton J. Smith, farmer, Draneville, Marion Co., Ga, son of Tennyson and Frankie (Thomas) Smith, was born in Marion co. in 1852. Paternal gparents, George L & Gillie (Peddie) Smith, were born in North Carolina & migrated thence to Alabama, whence a few years later he removed to Marion co. He owned a great deal of land and many slaves, was a member and a preacher of the Christian church. Mr. Smith's father was born in Alabama, but early in life removed to Marion county and settled where he now lives. At the time he made his settlement the woods were full of Indians. He was a soldier in the Indian war of 1836. He has made a life pursuit of farming, at which he has been satisfactorily successful and enjoyed prosperity. He has been a justice of the peace many years. Mr. Smith's maternal grandparents, George & Polly Thomas, were natives of North Carolina where they lived all their lives. He was a farmer and very wealthy. Mr. Smith was reared on a farm, and received only limited education. His principal occupation has been farmer, but he was in a general merchandise business about eight years. He has been successful in his undertakings, is recognized as a progressive, prosperous farmer, and as one of Marion county's substantial citizens. He now owns about 1800 acres of good farm land, including a well-improved farm. Mr. Smith was married in 1877 to Miss Willie A. Bell, born in Stewart county in 1859, a daughter of Charles and Susan (Singer) Bell. Mr. Bell was a native Georgian and a teacher by profession. He was a soldier in the Indian War of 1836, and died in Marion county. The offspring of this union were 8 children: Eurela, Lena, Alberta, Arthur, Rubbie, Mary, Lillie & Willie A. Mr. and Mrs. Smith are prominent and exemplary members of the Methodist Church. Smith, Crittenton J (I3353)
217 DAR Genealogy

The National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution, Volume 121, page 258.

Mrs. Nevelle Arnold Owens.
DAR ID Number: 120832
Born in Newnan, Ga. Wife of Ed. Owens.

Descendant of Robert Simms, as follows:

1. Hugh M. Arnold (1842-1913) m. 2d 1874 Frances Simms (b. 1852).
2. John D. Simms (b. 1830) m. 1848 Louise Hanson (1831-1913).
3. John Simms (1782-1863) m. 2d 1816 Comfort Grace (d. 1880).
4. Robert Simms m. Sarah Dickinson (d. 1851).

Robert Simms (1755-1815) served as private under his father-in-law. He was born in Edgecombe County, N. C.; died in Hancock County, Ga.

Also No. 42187

Simms, John Dickinson (I0714)

Hey John,

Good to hear something from you. I have in my notes that the cemetery record for Green Berry has his birth date as 11 July 1814 with a note that it is probably incorrect since his father, Lazarus John Bryars, did not marry his mother, Mary Smith, until Oct of 1816. Also the 1816 census of Baldwin County gives Lazarus Bryars' household as having 2 WM over 21, 4 WM under 21, no females. It seems that Lazarus himself would have been one of the males over 21, the other one is not known (none of his known children would have been over 21 at this time so it was probably a hired hand or some other relative living with them), the 4 males under 21 would have been Lazarus, Jr., Charles, Ethelbert, and Stephen. Lazarus had not yet married Mary Smith so no females.

I think the other date you have which is 7/11/1817 is most probably the correct one.

I believe the information Gertrude has came from Margaret Anderson from Utah. She's a Bryars descendant who has spent many years researching the family.

I'd like to caution you about that book by Dr. Charles Bryant, The Tensaw Country. I have found some errors in it in the family section and if you notice he does not give any documentation at all for the family section. I believe he included things people told him without verifying all of it. I know there are errors on our Franklin family. (He has the children with the wrong parents). He's also the one who gives Charles Bryars' middle name as Sizemore and on the death certificate of Benjamin Henry Bryars, he gives his father?s name as Charles Edward Bryars. I tend to think this is correct. Benjamin named one of his sons Charles Edward. I believe Dr. Bryant mixes up the wives of Lazarus. He has him married to Mary Smith (which he was) and to a ?Granny Allen?. Most people believe that Mary Smith and ?Granny? Allen are the same person. At any rate Lazarus? last wife was named Mary because there are court papers showing this. There is no marriage record to be found of Lazarus marrying an Allen after he married Mary Smith but there is a record of Mary Bryars marrying a Robert Allen in 1828.

Jo Ann McKay [03/23/2002]

Bryars, Green Berry (I0674)
219 DAVID I (1084-1153), King of Scotland 1124-53, youngest son of Malcolm Canmore and Margaret, sister of Edgar Atheling, was born in 1084. After his father's death near Alnwick in 1093, followed by that of his mother within a few days, the orphan princes Edgar, Alexander, and David, along with their sisters Matilda and Mary, were sent for safety to England, probably to Ramsey, where their aunt Christina was a nun. Seven years later Matilda, whose baptismal name, according to Ordericus Vitalis, was Eadgyth (Edith), was married to Henry I, and David passed his youth at the court of the scholar king and the good Queen Maud, who reproduced her mother's virtues. His manners were thus, says William of Malmesbury, polished from the rust of Scottish barbarity. In 1113 David married Matilda, widow of Simon de St. Liz, Norman earl of Northampton, and daughter of the Saxon Waltheof, earl of Northumbria. By this marriage David received the honour of Huntingdon, and thus became an English baron, probably holding also the ward of the earldom of Northampton during the minority of his stepson, the son of St. Liz. By the will of his brother Edgar, who died in 1107, David became Earl or Prince of Cumbria, the south-western district of the Scottish kingdom, which was separated from the rest by a policy whose cause is not easy to determine; perhaps this was deemed the best method of retaining that portion of the kingdom under a Scottish prince. Alexander I, who succeeded to the crown, was naturally averse to the dismemberment, but the Norman barons of Cumbria supported David, as they afterwards reminded him at the battle of the Standard, and he ruled it almost as an independent sovereign until his accession to the throne on his brother's death reunited it to Scotland.

The government of Cumbria was a valuable apprenticeship for the royal office. Originally peopled by Celts of the Cymric branch, from whom it derived its name, it had been separated from North Wales by the Northumbrian conquests in the seventh and first part of the eighth century. It had been granted by the English king Edmund in 945 to Malcolm MacDonald on condition that he should be 'his fellow-worker by land and sea,' and since that date remained a dependency of the Scottish crown, although the English monarchs claimed its suzerainty. It included the whole south-western portion of modern Scotland from the Firth of Clyde to the Solway, whence its inhabitants derived their name of Strathclyde Britons, and although it early received an infusion of Norse settlers on the coast, and, after the Norman conquest, of Norman barons, its population was still predominantly Celtic. It had been christianised, and the see of Glasgow founded in the time of Kentigern, but no settled government, either ecclesiastical or civil, had been established. Within its borders Celtic customs still contended with Saxon and Norman law for the mastery, and the language of the natives was still probably Celtic. It extended inland beyond the modern counties of Dumbarton, Renfrew, Ayr, Galloway, and part of Dumfries to an indeterminate border line which included the modern counties of Lanark and Peebles, where it met Lothian to the valley of the Nith, which separated it from the southern counties of Roxburgh and Selkirk, but even beyond these limits it preserved, ecclesiastically at least, certain places as subject to the jurisdiction of the see of Glasgow. Into this extensive portion of modern Scotland David introduced the feudal organisation both in church and state. The inquisition made in 1120 or 1121 into the lands belonging to the see of Glasgow by the elders and wise men of Cumbria by command of David, its earl, is a unique and valuable record of his method of procedure. Its preamble bears that disturbances had not only destroyed the church but laid waste the whole region, and that the tribes of different languages now inhabiting it had relapsed into a condition more resembling heathens than christians, and that God had now sent to them David, the brother of the king of Scotland, as their prince. It then recites that David through zeal for religion had ordered an inquest to be made of the possessions formerly belonging to the see of Glasgow that they might be restored to it. The names of the lands of the church thus restored are, as might be expected, chiefly Celtic, and formed, whether they had originally belonged to the see of Kentigern or not, the later diocese of Glasgow. The inquest concludes with the names of five witnesses who swore to it and a larger number who were present and heard it read. Their names, a strange medley of Celtic, Saxon, and Norman, afford a pregnant proof of the mixed population even among the class of landowners. Matilda the countess, David's wife, and her grandson William were parties to the inquest.

To the see of Glasgow he procured the appointment of his tutor John in 1115. He also enriched the see with the gift of his kain or tribute from Strathgrife, Cunningham, Kyle, and Carrick, and the eighth penny of the fines of court of all Cumbria, and erected the cathedral of Glasgow in 1136. David, while still prince of Cumbria, also showed his zeal for the church by founding in 1113 a Benedictine abbey at Selkirk (afterwards moved to Kelso) and a monastery of canons of Augustine at Jedburgh in 1118.

On the death of Alexander I in 1124 David became king of Scotland. The commencement of his reign was occupied with a dispute as to the consecration of the bishop of St. Andrews, over which see York claimed supremacy. A council at Roxburgh in 1125, held by Cardinal John of Crema as legate of Pope Honorius II, failed to settle the dispute, and three years later Thurstan, archbishop of York, consented to consecrate Robert, bishop of St. Andrews, 'for the love of God and of King David,' under a reservation of the claim of York and of the rights of St. Andrews, without receiving the usual promise of obedience from a suffragan to his metropolitan. In 1127, the only son of Henry I having been drowned in the Blanche Nef, that monarch procured the recognition by his barons of the right of succession of his daughter Matilda, widow of the Emperor Henry V and wife of Geoffrey, count of Anjou. Among those who attended the English court and took the oath of homage to Matilda were David in his capacity as English baron and Stephen, count of Blois and earl of Mortaine, the son of Adela, daughter of William the Conqueror. On the death of Henry in 1135 Stephen broke his oath and seized the throne of England. David at once declared in favour of the right of his niece, and Matilda had no more active supporter. He invaded Northumberland and obtained from its barons an acknowledgment of her right, but Stephen advancing to meet him with a large force he was compelled to give up the territory he had conquered on condition that his son Henry should be confirmed in the honour of Huntingdon, to which Doncaster and Carlisle were added and a promise given by Stephen that no grant of the earldom of Northumberland should be made until Henry's claim to it as prince of Scotland was considered. In return for these grants and promises Henry did homage to Stephen, thus saving his father's oath. The peace of Durham was not kept, and during the next three years David carried on war in Northumberland, with great barbarity according to the English chroniclers, although they attribute this to his troops, especially the Galwegians, rather than to the king. The war in the north was brought to a close by the signal defeat of David at the battle of the Standard at Cowton Moor near Northallerton on 22 Aug. 1138. Of this famous engagement, a landmark in the history of the two kingdoms which finally decided that the northern counties were to be English and not Scotch territory, Ailred of Rievaulx has left a picturesque account. It was won by the Norman barons, led by Walter L'Espec and encouraged by the blessing of the archbishop, who placed at their head a standard composed of the banners of St. Peter of York, St. John of Beverley, and St. Wilfrid of Ripon, attached to a mast at whose point the consecrated host was fixed in a small casket. The headstrong vanity of the men of Galloway, who insisted on leading the van of the Scottish army, though unfit to cope with the mail-clad Norman knights, contributed to the defeat. The victory was certainly on the English side, but David was able to withdraw the remnant of his forces to Carlisle, where terms of peace were negotiated by the cardinal of Ostia, supported by Matilda, Stephen's queen. ?The glory of victory,? says Mr. Freeman, ?fell to England, but the substantial gain to Scotland.? The earldom of Northumbria was ceded to Prince Henry, who held it, however, as an English fief, and allowed Stephen to retain the castles of Bamborough and Newcastle. The laws of Henry I were guaranteed to the Northumbrians, and David gave as hostages for his good behaviour the sons of five of his nobles. Only two years later he was again in arms, and his niece Matilda having entered London, he joined her there, a pregnant proof of Stephen's uncertain tenure of the English crown. But Matilda was unable to hold what she had won, and was obliged to fly to Winchester. David accompanied her, and narrowly escaped capture when they were surrounded by Stephen's forces, owing his deliverance, it was said, to his godson, David Oliphant, then serving under Stephen, who concealed him and enabled him to reach Scotland in safety in 1141. For the rest of his reign, with the exception of a brief raid into England in 1149, he remained within his own boundaries, and to this period belong the great ecclesiastical and political reforms which make his reign one of the most important in the history of Scotland. The former were devoted to the establishment of the independence of the Scottish church under an organised diocesan episcopacy, and the introduction and endowment of the new regular orders of the monastic clergy. Before the twelfth century Scotland had only one bishop, called at first bishop of Alban or Scotia and more recently of St. Andrews, the primary see. Alexander I added two dioceses, Dunkeld and Moray. David, while prince of Cumbria, restored the see of Glasgow, and after he became king founded the sees of Brechin, Dunblane, Caithness, Ross, and Aberdeen. On less certain evidence he is said to have revived at Candida Casa, or Whithorn, the bishopric of Galloway. These dioceses now embraced all modern Scotland except the islands of Orkney and Shetland, the Hebrides, and Argyll. The isles both of the north and west still nominally belonged to the Norse bishops of Orkney and of the Isle of Man, subject to the metropolitancy of Drontheim, though this was disputed by York. The Scottish see of Argyll was not founded till 1200. This diocesan division was the first uniform territorial settlement of Scotland, though the civil division into counties or shires, constituted by the possessions of the chief lords, some of whom traced their descent from the Celtic Mormaer, began to be fixed in the reign of David. David's monastic foundations also permeated the country and improved the cultivation of the soil and the education of the people. In Lothian the religious houses of Holyrood, the Isle of May, Newbottle, Kelso, Melrose, Berwick; in Scotland proper, north of the Forth or Scottish sea, St. Andrews, Cambuskenneth, Stirling; in Moray, Urquhart and Kinloss; and in Scottish Cumbria, Selkirk, Jedburgh, and Glasgow, have been certainly traced to David. Probably there were others, and the leading nobles imitated his example. His son Henry founded Holme-Cultram in Cumberland, his grandson David, earl of Huntingdon, Lindores in Fife. Hugh de Morvilla endowed Dryburgh and Kilwinning, Earl Cospatrick the priory of Eccles, and Fergus of Galloway the new abbey of Whithorn.

The older monasteries chiefly followed the rule of St. Benedict. Those which now sprang up were for the most part Cistercian, or of the rule of Augustine of Hippo. Whenever a new bishopric was created, the rich foundations of the Celtic Culdees were transferred to canons regular, who became the chapter of the bishop. The Cistercians were more attached to country places, the tilling of the ground, and the cultivation of orchards. Though not free from rivalry, both the new bishops and the new monasteries were united in obedience to the papal see, and Scotland became subject to the subtle influences which we describe by the words Latin christianity. David, like his mother, was a devout child of the church.

The civil government of David was distinguished by the introduction of Norman feudal law, both in its principles and details, throughout almost the whole of Scotland. This had commenced in the time of his father, and had been carried on by his brothers; but the longer reign of David, and his legal instincts trained by education at the court of Henry Beauclerc, gave the opportunity for the development and consolidation of the feudal system. Indeed, its rapid completion, and the thorough acceptance of its principles, led Scottish lawyers, at a time when accurate history was forgotten, to antedate its origin to the reign of Malcolm Mackenneth. But the charter, followed by the act of taking possession, at once the symbol and the record of feudal land tenure and its services, was unknown to the Celt. Scotland had no proper Saxon period during which, as in England, its germs were planted. The few brief charters of Malcolm Canmore, Edgar, and Alexander, to the church, were succeeded in the reign of David by the issue of a number of such documents, still chiefly in favour of the ecclesiastics, the only scribes, and the only lawyers, but introducing also the military or knight's tenure of the barons and the burgage tenure of the chief towns. William the Lion rather than David is reckoned the chief founder of the Scottish burghs; but at least Edinburgh, Berwick, Roxburgh, Stirling, and perhaps Perth, date from his reign. The laws of the four burghs were copied by him from the customs of Newcastle, and their court, a sort of burghal parliament, which, after many changes, still exists in the convention of burghs, also belongs to his time. In like manner the feudal customs which regulated the baronage were transferred from England, and though at a somewhat later date were embodied in the treatises called 'Regiam Majestatem,' a copy of the work of Glanville, the justiciar of Henry II, and the 'Quoniam Attachiamenta.' The authentic records of David's legislation are contained in the assizes, as his laws are called, which were enacted by the king and the council of his chief nobles and clergy with the tacit assent of the people. The feudal court was also organised by David and the great officers?the justiciar, who administered justice at the eyres (itinera) or circuits in the king's name; the seneschal or steward, who regulated the king's household; and the chamberlain, who collected the royal revenues, and held a circuit for the burghs?though probably known earlier, now became distinct and important personages. The first chancellor whose name is on record, Hubert, abbot of Kelso, appears in this reign, and while he never, as in England, became the head of a rival jurisdiction in equity, his office of the chancery was the source from which the most important judicial writs, as well as the royal charters, were issued, and thus established uniformity in procedure. Another Norman institution, the inquest or jury for the ascertainment of rights to land, was also introduced, of which the Glasgow inquest before noticed is a conspicuous example. Although the lords still retained a large jurisdiction in their counties, the vicecomes, or sheriff, as a royal officer now first assumes importance. While delegating much of the judicial business to these various officers, David, like all the early feudal monarchs, took personal part in the administration of justice. Ailred of Rievaulx records that he had seen him take his foot from the stirrups and forego a day's hunting in order to hear the suit of a humble petitioner.

The same author gives many personal details, interesting as illustrations of David's character and the manners of the times. The king bestowed special care on gardens and orchards, and set the fashion of cultivation of fruit by grafting. He improved the dress and the domestic customs of his rude subjects, following in this his mother's example. He enforced the sanctity of the marriage bond, to which, unlike many other kings, he was himself faithful. He reformed the morals and repressed the quarrels of the clergy.

He had only one fault, according to his panegyrist, the monk of Rievaulx, that he did not sufficiently control the license of his forces when engaged in war.

His zeal for the church swelled the fame of David in an age when churchmen were the only historians. But no contrary voice has been raised in after ages to dispute his claim to the title of 'the good king,' which even Buchanan allows him, or of 'the saint,' which he secured by the popular verdict, though he did not, like his mother, obtain a place in the calendar. The jest of his successor, James VI, that he was 'a sair saint for the crown,' alluding to the large extent of his ecclesiastical foundations, was really an encomium on a monarch who lived when the church was still the chief civilising element in society, and he cannot be fairly blamed for its subsequent corruption. Apart from the defeat of an isolated rising by Angus, the Mormaer of Moray, at Strathcathro in Forfarshire in 1130, and some desultory incursions under an impostor, Wymund, bishop of Man, who pretended to be a son of the Mormaer of Moray, aided by Somerled, lord of the isles, which were finally suppressed by Wymund's capture in 1137, David maintained peace within his own kingdom, and his political reforms appear to have been completely successful.

In 1149 David knighted Henry of Anjou, the son of Matilda, at Carlisle, and the Earl of Chester having promised his support, David and Henry invaded England as far as Lancaster, but Chester having failed to join them, and Stephen having come north with a large force, David was compelled to retreat.

His only son Henry died the year before his father, on 12 June 1152, leaving by his wife Ada two sons, afterwards Kings Malcolm and William the Lion, as well as David, earl of Huntingdon, from whom the competitors in the disputed succession at the death of Alexander III traced their descent, and three daughters, of whom Ada married the Count of Holland, Margaret the Duke of Brittany, and Matilda died unmarried. David died at Carlisle on 24 May 1153, with such tranquillity, says Ailred, that after his death he seemed still living, and with such devotion that his hands were found on his breast crossed and turned towards heaven. He was succeeded by his grandson, Malcolm IV.

[The Scottish authorities for David's reign are Wyntoun and Fordun; the English more nearly contemporary Ailred of Rievaulx, Ordericus Vitalis, William of Newburgh, and William of Malmesbury. Of modern historians Lord Hailes's Annals; Robertson's Scotland under her Early Kings; Skene's Celtic Scotland; and Munck's Notes to the Chronicle of Man are the most instructive.] 
David I King of Scotland (I4865)
220 DESPENSER, HUGH le, the elder, Earl of Winchester (1262?1326), the son of Hugh le Despenser [q. v.], the justiciar of the barons, who fell at Evesham, by his wife Aliva, daughter of Philip Basset, was born in 1262, for he was twenty-one on 1 March 1283. He served with Edmund, earl of Cornwall, in the Welsh war, and soon afterwards was fined two thousand marks for marrying Isabel, daughter of William Deauchamp, earl of Warwick, and widow of Patrick of Chaworth, without the king's license. In 1294 he was with the king in Gascony, and the next year received a summons to parliament. He marched with Edward into Scotland, was present at the battle of Dunbar, took part in the expedition to Flanders in 1297, and was employed to treat for peace between Edward and the king of the Romans and the king of France. The next year he again served in Scotland, and was sent on an embassy to Boniface VIII. He took part in other Scotch campaigns, and in the negotiations with France which preceded the peace of 1303. In 1305 he was sent to Clement V at Lyons, and obtained a bull absolving the king from the oaths which he had taken to his people. At the coronation of Edward II he carried part of the royal insignia. When in 1308 the arons leagued themselves together against Gaveston, ne stood alone in upholding the king's favourite. His conduct was put down to avarice, he was regarded as a deserter from the common cause, and the parliament which met at Northampton procured his dismissal from the coimcil (Vita Edwardi II, ii. 158; Annales Pauliniy i. 264). His disgrace was not of long duration; he received tne castles of Devizes and Marlborough, and became the chief adviser of the king. In 1312 he was sent with Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke [q.v.], and others to endeavour to secure London for the king. The commissioners arrested some of the citizens, a tumult was raised, and they were forced to leave the city (Annales Londonienses, i. 215). On the death of Gaveston, Despenser became the chief man of the court party, and encouraged the king to form plans of revenge against the barons. He was bitterly hated by the Earl of Lancaster, and was excluded from the general pacification of 1313. He accompanied the king on his unfortunate expedition to Scotland in 1314, and when the defeat of Bannockburn placed Edward at the mercy of Lancaster, was forced to withdraw from the court and the council. In 1318 the king seemed on the point of making a vigorous effort to overthrow the power of Lancaster, and Despenser, with the other lords of the same party, attended the parliament at Northampton armed, and at the head of his retainers. A pacification followed, greatly to the king's disadvantage, and he stood alone in refusing to bend to the earl's will. About this time his son, Sir Hugh le Despenser [q. v.], joined the king's side. Both the Despensers received many large grants from the crown: they were generally hated, and were accused of many acts of oppression and wrongful dealing. Although both, and especially the son, succeeded (laveston in the royal favour, they had little in common with him. Unlike Gaveston, they were of noble family, and were connected with many great baronial houses. They held the most prominent place in the party opposed to the un- scrupulous designs of iJancaater, and sought their own advancement through alliance with the crown, while the earl carried on an equally selfish policy by thwarting and limiting the royal power. Greedy and ambitious, they used tne influence they gained over the kinf for their own aggrandisement. The wealth and honours he showered upon them strengthened the hatred in which tney were held. In the case of daveston, the hatred of the barons was mixed with contempt for the upstart foreigner; in the case of the Despensers, it was near akin to fear. It appears impossible to decide whether the father or the son was the more to blame. From almost the beginning of the reign the elder Despenser had taken a leading part on the king s side, and the hostility 01 the barons towards him was of long standing. After the son adopted the same policy both worked together for their common advantage, and the elder Despenser was concerned in the quarrels with other baronial families consecjuent on the marriage of his son (on the position of the Despensers see Introduction to Chronicles of the Beign of Edward I and Edward II, ii. by Bishop Stubbs).

The quarrel between the younger Despenser and Humphrey Bohun, earl of Hereford [see under Hugh le Despenser the younger], led to a league against both the Despensers, which was joined by the great lords of the Welsh marches and many other powerful nobles, who in 1321 ravaged their lands and took their castles in Wales, and spoiled their manors and levelled the fences of their chaces in England. The king was anxious to interfere on their behalf; he was prevailed on to call a parliament, and pressed to consent to their banishment. He consented, and in July the charges against them were formally stated and considered in parliament. They had estranged the king from his people, had usurped his authority, and had debarred the magnates of the realm from access to him. Sentence of banishment was pronounced against them both. The elder Despenser went abroad. In the following December the king obtained a condemnation of this sent ence from the convocation of the clergy, and on 1 Jan. 1322 Archbishop Reynolds pronounced it illegal. Despenser returned, joined the king in his attack on his enemies, and after the battle of Roroughbridge assisted at Lancaster's trial iind condemnation. He was creatd earl of Winchester in the parliament held at York. Although they were the king's favourites, the Despensers did not aim at establishing a royal tyranny; they inherited some of the doctrines of the baronial party of the time of Henry III, and 'the elder Hugh, as an old servant of Edward I, may have preserved some traditions of his constructive policy.' The proceedings of this parliament are marked by a distinctly constitutional spirit, by an endeavour to establish an accord between the crown and the people as a counterpoise to the power of the nobles, and this can scarcely fail to have been the work of the king's favourites (Stubbs, Const. Hist. ii. 361). They were now all powerful, and put no bounds to their greediness. Grants were made to them in extraordinary profusion. The Queen hated them, and when some difficulty arose with France she gladly left the kingdom on an embassy to her brother Charles IV. There was some talk of war between the two countries, and Edward spoke of leading an expedition in person. To this, however, Despenser would not consent, for he knew that if he was deprived of the support of the king's presence he would not be able to stand against his enemies, and Edward, who was now wholly under the dominion of the two favourites, grave up the idea. When the queen was summoned to return to England, she declared that she would not do so as long as Despenser was in power, and a plot was made in France to overthrow him and his son. He declared his innocence towards her before the magnates, and a letter was sent to her by the bishops informing her that he had done so, and urging her to return. She refused, and by Despenser's advice the king outlawed her and his son, who was with her. The queen landed in England with an armed force in September 1326, and put out a proclamation against the favourites. Edward retreated before her, and from Chepstow sent Despenser to secure the town and castle of Bristol. The queen marched by Gloucester to Berkeley, where she restored the castle which had been seized by the Despensers to its rightful owner, Thomas, lord Berkeley. Thence she advanced against Bristol. The town was on her side, and the earl, unable to hold it against her, surrendered at once. The next day, 27 Oct., he was sentenced, and was forthwith put to death as a traitor on a common gallows outside the town amidst the shouts of the Bristol people. His head was sent to Winchester. He was put to death at the age of sixty-four.

[Annales Londonienses, Annales Paulini, Bridlington, Vita Kdwardi II, T. de la Moore's Vita et Mors Edwardi II in Chronicles of Edw. I and Edw. II, i. ii. ed. Dr. W. Stubbs (Rolls Ser.); J. Trokelowe, ed. Riley (Rolls Ser.); A. Murimnth (Eng. Hist. 80c.); Rymer's F?lera, ii. passim, ed. 1735; Stubbs's Constitutional History, ii. 336-360; Dugdale's Baronage, i. 389; Sir H. Nicolas's Historic Peerage, ed. Courthope.] 
le Despenser, Hugh "the Elder" 1st Earl of Winchester (I11050)
221 DESPENSER, HUGH LE, the younger (d. 1326), baron, son of Hugh le Despenser the elder [q.v.], received knighthood with the Prince of Wales at Easter 1306, and about 1309 married Eleanor, daughter of Gilbert of Clare, earl of Gloucester, and sister and co-heiress of the next Earl Gilbert. During the early years of the reign of Edward II he evidently belonged to Lancaster's party, for in 1313, with the consent of the prelates and others, he was made the king's chamberlain in the place of Gaveston, because the barons knew that Edward hated him (T. de la Moore, ii. 299). He was ordered to march with his father to Scotland, and on his return the next year was summoned to Parliament as 'Hugo le Despencer, junior.' He served in Scotland in 1317, and in 1319 was one of the commissioners appointed to treat with the Scots. Gilbert, earl of Gloucester, his brother-in-law, was slain at Bannockburn in 1314, and in 1317 his inheritance was divided between the husbands of his three sisters: Despenser, who had married the eldest, and who was accordingly sometimes called Earl of Gloucester, Hugh of Audley, and Roger d'Amory. It was probably the ill-feeling that arose about this division that caused Despenser to desert the baronial party and attach himself to the king, for as late as 1318, when the barons were all powerful, he was continued in office, and was appointed by parliament a member of the permanent council (Stubbs, Introduction to Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I and Edward II, liv.) At all events from soon after the date of the partition of the Gloucester inheritance he appears to have taken the place of Gaveston in the king's favour, and to have begun to work with his father. He obtained nearly the whole of Glamorgan as his share, and set himself to add to his possessions at the cost of his neighbours. He surprised and held Newport, which belonged to Audley, and it was known that he was begging the king to resume certain grants made to Roger of Mortimer, hoping to get hold of them also. As the Mortimers at Wigmore and Chirk 'ruled the northern marches almost as independent princes' (Stubbs, Const. Hist. ii. 386), Despenser, by his own greediness, laid the foundation of a confederacy that was strong enough to crush him should opportunity offer. The grudge against him broke out into open quarrel in 1320. John Mowbray entered on certain lands in Gower, which came to him in right of his wife, the daughter and heiress of William of Braose, without obtaining the license of the king, of whom he held in chief. On this, Edward commenced a suit against him at the instance of Despenser, who wished to see the lands forfeited and transferred to himself. Mowbray pleaded that he was acting within his right according to the custom of the marches, and in this he was upheld by Humphrey Bohun, earl of Hereford, while Despenser contended that the king's prerogative in such a case was the same in Wales as in England. Hereford, the chief of the marchers, regarded the advance of Despenser's power with anger, and formed a confederacy against him of the various lords he had offended. Private leagues of this kind were common during the reign of Edward II, and Despenser himself had lately entered into a bond with John Birmingham to stand together in any quarrel except against the king. Hereford's confederacy included Mowbray, the Mortimers, Audley, D'Amory, Clifford, and the rest of the marchers; it was upheld by the good-will of Lancaster, and messages were sent throughout the whole of England calling on other lords to array themselves against the favourites. Edward in vain ordered the nobles to abstain from unlawful assemblies, held for the disturbance of the peace of the realm. War began in the marches, and during the early part of 1321 the lands of the Despensers were ravaged both in England and Wales. All joined against them. The charges brought specially against the younger Despenser in parliament were that he had formed a league to constrain the will of the king, that he had asserted that the allegiance of the subject was due to the crown and not to the person of the sovereign, and that therefore a king who acted wrongly might lawfully be compelled to do right, and that he had been guilty of certain definite acts of violence and fraud.

When sentence of banishment was pronounced against Despenser and his father, he put to sea, and about Michaelmas attacked two large ships that were carrying merchandise to England and robbed them of their cargoes. He was recalled early in 1322, and marched with the king against Lancaster. When, however, the royal army had crossed the Trent, he is said to have prevented Edward from unfurling his standard by representing to him the terrible consequences of such a formal declaration of civil war (Bridlington, ii. 75). The king's cause was successful. Later in the year he was with Edward when the Scots invaded the kingdom, and nearly fell into their hands at the surprise of Byland. In 1323 he was employed to negotiate a thirteen years' truce with Scotland. It is evident from the charge brought against him with reference to his doctrine of allegiance that he had very clear constitutional ideas, and he may at least, equally with his father, be credited with the spirit manifested in the parliament that was held at York after the overthrow of the king's enemies. It was then declared that nothing could be established as law for the estate of the king and for the estate of the realm and of the people unless it had first been treated and established in parliament by the three estates. While the ordinances of 1311 were repealed, the action of the crown was not left without restraint: Despenser and his father alike seem to have recognised the importance of agreement between the king and the people as a means of checking the turbulent aggressiveness of the barons (Stubbs, Const. Hist. ii. 351, 352). Despenser, however, allowed nothing to stand in the way of his own avarice. He received an enormous number of grants of lands and offices, and among them the custody of Bristol Castle and the isle of Lundy. He acted with insolent violence and utter disregard of law, forcing, for example, Elizabeth, wife of Richard, lord Talbot, to give him up the manor of Painswick, Gloucestershire, and other lands. When Edward left London on 2 Oct. 1326, Despenser accompanied him to Gloucester and the other places whither he fled, arriving at Cardiff on the 27th. While there the fugitives made an attempt to reach Lundy: it failed, and they sought refuge in the Despensers' castles at Caerphilly and Neath. The queen made her quarters at Hereford and sent William de la Zouche and Rhys ap Howel to take them. They surrendered, perhaps were surprised, at Llantrissaint on 16 Nov. and were brought to Hereford by Henry of Lancaster (a full itinerary of their flight, as far as it can be made out, will be found in the Introduction to Chronicles of Edward I and Edward II, ii. xciv-vi). There on 24 Nov. Despenser was brought to trial, before William Trussel, the earl of Lancaster, and other nobles, men who hated him bitterly. Among the various charges brought against him were his piracy during his exile, and his share in the death of Thomas, earl of Lancaster. He was condemned and was forthwith put to death as a traitor. He suffered with great patience, asking forgiveness of the bystanders. His head was sent to London and fixed on London Bridge; his quarters were distributed among four other towns. He left, besides other children, his eldest son Hugh, who was summoned to parliament in 1338, and died without issue in 1349; and Edward, who died in 1342, leaving a son, Edward le Despenser, who married Elizabeth, daughter of Bartholomew, lord Burghersh. This Edward le Despenser was present at the battle of Poitiers, and took part in other campaigns in France. He accompanied the Duke of Clarence to Italy and distinguished himself in the service of Urban V (Cont. Murimuth, 207). He was summoned to parliament in 1357, was a knight of the Garter, and died 1375, leaving a son, Thomas le Despenser, created Earl of Gloucester [q. v.], and daughters.

[Annales Londonienses, Annales Paulini, Bridlington, Vita Edwarcli II, T. de la Moore's Vita et Mors Edwardi II in Chronicles of Edw. I and Edw. II, i. ii. ed. Dr. W. Stubbs, Rolls Ser.; J. Trokelowe, ed. Riley, Rolls Ser.; A. Murimuth, Eng. Hist. Soc.; Rymer's F?clera, ii. passim, ed. 1735; Stubbs's Constitutional History, ii. 336-360; Dugdale's Baronage, i. 393; Sir H. Nicolas's Historic Peerage, ed. Courthope.]
le Despenser, Hugh "the Younger" KB, 1st Baron le Despenser (I11020)
222 EDGAR Atheling, or EADGAR the Atheling (fl. 1066), king-elect, son of Eadward the Exile and Agatha, a kinswoman of Gisla, queen of Hungary and of the Emperor Henry II, was probably born in Hungary before 1057. In that year his father, the surviving son of Edmund Ironside [q. v.], came over to England in accordance with an invitation sent by Edward or Eadward the Confessor, who designed to make him his heir, but he died shortly after his arrival without having seen the king. The story that the Confessor recommended the ætheling to the nobles as his successor, and that there was a party who upheld his right at the Confessor's death, is plainly erroneous (Gesta Regum, iii. 238). It has been asserted that on this occasion Eadgar had ?no constitutional claim upon the votes of the witan beyond any other male person in the realm? (Norman Conquest, iii. 7), though the assertion appears open to question, for constitutional usage certainly restricted the choice of the witan to the members of the kingly house. When the news of the defeat and death of Harold reached London in October 1066, the two archbishops, the northern earls, Eadwine and Morkere, and other great men, together with the citizens and seamen of the city, chose Eadgar, who was then a youth, as king, and pledged themselves to go out to battle with him (Flor. Wig. i. 228; William of Poitiers p. 141). Some opposition to his election is said to have been offered by the bishops (Gesta Regum, iii. 247), among whom must no doubt be reckoned William, the Norman bishop of London. His election was a disappointment to the brothers Eadwine and Morkere, who had tried to persuade the Londoners to choose one or other of themselves, though when they found that this was hopeless they agreed in the general choice. Nevertheless they withdrew their forces from the city and marched back to Northumberland. Their desertion left Eadgar helpless. The Conqueror reduced and wasted the country to the south and west of the city, and in December Eadgar, who does not appear to have been crowned, with Ealdred [q. v.], archbishop of York, and other bishops and all the chief men of London, met him at Berkhampstead and made submission to him (A.-S. Chron. Worcester. William of Poitiers, p. 141, places this scene ?ad oppidum Warengefort,? and Mr. Parker, in the Early History of Oxford, p. 191, endeavours to explain the discrepancy). William received the ætheling graciously, gave him the kiss of peace, and it is said gave him a large grant of land, and treated him as an intimate friend, both on account of his relationship to the Confessor and to make some amends to him for the dignity he had lost (Orderic, p. 503; Will. of Poitiers, p. 148). The next year he took him with him to Normandy along with other noble Englishmen, whom he thought it was scarcely safe to leave behind him in England (ib. p. 150), and Eadgar must have returned with him in December.

In the summer of 1068 Eadgar left the court and went northwards, apparently intending to take part in the rising of Eadwine and Morkere. (The chronological order of the events of this year is confused; it is fully discussed in Norman Conquest, iv. 768 sqq.) The earls submitted to the king at Warwick, and William marched on towards York. Then the ætheling, his mother, and his two sisters, Christina and Margaret, with Earl Gospatric, Mærleswegen, and the most noble men of Northumberland, not daring to meet his wrath, and fearing lest they should be imprisoned as others were, took ship and escaped to Scotland, where they were hospitably received by Malcolm Can- more, and spent the winter there (A.-S. Chron. 1067, Worcester; Flor. Wig. ii. 2; Orderic, p. 511). Early in 1069 the North broke out into revolt, and Eadgar, accompanied by the nobles who shared his exile, left Scotland, and was received at York, and there all the Northumbrians gathered round him. The rebels besieged the Norman castle, and the king was forced to march to its relief; he crushed the revolt, and the ætheling again took shelter in Scotland. When he heard that the Danish fleet had entered the Humber in the September of the same year, he and the other English exiles joined it with a fleet that they had gathered. He narrowly escaped falling into the hands of the enemy, for while the Danish ships were in the Humber he sailed with a single ship, manned by his own followers, on an independent plundering expedition. The king's garrison from Lincoln fell upon his company, took them all save him and two others, and broke up his ship (Orderic, p. 514). He and his party seem to have remained with the Danish fleet during the winter as long as it stayed in the Humber (Norman Conquest, iv. 505), and when it sailed away he, his mother, his sisters, and the Northumbrian lords set sail for Scotland, and put in at Wearmouth, where they found Malcolm, who was ravaging the district, and who again gave them a hearty welcome, promising them a safe shelter as long as they chose to remain with him (Symeon). They returned with him to Scotland, and Malcolm sought to make Margaret his wife. Eadgar and all his men long refused their consent, though at last they yielded, 'because they were come into his power' (A.-S. Chron. Worcester, 1067). In 1074 Eadgar was in Flanders. He had, perhaps, been obliged to leave Scotland after Malcolm had done homage to William at Abernethy, two years before (Norman Conquest, iv. 518), and no doubt chose Flanders as his place of refuge on account of the hostility between Count Robert and William. In the summer of that year he came over to Scotland to visit Malcolm and his sister, the queen. While he was with them Philip of France wrote to him, bidding him come to him and offering to give him the castle of Montreuil, which from its situation would have enabled him to give constant annoyance to their common enemy, William, and to act in conjunction with the Count of Flanders. When he set sail the king and queen gave him and his men many rich gifts, vessels of gold and silver, and cloaks of ermine and other skins. They were shipwrecked apparently on the coast of England, their ships and almost all their treasures were lost, and some of them fell into the hands of the 'Frenchmen' [Normans]. Eadgar and the rest returned to Scotland, 'some ruefully going on foot, and some wretchedly riding' (A.-S. Chron. Worcester, 1074). Malcolm advised him to send over to William, who was then in Normandy, and make his peace. This he accordingly did, and the king and queen, having again given him many treasures, sent him from their kingdom with honour. He was met at Durham by the sheriff of York, who escorted him to Normandy. William received him graciously and gave him some means of sustenance. It was probably about this time that he received two small estates which he held in Hertfordshire at the time of the Domesday Survey (Norman Conquest, iv. 571, 745; Domesday, 142 a). He also had an allowance of a pound of silver a day. It is said that at William's court he was held to be indolent and childish, and that he was foolish enough to give up his pension to the king in exchange for a single horse (Gesta Regum, iii. 251). At last, in 1086, finding that he was slighted by the king, he obtained leave to raise a force of two hundred knights, and with them he went to serve with the Normans in Apulia (Flor. Wig.)

On Eadgar's return from Apulia he resided in Normandy, where Duke Robert gave him lands and treated him as a friend. In 1091 William Rufus, who was then reigning in England, compelled the duke to take away his land and to send him out of the duchy (ib.) He again took shelter in Scotland, and accompanied Malcolm when he invaded Northumberland the same year. William and Malcolm met on the shores of the Firth of Forth, and Eadgar on the side of the Scottish king, and Duke Robert on the side of his brother, arranged a peace between them (A.-S. Chron.) Eadgar was reconciled to William, and returned to Normandy with the duke on 23 Dec. He was in England in the spring of 1093, and was sent by the king to invite Malcolm to a conference at Gloucester. When Malcolm was slain on 13 Nov., his kingdom was seized by Donald Bane, and his children were forced to flee to England, where, it is said, they were sheltered by their uncle, the ætheling (Fordun, v. 21). To this period of his life probably belongs the story which tells how he was accused by a certain English knight named Ordgar of plotting against the king. William believed the accusation, and its truth was to be decided in Norman fashion by combat. Eadgar had some difficulty in finding a champion. At last an English knight, Godwine of Winchester, was moved by the thought of his descent from the ancient line of kings, and offered to do battle as his representative. The two knights fought on foot, and, after a long and desperate conflict, Godwine brought the accuser to the ground. Ordgar tried to stab him with a knife, which, contrary to his oath and to the laws of the duel, he had hidden in his boot. It was snatched from him, and then, seeing that all hope was gone, he confessed that he had charged the ætheling falsely, and died of the many wounds he had received (ib.) The story is probably true, at least in its main outline (William Rufus, ii. 114 sq., 615 sq., where this Godwine is identified with the father of Robert, who accompanied Eadgar on his crusade: see Gesta Regum, iii. 251, and below). In 1097 Eadgar obtained the king's leave to make an expedition into Scotland for the purpose of setting his nephew and namesake on the throne. He set out at Michaelmas, defeated Donald in a hard-fought battle, in which Robert, the son of the ætheling's champion Godwine, is said to have performed extraordinary feats, and secured the kingdom for Eadgar (Fordun; A.-S. Chron.) He then returned to England, and in 1099 went to the Crusade. With him served Robert, the son of 'a most valiant knight' named Godwine, evidently none other than Godwine the champion. In the course of the war Robert was shot to death by the Turks for refusing to deny Christ. His death seems to have brought Eadgar's crusading to a close. On his homeward way he is said to have received many gifts from the Greek and German emperors, who would willingly have kept him with them, but he loved his own land too well to live away from it (Gesta Regum, iii. 251). He returned to England in the reign of Henry I, and during the last war between Henry and his brother Robert left the king and went over to help the duke. He was taken prisoner at the battle of Tinchebrai on 28 Sept. 1106. The king freely released him, and he spent the remainder of his days in obscurity in the country, perhaps on his Hertfordshire property. It is not known when he died, but he was evidently alive when William of Malmesbury wrote the third book of his 'Gesta Regum,' probably not long before 1120. An 'Edgar Adeling,' mentioned in the Pipe Roll (Northumberland) in 1158 and 1167, must of course have been a different person, as the ætheling who was the son of Eadward the Exile would have been at least 110 if he had lived until 1167 (Norman Conquest, iii. 794). Eadgar is not known to have had wife or child.

[Anglo-Saxon Chron. (Rolls Ser.); Florence of Worcester (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Will. of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Symeon of Durham (Rolls Ser.); William of Poitiers, Giles; Orderic, Duchesne; Fordun's Scotichronicon, Hearne; Freeman's Norman Conquest, iii, iv, v. passim, and Reign of William Rufus contain all that is to be known about Eadgar.] 
Ætheling, Edgar (I5194)
223 EDGAR or EADGAR (944-975), king of the English, the younger son of Eadmund the Magnificent [see Edmund] and the sainted Ælfgifu, was born in 944, the year of his mother's death, for he was twenty-nine at the time of his coronation in 973 (Anglo-Saxon Chron. sub ann. 972; Flor. Wig. sub ann. 973). He was probably brought up at the court of his uncle Eadred [see Edred], for his name, coupled with that of his brother Eadwig [see Edwy], is appended to a charter of Eadred dated 955 (Kemble, Codex Dipl. 435). After his brother's accession he resided at his court, and was there on 9 May 957 (ib. 465), when the insurrection of the north had already broken out. Some time, probably, before the close of that year he was chosen king by the insurgents. The kingdom was divided by a decree of the ?witan,? and he ruled over the land north of the Thames. He begins to issue charters as king the following year. In a charter of 958 he styles himself 'king of the Angles and ruler of the rest of the peoples dwelling round' (ib. 471); in a charter of the next year 'king of Mercia,' with a like addition (ib. 480); and in another charter, granted probably about the same time, 'king of the Mercians, Northumbrians, and Britons' (Wells Chapter MSS.) As he was now scarcely past childhood he must have been little more than a puppet in the hands of the northern party. As soon as he was settled on the throne he sent for Dunstan [q. v.], who was then in exile, and who from that time became his chief minister and adviser. The other leading men of his party were Oskytel, archbishop of York; Ælfhere, ealdorman of Mercia; Brihtnoth [q. v.], ealdorman of Essex; and Æthelstan, the 'half-king,' ealdorman of East Anglia, whose wife, Ælfwen, was the young king's foster-mother (Historia Ramesiensis, 11), a connection that may have had a curious bearing on the rivalry between him and his elder brother, for it has been suggested that Æthelfgifu, the mother of Eadwig's wife, and a person of great weight at his court, stood in the same relation to the West-Saxon king (Robertson, Essays, 180, 201).

On the death of Edwy [q. v.] or Eadwig in October 959 Eadgar, who was then sixteen, was chosen king by the whole people ({{sc|Flor. Wig.), and succeeded to the kingdom of the West-Saxons, as well as of the Mercians and Northumbrians (A.-S. Chron.) His reign, though of considerable historical importance, does not appear to have been eventful. It was a period of national consolidation, peace, and orderly government. Much of the prosperity of the reign should certainly be attributed to the wisdom of Dunstan, archbishop of Canterbury (960?988), who served the king as well and faithfully as he had served his uncle Eadred. In 968 (?) Eadgar made an expedition into Wales because the prince of the North Welsh withheld the tribute that had been paid to the English king since the time of Æthelstan, and, according to William of Malmesbury, laid on the rebellious prince a tribute of three hundred wolves' heads for four years, which was paid for three years, but was then discontinued because no more wolves were left to be killed, a highly improbable story (Gesta Regum, 155). It seems as though the Welsh were virtually independent during this reign, for their princes do not attest the charters of the English king, and so may be supposed not to have attended his witenagemots. Eadgar's relations with the Danish parts of the kingdom are of more importance. From the time of the death of Eric Haroldsson and the skilful measures taken by Eadred and Dunstan to secure the pacification of Northumbria, the northern people had remained quiet until they had joined in the revolt against Eadwig. By the election of Eadgar and the division of the kingdom they broke off their nominal dependence on the West-Saxon throne. Now, however, Eadgar himself had become king of the whole land, and Wessex was again the seat of empire. It was probably this change that in 966 led to an outbreak in Northumbria. The disturbance was quelled by Thored, the son of Gunner, steward of the king's household, who harried Westmoreland, and Eadgar sought to secure peace by giving the government of the land to Earl Oslac. It is said, though not on any good authority, that as Kenneth of Scotland had taken advantage of this fresh trouble in the north to make a raid upon the country, Eadgar purchased his goodwill, at least so it is said, by granting him Lothian, or northern Bernicia, an English district to the south of the Forth, to be held in vassalage of the English crown. (This grant, which has been made the subject of much dispute, has been fully discussed by Dr. Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 610?20; and E. W. Robertson, Scotland under her Early Kings, ii. 386 sq.).

While Eadgar thus provided for the peace of the north, he seems to have carefully forborne from interfering with the customs and internal affairs of the Danish district. He declared in his laws: 'I will that secular rights stand among the Danes with as good laws as best they may choose. But with the English let that stand which I and my witan have added to the dooms of my forefathers.' Only the police arrangement of the hundred was to be common to all his peoples, 'English, Danes, and Britons.' But in the case of powerful offenders, while in the English districts their punishment was decided by the king and the witan, the Danes were to choose according to their laws the punishment that was to be awarded. This self-government was granted, Eadgar tells the Danes, as a reward 'for the fidelity which ye have ever shown me' (Thorpe, Ancient Laws, 116, 117). The two peoples, then, lived on terms of equality each under its own law, though, indeed, the differences between the systems were trifling, and this arrangement, as well as the good peace Eadgar established in the kingdom, was no doubt the cause that led the 'witan' in the reign of Cnut to declare the renewal of 'Eadgar's law' [see under Canute]. Besides this policy of non-interference he favoured men of Danish race, and seems to have adopted some of their customs. The steward of his household was a Dane, and a curious notice in the 'Chronicle' concerning a certain king, Sigferth, who died by his own hand and was buried at Wimborne, seems to point to some prince of Danish blood who was held in honour at the English court. Offices in church and state alike were now open to the northern settlers. While, however, Eadgar was thus training the Danes as good and peaceful subjects, his policy was looked on with dislike by Englishmen of old-fashioned notions, and the Peterborough version of the 'Chronicle' preserves a song in which this feeling is strongly expressed. The king is there said to have 'loved foreign vices' and 'heathen manners,' and to have brought 'outlandish' men into the land. The same principle of non-interference was carried out in church matters, for on the death of Oskytel in 972 the king, by the advice of Dunstan, conferred the archbishopric of York on Oswald, who was by birth a Northumbrian Dane, and possibly set aside the election of the English Æthelwald in his favour (Symeon, col. 79; T. Stubbs, col. 1699; Robertson, Essays, 214). Oswald, though, in his diocese of Worcester and elsewhere, he continued to carry on his efforts to promote the Benedictine reform that was strongly favoured by the king, did not attempt to introduce it into Northumbria, where it would certainly have met with considerable resistance, and in this matter he must have acted with the approval of Eadgar, who had a strong affection for him (Vita S. Oswaldi, 435).

The king's conciliatory policy met with signal success, and the Danish population lived peacefully under his supremacy. Nor did this success lack definite acknowledgment. On the return of Oswald from Rome, whither he had gone not merely to fetch his pall, but to transact several matters of state, probably to obtain the pope's assent to the step the king was about to take, Eadgar was 'at length' solemnly crowned (Æthelweard, 520). The ceremony took place at Bath on Whitsunday, 11 May 973, in the presence of a vast assembly of the 'witan,' and was performed by both the archbishops; it is the first recorded instance of a coronation of an English king in which the archbishop of the 'Northumbrians' (Vita S. Oswaldi) took part, and this is certainly not without significance. It is also the first coronation of which we have a minute description (ib. 436?8). It will be sufficient to note here that the king entered the church wearing his crown, and laid it aside as he knelt before the altar; that Dunstan then began the 'Te Deum;' that at the conclusion of the hymn the bishops raised the king from his knees; and that at Dunstan's dictation he then took a threefold oath that the church of God and all christian people should enjoy true peace for ever, that he would forbid all wrong and robbery to all degrees, and that he would command justice and mercy in all judgments. Then the consecration prayers were said, the archbishops anointed him, the antiphon 'Zadok the priest' was sung, and all joined in the shout 'Let the king live for ever.' Dunstan next invested him with the ring and sword, placed the crown on his head and the sceptre and rod in his hands, and both the archbishops enthroned him. Although this ceremony is sometimes spoken of as a second coronation, there is no good reason for supposing that the king had ever been crowned before. No contemporary chronicler assigns any reason for this delay of the rite, or for the special time chosen for its performance; the story that connects it with a penance will be noted further on. It may, therefore, be held to have been, to quote the words of Dr. Stubbs: 'a solemn typical enunciation of the consummation of English unity, an inauguration of the king of all the nations of England, celebrated by the two archbishops, possibly with special instructions or recognition from Rome, possibly in imitation of the imperial consecration of Eadgar's kinsmen, the first and second Otto, possibly as a declaration of the imperial character of the English crown itself' (Memorials of St. Dunstan, introd. ci.; this view was first propounded by Robertson, Essays, 203?15; comp.Freeman, Norman Conquest, i. 639, 3rd edition). It evidently took strong hold on the imagination of the people, and was made the subject of one of the national ballads preserved in the 'Chronicle' (Anglo-Saxon Chron. sub ann.; Æthelweard, 520). After this ceremony the king with all his fleet sailed round to Chester, and there six (A.-S. Chron.), or rather eight (Flor. Wig.), kings met him and swore to be faithful to him, and to be 'his fellow-workers by sea and by land.' They were the kings of the Scots, of Cumberland, and of the Isles, and five Welsh princes, and it is said that they further declared their vassalage by rowing Eadgar in a boat which he himself steered at the head of a great procession from his palace to the minster of St. John Baptist, where they prayed, and then returned in the same manner (ib.) While this may be a later embellishment, the 'commendation' of the kings is beyond doubt. (On the nature of such commendations see Freeman's Historical Essays, i. 56; Norman Conquest, i. 142; Robertson, Scotland under her Early Kings, ii. 386 sq.) The Danes of Ireland were friendly, and acknowledged the power if not the supremacy of the English king, for coins of Eadgar were minted at Dublin (Robertson). The relations between Eadgar and the other kings and princes then reigning in these islands are probably signified by his use of grandiloquent titles borrowed from the imperial court. Following the example of his predecessors since the reign of Æthelstan, he describes himself in his charters as 'Albionis Imperator Augustus,' and the like (Norman Conquest, i. 623; Stubbs, Constitutional History, i. 177). As a near kinsman of Otto I and II, he may well have been influenced by the imperial ideas of western Europe. He made alliance with Otto the Great, and received splendid gifts from him (Flor. Wig. sub ann. 959). This alliance was probably renewed at the accession of Otto II, when other kings are said to have marvelled at the profusion of Eadgar's gifts. His fame was spread abroad, and Saxons, and men of Flanders, and Danes are said to have sailed hither constantly; all were welcomed, but their coming was evidently disliked by the more conservative part of the English (Gesta Regum, 148, where William of Malmesbury expands the notice of the Peterborough chronicler, which as it stands seems to apply chiefly to the Danes, the men of 'heathen manner').

At the date of his coronation at Bath, Eadgar was in his thirtieth year. He is said to have been short and slenderly made, but of great strength (ib. 156), ?beauteous and winsome? (A.-S. Chron.) His personal character, the events of his life, and the glories of his reign made a deep impression on the English people. Not only are four ballads, or fragments of ballads, relating to his reign preserved in the different versions of the national chronicle, but a large mass of legends about him, originally no doubt contained in gleemen's songs, is given by William of Malmesbury. He is represented in somewhat different lights. All contemporary writers save one speak of him in terms of unmixed praise; the one exception, the Peterborough chronicler, while dwelling on his piety, his glory, and his might, laments, as we have seen, his love of foreigners and of foreign fashions and evil ways. As a zealous patron of the monks, he is naturally depicted by the monastic writers of his time in glowing colours, and the excellence of his government, which rests on better evidence than vague phrases, justifies all that they say of him as a ruler. On the other hand, popular tradition, represented by the stories told by William of Malmesbury, while endorsing all that the chroniclers say of the glories of the reign, conveys a widely different impression of his personal character from that which is to be gathered from his monastic admirers. He was, we are told, cruel to his subjects, and inordinately lustful; he coveted his friend's wife, and murdered her husband in order to marry her, and was guilty of other acts of immorality (Gesta Regum, 157?60; Gesta Pontificum, p. 190). The charge of cruelty probably arose from the general strictness with which he repressed disorder, and from the remembrance of certain special incidents in which his justice was too little tempered with mercy (see below). As regards his lustfulness and other crimes the historian expressly states that the legends concerning them refer only to his younger days. The two of most importance tell us how Eadgar slew Æthelwold, and married his widow, Ælfthryth, or Elfrida, and how he seduced a veiled lady of Wilton. All the circumstances of the first legend are unhistorical (the growth of this legend has been discussed fully by Dr. Freeman, Historical Essays, i. 15-25); the second rests on a firmer basis. A review of the king's life, as far as we know it, certainly goes far to show that in his early years he was flagrantly immoral, and this is borne out by the reference to his vices in the song preserved in the 'Chronicle.' Cnut, it should be noted, held that he was 'given up to vice and a slave to lust' (Gesta Pontiff. p. 190 [see under Canute and Edith, St.]) In 961 probably, when he was about seventeen, he took from the convent at Wilton a lady named Wulfthryth (Wulfrid), who, though veiled, was not a professed nun (Gesta Regum, 159). She bore him a daughter named Eadgyth (St. Edith) [q. v.] in or by 962. Her connection with the king was evidently a 'handfast' union, for after the birth of her child she refused to accede to his wish to enter into a permanent marriage with him, and retired to Wilton, taking as the dissenting party her child with her (Gotselin, Life of St. Edith, Acta SS. Mabillon, sæc. v. 636). As a punishment for this violation of the cloister, Osbern says that Dunstan ordered the king a penance of seven years, during which he was not to wear his crown, that he made atonement for his sin by building the nunnery at Shaftesbury, which was in fact built by Ælfred, and that at the end of the seven years he was solemnly crowned (Vita S. Dunstani, p. 111). Apart from the fact that the ceremony at Bath in 973 appears to have been the only coronation of Eadgar, it will be observed that the dates prove that this story cannot be accepted as it stands. Eadgar next took to wife Æthelflæd, who for her beauty was known as the ?White Duck? (Flor. Wig. sub an. 964), the daughter of an ealdorman named Ordmær, of whom little is known, and who probably owed such power as he had to his daughter's marriage. She bore the king a son named Eadward [see Edward the Martyr]. Her union with Eadgar is said by Nicholas of Worcester, writing about 1120, to have been a lawful marriage (Memorials of St. Dunstan, p. 423); this would scarcely be gathered from Florence of Worcester, and as her name does not appear in any charter, her connection with Eadgar must have terminated by the date of his marriage in 964, and as the succession of her son was disputed there is some ground for believing that this too was a 'handfast' union for a year, and that it was terminated by Eadgar, who as the dissenting party acknowledged and brought up her son (Robertson, Historical Essays, 169, 172?6). In 964 Eadgar took to wife Ælfthryth, the daughter of Ordgar, ealdorman of the western shires. Ælfthryth's first husband, Æthelwold, the son and successor of Æthelstan of East Anglia, died in 962. There is no reason to attribute his death to Eadgar as William of Malmesbury and later writers do; indeed it is absurd to imagine that the king would have thus injured the family in which he found his mightiest and most trusted adherents. Ælfthryth bore him Eadmund, who died in 971 or 972, and Æthelred (Ethelred the Unready), who afterwards came to the throne. Second marriages were uncanonical, and in the tenth century priests were forbidden to bless them. The name of Ælfthryth became odious, as she was held to be guilty of the murder of her stepson Eadward. These two facts are perhaps enough to account for the scandalous tales that later writers tell about this marriage. It took place just seven years before Eadgar's coronation, and in the account given of the ceremony at Bath by the anonymous author of St. Oswald's life there is a curious passage which seems as though the coronation was followed by some public recognition of it (p. 438). It seems possible, therefore, that we have here the key to the legend of the seven years' penance said to have been imposed in consequence of the violation of the 'veiled lady' of Wilton. Although we must reject the story of laying aside the crown, Dunstan may have imposed a penance, possibly of seven years' length, on the king for contracting a union which was uncanonical, and probably lacked the blessing of the church. Eadgar may have atoned for his sin by the foundation of a religious house, for he founded many, and the coronation at Bath may well have been accompanied by the removal of ecclesiastical censure, and, as the ?Life of St. Oswald? implies, by the recognition of the marriage (?peractis egregiis nuptiis regalis thori,? &c.).

With Eadgar's alliance with the East-Anglian house, which was perhaps drawn closer by his marriage with Ælfthryth, may be connected his zeal in the work of monastic reform which began in England that year (Robertson). He was first persuaded to undertake the work by Oswald, who was a friend of Æthelwine, the brother and successor of Ælfthryth's first husband. With the king in their favour, with Dunstan at Canterbury, Oswald at Worcester, and, above all, Æthelwold at Winchester, the monastic party was all-powerful. Eadgar upheld Æthelwold in his severity towards the clerks at Winchester (Vita S. Æthelwoldi, 260), he finished and dedicated the new minster there, and obtained a letter from John XIII authorising Æthelwold to establish monks there (Flor. Wig. sub ann. 964; Vita S. Oswaldi, 426; Memorials of St. Dunstan, 364). With his co-operation monks took the place of clerks at Chertsey, Milton, Exeter, Ely, Peterborough, Thorney, and other places. He commanded that the reform should be carried out in Mercia, ordered that new buildings should be provided for the new inmates of the monasteries, and is said to have founded forty new houses. He also gave large gifts to many other monasteries, and especially to Glastonbury. Nor was his bounty confined to the monasteries of his own kingdom, as may be seen by a letter from the abbot of St. Ouen at Rouen asking his help, and by another from the convent of St. Genevieve at Paris thanking him for his gifts (Memorials of St. Dunstan, 363, 366).

Young as Eadgar was, his rule was vigorous and successful. The tendency of the period was towards provincial rather than national administration. As the theory of royalty increased, its actual power diminished. The great ealdormen, such as Ælfhere and Æthelwine, were practically independent, and local jurisdictions were in full operation. Eadgar did not attempt to overthrow the power of the provincial rulers, nor did he do anything to weaken the local courts. On the contrary he seems to have avoided all unnecessary interference, and as he had no national machinery for government he strengthened the local machinery, while at the same time he used it for national ends and as a means of making his power felt in all that concerned the good of the nation. This required wisdom and vigour?the wisdom may to a large extent have been Dunstan's, the vigour of the king's administration was due to himself. In order to rid the coasts of the northern pirates he organised, we are told, a system of naval defence. He formed three fleets of twelve hundred vessels each, and every year after the Easter festival he sailed with each of these fleets in turn along the whole coast. Within the land, to use the chronicler's words, he ?the folks' peace bettered the most of the kings that were before him.? He used the territorial division of the hundred as the basis of an efficient police system for catching thieves, and by organising local jurisdictions and adapting them to the needs of the people gave them new life. He desired that the local courts should suffice for all ordinary purposes of justice, and commanded that no man should apply to the king in any civil suit unless he was not worthy of law or could not obtain it at home. Nevertheless he did not allow these courts to work without control. Every winter and spring we are told, doubtless with some exaggeration, he went through all the provinces and made inquisition as to how the great men administered the laws and whether the poor were oppressed by the mighty. His laws were few, and, except the ordinance of the hundred, call for no special remark; his work was rather administrative than legislative, and the words that stand at the head of his ordinances commanding that every man should be worthy of folk-right, poor as well as rich, show the spirit of his administration. He was stern in punishing crimes, and in 968, probably in consequence of some local rebellion, caused the island of Thanet to be ravaged. His ecclesiastical laws command the payment of tithe, church-seat, and hearth-penny or Peter's pence, and the observance of feasts and fasts. The general character of the canons enacted in this reign will be found in the article on Dunstan. It is convenient to consider the secular side of Eadgar's reign as specially pertinent to his life, and the ecclesiastical side as rather appropriate to the life of the archbishop. No such division, however, is satisfactory. Dunstan's greatness cannot be measured except by taking into account the glories of Eadgar's rule, nor is it likely that the king, who was so earnest in the matter of monastic reform, was an indifferent or inactive spectator of the efforts made by the archbishop to reform the character and raise the position of the clergy. The characteristic of Eadgar's reign which impressed the men of his own time most forcibly was the peace he gave to his people. 'God him granted that he dwelt in peace,' and the evil days that followed his death made men dwell on this so that he came to be called Eadgar the Peaceful King (Flor. Wig.) He died on 8 July 975 in his thirty-second year, and was buried at Glastonbury. In 1052 Abbot Æthelnoth translated his body to a shrine above the altar of the abbey church; and in spite of his early vices Eadgar was at this time reverenced as a saint at Glastonbury, and is said to have worked miracles (Gesta Regum, ii. 160; De Antiq. Glaston. Gale, iii. 324).

[Anglo-Saxon Chron.; Florence of Worcester (Engl. Hist. Soc.); William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum (Engl. Hist. Soc.) and Gesta Pontiff. (Rolls Ser.); Memorials of St. Dunstan (Rolls Ser.); Vita S. Oswaldi, Historians of York (Rolls Ser.); Vita S. Æthelwoldi, Chron. de Abingdon (Rolls Ser.); Historia Ramesiensis (Rolls Ser.); Kemble's Codex Dipl.; Thorpe's Ancient Laws and Institutes; Vita S. Eadgithæ, Mabillon's Acta SS. sæc. v.; Stubbs's Constitutional History; Robertson's Historical Essays and Scotland under her Early Kings; Freeman's Norman Conquest and Historical Essays, i.; Green's Conquest of England.]

W. H.
the Peaceable, Edgar King of England (I11228)
224 EDMUND of Woodstock, Earl of Kent (1301-1330), youngest son of Edward I, by his second wife, Margaret of France, was born at Woodstock on 5 Aug. 1301. On 31 Aug. 1306 he received from his father a revenue of seven thousand marks a year. It was commonly believed that the old king proposed to confer the rich earldom of Cornwall either on Edmund or on his elder brother Thomas of Brotherton; but the accession of Edward II secured that prize for the favourite, Gaveston. Edward II, however, placed Edward Baliol in the custody of his half-brother. In 1319 he made Edmund lord of the castle and honour of Knaresborough. In 1320 he granted him lands of the value of two thousand marks a year. Next year he still further increased his brother's resources. Edmund's first political act was to join in August 1318 in acting as one of the king's sureties in the treaty of peace between him and Lancaster. In March 1320 he was sent with Bartholomew, lord Badlesmere, on an embassy to Paris and Avignon. Badlesmere's object with the pope was to procure the advancement of his young nephew, Henry Burghersh [q. v.], to the see of Lincoln, and he found in his youthful colleague a pliant instrument for his purpose. In June Edward himself joined his brother at Paris, and their joint intercession resulted in Burghersh's appointment. In October Edmund was first summoned to parliament as Edmund of Woodstock. On 16 June 1321 he was made constable of Dover Castle and warden of the Cinque ports, and on 15 Sept. he also became constable of Tunbridge Castle. In the same year he was created Earl of Kent, the king himself girding him with the sword of the county (this was on 28 June, Doyle, Official Baronage, ii. 274; the Annales Paulini, p. 292, gives the date as 26 July). Henceforth Edmund took a conspicuous, if never a very leading, part in politics. He was present at the July parliament in which the Despensers were banished, but he strongly supported his brother a few months later in intriguing for their restoration. In October 1321 he was one of the six earls who obeyed the king's summons to besiege Badlesmere in Leeds Castle in Kent. He approved of the clerical declaration that the sentence of the Despensers was illegal. Early in 1322 he joined the king in his war against the barons. During this struggle his town and castle of Gloucester were occupied by the rebels, but they were soon won back, for it was there that on 11 Feb. Edward issued his order for the recall of the favourites. Kent joined in recommending the denunciation of Lancaster as a rebel, and on 11 March was appointed with Earl Warenne to arrest his adherents and besiege his stronghold of Pontefract. He was present at that place when, on 22 March, after Boroughbridge, Lancaster was condemned and executed in his own castle. He was also present at the York parliament in May. In July he was made sheriff of Rutland, having also received a grant of the town of Oakham. In 1323 he was a good deal occupied in the Scottish war. On 9 Feb. he was appointed lieutenant of the king in the northern marches, where on 12 Feb. he superseded the traitor Andrew Harclay, one of whose judges he was made on 27 Feb. In March he was appointed chief commissioner of array in Cumberland, Westmoreland, Lancashire, and Craven, and lieutenant of the king in the parts north of the Trent. But on a truce being patched up he was excused from further attendance. In 1323 Edmund also took part in the recapture of Maurice of Berkeley and the other escaped prisoners who had seized upon their place of confinement, Wallingford Castle. His violence of character was shown by his disrespect of the sanctuary of the castle chapel in which the fugitives had taken refuge.

On 9 April 1324 Edmund was sent with Alexander Bicknor [q. v.], archbishop of Dublin, on an embassy to France to persuade the new king, Charles IV, to dispense with the personal homage of Edward II for Guienne. But the outbreak of some disputes in that duchy through the aggressions of the lord of Montpezat and his summons along with his supporter, Ralph Basset, Edward's seneschal, to answer in the French courts, proved a further complication. The magnificent entertainment and persuasions of Charles induced the weak earl to acquiesce in the trial of Montpezat and Basset by the French king's judges; but the archbishop was a more strenuous diplomatist, and on referring the dispute to Edward, the king confirmed Bicknor's views. The homage question was still unsettled, when Edmund was despatched to Gascony, having received on 20 July the appointment of lieutenant of Aquitaine. With very inadequate forces, he was obliged to meet an invasion of the duchy by Charles of Valois. The French conquered the whole of the Agenois, and Edmund had to seek shelter behind the walls of La Réole. At last a truce was patched up, to endure until a permanent peace could be negotiated, on terms that left the French possessors of the greater part of Aquitaine ('Cont. Guil. de Nangis in D'Achéry, Spicilegium, iii. 82, 83). But other events had now thrown the Guienne question into the shade. Queen Isabella had formed at Paris that alliance with Mortimer which resulted in Edward's deposition. Kent, though permitted by the terms of the truce to return to England, seems at once to have joined the conspiracy against his brother.

On 24 Sept. 1326 Kent and his wife landed at Harwich in the train of Isabella, Mortimer, and the young Duke of Aquitaine. Like Isabella and her son he was specially exempted from the fate meted out to the less distinguished rebels by royal proclamation. He was present at Bristol when, on 26 Oct., the younger Edward was made guardian of the realm, and next day was one of the assessors of Sir W. Trussel for the trial of the elder Despenser. On 24 Nov. he played a similar part at the condemnation of the younger Despenser at Hereford. On 29 Jan. 1327 he was present at Edward III's coronation at Westminster. He was one of the standing council appointed, with Lancaster at its head, to govern for the young king. In June he was appointed joint captain of the troops in the Scottish marches, and took part in the inglorious campaign of that summer. He also received fresh grants of lands, including part of the forfeitures of the elder Despenser.

The ascendency of the queen and Mortimer reduced the standing council to impotence, and Kent soon joined Lancaster in his proceedings against Isabella and her paramour. He was among the magnates who refused to attend the Salisbury parliament in October 1328. On 19 Dec. he and his brother summoned to London a meeting of the magnates of their party, and on 2 Jan. 1328?9 entered into a confederation against the king which was rudely broken up by the capture of Lancaster's town of Leicester and the desertion by Kent and Norfolk of his cause.

Kent's weak compliance did not save him from ruin. Mortimer and the queen hatched a deliberate plot to lure him to destruction. Their spies and agents plied him with proofs that Edward II was not dead but imprisoned abroad or in Corfe Castle. They urged him to take effectual measures to restore his brother to liberty. A preaching friar visited his house at Kensington and assured him that he had conjured up a devil who had revealed to him that Edward was still alive. He was also told that the pope was anxious that he should rescue the deposed king. Plans for an insurrection were laid before him. The credulous and discontented Edmund rose to the bait. In hasty speeches and imprudent letters he gave free vent to his thoughts and plans. His political associates, Archbishop Melton of York, Bishop Gravesend of London, and others became equally compromised. He found confederates even in Wales, where he held the lordship of Melynydd. He was now sufficiently involved. At the parliament which met at Winchester in the first week of Lent he was charged with treason. On 13 March 1329?30 he was arrested. At an inquest held by Robert Howel, coroner of the royal household, he had to acknowledge his own speeches and his own letters. These confessions were repeated before parliament. In vain Kent made an abject offer of submission to the king's will, naked in his shirt and with a rope round his neck. But the vengeance of the queen and her paramour was not thus easily satisfied. The episcopal offenders were prudently released under sureties, the lesser offenders received punishment; but the great culprit was adjudged death, though the want of the consent of the commons was regarded as invalidating his condemnation. On 19 March he was led forth to execution to a spot outside the walls of Winchester. But no one could be found bold enough to behead so great a noble, so doubtfully tried and sentenced. From morning to evening Kent remained awaiting his fate. At last a condemned criminal from the Marshalsea was found willing to win his life by cutting off the earl's head.

The profound impression created by Edmund's fate was only modified by his exceeding unpopularity. The members of his riotous and ill-regulated household had plundered the people wherever they went, seizing their goods at their own pleasure, and paying little or nothing for them, and involving their master in the odium they themselves had excited. The vague praise which the courtly Froissart bestows on Edmund is justified neither by contemporary testimony nor by the acts of his life. He is described as magnificent and as possessing great physical strength. He may have had some of the virtues of chivalry and have been a fair soldier, but he was weak, credulous, and impulsive, selfish, fickle, and foolish. He was always a tool in some stronger hands than his own. His tragic fate precipitated the fall of the wicked government that had lured him to his ruin. In vain did the queen and Mortimer endeavour to set themselves right by explanations and justifications of their conduct, addressed to the pope and to the English people. Before the year was out Henry of Lancaster was urged, by the fall of his fickle ally, to drive Mortimer from power. Before his own execution Mortimer acknowledged that Kent's sentence was unjust.

Edmund married about Christmas 1325 (Ann. Paul. i. 310) Margaret (1309?1349), sister and heiress of Thomas, lord Wake of Liddell, and widow of John Comyn of Badenoch. He had by her four children, two sons and two daughters (but cf. Chron. de Melsa, i. 100, which, however, must be wrong). The eldest, Edmund, was born about 1327, and in 1330 was, on the petition of his mother and the reversal of his father's condemnation, recognised as Earl of Kent. On his death in 1333 his brother John (born 7 April 1330) succeeded to the title, but on his death on 27 Dec. 1352 without issue, the estates fell to Joanna, his sister, who brought them first to Thomas, lord Holland, and, after his death, to her more famous husband, Edward the Black Prince [q. v.] The other and elder sister, Margaret, married the eldest son of the Lord D'Albret in Gascony, but died without issue.

[Stubbs's Chronicles of Edward I and Edward II (Rolls Series), i. 291, 307, 310, 314, 317, 319, 332, 344, 349, ii. 85, 100, 168, 251, 275, 291; Adam Murimuth (Engl. Hist. Soc.), 42, 43, and, especially 61?3, ?quædam recognitio comitis Cantiæ? in French, the same is given in Latin in Camden, Anglica, &c. Scripta, pp. 129?30; Blaneforde in Trokelowe (Rolls Ser.), 139, 143, 145, 149; Trivet (Engl. Hist. Soc.), 378; Walsingham (Rolls Ser.), i. 171, 174?5; Chron. de Melsa (Rolls Ser.), i. 100, ii. 359; Knyghton, c. 2555; Ann. Lanercost (Bannatyne Club), 265; R. de Avesbury's Hist. Edw. III, ed. Hearne, p. 8; W. de Hemingburgh (Engl. Hist. Soc.), ii. 301; Annales Monastici, iii. 472, iv. 340, 348, 550; Capgrave's Chron. 193; Continuator of Guillaume de Nangis in D'Achéry's Spicilegium, iii. 82, 83, 93; Froissart's Chron. No. 1, pt. i. ch. l.; F?dera (Record edition), ii. 456, 463, 470, 472, 477, 478, 496, 538, 624, 646, 684, 702, 782, 783, 796; Rot. Parl. ii. 3, 33 a, 52, 53 b; Cal. Rot. Pat. 4 Edw. II, m. 14, 2 Edw. III, m. 5; Parl. Writs, II. ii. 219, II. 539, II. iii. 796?7; Abbrev. Rot. Orig. i. 250 b, 256 b, 259 b, 269 a, 304; Leland's Collectanea, i. 686, 782, 794; Barnes's Edward III, pp. 38?42; Pauli's Englische Geschichte, iv.; Dugdale's Baronage, ii. 92?5; Doyle's Baronage, ii. 274?5.]

T. F. T.
of Woodstock, Edmund 1st Earl of Kent (I11353)
225 EDMUND or EADMUND (922?-946), king of the English, son of Eadward the Elder and Eadgifu, first appears as sharing in the victory of his elder brother Æthelstan at Brunanburh in 937, when he must have been about fifteen. On Æthelstan's death, on 27 Oct. 940, he succeeded to the kingdom at the age of eighteen. He appears to have attempted to bring the north under his immediate rule, and it is said that the Norwegian king, Eric Bloodaxe, now left Northumbria. This, however, seems impossible for chronological reasons, for Eric did not arrive in England until the next reign (see under Edred; Laing, Sea-kings, i. 317; Corpus Poeticum Boreale, ii. 489). Still, it is probably true that Eadmund tried to assert his authority over the north in some practical manner instead of resting content with the bare submission of the people, and leaving them to manage their own affairs. A revolt broke out, and the northern people made Olaf (Anlaf), a northman from Ireland, their king. The revolt appears to have spread to the confederate towns called the Five Boroughs. In 942 Olaf died, and was succeeded by another Olaf, the son of Sihtric, and Ragnar, the son of Guthfrith. Up to this time Wulfstan, the archbishop of York, appears to have remained faithful to the West-Saxon king (Kemble, Codex Dipl. 393). He now openly joined Olaf, and marched with him to war. In 943 Olaf and Wulfstan took Tamworth and ravaged the country round about. Eadmund came up with them at Leicester and besieged them there. The suddenness of his attack evidently surprised them. A peace was arranged by the two archbishops, Oda and Wulfstan, and the war was brought to an end on nearly the same terms as those that had been made between Ælfred and Guthorm. The kingdom was divided, and Eadmund was left the immediate kingship only of the country south of Watling Street; his supremacy over the north was, however, acknowledged, for Olaf was baptised, probably at Leicester, the English king standing godfather to him, as Alfred had stood to Guthorm, and later in the same year Ragnar also submitted to baptism. This revival of the Danelaw did not last long, for in 944 Eadmund drove out both the Norse kings, and brought the country into subjection. His conquest of Mercia, and especially of the Five Boroughs, is celebrated in a song preserved in the Winchester version of the 'Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.' This song is inserted under 941, the year in which the towns appear to have revolted; but the chronology of the war is uncertain, and the sequence of events given here only represents one opinion. Dr. Freeman believes that Mercia and the Five Boroughs were conquered in 941 (Norman Conquest, i. 64; Old English History, p. 163). Eadmund's brilliant success won him the name of the 'deed-doer,' or, to use the modern form of the word, written in Latin by Florence of Worcester, the 'magnificent.' In the struggles of the English kings with the Danish people of the north, Cumbria, the remaining fragment of the Celtic kingdom of Strathclyde, and the Scots had been active on the Danish side. Eadmund endeavoured to secure his kingdom from attack through Cumbrian territory by a stroke of policy, for in 945 he conquered the land and delivered it over to Malcolm of Scotland on condition that he should be 'his fellow-worker by sea and land.' The Scots were thus set to keep the Welsh in subjection, 'while the fidelity of the Scot king seemed to be secured by the impossibility of holding Cumbria against revolt without the support of his fellow-worker in the south' (Green). Abroad, Eadmund demanded the release of his nephew, King Lewis, who was kept in prison by Hugh, duke of the French. His ambassadors were answered haughtily by the duke, who declared that he would do nothing for the threats of the English. The dispute was brought to an end by Eadmund's death. In ecclesiastical matters he seems to have been on the side of those who were anxious to effect a reformation of morals. He made Dunstan abbot of Glastonbury [see under Dunstan], and was a benefactor of Glastonbury, Abingdon, and Shaftesbury. At a synod held at London by the king and both the archbishops, laws were made commanding that spiritual persons should live in chastity, and that bishops should take care that the churches of their dioceses were kept in repair. Another set of laws ascribed to him are on the subject of betrothal, dower, and marriage. His civil administration appears to have been marked by efforts to enforce order, and his secular laws refer to his efforts to prevent robberies, and contain provisions rendering the man-slayer responsible for his own act, and checking the feud that was anciently maintained between the kindreds of the slayer and the slain. Eadmund met his death in 946. He was keeping the feast of St. Augustine of Canterbury (26 May) at Pucklechurch in Gloucestershire, when a certain robber named Liofa, whom he had banished six years before, entered the hall and sat down by one of the ealdormen, near the king himself. Eadmund bade his cup-bearer to take the man away, but Liofa struggled with the officer and tried to kill him. Eadmund came to the help of his cup-bearer, and threw the robber to the ground; but Liofa had a dagger with him, and with it he stabbed the king and slew him. He was himself slain by the king's men. Eadmund married first Ælfgifu, who bore him Eadwig and Eadgar, and died in 944. After her death she was hallowed as a saint, and miracles were worked at her tomb at Shaftesbury (Æthelweard). His second wife was Æthelflæd, called, probably from her marriage portion, 'at-Domerham,' the daughter of Ælfgar, one of his thegns, who was made an ealdorman.

[Anglo-Saxon Chron.; Florence of Worcester (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Æthelweard's Chronicle, Mon. Hist. Brit. p. 520; Symeon of Durham (Rolls Ser.); William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Historia de Abingdon, i. 88?120; Kemble's Codex Dipl. ii. 205?66; Thorpe's Ancient Laws, p. 104; Laing's Sea-kings, i. 317; Vigfusson and Powell's Corpus Poeticum Boreale, ii. 489; Freeman's Norman Conquest, i. 64, 135, 245; Green's Conquest of England, p. 268?81; Robertson's Historical Essays, 168, 181, 197.]

the Magnificent, Edmund I King of Wessex (I11233)
226 EDMUND or EADMUND, called Ironside (981?-1016), king, the third son, probably, of Æthelred the Unready, by his first wife, Ælfgifu, daughter either of an ealdorman named Æthelberht (Flor. Wig. i. 275), or of Thored, earl of the Northumbrians (Ailred, col. 362), is said by the St. Albans compiler to have been born in 981 (Chron. Maj. sub ann.); but this date is certainly too early, as Æthelred was then not more than thirteen. Æthelstan, who seems to have been Æthelred's eldest son, probably died in 1016, and Ecgberht, who came next, about 1005 (Norman Conquest, i. 686, 700). In 1015 Eadmund desired to marry Ealdgyth, the widow of the Danish earl Sigeferth, who, along with his fellow earl Morkere, had that year been slain at Oxford by Eadric Streona [see under Edric]. Æthelred, who had seized on the possessions of the earls, and had sent Ealdgyth to Malmesbury, was not willing that his son should make this marriage. Nevertheless Eadmund took Ealdgyth from Malmesbury, married her, and then went to the Five (or Seven) Boroughs of the Danish confederacy, where the murdered earls had ruled, and received the submission of the people. It seems highly probable that this marriage, and the establishment of his power in the Danish district, deeply offended his brother-in-law Eadric, the Mercian earl (Green); for, when Cnut invaded the country shortly afterwards, and Eadmund raised an army to meet him and joined forces with Eadric, a bitter quarrel broke out between them, and the earl, after having, it is said, endeavoured to slay him, went over to the side of Cnut. After this desertion Eadmund was unable to defend Mercia in the beginning of 1016, for his levies declared that they would not fight unless he was joined by the king, who had lately been sick, and by the Londoners. He tried to raise another force, declaring that all who disobeyed his summons should suffer the full penalty, and sent to his father desiring him to come and help him. Æthelred came, did no good, and went back to London. Eadmund then retired into Northumbria, joined Earl Uhtred, and with his help harried Staffordshire and other parts of eastern Mercia which had submitted to Cnut. Uhtred was compelled to draw off his forces and hasten back to his own earldom, for Cnut was marching on York, and Eadmund joined his father in London about Easter. While Cnut was threatening to lay siege to the city Æthelred died on 23 April, and the Londoners, together with such of the 'witan' as were there, with one consent chose Eadmund as king, and there is no reason to doubt the assertion of Ralph of Diceto (i. 169, ii. 237) that he was crowned in London by Lyfing, archbishop of Canterbury. Cnut was, however, chosen king at Southampton by the witan generally (Flor. Wig. i. 173), and at the time of his election Eadmund's kingdom was bounded by the walls of London. His elder brother, Æthelstan, who does not appear to have been put forward as a candidate for the crown, and his step-mother, the Norman Emma, seem to have been with him in the city.

Before the siege of London was actually formed Eadmund and Æthelstan appear to have left the city, and it is probable that Æthelstan was slain about this time in a skirmish with a Danish leader named Thurgut (Earl Thurcytel?), for when Thietmar (vii. 28, Pertz, iii. 848) says that Eadmund was thus slain, and that the war was carried on by Æthelstan, he evidently confuses the two brothers together. Meanwhile Eadmund, 'who was yclept Ironside for his bravery' (A.-S. Chron. sub ann. 1057), rode through the western shires, received their submission, and raised an army from them. His troops are said to have been British or Welsh ('Britanni,' Thietmar), and it is suggested that they came from the 'shires of the old Wealhcyn' (Norman Conquest, i. 701); in the twelfth century it was believed that they were natives of Wales, for Gaimar (l. 4222) says that Eadmund's wife was the sister of a Welsh king, and that this gained him the help of her countrymen, and though Ealdgyth had an English name, it does not follow that she was an Englishwoman any more than Ælfgifu, as the English called Emma, the Norman wife of Æthelred. When Cnut heard that Eadmund had received the submission of the west, he left the siege of London and marched after him. Eadmund gave him battle at Pen (Selwood) in Somerset, and defeated his army. This victory enabled him to raise another and larger force, and shortly after midsummer he again met Cnut's army at Sherston, in Wiltshire. He was now at the head of troops raised from Devonshire, Dorsetshire, and Wiltshire, while Cnut had in his army levies from Hampshire and other parts of Wiltshire (Flor. Wig.), so that Eadmund had now extended his kingdom so far east as to take in some parts of Wiltshire. The fight began on a Monday, and Eadmund, who had placed his best warriors in the front line, stood with them and fought hand to hand with the enemy. When evening came the two armies, wearied with battle, drew off a little from one another. The next day they renewed the fight, and the army of Eadmund had, it is said, gained a decided advantage, when Eadric Streona discouraged the English by holding up a head which he declared to be the head of their king (ib.) Eadmund, we are told, got upon some mound, took off his helmet that his men might see his face, and then with all his strength hurled a spear at Eadric, who warded it off; it glanced from his shield, struck the soldier who was standing by him, and pierced him and another man also (Gesta Regum, ii. 180); such was the tradition as to his strength in the twelfth century. The battle again lasted till twilight, and again both armies fell back from each other, but though the issue was undecided Eadmund reaped the fruits of victory, for in the stillness of the night Cnut drew off his forces and marched back towards London, where he again pressed the siege, thus leaving Eadmund undisputed possession of Wessex (Flor. Wig.) A legendary account of the battle is given in the 'Knytlinga Saga' (c. 10), and in a still stranger version of it the command of Cnut's army is attributed to Thurcytel, and he is represented as the victor (Enc. Emmæ, p. 15).

After the battle of Sherston, Eadric, impressed by the success of his brother-in-law, came to him and owned him as king. Eadmund now gathered a third army, for the local levies appear to have dispersed after every action, ?whether a victory or a defeat? (Freeman), and with it set out to raise the siege of London. He marched along the northern bank of the Thames and drove the Danes to their ships, a success which is reckoned as the third of his battles (Henry of Huntingdon). Two days later he crossed the river at Brentford, and it is said again routed the enemy (A.-S. Chron.), who appear to have fought behind some fortifications. Several of his men were drowned in crossing the river, for they rushed heedlessly into the water excited by the hope of plunder (Othere, Knutz-drapa in Corpus Poet. Bor. ii. 156, where the victory is attributed to Cnut). He again went into Wessex to raise another army, and Cnut renewed the siege of London, but after a short time gave it up, and after bringing his ships into the Medway employed his men in plundering expeditions, which showed that his hopes of conquest were dashed by the constant success of the English king. The fourth army raised by Eadmund was made up of men from every part of the country (Flor. Wig.); he again crossed the Thames at Brentford, marched into Kent, fought a fifth battle at Otford, where the Danes made little resistance, and compelled the enemy to take refuge in Sheppey. He did not follow up his success, for when he had reached Aylesford he listened to the counsel of Eadric, who persuaded him not to press the pursuit. The counsel is said to have been evil (A.-S. Chron.), and by later writers to have been given in subtlety (Flor. Wig.) However this may have been, Eadmund is of course responsible for the course he took, and he probably had good reason for it. If his troops had begun to disperse, he may well have hesitated to incur the risk of attacking the Danes when in a strong position. A defeat would probably have been fatal to his cause, for it would have made it difficult to raise new levies, while a victory would not necessarily have been final, for the Danes would have taken to their ships, and have sailed off, only to land on some other part of the coast. The English army now dispersed, and Eadmund, finding that the enemy was again making head, set about raising another force. His fifth army was, we are told, a gathering of the whole nation, and with this vast force he came up with the Danes 'at the hill which is called Assandûn' (A.-S. Chron.) This has been clearly identified with Ashington ('mons asini,' Flor. Wig.) in Essex, one of two hills which 'look down on a swampy plain watered by the tidal river' the Crouch (Norman Conquest, i. 390), though Ashdown ('mons fraxinorum,' Enc. Emmæ, p. 18) has also been suggested. Dr. Freeman, in his account of the battle, points out that both the armies were on high ground, and that it was the object of the Danes, who were far inferior in number to the English host, to gain their ships in safety. The raven's beak opened and her wings fluttered. Thurcytel cried that the banner gave the lucky omen, and shouted for the battle (ib.) Cnut, however, did not venture to attack the English army, and began to lead his men down to the plain (Flor. Wig.) Both armies were on foot, and the English were drawn up in their usual close formation. Eadmund himself stood between the dragon of Wessex and the royal standard (Huntingdon). When he saw that the Danes were making their way to their ships, he left his position and charged them furiously. At this moment, before the shock of battle actually took place, Eadric fled with the body of troops under his command, and, according to Henry of Huntingdon, who probably confuses the stories of the two battles, practised much the same trick as that ascribed to him at Sherston. The battle lasted until men could only tell friend from foe by the light of the moon. At last the English host began to give way, and was finally routed with great slaughter. 'All the flower of the English race' perished in the battle (A.-S. Chron.)

After this defeat Eadmund went into Gloucestershire, and there for the seventh time began to gather a fresh force (Huntingdon). Cnut followed him, and though Eadmund was anxious to make another attack upon the enemy, Eadric and other nobles refused to allow him to do so, and arranged that the kings should hold a conference and divide the kingdom between them. This conference, which was held on an island of the Severn, called Olney, has by Henry of Huntingdon and other later writers been turned into a single combat. As the whole story is imaginary, the only detail worth noticing here is the tradition that Eadmund was a man of great size, far larger than the Danish king (Gesta Regum, ii. 180; for other accounts of this supposed combat see Huntingdon, p. 185, Map, De Nugis, p. 204; Flores Hist. i. 407). The meeting of the kings was peaceful, a division of the kingdom was agreed upon; Eadmund was to be king over the south of the land and apparently to have the headship, Cnut was to reign over the north [see under Canute]. It seems probable that it was arranged that, whichever survived the other should become sole king (Knytlinga Saga, c. 16; see under Canute). Very shortly after this meeting Eadmund died, on 30 Nov. 1016, at London (Flor. Wig.), or less probably at Oxford (Huntingdon, followed by the St. Albans compiler; the statement of Florence is accepted by Dr. Freeman, while Mr. Parker, in his Early History of Oxford, argues that Oxford must be held to be the place of Eadmund's death; his strongest argument is met in Norman Conquest, 3rd ed. i. 714). The cause of his death is left uncertain by the chronicle writers, and Florence; the author of the 'Encomium Emmæ' (p. 22) implies that it was natural. William of Malmesbury says that it was doubtful, but that it was rumoured that Eadric, in the hope of gaining Cnut's favour, bribed two chamberlains to slay him, and adds the supposed manner in which the crime was carried out: 'Ejus [Edrici] consilio ferreum uncum, ad naturæ requisita sedenti, in locis posterioribus adegisse' (Gesta Regum, ii. 180). Henry of Huntingdon makes a son of Eadric the actual perpetrator of the deed, of which he gives much the same account. Later writers ascribe the murder to Eadric. Among these 'Brompton' tells the oddest story, for he makes out that the king was slain by Eadric by mechanical means, being shot by the image of an archer that discharged an arrow when it was touched (col. 996). Of foreign authorities, the 'Knytlinga Saga' (c. 16) says that Eadmund was killed by his foster-brother Eadric, who was bribed by Cnut; in the 'Lives of the Kings' (Laing, ii. 21) it is said that he was slain by Eadric, but Cnut is not mentioned; Saxo (p. 193), while relating that the murder was done by certain men who hoped to please Cnut by it, adds that some believed that Cnut himself had secretly ordered it; Adam of Bremen (ii. 51) says that he was taken off by poison. Dr. Freeman, who discusses the subject fully (Norman Conquest, i. 398, 711 sq.), inclines to the belief that his death was due to natural causes. The matter must of course be left undecided. In the face of the vigour he had lately shown at Ashington it is impossible to accept the statement that 'the strain and failure of his seven months' reign proved fatal to the young king' (Conquest of England, p. 418). His death happened opportunely for Cnut, but there does not seem sufficient evidence to attribute it to him [see Canute]. On the other hand, unless we are to believe that it was caused by sudden sickness, it certainly seems highly probable that it was the work of Eadric. Eadmund was buried with his grandfather Eadgar at Glastonbury, before the high altar (De Antiq. Glast. ed. Gale, iii. 306). He left two sons, Eadmund and Eadward.

[Anglo-Saxon Chron. (Rolls Ser.); Florence of Worcester (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Henry of Huntingdon (Rolls Ser.); William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum (Engl. Hist. Soc.), De Antiq. Glast. (Gale); Ailred [Æthelred] of Rievaux, Bromton, Twysden; Ralph of Diceto (Rolls Ser.); Flores Hist. (Wendover) (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Thietmar's Mon. Hist. Germ. iii. (Pertz); Gaimar, Mon. Hist. Brit.; Encomium Emmæ, Adam of Bremen, Pertz in usum Schol.; Knytlinga Saga, Antiq. Celto-Scandinavicæ (Johnstone); Saxo (Stephanius); Sea Kings (Laing); Vigfusson and Powell's Corpus Poet. Boreale; Kemble's Codex Dipl. iii. 369; Freeman's Norman Conquest, i. 3rd ed.; Green's Conquest of England; Parker's Early Hist. of Oxford (Oxf. Hist. Soc.)] 
Ironside, Edmund King of England (I5725)
227 EDWARD I (1239-1307), king, eldest son of Henry III and Eleanor of Provence, was born at Westminster, 17-18 June 1239. His birth was hailed with special joy, for it was feared that the queen was barren(Paris, iii. 518). There was much rejoicing in London, and many presents were made to the king, who insisted that they should be of great value, so that it was said, 'God gave us this infant, but our lord the king sells him to us.' Four days ufter his birth the child was baptised by the cardinal-legate, Otho, though he was not a priest, and was called Edward, after Edward the Confessor, whose memory was highly honoured by the king (Trivet, p. 225). Among his sponsors was Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester. His name points to a newly awakened pride that was now felt by the English people in their nationality, and men were pleased to trace the descent of their king's son from Alfred (Cont. Flor. Wig.') An oath of fealty to the child was taken in every part of the kingdom (Ann. Teck. p. 114). He was brought up at Windsor, under the care of Hugh Giffard (Paris, iv. 553). His mother took him with her to Beaulieu in June 1240 to the dedication of the conventual church, and while he was there he fell sick, so the queen stayed for three weeks in a Cistercian house against the rules of the order, that she might nurse him (Ann. War. 337). The next year the king sent an embassy to Henry, duke of Brabant, to propose a marriage between Edward and one of the duke's daughters (Mary P), but the scheme waa not successful. On 9 Aug. the lad was with his parents at Dunstable, and on 20 Sept. he lay very ill at London, and the king asked the prayers of all persons of religion in and around the city for his recovery (Ann. Dunst. p. 173; Paris, iv. 639). In 1252 Henry gave him Gascony, and in an assembly of Gascons in London declared him their new ruler, saving that he reserved the chief lordship. The Gascons, who received the announcement joyfully, did him homage, and Edward did homage to the king, and gave them rich gifts. A strong affection existed between Edward and his father, and when the king sailed for Gascony in August 1253, Edward, who came to Portsmouth to see him off, stood upon the shore and watched the vessel depart with many sobs. Ha was left under the guardianship of his mother and his uncle Richard, earl of Cornwall. In order to prevent the rebellious Gascons from obtaining help from Castile, Henry proposed a marriage between Edward and Eleanor, the sister of Alfonso X, and sent for his son, for Alfonso desired to see him. He gave him the earldom of Chester, and promised to give him Ireland and other possessions. Edward sailed from Portsmouth 29 May 1254, accompanied by his mother, and under the care of the queen's uncle, Boniface of Savoy [q. v.], archbishop of Canterbury, reached Bordeaux l2 June, and Burgos 5 Aug. He was married to Eleanor at the end of October in the monastery of Las Huelgas, received knighthood from King Alfonso, and then returned to Bordeaux. Henry gave the newly married pair Gascony, Ireland, Wales, Bristol, Stamford, and Grantham, so that he seemed nothing better than a mutilated king (Paris, v. 450), and entered into an agreement that if Edward's income from these sources did not amount to fifteen thousand marks he would make it up to that sum (Fædera,i.528). Edward remained in Gascony for about a year after his father had left it. His wife came to England 13 Oct. 1255, and he followed her on 29 Nov.; he was received by the Londoners with rejoicing, and conductnd by them to the palace at Westminster (Liber de Ant. Leg, p. 23).

Soon after his return to England the Gascon wine merchants appealed to him to protect them against the extortions of the king's officers, He declared that he would not suffer them to be oppressed. The king was much grieved when he heard of his words, saying that the times of Henry II had come over again,for his son had turned against him. Many expected that a serious quarrel would take place. Henry, however, gave way, and ordered that the grievances of the merchants should be redressed. Nevertheless Edward deemed it advisable to increase his household, and now rode with two hundred horses (Paris, v. 538). On 4 Juno 1256 he was at a tournament at Blythe, which he attended in light armour, for he went there to be further instructed in the laws of chivalry (ib. p. 557), and in August he was with the king at London, where great feasts were held in honour of the king and queen of the Scots. His devotion to the chivalrous exercises and pleasures that became his age and station led him to neglect the admimstration of the vast estates and jurisdictions placed under his control He trusted too much to his officers, who were violent and exacting, and he was blamed for their evil doings. Nor was he by any means blameless even as regards his own acts. His followers were mostly foreigners, and he did not restrain them from acts of lawlessness and oppression. At Wallingford, for example, they made havoc of the goods of the priory, and illtreated the monks (ib, p. 593). And he set them a bad example, for Matthew Paris records as a specimen of his misdeeds how, apparently out of mere wanton cruelty, he horribly mutilated a young man whom he chanced to meet, an act which moved Englishmen greatly, and made them look forward with dread to the time when he should become king (ib, p. 598). With a father who was a Frenchman in tastes and habits, with a Provençal mother, and surrounded by foreign relations and followers, Edward in these his younger days is scarcely to be looked on as an Englishman, and his conduct is to be judged simply by the standard of what was held to become a young French noble. In one part of his possessions it was specially dangerous to excite discontent. Among the grants made him by his father in 1254 was the lordship of the Four Cantreds of Wales, the country that lay between the Conway and the Dee. Wales had long been a source of trouble to England, and her princes took advantage of every embarrassment that befell the English crown to add to its difficulties. As long as the country preserved its native laws and system of government it was impossible to reduce it to anything more than a state of nominal dependence, or to put an end to its power to do mischief. Moreover, as long as it remained virtually unconquered, the position of the lords marchers was almost that of petty sovereigns, and greatly weakened the authority of the crown. It is probable that Edward, young as he was, saw this, for he refused to recognise the native customs, and approved of an attempt made by one of his officers to enforce the introduction of English law. Unfortunately he did not see that this could only be carried oat after a military conquest which the maladministration of Henry rendered impossible, and he chose as his lieutenant Geoffrey Langley, a greedy and violent man, who believed that he could treat the Welsh as a thoroughly conquered people, imposed a poll-tax of 15d a head upon them, and tried to divide the land into counties and hundreds, or, in other words, to force the English system of administration upon them (Ann, Tewk. p. 158; Liber de Ant. Leg, p. 29). Llewelyn, the son of Gruffydd, took advantage of the discontent occasioned by these proceedings, and on 1 Nov. invaded the marches, and especially the lands of Edward's men. Edward borrowed four thousand marks of his uncle Richard to enable him to meet the Welsh,though as the winter was wet he was not able to do anything against them. The next year the Welsh invaded the marches with two large armies, and Edward applied to his father for help. 'What have I to do with it?' the king answered; 'I have given you the land,' and he told him to exert himself and strike terror into his enemies, for he was busy about other matters (Paris, v. 614). He made an expedition in company with his son, and stayed a while at Gannoch Castle, but no good was done. Edward, in spite of his large income, was pressed for money to carry on the war, and in 1258 pledged some of his estates to William de Valence, his uncle, a step which was held to promise badly for his future reign, for William was the richest of the host of foreigners who preyed on the country. He also endeavoured to alienate the Isle of Oléron to Guy of Lusignan, but this was forbidden by tho king, and he was forced a few days later to revoke his deed (F?dera, i. 663, 670). The Welsh made an alliance with the Scottish barons, and the war, which was shamefully mismanaged, assumed serious proportions, and added to the general discontent excited by the extravagance of the court and the general maladministration of the government.

This discontent was forcibly expressed in the demand made by the parliament which met at Westminster in April, that the work of reform should be committed to twenty-four barons, and on the 30th Edward joined his father in swearing to submit to their decisions (Ann, Tewk, p. 164). A scheme of reform, which virtually put the government of the kingdom into the hands of a baronial council, was drawn up by the parliament of Oxford. Edward upheld his uncles in their refusal to surrender their castles; he appears to have been constrained to accompany the barons to Winchester, where his uncles were besieged in the castle, and did not swear to observe the provisions of Oxford until after they and the other aliens who held it had been forced to surrender. Four counsellors were appointed for him who were to carry out a reform of his household (Ann, Burt, p. 445). Some disagreement arose between Edward and his father at Winchester, and a reconciliation was effected in the chapter-house of St. Swithun's (Ann. Winton, p. 97). During 1259 a reaction took place; men found that the provisional government did not bring them all they hoped for, and a split arose in the baronial party between Simon, earl of Leicester, who was believed to be in favour of popular reforms, and the Earl of Gloucester, the head of the oligarchical section. Edward appears to have acted with Earl Simon at this period, for on 13 Oct., while the parliament was sitting at Westminster, a petition was presented to him by the 'community of the bachelorhood of England,' that is by the knights, or the class of landholders immediately below the baronage, pointing out that the barons had done nothing of all they had promised, and had merely worked 'for their own good and the hurt of the king.' Edward replied that, though he had taken the oath unwillingly, he would abide by it, and that he was ready to die for the commonalty and the common weal, and he warned the barons that if they did not fulfil their oaths he would take part against them (Ann. Burt. p. 471). The result of this movement was the publication of the provisions of Westminster. One of these renews a clause in the provisions of Oxford, in virtue of which four knights were to be appointed in each shire to remedy any injustice committed by the sheriff (ib. p. 477; Const. Hist. ii. 81). Thus Edward skilfully used the lesser tenants in chief to check the baronage in their attempt to control the executive, and began a policy founded on the mutual jealousy of his opponents, which he was afterwards able to pursue with great effect. In return for the check he had received Gloucester appears to have persuaded Henry, who was in France early in 1260, that his son was plotting with Earl Simon to dethrone him. The king of the Romans (Richard of Cornwall) held a meeting of barons in London, and a letter was sent to the king denying the rumour, and urging his return(Wikes,p.124; Ann. Dunst. p. 214), He came back on 23 April, and shut himself up in London, refusing to see his son, who lodged in company with Simon between the city and Westminster (Liber de Ant. Leg. p. 45). At the same time his love for him was unabated. 'Do not let my son Edward appear before me,' he said, 'for if I see him I shall not be able to refrain myself from kissing him' (Ann. Dunst. p. 215). At the end of a fortnight they were reconciled, and the queen was generally held to have caused their disagreement. The foremost part that Edward was thus taking put him, we are told, to vast expense. He now went off to France to a great tournament, where he met with ill success(ib.p.217). Although from this time he seems to have ceased to act in concert with Earl Simon, he kept up his quarrel with Gloucester until the earl's death in 1262. In that year he was again in France and Burgundy, in company with two of Leicester's sons, his cousins, was victorious in several tournaments, and badly beaten and wounded in one (ib. p. 219).

Early in February 1263 Edward, who was then in Paris, received a letter from his father urging him to return to England, for Llewelyn had taken advantage of the unsettled state of the country to renew his ravages. Edward hired a fine body of troops in France, and brought them over with him. Stopping only to put a garrison into Windsor, he advanced to Oxford, where the gates were shut against him. He then marched to Gloucester, and attacked the town, but though aided by a force from the castle was beaten off; he made his way into the castle by the river, using a ship belonging to the abbot of Tewkesbury. Some fighting took place, and on the approach of Earl Ferrers, Edward, finding himself overmatched, offered terms, and agreed to the barons' demands. On the retirement of their army he pillaged the town. (The order of events from this point almost down to the battle of Lewes is uncertain, and that adopted here must only be taken as an attempt to form a consecutive narrative.) Hoping to use Bristol as a basis of operations against the Welsh, and as a means of checking the new Earl of Gloucester, Gilbert of Clare, who was wholly on Leicester's side, he marched thither, and began to victual the castle. The townsmen came to blows with his foreign soldiers; he was forced to retreat into the castle, and was in some danger. Accordingly at the end of March he called Walter of Cantelupe [q. v.], bishop of Worcester, one of the baronial party, to help him, and the bishop undertook to bring him safely to London. On the way Edward, without giving him any warning, entered Windsor Castle on the plea of providing for the safety of his wife. He came up to London to the parliament held on 20 May. There Leicester and his party declared that he would be perjured if he did not abide by the provisions of Oxford, for they were indignant at his having brought a foreign force into the kingdom. He took up his quarters at the hospital at Clerkenwell, and, as he and his party were sorely in need of money, broke into the treasury of the Temple on 29 June, and took thence 1,000l. He made an attempt to relieve Windsor, which was threatened by Leicester, but the earl met him and, though he offered terms, detained him for a while by the advice of the Bishop of Worcester who remembered the trick that had been played upon him. Windsor surrendered on 26 July, and on 18 Aug. Edward agreed to terms that had been arranged by the king of the Romans. From 19 Sept. to 7 Oct. he was with his father at Boulogne. On the failure of the attempt at arbitration that was made there he returned to England, and at the parliament held on 14 Oct. he refused to agree to the barons' terms, complained that Earl Ferrers had seized three of his castles, and again took up his quarters at Windsor. He succeeded in winning over several barons to the royal side; he was now fully recognised as head of the party, and he made a strict alliance with the lords marchers (Wikes). In company with several of his new allies he joined the king in summoning the surrender of Dover Castle on 4 Dec. The castellan refused, and the royal forces retired. On the 10th he was party to the agreement to refer the question of the validity of the provisions to Lewis XI. Immediately after Christmas he set sail for France with his father. They had a stormy passage, and Edward made many vows for his safety. On 23 Jan. 1264 Lewis pronounced against the provisions.

The barons were dissatisfied with the result of the appeal, and Edward again made war in the marches; he joined his father at Oxford, and on 5 April, in company with the king and his uncle Richard, attacked Northampton. Simon de Montfort the younger, who defended the town, was taken prisoner, and would have been slain had not Edward forbidden it. After wasting the lands of Earl Ferrers and levelling his castle of Tutbury, Edward marched towards London, for some of the citizens offered to deliver the city to him. Leicester prevented this, and the king's army encamped in great force before Lewes. On 13 May Edward joined with the king of the Romans in sending a defiance to Leicester and Gloucester, who had now advanced with the baronial army to within a few miles of the town. In the battle of the next day, Wednesday, 14th, Edward occupied the right of the army, and early in the morning charged the Londoners, who, under the command of Hastings, were passing by the castle where he was Quartered, in order to gain the town. They fled in confusion, and Edward, who was determined to take vengeance on them for the insults they had put on his mother the year before, pursued them, it is said, for four miles, and cut down a large number of them (Rishanger, p. 32; Wikes, p. 151). As he returned from the pursuit he fell upon the enemy's baggage, and spent much time in taking it. When, as late, it is said, as 2 p.m. ('usque ad octavam horam,' Chron. Mailros, p. 195), he brought his men back to Lewes, he found that the battle was lost, that his father had taken refuge in the priory, and that his uncle was a prisoner. His men fled, and he and those who still followed him forced their way into the church of the Franciscans (Ann, Wav. p. 357). By the capitulation that followed, he and his cousin, Henry of Almaine, were made hostages for their fathers' conduct. They were taken to Dover and were put under the care of Henry de Montfort, who treated them as captives, and 'less honourably than was fitting' (Wikes, p. 153). Before long they were moved to Wallingford for greater safety. While Edward was there an unsuccessful attempt was made to rescue him (Rob. of Gloucester). He was afterwards lodged in Leicester's castle at Kenilworth, where he was during the following Christmas. While there he appears to have been treated honourably, for the countess was his aunt, and he was allowed to receive visitors, though he was closely watched. The subject of his release was debated in the parliament held in London in January 1265, and on 8 March terms were finally agreed upon which, while putting an end to his period of confinement, still left him helpless in Leicester's hands, and handed over to the earl the county of Chester and several of his most important possessions to be exchanged for other lands. A quarrel broke out between Leicester and Gilbert of Gloucester, and on 26 April Leicester made Edward march along with him to the town of Gloucester, for he thought it necessary to take some measures to check Earl Gilbert, who was now in alliance with the Mortimers and other marchers. Edward was next taken to Hereford. He kept up an understanding with the marchers through his chamberlain, Thomas of Clare, the earl's younger brother, and on 28 May effected his escape. He rode the horses of several of his attendants, one after another, as though to try their speed, and when he had tired them, mounted his own and rode away with Thomas, another knight, and four squires to the spot where Roger Mortimer was waiting for him, and was conducted in safety to Mortimer's castle at Wigmore. He entered into an alliance with Gloucester at Ludlow, swearing that if he was victorious he would cause 'the ancient, good, and approved laws to be obeyed,' that he would put away the evil customs that had of late obtained in the kingdom, and would persuade his father to remove aliens both from his realm and council, and not allow them to have the custody of castles or any part in the government. In other words, the direct control that had been exercised over the king by the Earl of Leicester was to be done away with, the ancient powers of the crown were to be restored, and the king was on his side to govern England by Englishmen. Besides the marchers, several great nobles, Earl Warenne, William of Valence, Hugh Bigod, and others, now joined Edward, and his army was recruited from every quarter. Meanwhile, on 8 June, the bishops were ordered to excommunicate him and his adherents. Worcester was surrendered to him, he was master of the neighbouring towns and castles, and on 29 June he took Gloucester, after a stout resistance, allowing the garrison to depart with their arms and horses, and merely exacting a promise that they would not serve against him for a month. He broke down the bridges across the Severn and took away the boats, hemming Leicester in behind the line of the river, and cutting him off from his son, the younger Simon, who was raising troops in and about London. Hearing that the earl had sent to Bristol for transports to convey him from Newport to that town, he went on board three galleys belonging to the Earl of Gloucester, and in his company dispersed the Bristol ships, taking and sinking several of them, and then landed and drove Leicester's force across the Usk into Newport, where they saved themselves by breaking down the bridge (Wikes, p. 167; Rishanger, p. 43). Towards the end of July the younger Simon arrived at Kenilworth, and Leicester now hoped that he would be able to shut Edward and Gloucester in between his own force and that of his son (Ann. Wav;. p. 364). Edward, who was stationed at Worcester, sent the young lord notice that 'he would visit him,' and being informed by spies(Wikes, p. l70; one of these spies, according to Hemingburgh, i. 322, was a woman named Margot, who dressed in man's clothes) that the troops at Kenilworth kept no strict watch, set out on the night of the 31st, and at dawn the next day surprised them in their quarters round the castle before they were out of their beds, and made so many prisoners that 'the larger half of the baronial army was annihilated (Prothero, p. 356). On 3 Aug., hearing that the earl was making for Kenilworth, he left Worcester, and after advancing about three miles northwards, in order to deceive the enemy, turned to the east, crossed the Avon at Cleeve, and pressed on towards Evesham to intercept Leicester's army (ib. pp. 358-40). Mindful of the mistake he had made at Lewes, he now ordered his army with prudence (Wikes,p.l72),and detached a force under Gloucester to act in conjunction with that which he himself commanded, and with which early on the 4th he began the battle. His victory was complete, and the Earl of Leicester, his eldest son, Henry, and many nobles of their party were slain.

The sweeping sentence of forfeiture pronounced against the rebels drove them to further resistance. Edward, who received the goods of the rebel citizens of London, captured Dover Castle probably in October, and in November marched with a considerable force against the younger Simon, who with other disinherited lords had occupied the island of Axholme in Lincolnshire, and was ravaging the surrounding country. The position of the rebels was strong, and the attacking force had to make wooden bridges to enable them to reach the island, which was not surrendered until 28 Dec. Edward brought Simon to the council which his father was holding at Northampton, where he was sentenced to banishment. He then took him with him to London, and kept him at his court until he escaped, on 10 Feb. 1266, and went to Winchelsea, where the men of the Cinque ports who adhered to his family were expecting him. The king sent Edward to compel the submission of the ports. He defeated the Winchelsea men in a battle fought in their town on 7 March, and was persuaded to spare the life of their leader in the hope that he would persuade his fellow-rebels to return to their allegiance. This merciful policy was successful, and he received the submission of the ports On the 25th (Ann. Wav. p. 369; Liber de Ant Leg. p. 82). In the middle of May he was engaged in an expedition against a disinherited knight named Adam Gurdon, one of the most mischievous of the many freebooters who infested the country. He came upon him in Whitsun week near Alton in Hampshire. Gurdon, who was a man of great strength, had his band with him, and Edward at the moment that he lighted on him was alone; for he was separated from his men by a ditch. Nevertheless, he at once engaged him single-handed, wounded him severely, and afterwards took him off to Windsor (Wikes, p. 189; Trivet's story, p. 269, that Edward, delighted with Gurdon's valour, caused him to be reinstated in his lands and made him one of his friends and followers, seems mere romance). In the July of this year Eleanor, who had returned to England the previous October, bore Edward his first-born son, named John. All this time the disinherited lords in Kenilworth were still holding the castle against the king; for hitherto the royal forces had been so much employed elsewhere that no great effort had been made to take it. At midsummer, however, Edward joined his father in laying siege to the castle. It was defended with extraordinary courage. All efforts to take it proved vain, and the king and his son, who had already been learning a lesson of moderation from the difficulties they had had to encounter, offered terms embodied in the 'Ban of Kenilworth' published on 31 Oct., which, though hard, were nevertheless a relaxation of the sentence of complete forfeiture. The castle was surrenderea on 20 Dec. (Wikes, p. 195).

Many of the baronial party were dissatisfied with the Kenilworth articles, and early in 1267 Edward was called on to put down a rising in the north. John de Vescy, one of the rebel lords, had expelled the garrison from Alnwick Castle, which had once belonged to him, and had now been taken from him, had occupied it and his other old possessions, and had gathered round him a considerable number of northern magnates, each bound to help the rest to regain their lands. Edward at once gathered a large force, marched against him, and pressed him so hard that he made an unconditional submission. Edward pardoned him, and the rest of the allied barons gave up their undertaking. It seems likely that he paid the visit to his sister Margaret, the queen of Scotland, spoken of in the 'Chronicle of Lanercost' under 1266, when he was in the north in the early part of this year. He met the queen at Haddington, the object of his visit being to bid her farewell; for he was then contemplating a crusade. But it seems difficult to assign the date of the visit with any certainty. He joined his father at Cambridge, and marched with him to London; for the Earl of Gloucester, who since the publication of the Kenilworth articles had taken the side of the rebel lords, had occupied the city, and was besieging the legate Ottoboni in the Tower. After some weeks the earl made his peace with the king. Meanwhile a strong body of the disinherited were occupying the Isle of Ely, and had done much damage in the eastern counties. Henry had been attempting to blockade them when he was called off to London, and the legate had exhorted them to return to obedience to the church by accepting the Kenilworth articles. All attempts to compel or persuade them to surrender had been made in vain, and they had beaten off the ships that had been sent up the Ouse to attack them. Edward now marched from London against them. Their position seemed almost impregnable; for it was impossible to lead an army through the marshes without a thorough knowledge of the country, and it was easy to hold the few approaches to the island. He made his headquarters at Ramsey Abbey, and by promises and rewards prevailed on the people of the neighbourhood to come to his aid and to act as guides. Moreover, he managed to establish an understanding with Nicolas Segrave, who allowed his men 'to pass the outposts which he guarded' (Prothero). He also made causeways of wattles, and as it was a dry summer he was able to bring both horse and foot over them in safety, and to take up a position close to the island. Then he made a proclamation that he would either behead or hang any one who attacked any of his men or hindered him in any way; for he made no doubt of his success. This proclamation dismayed the defenders of the island. They submitted on 11 July, and were allowed the terms drawn up at Kenilworth (Wikes, pp. 207-10; Liber de Ant Leg, p. 95; Cont. Flor.Wig. pp. 199-201). Their surrender brought the struggle to a close. Never, probably, has so long and desperate a resistance to royal authority as that made by the disinherited been put down with the like moderation. And while the self-restraint of the victors must be attributed to some extent to the masterly policy pursued by the Earl of. Gloucester in occupying London, it was also largely due to the wisdom and magnanimity of Edward. By the age of twenty-eight he had not only long outgrown the thoughtlessness of his early youth, but he had taken the chief part in breaking up the powerful combination that had usurped the executive functions of the crown, had saved the royal authority alike by his prudence and his valour, and had succeeded in putting an end to an obstinate rebellion by refraining from acts that would have driven the vanquished to desperation, and by readily admitting them to the terms that had been established by law, no less than by the skill and energy which he displayed as a military leader.

Later in the same year Edward visited Winchester, and went thence to the Isle of Wight, received its submission, and put it in charge of his own officers (Ann. Winton. p. 106). During the autumn, in conjunction with his brother and his cousin, Henry of Almaine, he arranged and engaged in a large number of tournaments, so that though these sports had been forbidden by royal decree (by Henry II, see William of Newburgh, v. c. 4) and by papal edict, there had not been so many held in England as there were that autumn for ten years and more (Wikes, p. 212). At the parliament held at Northampton on 24 June 1268 Edward, in pursuance of a vow he and his father had made, received the cross, together with his brothers and many nobles, from the hands of the legate Ottoboni. In the November parliament he was made steward of England. He had already been appointed warden of the city and Tower of London in the spring, and in the autumn of this year he received the custody of all the royal castles (Ann, Winton, p. 107; Liber de Ant, Leg. p. 108). He held a grant from the king of the customs on all exports and imports, which he let to certain Italians for six thousand marks a year. These Italians levied the customs from the citizens of London, contrary to the privileges of the city. A petition was therefore presented to Edward by the Londoners complaining of these exactions, and in April 1209 he promised that they should cease, and received two hundred marks from the citizens as an acknowledgment. He further gained popularity by strenuously urging a statute, published in the Easter parliament, held at London, that the Jews should be forbidden to acquire the lands of Christians by means of pledges, and that they should deliver up the deeds that they then held. The late war had greatly impoverished the landholding classes, and their Jewish creditors were pressing them severely. The measure was a wise one, because it helped to restore prosperity, and so strengthened the probability of a continuance of peace; and as the property of the Jews belonged to the king, it was a concession made to some extent at the expense of the crown (Wikes, p. 221 ). During this year Edward was busy in preparing for his crusade, and a large part of the subsidy of a twentieth lately imposed was voted to him for this purpose by the magnates and bishops. Some uneasiness was caused by the conduct of the Earl of Gloucester, who refused to attend parliament, alleging that Edward was plotting to seize his person. He is said to have looked with suspicion on the intimacy between Edward and his countess, from whom he was afterwards divorced (Oxenedes, p. 236). Gloucester's grievances were referred to the arbitration of the king of the Romans, and the earl then appears to have come up to the parliament, and to have opposed some proposals that were made as to the expenses of the crusade, probably with reference to the appropriation of the twentieth (Wikes, p. 208; Ann. Winton. p. 108). Meanwhile Edward was invited by Lewis IX of France to attend his parliament, in order to make arrangements for the crusade, which they purposed to make together. He went to Gravesend on 9 Aug., and the next, day had a long interview with the king of tne Romans, who had just landed, on the subject of the crusade. He then went to Dover, where he embarked (Liber de Ant, Leg, p. 110). When Lewis urged him to go with him he replied that England was wasted with war, and that he had but a small revenue. Lewis, it is said, offered him thirty-two thousand livres if he would consent (Opus Chron. p. 26). An agreement was made that the king should lend him seventy thousand livres, to be secured on Edward's continental possessions, twenty-five thousand of that sum being appropriated to the Viscount of Bearn for his expenses in accompanying him, and that Edward should follow and obey the king during the 'pilgrimage' as one of the barons of his realm, and send one of his sons to Paris as a hostage (Liber de Ant. Leg. pp. 111-14). He accordingly sent his son Henry to Lewis, who courteously sent him back at once (Cont. Flor. Wig. p. 204; Flores, ii. 348). He landed at Dover on his return on 8 Sept., and was present at the magnificent ceremony of the translation of King Edward the Confessor at Westminster on 13 Oct. In July 1270, in conjunction with the Archbishop of York and other lords, and at the head of an armed force, he arrested John, earl Warenne, for the murder of Alan la Zouche. On 6 Aug. he went to Winchester, obtained the king's license to depart and took leave of him, and then came into the chapter-house of St. Swithun's and humbly asked the prayers of the convent. He set out thence, intending to embark at Portsmouth; but hearing that the monks of Christ Church had refused to elect his friend and chaplain, Robert Burnell, to the archbishopric, he hastened to Canterbury in the hope that his presence would induce them to give way, but was unsuccessful in his attempt. He then went to Dover, where he embarked on 11 Aug., and sailed to Gascony, whither he had sent his wife on before him. His two sons he left in charge of his uncle. King Richard. Passing through Gascony and some of the mountainous districts of Spain, he arrived at Aigues-Mortes at Michaelmas, and found that Lewis had already sailed for Tunis.

When Edward landed on the African coast he found that Lewis was dead, and that his son Philip and the other chiefs of the crusade had made peace with the unbelievers. He was indignant at their conduct, and refused to be a party to it. ' By the blood of God,' he said, 'though all my fellow-soldiers and countrymen desert me, I will enter Acre with Fowin, the groom of my palfrey, and I will keep my word and my oath to the death' (0pus Chron. p. 29). He and the whole force sailed from Africa on 21 Oct., and on the 28th anchored about a mile outside Trapani, the kings and other chiefs of the expedition being taken ashore in small boat«. Tne next morning a violent storm arose, which did much damage to the fleet. Edward's ships, however , thirteen in number, were none of them injured, and their escape was put down to a miraculous interposition of Providence to reward him for refusing to agree to the proposal of the other kings, that he should, like them, desist from his undertaking (Hemingburgh, i. 331-83;Wikes, p. 329). He spent the winter in Sicily, and in the early spring of 1271 sailed for Syria, parting with his cousin Henry, whom he appointed seneschal of Gascony, and who was shortly afterwards slain at Viterbo by Simon and Guy de Montfort. After touching at Cyprus to take in provisions, he arrived at Acre, which was now closely besieged, in May. His army was small, consisting of not more than about one thousand men. He relieved the town, and about a month later made an expedition to Nazareth, which he took, slew all he found there, and routed a force which tried to cut him off as he returned. At midsummer he won another victory at Haifa, and advanced as far as Castle Pilgrim. These successes brought him considerable reinforcements. He sent to Cyprus for recruits, and a large body came over declaring, it is said, that they were bound to obey his orders, because his ancestors had ruled over them, and that they would ever be faithful to the kings of England (Hemingburgh). a third expedition was made 1-27 Aug. Still his troops were too few to enable him to gain any material success, and these expeditions were little better than raids. In 1272 he received several messages from the emir of Jaffa, proposing terms of peace: they were brought by the same messenger, one of the sect, it is said, of the Assassins, who thus became intimate with Edward's household. In the evening of 17 June, his birthday, Edward was sitting alone upon his bed bareheaded and in his tunic, for the weather was hot, when this messenger, who had now come to the camp for the fifth time, was admitted into his presence. The door of the room was shut, and the messenger, having delivered his master's letters, stood bending low as he answered the question that Edward asked him. Suddenly he put his hand in his belt, as though to produce other letters, pulled out a knife, whicn was believed to have been poisoned, and hit violently at Edward with it. Edward used his arm to shield his body from the blow, and received a deep wound in it; then, as the man tried to strike him again, he gave him a kick that felled him to the ground. He seized the man's hand, wrenched the knife from him with so much force that it wounded him in the forehead, plunged it into the assassin's body, and so slew him. When his attendants, who had withdrawn to some distance, came running in, on hearing the noise of the scuffle, they found the man dead, and Edward's minstrel seized a stool and dashed out his brains with it. Edward reproved him for striking the dead. The master of the Temple at once gave him some precious drugs to dnnk to counteract the effects of the poison, and the next day he made his will (Royal Wills, p. 18). After a few days the wound in his arm began to grow dark, and his surgeons became uneasy. 'What are you whispering about?' he asked; 'can I not be cured?' One of them, an Englishman, said that he could if he would undergo great suffering, and declared that he would stake his life on it. The king then said that he put himself in his hands, and the surgeon having caused the queen, who was crying loudly, to be removed from the room, the next morning cut away the whole of the darkened flesh, telling his lord that within fifteen days he would be able to mount his horse; and his word came true. The story that Eleanor sucked the poison from the wound seems to lack foundation [see under Eleanor of Castile]. When the sultan Bibars, who was suspected of being concerned in this attempt, heard of its miscarriage, he sent three ambassadors to declare that he had no hand in it. As they made repeated salaams to Edward, he said in English, 'You pay me worship, but you have no love for me.' The incident proves that in spite of his French taste and feelings, shown, for example, in his delight in tournaments, Edward constantly spoke English. He found that he could not achieve any material success in Palestine, his men were suffering from sickness, and he knew that his father's health was failing. Accordingly he made a truce for ten years with the sultan, and on 15 Aug. set sail for Sicily. He landed at Trapani alter, it is said, a voyage of seven weeks. He was entertained by King Charles, and while he was in Sicily neard of the deaths of his father on 10 Nov., of his uncle Richard, and of his first-born son, John. On the day of Henry's funeral, 20 Nov., the Earl of Gloucester, in accordance with a promise he had made to the late king, and the barons and bishops of the realm, swore fealty to Edward as their king. The magnates of the kingdom recognised and declared his right to succeed his father, and thus for the first time the reign of a sovereign of England began from the death of his predecessor through the doctrine that the 'king never dies' was not propounded until a later age (Stubbs, Constitutional Hist, ii. 103).

Edward was tall and well made, broad-chested, with the long and nervous arms of a swordsman,and with long thighs that gripped the saddle firmly. His forehead was ample, and his face shapely, and he inherited from his father a peculiar droop of the left eyelid. In youth his hair was so light that it had only a shade of yellow, in manhood it was dark, and in age of snowy whiteness. Although his voice was indistinct, he spoke with fluency and persuasiveness. He excelled in all knightly exercises, and was much given to hunting, especially to stag-hunting, and hawking (Trivet, p. 281 sq.; Hemingburgh, ii. l ). Brave, and indeed rash as regards his own safety, he was now an experienced leader; he was prudent in counsel, ready in devising, and prompt in carrying out whatever measures the exigencies of the moment seemed to demand. His word was always sacred to him, and he was ever faithful to the motto, 'Pactum serva,' that appears upon his tomb. At the same time he did not scruple when in difficulties to make subtle distinctions, and while keeping to the letter he certainly sometimes neglected the spirit of his promises. He was hasty, quick to take offence, and towards the end of his life hard and stern, though he was not wantonly cruel. No one probably ever learnt more from adversity. By his absence from England he enabled men to forget old feelings of bitterness against him; he returned when the country was prepared for the restoration of orderly administration, fully determined to supply its needs. And he did not simply restore, he reorganised. He was 'by instinct a lawgiver.' The age was strongly affected by the study of civil law, and he kept Francesco Accursi, the son of the famous legist of Bologna, in his service. He was skilful in arrangement, in definition, and in finding remedies and expedients in materials already at hand. His laws were for the most part founded on principles previously laid down, which he worked out and applied to the present wants of the nation. It was the same with all his constitutional and administrative reforms. He carried on the work that had been taken in hand by Henry II, developed its character, and organised its methods. Everywhere he freed the state from the action of feudal principles, and encouraged, and may almost be said to have created, national political life. He was the founder of our parliamentary system, yet in this as in most else his work was the completion of a process that had long been going forward. In his hands the assembly of the nation ceased to have a feudal character; the lords are no longer a loose gathering of the greater tenants in chief, but a definite body of hereditary peers summoned by writ, and the clergy and the commons appear by their representatives. Rights and duties were clearly laid down. and in all his reforms there is conspicuous an extraordinary power of adapting 'means to ends.' Yet great as the benefits are which he conferred on the nation, he loved power and struggled for it, generally unsuccessfully, for the means of self-government that he organised and placed in the hands of the nation were turned against him, and were more than once sufficient to thwart his will. These struggles led him to take advantage of quibbles that naturally suggested themselves to his legal mind. At the same time if he had not striven for power he would not have been a strong man, or done so great a work. (On Edward s legislative and constitutional work see Bishop Stubbs's Constitutional History, vol. ii. c. 14, 15; and Early Plantagenets, p. 202 sq.)

The kingdom was in good hands, and Edward did not hasten home. After all that had happened he probably judged wisely in prolonging his absence. From Sicily he passed through Apulia, and went to Home to visit Gregory X, who before his elevation had been with him on the crusade. He was received by the pope at Orvieto on 14 Feb. 1273, obtained a grant of the tenths of the clergy for three years to reimburse him for his crusading expenses, which pressed heavily on him, and stirred up Gregory to proceed against Guy de Montfort for the murder of his cousin. As he passed through Tuscany and Lombardy he was received with much honour by the cities to which he came, and saluted with cries of 'Long live the Emperor Edward!' (Flores, ii. 353). He crossed Mont Cenis 7 June, and forced a robber knight of Burgundy, who owned no lord, to become a vassal of the Count of Savoy. On the 18th he came to S. Georges les Reneins, near Lyons, and about this time engaged in a melee with the Count of Chalons. He received the count's challenge in Italy, and sent for divers earls and barons from England to come to him, so that he was at the head of a thousand picked men. The count singled him out, and strove to drag him from his horse, but was himself unhorsed. Then the fighting became serious, and the Burgundians, though superior in numbers, were defeated. Something more than a mere chivalrous encounter was evidently intended from the first, and the affair was called the 'little battle of Chalons' (Hemingburgh, i. 337-40). Edward reached Paris on the 26th, and did homage to Philip III for the lands he held of him. On 8 Aug. he left Paris for Gascony, where Gaston of Bearn was in revolt, and stayed there nearly a year. During a good part of this time he was engaged in an unsuccessful war with Gaston, losing both men and horses from want of food and other privations in the difficult country in which his enemy sheltered himself, Once he made Gaston prisoner, but he escaped again, and he finally referred the quarrel to his lord the king of France. Gaston was afterwards sent over to England by Philip, made submission, and was for about four years kept in honourable confinement. In July 1274 Edward met the Count of Flanders at Montreuil, and arranged a dispute which had put a stop to the exportation of English wool to Flanders (F?dera ii. 24-32). He landed at Dover 2 Aug., was entertained by Gilbert of Gloucester and John of Warenne in their castles of Tonbridge and Reigate (Flores ii. 363), reached London on the 18th, and on the next day, Sunday, was crowned with Eleanor at Westminster by Archbishop Robert Kilwardby. At the coronation he received the homage of Alexander of Scotland, but Llewelyn of Wales neglected the summons to attend. As many irregularities had been occasioned by the civil war, Edward on 11 Oct. appointed commissioners, with Burnell, bishop of Bath and Wells, whom he made his chancellor, at their head, to inquire into the state of the royal demesne, the rights of the crown, and the conduct of the lords of private franchises. The result of their inquiries is presented in the Hundred Rolls (pref. to Rot, Hundred, i.) At the beginning of November he proceeded to Shrewsbury, where he had summoned Llewelyn to meet him, but the prince did not attend (F?dera, ii. 41). In a great parliament, held at Westminster on 22 April 1276, the king 'by his council,' and by the assent of his lords and 'of all 'the commonalty of the land,' promulgated the 'Statute of Westminster the First,' a body of fifty-one chapters or laws, many of which were founded on the Great Charter (Statutes at Large, i. 74; Select Charters, p. 438). In return he received a grant of the customs on wool, woolfels, and leather, now for the first time made the subject of constitutional legislation, and in the parliament of 18 Nov. demanded a fifteenth from the laity, and asked for a subsidy from the clergy as a matter of grace, for they were already charged with the papal grant of a tenth. He further forbade the Jews to practise usury, and commanded that they should live by merchandise. On 17 April he and the queen went on pilgrimage to Bury St. Edmunds in pursuance of a vow made in Palestine. During the summer he suifered much from the effects of the wounds he had received from the assassin at Acre, and these probably had caused a serious abscess with which ne was troubled in the November previous. He was received at Oxford on 28 July with great pomp by the few clerks that were then there and by the citizens, but would not enter the city for fear of incurring the wrath of St. Frideswide (Wikes,p. 264). He went to Chester on 8 order to meet Llewelyn, who refused to attend, was summoned to the forthcoming parliament, and again made default (F?dera, ii. 57; Ann, Wigorn, p. 468).

In the Easter parliament of 1270 Edward ordered that the charters should be observed, and fully pardoned the 'disinherited.' With this policy of pacification is to be connected his presence at the translation of Richard of Chichester on 16 June and his gifts at the shrine, for the bishop had been wronged by his father. He received a message from Llewelyn offering to ransom his affianced bride, Eleanor de Montfort, who had fallen into the king's hand. As, however, he refused to restore the lands he had taken, and to repair the castles he had destroyed, his otter was refused. During the autumn the Welsh were troublesome, and Edward was at Gloucester on 28 Sept. and Evesham on 1 Oct. to take measures against them. On 1 Nov. he sent a body of knights to keep order in the marches, and on the 12th it was agreed by common consent of the bishops, barons, and others 'that the king should make war on the Welsh with the force of the kingdom,' which was ordered to meet him the following midsummer (F?dera, ii. 68). In the October parliament the statutes 'de Bigamis' and of 'Rageman' were passed (Statutes, i. 115; Constitutional History, ii. 110). The king conducted the Welsh war in person, and moved the exchequer and king's bench to Shrewsbury. About 24 June he proceeded to Chester, had the woods cut down between Chester and the Snowdon country, and built the castles of Flint and Rhuddlan. Although many Welsh submitted to him, Llewelyn believed his position to be impregnable. Edward marched from Chester 31 July; Anglesey was taken by the fleet of the Cinque ports, and on 11 Nov. Llewelyn made his submission at Rhuddlan; he ceded the Four Cantreds, received Anglesey back at a rent of one thousand marks, promised to pay fifty thousand marks for peace, and to do homage in England, gave hostages, and was allowed to retain the homages of Snowdonia for his life. The payments were remitted, and the hostages restored (F?dera, ii. 88-92). His brother David, who had fought for Edward, was rewarded with lands and castles, was knighted, and received the daughter of the Earl of Derby in marriage. Llewelyn did homage and spent Christmas with the king at London; and the troubles with Wales, which had lasted more or less from Edward's youth appeared settled at last. Edward's Welsh castles belong to the class named after him 'Edwardian castles' for, though he was not the inventor of the style of forti- fication that marks them, he used it largely. They are built on the concentric principle, having two or three lines of defence, with towers at the angles and on the walls, and so arranged that 'no part is left to its own defences' (Mediæval Military Architecture, i. 157). With this war. in Wales must probably be connected the visit paid by Edward and his queen to Glastonbury on 13 April 1278. The tomb of Arthur was opened on the 19th, and the relics were translated, Edward carrying the bones of Arthur, and Eleanor the bones of Guinevere (Adam Of Domerham, p. 588). The war had been expensive, and on 26 June Edward issued a writ compelling all who had a freehold estate of 20l. to take up knighthood or pay a fine, a measure that did much to blend the lesser tenants-in-chief with the main body of freeholders. A few days later the parliament at Gloucester assented to the Statute of Gloucester, founded on the report in the Hundred Rolls, to amend the working of territorial jurisdictions; and proceeding on this statute and the report, Edward in August issued writs of 'Quo warranto,' which called on the lords to show by what warrant they held their jurisdictions, a measure that occasioned some discontent among them (Statutes, i. 117; Hemingburgh, ii. 5). Llewelyn did not attend the Gloucester parliament, and Edward went to the marches on 1 Aug. and received his homage. On 29 Sept. he received the homage of Alexander of Scotland at Westminster (F?dera, ii. 126; Ann. Wav, p. 370), and with him and the queen and many nobles attended the marriage of Llewelyn and Eleanor de Montfort at Worcester on 13 Oct. In November the king caused all the Jews throughout the kingdom to be arrested, and on 7 Dec. extended this order to the goldsmiths, on the charge of coining and clipping the coin. In April 1279 he had 267 Jews hanged in London, and gave notice of the forthcoming issue of round coins, appointing places where the old coins might be exchanged at a settled rate.

On the resignation of Archbishop Kilwardby in 1278, Edward procured the election of his friend and minister, Robert Burnell, and sent envoys to Rome to beg the pope to confirm the election. His request was refused, and Nicolas III gave the see to John Peckham. The death of the queen's mother, to whom the county of Ponthieu belonged, obliged Edward and the queen to visit Paris on 11 May 1279. Edward did homage to Philip for Ponthieu, and definitely surrendered all claim to Normandy (Ann. Wigorn, p. 477; F?dera, ii 135). While at Amiens he met Peckham on his way to England, and received him graciously (Peckham, Reg. i. 6); he returned on 19 June. Peckham soon offended the king, for in his provincial council at Heading he ordered the clergy to post copies of the Great Charter on the doors of cathedral and collegiate churches, and to ex-communicate all who obtained writs from the king to hinder ecclesiastical suits or neglected to carry out ecclesiastical sentences. Edward naturally took these decrees as an insult, and in the Michaelmas parliament forced Peckham to renounce them. He further replied to the archbishop's challenge by the statute 'De Religiosis' or of 'Mortmain,' passed on 15 Nov. by the parliament at Westminster, a measure which preserved the rights of the superior lords and of the crown, as lord-paramount, against the church, and which was a development of one of the provisions of 1269 (Statutes, i. 133; Ann. Wav. p. 392; Cotton, p. 158; Select Charters, p. 448; Const. Hist. ii. 112). And he also demanded a fifteenth from the spiritualities. In these measures Edward was not acting in a spirit of revenge, for the next year, when he remonstrated with Peckham for holding a visitation of the royal chapel, he accepted the archbishop's assertion of his right. Findings however, that Peckham was about to issue canons in a council held at Lambeth in September 1281 that would have removed causes touching the right of patronage and other spiritual matters from the courts of the crown, he peremptorily interfered, and the archbishop was compelled to give way (Wikes, p. 285; Wilkins, ii. 50). On 9 June 1280 he attended a general chapter of the Dominicans held at Oxford. In the course of the last year he had issued a decree pronouncing that all Jews guilty of irreverence and all apostates to Judaism should be punished with death, and now, at the persuasion of the Dominicans, he ordered that the Jews should be forced to listen reverently to certain sermons that were to be preached for their edification. In September of this year he was at Lanercost, and held a great hunting in Inglewood Forest (Chron. Lanercost, p. 106).

While Edward was keeping Easter at Devizes in 1282, news was brought him that Llewelyn and David, whom he had loaded with favours, had rebelled against him, had taken his castles, slain a multitude of people, and carried off Roger Clifford, the constable of Howarden, as a prisoner. At first he could not believe what he heard, but he soon found that it was true (Tywysogion, p. 373; Ann, Wav, p. 398; Wikes, p. 288). He summoned the barons to meet him at Worcester at Whitsuntide, 6 April, and the bishops and knights to assemble at Rhuddlan on 2 Aug., and again moved the exchequer to Shrewsbury. Moreover he sent to Gascony for help from his subjects there. He made his headquarters at Rhuddlan, and ravaged Llewelyn's lands during August. Roads were made through the woods, the fleet of the Cinque ports again attacked Anglesey, and a bridge was begun across the straits. Edward's army met with some severe reverses, and on 6 Nov., when an attack was treacherously made by some nobles during the progress of negotiations, the Welsh routed the attacked force, and many were drowned in the Menai (Ann, Osen. p. 289). Encouraged by his success Llewelyn left Snowdonia, and was slain in a skirmish on 10 Dec. in Radnor; his head was brought to Edward, who had it sent to London and exposed on the Tower. He spent Christmas at Rhuddlan, and finished his bridge. The war taxed Edward's resources severely, and in March he caused to be seized the money that, in accordance with a decree of the council of Lyons, had been collected for a crusade and stored in the cathedral churches. This provoked an indignant letter from Martin IV. Before its arrival, however, the king had promised that the money should be refunded, and Peckham went off to meet him at Acton Burnell, and prevailed on him to make immediate restitution (Registrum Peckham ii. 635 sq.) At Easter he was at Aberconway, where he built one of his famous castles. Wales was now thoroughly subdued, and the two most precious treasures of the Welsh, the crown of Arthur and a piece of the true cross, were brought to the conqueror. David was delivered up by the Welsh on 22 June, and taken to Edward at Rhuddlan, but the king would not see him. He determined 'that he should be tried before a full representation of the laity' (Const, Hist, ii. 116), and accordingly summoned a parliament to meet at Shrewsbury at Michaelmas, consisting of the baronage, two knights from each county, and representatives from certain cities and boroughs; the clerical estate was not represented, as the business concerned a capital offence. David was tried by a judicial commission before his peers, condemned, and sentenced to be drawn, hanged, beheaded, disembowelled, and quartered, a hitherto unheard-of sentence (Ann, Osen, p. 294). A few days later, at Acton Burnell, Edward put forth an ordinance, called the 'Statute of Acton Burnell' which had been drawn up by him and his council for securing the debts of traders by rendering the profits of land liable for the same. He spent Christmas at Rhuddlan, on 9 Jan. 1284 was at York at the consecration of his clerk, Antony Bek, to the see of Durham, then held a parliament at Lincoln, and was again at Rhuddlan at mid-Lent, when he put forth the laws which are called the 'Statute of Wales,' though they were not the result of parliamentary deliberation (Const. Hist, ii. 117). By this statute the administration of the country was to some extent assimilated to the English pattern; in certain districts sheriffs, coroners, and bailiffs were appointed, though the jurisdiction of the marchers was still preserved in other parts,the English criminal law was to be in force, while in most civil matters the Welsh were allowed to retain their old customs. In the summer Edward celebrated his conquest by holding a 'round table' at Newyn in Carnarvonshire, near the sea; the festivities cost a large sum, and were attended by a crowd of knights, both from England and from abroad (Ann, Wav, p. 402; Ann, Dunst. p. 313). He spent Christmas at Bristol, where he held a 'singular, not a general, parliament,' consisting simply of certain specially summoned nobles (Ann. Osen, p. 300). Thence he went to London, where he was received with great rejoicing, for he had not been there for nearly three years (Ann, Wav, p. 402).

A summons from Philip III to render him such assistance in his war with Peter III of Aragon as was due by reason of his tenure of Gascony put Edward in some difficulty, for he was by no means anxious for the aggrandisement of France. However, he went to Dover as though to embark. While there the illness of his mother gave him an excuse for remaining at home, and he passed Lent in Norfolk and Suffolk (Ann. Osen. p. 300; Trivet, p. 310). This year is marked by the 'culminating point in Edward's legislative activity' (Const. Hist, ii. 118). In the mid-summer parliament, held at Westminster, he published the collection of laws known as the 'Statute of Westminster the Second' (Statutes, i. 163), the first chapter of which, called 'De Donis Conditionalibus,' the foundation of estates tail, restricting the alienation of lands, probably shows the influence of the nobles. Other chapters deal with amendments of the law relating to dower, advowsons, and other matters. The whole forms a code, the importance of which did not escape the notice of contemporary chroniclers (Ann, Osen, p. 304; Statutes, i, 164). It was probably during this parliament, which lasted for the unusually long period of seven weeks, that Edward dealt decisively with the question of ecclesiastical jurisdiction that had been in dispute ever since the reign of Henry II, and his action in this matter should be compared with the policy of that king as expressed in the Constitutions of Clarendon. Undaunted by previous defeats Peckham evidently instigated the bishops of his province to present a petition to the crown against the summary conclusion of ecclesiastical suits by royal prohibition. Edward, however, limited the sphere of clerical jurisdiction to matrimonial and testamentary cases, and afterwards relaxed this by issuing the writ 'Circumspecte agatis,' which clearly defines the cases which were to be entertained by ecclesiastical courts (Statutes i. 242; Ann, Dunst p. 317; Cotton, p. 166; Const. Hist, ii. 119). In the Statute of Winchester, published in the October parliament, the king revived and developed the ancient laws relating to police organisation, and to the obligation of keeping arms for the public service, and applied them to the needs of the time by converting them into a complete system for the protection of persons and property, for the capture of oftenders, and for the establishment of the liability of districts for losses sustained through the failure of their police arrangements (Select Charters p. 459).

In a parliament consisting of ecclesiastical and civil magnates, held on 23 April 1286, Edward announced his intention of going to France. His presence was required in Gascony, though the immediate cause of his departure was to act as mediator in the long quarrel between the French and the Aragonese for the possession of Sicily. Edward had now for some years been looked on as the most fitting arbitrator in this matter. When, in 1282, Charles of Anjou and Peter of Aragon agreed to decide their dispute by a combat, in which each was to be supported by one hundred knights, they fixed the place of meeting at Bordeaux, and selected Edward as judge. On 6 April 1283 Martin IV wrote, forbidding him to allow the encounter, and Edward sent ambassadors with letters to Charles and Peter, declaring that 'if he could gain Aragon and Sicily' by it he would not allow it (F?dera, ii. 226, 240, 241). Finally, while refusing to have anything to do with the matter, he ordered the seneschal of Bordeaux to put the city at the disposal of the Angevin prince. He mediated unsuccessfully in 1284 between Philip III and Peter, and the king of Aragon hoped to engage him on his side. Edward, however, while anxious to prevent the increase of the power of France at the expense of Aragon, which would have endangered his possession of Gascony, would not be drawn into war beyond the sea. The captivity of Charles the Lame and the deaths of Peter and Philip III opened the way for fresh negotiations, and Philip IV, the sons of Charles, and the nobles of Provence all invoked the interference of the king of England (ib. ii. 317, 818). Edward sailed on 23 May, leaving the kingdom in charge of his cousin Edmund, and taking with him the chancellor and many nobles (Ann, Osen, p. 306). He was honourably received by Philip, did homage to him at Amiens, and then went with him to Paris. After obtaining the settlement of several questions connected with his foreign possessions and rights, he left Paris at Whitsuntide and proceeded to Bordeaux, where he repressed some disaffection among the citizens with considerable sharpness (Hemingburgh, ii. 16). He then held a congress at Bordeaux, which was attended by representatives of the kings of Ar 
Edward I King of England (I10782)
228 EDWARD II of Carnarvon (1284-1327), king of England, fourth son of Edward I by his first wife, Eleanor of Castile, was born at the newly erected castle of Carnarvon on St. Mark's day, 25 April 1284. As his parents had spent the greater part of the two previous years in Wales and the borders, his birth at Carnarvon must be regarded as the result of accident rather than the settled policy which later traditions attribute to his father. Entirely apocryphal are the stories of the king presenting his infant son as the future native sovereign of the Welsh (they first appear in Stow, Annals, pp. 202-3, and Powel, Hist. Cambria, ed. 1584, p. 377. The tradition which fixes the room and tower of the castle in which Edward was born is equally baseless. On 19 Aug. the death of his elder brother Alfonso made Edward his father's heir. He was hardly six years old when the negotiations for his marriage with the infant Queen Margaret of Scotland were successfully completed. In March 1290 the magnates of Scotland assented to the match (F?dera, i. 730), but on 2 Oct. Margaret's death destroyed the best hope of the union of England and Scotland. On 28 Nov. he lost his mother, Queen Eleanor.

At a, very early age Edward had a separate household of some magnificence assigned to him. So early as 1294 the townsfolk of Dunstaple bitterly complained of his attendants' rapacity and violence (Ann. Dunst. p. 392). In 1296 the negotiations for the marriage of Philippa, the daughter of Count Guy of Flanders, to Edward came to nothing (Ann. Wig. p. 529; Opus Chron. in Trokelown, p, 55). On 22 Aug. 1297 Edward became nominal regent during his father's absence in Flanders. The defeat of Earl Warenne at Stirling and the baronial agitation for the confirmation of the charters made his task extremely difficult. On 10 Oct. Edward was obliged to issue the famous 'Confirmatio Cartanim.' In mid-Lent 1298 the king's return ended the regency. Next year a proposal of marrioge Between Edward and Isabella, the infant daughter of Philip the Fair, was the outcome of the arbitration of Boniface VIII between England and France (F?dera, i. 954). Not until 20 May 1303, however, did the definite betrothal take place at Paris, and even then the youth of the parties compelled a further postponement of their union.

On 7 Feb. 1301 Edward was created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester at the famous Lincoln parliament (Ann, Wig, p. 548). This step was highly popular throughout Wales (Ann, Edw, I in Rishanger p. 464), and marked Edward's entrance into more active life. In 1302 he was first summoned to parliament. Henceforth he regularly accompanied his father on his campaigns against Scotland. In the summer of 1301 he led the western wing of the invading army from Carlisle (Chron. de Lanercost, p. 200, Bannatyne Club), but soon joined his father, and spent the winter with him at Linlithgow (ib.; Ann, Wig. 551 ), though he was back early enough to hold, in March 1302, a council for his father at London (Ann, Lond, in Stubs,Chron. Edw. I and II, i.l27). In 1303 and 1304 Edward was again in Scotland, and though on one occasion the old king commended his strategy, and always kept him well employed, the entries on his expenses rolls for these years suggest that he had already acquired habits of frivolity and extravagance. He often lost large sums at dice, and sometimes had to borrow from his servants to pay his debts. He was attended on his travels by a lion and by Genoese fiddlers. He had to compensate a fool for the rough practical jokes he had played on him (Cal, Doc, Scotland ii. No. 1413). Among his gambling agents was the Gascon, Piers de Gaveston [q. v.], who had already acquired a fatal ascendency over him. Walter Reynolds, perhaps his tutor, and afterwards keeper of his wardrobe, was an almost equally undesirable confidant. Yet the old king spared no pains to instruct him in habits of business as much as in the art of war. Accident has preserved the roll of the prince's letters between November 1304 and November 1305. They are more than seven hundred in number, and yet incomplete, and show conclusively the careful drilling the young prince underwent (Ninth Report of Deputy-Keeper of Records, app. ii. pp. 246-9.) But it was all in vain. In June 1305 he invaded the woods of Bishop Langton, the treasurer, and returned the minister's remonstrances with insult. The king was moved to deep wrath; banished his son from court for six months and ordered him to make full reparation (Chron. Edw. I and II i. xxxix, 138; Abbrev. Plac. i. 257; Ninth Report, p. 247). In August Edward wrote a whining letter to his step-mother, begging her to induce the king to let him have the company of Gilbert de Clare and 'Perot de Gaveston' to alleviate the anguish caused by the stern orders of his father (Ninth Report, p. 248). In October, however, the king allowed Edward to represent him at a great London banquet (Ann. Lond. p. 143).

The revolt of Scotland opened out new prospects. Edward I, declining in years and health, again endeavoured to prepare his unworthy son for the English throne. At Easter 1306 the Prince of Wales received a grant of Gascony (Trivet, n. 408). On Whitsunday he was solemnly dubbed knight at Westminster, along with three hundred chosen noble youths. Immediately after the ceremony the new warriors set out for Scotland, solemnly pledged to revenge the murder of Comyn. The prince's particular vow was never to rest twice in one place until full satisfaction was obtained. Edward and the young men preceded the slower movements of his father; but his merciless devastation of the Scottish borders moved the indignation of the old king (Rishanger, pp. 229-30; Trivet, pp. 408, 411). Edward continued engaged on the campaign until in January 1307 his presence at the Carlisle parliament was required (Parl, Writs, i. 81) to meet the Cardinal Peter of Spain, who was commissioned to conclude tne long-protracted marriage treaty with the daughter of France. But Edward's demand of Ponthieu, his mother's heritage, for Gaveston provoked a new outbreak of wrath from the old king (Hemingburgh, ii. 272).. On 26 Feb. Gaveston was banished, though about a month later Edward was sufliciently restored to favour for the king to make arrangements for his visiting Franco to be married (F?dera, i. 1012); but on 7 July the death of Edward I removed the last restraint on his son.

In person the new king was almost as striking a man as Edward I. He was tall, handsome, and of exceptional bodily strength ('Et si fust de son corps un des plus fortz hom de soun realme,' Scalachronica, p. 136, Maitland Club). But though well fitted to excel in martial exercises, he never showed any real inclination for a warlike life, or even for the tournament. As soon as he was his own master he avoided fighting as much as he could, and when compelled to take the field his conduct was that of an absolute craven. Lack of earnest purpose blasted his whole character. He had been trained as a warrior, but never became one. He had been drilled in the routine of business, but had only derived from it an absolute incapacity to devote himself to any serious work. His only object in life was to gratify the whim of the moment, reckless of consequences. Much of his folly and levity may be set down to habitual deep drinking . His favourite pastimes were of a curiously unkingly nature. He disliked the society of his equals among the youthful nobility, and, save for a few attached friends, his favourite companions were men of low origin and vulgar tastes. With them Edward would exercise his remarkable dexterity in the mechanical arts. 'He was fond of smith's work, was proud of his skill at digging trenches and thatching houses. He was also a good athlete, fond of racing and driving, and of the society of watermen and grooms. He was passionately devoted to horses and hounds and their breeding. He bought up the famous stud of Earl Warenne, which he kept at Ditchling in Sussex. At one time he borrows from Archbishop Winchelsey a 'beal cheval bon pour estaloun,' at another he gets a white greynound of a rare breed from his sister. He boasted of his Welsh harriers that could discover a hare sleeping, and was hardly less proud of the 'gentzsauvages' from his native land, who were in his household to train them. He was also a musician, and beseeches the abbot of Shrewsbury to lend him a remarkably good fiddler to teach his rhymer the crowther, and borrows trumpets and kettledrums from Reynolds for his little players. He was devoted to the stage, and Reynolds first won his favour, it was said, by his skill 'in ludis theatralibus' (Monk of Malmesbury, p. 197). He was not well educated, and took the coronation oath in the French form, provided for a king ignorant of Latin. He was fond of fine clothes, and with all his taste for low society liked pomp and state on occasions. He had the facile good nature of some thoroughly weak men. Without confidence in himself, and conscious probably of the contempt of his subjects, he was never without some favourite of stronger will than his own for whom he would show a weak and nauseous affection. Sometimes with childlike passion he would personally chastise those who provoked his wrath. He could never keep silence, but disclosed freely even secrets of state. He had no dignity or self-respect. His household was as disorderly as their master's example and poverty made it. The commons groaned under the exactions of his purveyors and collectors. The notion that he neglected the nobility out of settled policy to rely upon the commons is futile. Even less trustworthy is the contention that his troubles were due to his zeal for retrenchment and financial reform to pay his father's debts and get free from the bondage of the Italian merchants. (For Edward's character the chief authorities are Malmesbury, pp.191-2; Knighton, in Twysden, c. 2531-2; Bridlington, p.91; Ann. de Melsa, ii. 280, 286; Cont. Trivet,p. 18; Lanercost, p. 236; Scalachronica p. 136; and for his habits Blaauw in Sussex Arch. Collections ii. 80-98, and the Ninth Report of Deputy-Keeper, app. ii. 246-9; for his finances, Mr. Bond's article in Archæologia, xxviii. 246-54; and the summary of wardrobe accounts for 10, 11, and 14 Edw. II in Archæologia, xxvi. 318-45).

Edward I's policy underwent a complete reversion on his son's accession. After his father's death the new king hurried north to Carlisle, where he arrived on 18 July, and after visiting Burgh next day he received on 20 July the homage of the English magnates then gathered in the north. He then advanced into Scotland, and on 31 July received at Dumfries the homage of such Scottish lords as still adhered to him (Ann. Lanercost p.209). But after a few weeks, during which he accomplished absolutely nothing, he left Aymer de Valence as guardian of Scotland, and journeyed to the south after his father's body. He had already been joined by Gaveston, whom, on 6 Aug., he had made Earl of Cornwall, despite the murmurs of the majority of the barons. He now dismissed with scanty courtesy his father's ministers, wreaked his spite on Langton by pilfering his treasure and immuring him in the Tower. Langton's successor at the treasury was Walter Reynolds, Edward's old favounte. The acquiescence of the Earl of Lincoln in the elevation of Gaveston saved him for a time from the fate of Langton and Baldock. On 13 Oct. Edward held a short parliament at Northampton, whence he went to Westminster for the burial of his father on 27 Oct. On 29 Oct. he betrothed Gaveston to his niece, Margaret of Gloucester (Cont. Trivet, ed. Hall 1722, p. 3), and also appointed him regent on his departure for France to do homage for Gascony and wed his promised bride. On 22 Jan. 1308 Edward crossed from Dover to Boulogne (Parl. Writs, II. i. 13), and on 25 Jan. his marriage with Isabella of France was celebrated with great pomp in the presence of Philip the Fair and a great gathering of French and English magnates (Ann. Lond. p. 152; Ann. Paul. p. 258. Hemingburgh, ii. 270, wrongly dates the marriage on 28 Jan., and Bridlington, p. 32, on 24 Jan.) On 7 Feb. the royal pair arrived at Dover (Parl. Writs. II . i. 13), and after a magnificent reception at London the coronation was performed on 25 Feb. with great state at Westminster. The minute records of the ceremony (F?dera, ii. 33-6) show that the coronation oath taken by the new monarch was stricter than the older form, and involved a more definite reference to the rights of the commons. The disgust occasioned by Edward's infatuation for Gaveston had nearly broken up the coronation festivities and the king's fear for the favourite's safety had induced him to postpone the February council till Easter. The queen's uncles left England in great disgust that Edward neglected his bride for the society of his 'brother Peter' (Ann. Paul. p. 262). The magnates complained that the foreign upstart treated them with contempt, and deprived them of their constitutional part in the government of the country. The whole nation was incensed that everything should be in the hands of the 'king's idol.' When the great council met on 30 April, it sharply warned Edward that homage was due rather to the crown than to the kings person, and frightened him into consenting to the banishment of the favourite before 25 June. Gaveston was compelled to bend before the storm, and to surrender his earldom (ib. p. 263); but Edward heaped fresh grants on him and remained in his society until he embarked at Bristol He made him regent of Ireland, with a vast revenue, pressed the pope to absolve him from the excommunication threatened if he returned, and soon began to actively intrigue for his restoration. At the Northampton parliament in August a nominal understanding between the king and the barons was arrived at. His bad counsellors were removed from office, and Langton soon after released from prison; yet a tournament held by the king at Kennington proved a failure through the neglect of the magnates. At last, on 27 April 1309, Edward was compelled to confront the three estates at Westminster, and as the price of a twenty-fifth to receive eleven articles of grievances, which he was to answer in the next parliament (Rot. Parl.i 443-5). But his proposal that Gaveston should retain the earldom of Cornwall was rejected (Hemingburgh, ii. 275), though his intrigues succeeded so far that the chief barons were won over individually to consent or acquiesce in his restoration. Only the Earl of Warwick resisted the royal blandishments (Malmesbury, p. 160). The pope was induced to absolve Gaveston from his oaths (Ann. Lond. p. 167; Malmesbury, p. 161). In July he ventured back to England, and was received with open arms by Edward at Chester. So effectually had Edward's intrigues broken up the baronial opposition that no one ventured openly to object to the favourite's return. At a baronial parliament at Stamford on 27 July Edward courted popular favour by accepting the articles of 1309, while Gloucester succeeded in persuading the magnates to a formal reconciliation with Gaveston, and even to his restoration to the earldom of Cornwall But the favourite's behaviour was as insolent as ever. Lancaster soon raised the standard of opposition. Along with the Earls of Lincoln, Warwick, Oxford, and Arundel, he refused to attend a council summoned at York for October (Hemingburgh, ii. 275). Edward, as usual, sought by postponing its session to escape from his difficulties. He celebrated his Christmas court at his favourite palace of Langley ('locum quem rex valde dilexit,' Malm. p. 162). At last, in March 1310, the long-postponed meeting of magnates was held in London. The barons attended in military array; Edward's attempted opposition at once broke down. On 16 March threats of the withdrawal of allegiance compelled him to consent to the appointment (F?dera ii. 105) of the twenty-one lords ordainers, into whose hands all royal power was practically bestowed. But the limitation of his prerogative affected Edward much less than the danger of Gaveston, against whom the chief designs of the ordainers was directed. In February Gaveston left the court. As soon as the council had ended Edward hurried to the north to rejoin his favourite, and, under the pretence of warring against Bruce, keep Gaveston out of harm's way, while avoiding the unpleasant presence of the ordainers, and escaping from the necessity of obeying a summons for an interview with the king of France (ib. ii. 110; Malm. p. 165). But only two earls, Gloucester and Warenne, attended the 'copiosa turba peditum' that formed the chief support of the royal army. On 8 Sept. the host assembled at Berwick. By 16 Sept. the king was at Roxburgh, and by 13 Oct. at Linlithgow; but no enemy was to be found even if Edward were in earnest in seeking one. Bruce, though he boasted that he feared the bones of the old king more than his living successor, refrained from fighting. By the beginning of November Edward had returned to Berwick (Hartshorne, Itinerary of Ed. II, p. 119), where he remained almost entirely till the end of July 1311. In February (1311), Lincoln, the regent, died, and Lancaster, his son-in-law, succeeded to his estates. After much difficulty Edward was persuaded to go a few miles south into England to receive his homage for this property. At their meeting they observed the externals of friendship, but Lancaster's refusal to salute Gaveston made Edward very angry (Lanercost p. 215). The need of meeting the ordainers at last brought Edward back to the south, leaving Gaveston at Bamborough for safety. But he got to London before the magnates were ready, and, spending August (1311) on a pilgrimage to Canterbury, returned to meet the ordainers about the end of that month. The ordinances were soon presented to him, but in the long catalogue of reforms that were demanded he saw nothing of importance save the articles requiring the exile of Gaveston. In vain he offered to consent to all other ordinances to stay the persecution of his brother Peter and leave him in possession of Cornwall. At last, when he saw clearly that civil war was the alternative, he gave an insincere and reluctant consent to them on 6 Oct. Gaveston at once left England for Flanders, while the barons removed his kinsfolk and adherents from the royal household. Edward was now intensely disturbed, and complained that the barons treated him like an idiot by taking out of his hands every detail even of the management of his own household. He was detained till the middle of December in London by fresh sittings of parliament, at which very little was done. At the end of November there was a rumour that Gaveston had returned and was hiding in the west; before Christmas he openly visited the king at Windsor (Ann. Lond, p. 202), and early in the new year went with Edward to the north. On 18 Jan. 1312 the king issued a writ announcing the favourite's return and approving his loyalty (F?dera, ii. 153). In February he restored him his estates (ib. ii. 157). Open war necessarily resulted. Winchelsey excommunicated the favourite. Lancaster and his confederates took arms. In vain Edward sought to purchase the safety of Gaveston in Scotland by recognising Bruce as king, but Edward's alliance was not worth buying. He was at the time so miserably poor that he could only get supplies by devastating a country already cruelly ravaged by the Scots (Lanercost, pp. 218-19). On 10 April (Bridlington, p. 42) the king and his favourite were at Newcastle. Thence they hastily retreated to Tynemouth, but Lancaster now captured Newcastle, and the pair, regardless of the queen's entreaties, fled in a boat to Scarborough (10 May), where Edward left Peter while he withdrew to York to divert the baronial forces. But Lancaster occupied the intervening country while the other earls besieged Scarborough, where Gaveston surrendered to Pembroke on condition that he should be unharmed till 1 Aug. Edward accepted these terms and set to work to interest the pope and the king of France for Gaveston, hoping that the cession of Gascony would be a sufficient bribe to make Philip support his old enemy (Malmesbury, p. 177). But the treachery of the barons, the seizure of Gaveston by Warwick, and his murder on Blacklow Hill (19 June) showed that all the bad faith was not on Edward's side. Edward was powerless to do more than pay the last honours to his dead friend. The body found a last resting-place at Langley, where a house of black friars was established by Edward to pray for the deceased favourite's soul (Knighton, c. 2533). The Earls of Pembroke and Warenne never forgave Lancaster. Henceforth they formed with Hugh le Despenser [q. v.] and Edward's other personal adherents a party strong enough to prevent further attacks upon the king. After wearisome marches and negotiations, the mediation of Gloucester, the papal envoy and Lewis of Evreux, the queen's uncle, led to the proclamation of peace on 22 Dec. 1312 (F?dera, ii. 191-2). On 13 Nov. the birth of a son, afterwards Edward III, had turned the king's mind further from Gaveston. Nearly a year elapsed before the earls made the personal submission stipulated in the treaty, and as parliamentary resources were still withheld Edward was plunged into an extreme destitution that could only be partly met by loans from every quarter available, by laying his hands on as much as he could of the confiscated estates of the Templars, and by tallages that provoked riots in London and Bristol. In May 1313 the death of Winchelsey further weakened the baronial party, and Edward prevailed on the pope to quash the election of the eminent scholar Thomas Cobham [q.v.] in favour of his creature, Walter Reynolds. But the prospects of real peace were still very dark, Under the pretence of illness Edward kept away from the spring parliament in 1313 (Malmesbury, p. 190). in May he and the queen, accompanied by a magnificent court, crossed the Channel and attended the great festivities given on Whitsunday by Philip the Fair at Paris, when his three sons, the Duke of Burgundy, and a number of noble youths were dubbed knights before the magnates of the realm (ib. 190; Cont. Guillaume de Nangis, i. 395-6; Martin, Hist, of France, iv. 501). They returned on 16 July (Parl. Writs, II, i. 101) and reached London only to find that the barons summoned to the July parliament had already returned to their homes in disgust. By such transparent artifices the weak king postponed the settlement until a new parliament that sat between September and November. There at last the three earls publicly humiliated themselves before the king in Westminster Hall in the presence of the assembled magnates (Trokelowe, pp. 80, 81). Feasts of reconciliation were held, and nothing save the continued enmity of Lancaster and Hugh le Despenser remained of the old quarrels. On 10 Oct. the pardon and amnesty to the three earls and over four hundred minor ofienders were issued (F?dera, ii. 230-1). Parliament now made Edward a much-needed grant of money. The first troubles of the reign were thus finally appeased. Between 12 Dec. and 20 Dec. (Parl. Writs. II. i. 109) Edward made a short pilgrimage to Boulogne, but his journey was a secret one, and undertaken against the opinion of his subjects (Cont,Trivet, ed. Hall, p. 11). The Question of the ordinances was still unsettled, and soon became the source of fresh difficulties.

On 17 Feb. 1314 Edward attended the enthronement of Reynolds at Canterbury. On 28 Feb. Roxburgh was captured by Bruce; on 13 March Edinburgh fell, and soon after Stirling, the last of the Scottish strongholds that remained in English hands, promised to surrender if not relieved by St. John's day (24 June). Edward was provoked almost to tears by these disasters, and eagerly pressed the leading earls to march against Bruce with all their forces. The earls replied that to undertake such an expedition without the consent of parliament would be contrary to the ordinances. Edward was compelled, therefore, to rely upon the customary services of his vassals, whom he convoked for 10 June. After visiting for Easter the great abbeys of St. Albans and Ely (Trokelowe, p. 83), Edward started for the north. A great host tardily collected at Berwick, but Lancaster, Warenne, Arundel, and Warwick stayed behind, though furnishing their legal contingent of troops. At last, about a week before St. John's day, Edward left Berwick for Stirling with as much confidence as if he were on a pilgrimage to Compostella (Malmesbury, p. 202). When the great army, greatly fatigued by the march, reached the neighbourhood of Stirling, St. John's eve had arrived. A defeat in a preliminary skirmish and a sleepless and riotous night (T. de la Moor, p. 299) still further unfitted the army for action. Gloucester strongly urged the king to wait another day before fighting; but in a characteristic outburst Edward denounced his nephew as a traitor, and ordered an immediate action. The English army was divided into three lines, in the rearmost of which Edward remained with the bishops and monks in attendance, and protected by Hugh le Despenser. The first line soon fell into confusion, and Gloucester, its leader, was slain. The royal escort at once resolved that Edward must withdraw to a place of safety; and the king, after requesting in vain admittance into Stirling Castle, hurried off towards Dunbar, hotly pursued by the enemy. Thence he took ship for Berwick. The retreat of the king was the sigal for the fiight of the whole army. Stirling surrendered, and all Scotland acknowledged as its king the victor of Bannockburn.

Meanwhile Lancaster had assembled an army at Pontefract, on the pretext that Edward, if successful in Scotland, had resolved to turn his victorious troops against the confederate earls. Edward was compelled to make an unconditional submission at a parliament at York in September, to confirm the ordinances, to change his ministers, and to receive the earls into favour. Hugh le Despenser remained in hiding. About Christmas time Edward celebrated Gaveston's final obsequies at Langley (Malmesbury, p. 209). In the February parliament at London the victorious barons removed Despenser and Walter Langton from the council, purged the royal household of its superfluous and burdensome members, and put the king on an allowance of 10l. a day. The humiliation of Edward was furthered by the appointment of Lancaster as commander-in-chief against the Scots in August, and completed by the acts of the parliament of Lincoln in January 1316 where it was 'ordained that the king should undertake no important matter without the consent of the council, and that Lancaster should hold the position of chief of the council' (lb. p. 224).

Edward had thus fallen completely under Lancaster's power. The invasion of Ireland by Edward Bruce, the revolt of Llewelyn Bren in Wales, the revolt of Banastre against Lancaster, the Scottish devastations extending as far south as Furness (Lanercost, p. 233), the Bristol war in 1316, aggravated by the floods of 1315 and the plague of cattle, the unheard-of scarcity of corn and the unhealthiness of the season of 1316 showed that a stronger rule was required. But Lancaster failed almost as signally as Edward. After Michaelmas he attempted a Scottish expedition; but Edward now refused to follow him, so the earl returned, having accomplished nothing (ib. p. 233). His failure to carry a new series of ordinances drove him into a sulky retirement. This attitude again restored freedom to Edward and his courtiers. The king's application to the pope to be relieved from his oath to the ordinances, and for the condemnation of the Scots, failed of its purpose. But the baronial party was now broken up, and Edward vigorously intrigued to win to his side the middle party, led by Pembroke, Badlesmere, and D'Amory, husband of one of the Gloucester coheiresses. With this party hatred of Lancaster was stronger than dislike of the royal policy. The abduction of the Countess of Lancaster by Earl Warenne, planned, it was believed, by Edward and his courtiers (Cont. Trivet, p. 21), produced a new crisis. Private war broke out between Warenne and Lancaster in Yorkshire. In July Edward went north, and under pretence of the Scots war assembled in September an army at York that was really directed against Lancaster, who in his turn collected troops at Pontefract. Both parties watched each other for some time, but no actual hostilities followed. At the end of July the mediation of Pembroke and the cardinal legates resulted in a reference of all disputes to a parliament to meet at Lincoln in January 1318. Yet even after this Edward, on his way to London, marched in arms under the walls of Pontefract (ib. pp. 23-4), but Pembroke's strong remonstrances prevented any attack on Lancaster's stronghold. The wearisome negotiations were still far from ended. The parliament originally summoned for January was postponed month after month. On 2 April the capture of Berwick by the Scots was a new indication of the need of union. Nevertheless at the council which was held on 12 April at Leicester another scheme of reconciliation broke down. All July the king was at Northampton, while the chancellor went backwards and forwards to negotiate with Lancaster. On 31 July a pardon was issued; on 14 Aug. a personal meeting of the cousins was held at Hathern, near Loughborough, where they exchanged the kiss of peace with apparent cordiality (Knighton, c. 2534). In October a parliament at York ratified the new treaty. It was a complete triumph for the foes of Edward. The ordinances were again confirmed, and a permanent council was appointed, which practically put the royal authority into commission.

The bad seasons still continued; the Scots' ravages extended; the court grew more needy; law was everywhere disregarded; while the imposture of John of Powderham at Oxford only gave expression to the general belief that so degenerate a son of the great Edward might well be a changeling. The Scottish war kept Edward in the north for the greater part of the next two years. The court, which removed to York in October 1318, remained there almost continually until January 1320. In March 1319 a second parliament met at York and made a liberal grant for the Scottish expedition (Bridlington, p. 56). The pope now confirmed the sentence of the legates against the Scots. At the end of August Edward and Lancaster laid siege to Berwick. In September the Scots ravaged Yorkshire in the rear of the besiegers, and a plan to carry off the queen from York very nearly succeeded (Malmesbury, p. 243). On 12 Sept. Archbishop Melton was severely defeated by them at Myton-on-Swale, and the enemy plundered as far as Pontefract. Edward was thus forced to raise the siege of Berwick, but entirely failed to cut off the Scots in Yorkshire. It was believed that Lancaster was bribed by the Scots, but incompetence and disunion quite account for the failure. A two years' truce was arranged. In January 1320 Edward held a council of magnates at York, which Lancaster as usual refused to attend. He then went south with his queen, entering London on 16 Feb. On 19 June he and his queen sailed for France (Parl. Writs, II. i. 244). Before the high altar at Amiens Cathedral he performed his long-delayed homage for Ponthieu and Aquitaine to Philip V, put down a mutiny of his subjects at Abbeville,and on 20 July attended at Boulogne the consecration of Burghersh, Badlesmere's nephew, to the bishopric of Lincoln. He returned to England on 22 July (F?dera, ii. 428), and on 2 Aug. made a solemn entry into London. On 13 Oct. he held a parliament at Westminster, which Lancaster again refused to attend. For the next few months the unwonted quiet continued.

Since Edward had put himself in the hands of Pembroke and Badlesmere he had enjoyed comparative security and dignity. Only when great enterprises were attempted was Lancaster still in a position to break up the government of the country. But Edward loved neither Pembroke nor his allies, and had now found in the younger Hugh le Despenser [q. v.] a congenial successor to Gaveston. The increasing favour shown by Edward to father and son, the revival of the old court following under their leadership, and the extensive grants lavished on them by the king, made them both hated and feared. As the husband of the eldest of the three Gloucester coheiresses, the younger Despenser's ambition was to obtain the Gloucester earldom. Early in 1321 private war had broken out in South Wales between him and the neighbouring marchers, among whom were Audley and Amory, his rivals for the Gloucester inheritance. Edward in vain attempted to protect Despenser. He approached so near the scene of action as Gloucester. As soon as he went back towards London Despenser's lands in Wales were overrun. Meanwhile Lancaster and the northern lords held on 28 June a meeting at Sherburn in Elmet, and resolved to maintain the cause of the marchers. Pembroke and Badlesmere also took the same side, after Edward had rejected their advice to dismiss Despenser. On 15 July parliament met at Westmmster, and Edward was finally compelled to accept their sentence of forfeiture and banishment. The elder Despenser immediately withdrew to foreign parts, but his son took to the high seas and piracy.

Edward as usual was spurred by the misfortune fortune of his favourite into activity, and cleverly took advantage of the want of harmony between the various elements arrayed against him to prepare the way for Hugh's return. An accident favoured his design. On 13 Oct. 1321 the queen, on her way to Canterbury, requested tne hospitality of Lady Badlesmere in Leeds Castle. The doors were closed against her; six of her men were slain in the tumult that ensued. Edward was terribly roused by this insult to his wife. He at once took arms, and besieged Leeds Castle with such vigour that on 31 Oct. it capitulated. During this time an army, said to be thirty thousand strong, had gathered round Edward's standard. Six earls and many magnates were in his camp. Lancaster, in his hatred of Badlesmere, had taken no measures to counteract Edward's plans. The fall of Leeds gave Edward courage to unfold his real designs. On 10 Dec. he extorted from the convocation of clergy their opinion that the proceedings against the Despensers were illegal. He ordered the seizure of the castles of the western lands, and himself marched westwards at the head of his forces and kept his Christmas court at Cirencester. His object now was to cross the Severn; but Gloucester was occupied by the barons, and at Worcester he found the right bank guarded by armed men. At Bridgnorth, Shrophire, the Mortimers headed the resistance, and in the struggle that ensued the town was burnt. Thence he proceeded to Shrewsbury, where the Mortimers, afraid to risk a battle in the absence of the long-expected Lancaster, allowed him to cross the river, and finally surrendered themselves into his hands. Edward now wandered through the middle and southern marches, and took without resistance the main strongholds of his enemies. At Hereford he sharply reproved the bishop for his treason: thence, returning to Gloucester, he forced Maurice of Berkeley to surrender that town and Berkeley itself. On 11 Feb. 1322 Edward issued at Gloucester writs for the recall of the Despensers (Parl. Writs, II. i. 276). He thence proceeded to the midlands, where the northern lords, thoroughly frightened into activity, were now besieging Tickhill. On 28 Feb. the royal levies assembled at Coventry, but Lancaster, after endeavouring to defend the passage of the Trent at Burton, fled to the north, where Sir Andrew Harclay was turning against the traitors the forces collected against the Scotch. The king's triumph was now assured. Tutbury and Kenilworth surrendered, Lancaster's most trusty officers deserted him, and Roger D'Amory fell dying into the king's hands. Lancaster and Hereford, unable to find shelter even at Pontefract, hurried northwards to join the Scots. On 16 March they were met by Harclay at Boroughbridge, Yorkshire, where Hereford was slain and Lancaster captured. Five days later Edward presided over Lancaster's hasty and irregular trial at his own castle of Pontefract. Refused even a hearing, he was beheaded the next day. The perpetual imprisonment of the Mortimers and Audley,the hanging of Badlesmere at Canterbury, the execution of about thirty lesser offenders, completed the signal triumph of Edward and the Despensers. On 2 May a full parliament met at York, finally revoked the ordinances, and, in opposition to the baronial oligarchy that had so long fettered the action of Edward, laid down the principle that all weighty affairs of state should proceed from the counsel and consent of king, clergy, lords, and commons. The issue of some new ordinances of Edward's own was perhaps intended to show that the king, no less than Earl Thomas, was willing to confer the benefits of good government on his people.

The troubles were no sooner over than, at the end of July (1322), Edward undertook a new expedition against Scotland, the truce having already expired; but the invasion was no more successful than his other martial exploits. Berwick was besieged, but to no purpose. Bruce withdrew over the Forth, leaving Lothian desolate. Before September Edward was defeated by pestilence and famine rather than by the enemy (Lanercost pp. 247-8), On his return to England Bruce followed in his wake. About Michaelmas Edward was nearly captured at Byland Abbey. He fled as far as Bridlington. The parliament, summoned to Ripon on 14 Nov., was unable to meet further north than York. In January 1323 Harclay turned traitor, making his private treaty with the Scots (ib. p. 248), justified, it was thought in the north, by the king's inability to defend his realm. At last, on 30 May (F?dera, ii. 521), a truce for thirteen years ended Edward's vain attempts to subdue Scotland.

From 1322 to 1326 Edward reigned in comparative tranquillity under the guidance of the Despensers. Some slight attempts to assail the Despensers were easily put down; but the deplorable condition of the country and the miserable poverty of the royal exchequer were from the beginning the chief dangers of the new government. The Despensers showed little capacity as administrators, and their greed and insolence soon caused old hatreds to be revived. In particular. Queen Isabella became a furious enemy of the younger Despenser, by whose counsel, it was believed, she was on 28 Sept. 1324 deprived of her lands and servants, and limited to an allowance of twenty shillings a day (Lanercost, p. 254; Ann. Paul. p. 307). Meanwhile Edward offended some of the most important of his old friends. He alienated Archbishop Reynolds by making the Archbishop of York his treasurer; his treatment of Badlesmere had already made Burghersh a secret foe; new men, like Stratford and Ayreminne, disliked Edward for opposing their promotion. With even greater folly Edward provoked a quarrel with Henry, earl of Leicester, the brother and heir of Thomas of Lancaster (Malmesbury, pp. 280-1). On 1 Aug. 1324 Roger Mortimer escaped from the Tower to France, where he became a nucleus of disaffection. Thus Edward gradually alienated all his possible supporters, and, quite careless or unconscious of his isolation, was left to face the indignation of a misgoverned nation, and the rancorous hatred of leaders of embittered factions.

A new danger now came from France. Charles IV, who had succeeded Philip V in 1322, had long been clamouring that Edward should perform homage to him for Aquitaine and Ponthieu. In June 1324 Pembroke, the last influential and faithful friend of Edward, died at Paris while attempting to satisfy the French king's demands. Edmund of Kent[q. v.], who had been sent to Paris in April, proved a sorry diplomatist. Before the end of the year actual hostilities commenced by a French attack on Gascony.

All could have been easily settled if Edward had crossed over and performed homage. But the Despensers were afraid to let him escape from their hands, and on 9 March 1325 Edward gave way to the blandishments of his queen, and allowed her to visit her brother's court as his representative. It was not Isabella's policy to settle the differences between her brother and husband. She procured the prolongation of a truce until 1 Aug., while Edward, whose arbitrary proceedings in the early summer had provoked discontent without actual resistance, met his parliament at London on 25 June, when the magnates strongly expressed their opinion that he should immediately go to France.

Edward pretended to make preparations for his departure, but gladly availed himself of a proposal of the French king that he should give Gascony to his eldest son, and that the homage of the latter should be accepted in place of his. On 12 Sept. the young Duke of Aquitaine sailed to France, and before the end of the month performed homage to Charles IV at Vincennes.

Edward now recalled Isabella to England, but she absolutely refused to go as long as Hugh le Despenser remained in power. Edward laid his grievances before the parliament which sat at Westminster between 18 Nov. and 5 Dec., and requested mediation. A letter from the bishops had no effect either on Isabella or her son. Early in December Edward wrote strong letters to Charles, to Isabella, and to the young Edward (F?dera, ii. 615-16). All through the spring of 1326 he plied them alternately with prayers and threats, but all to no purpose. It was now plain that Isabella had formed with Mortimer and the other exiles at Paris a deliberate plan for overthrowing the Despensers, if not of dethroning Edward himself. The king's ambassador, his brother, the Count of Hainault, whose daughter was betrothed to the Duke of Aquitaine, joined them. On 24 Sept. 1326 Isabella and her followers landed at Orwell in Suffolk, and received, immiediately on landing, such support as insured her triumph.

Edward meanwhile had made frantic and futile efforts in self-defence; but his parliaments and councils would give him no aid, his followers deserted him, and the armies he summoned never assembled. In August (1326) he was at Clarendon, Porchester, and Romsey, whence he returned to London, and took up his abode in the Tower. On 27 Sept. he received in London the news of Isabella's arrival. He had in previous times made efforts to conciliate the Londoners, but it was all in vain. On 2 Oct. he fled westwards with the chancellor Baldock and the younger Despenser, doubtless with the object of taking refuge on his favourite's estates in South Wales, and relying with too great rashness on the promise of the Welsh and his popularity with them (T. de la. Moor, p. 309). On 10 and 11 Oct. he was at Gloucester, whence he issued an abortive summons of the neighbourhood to arms. Next day he was at Westbury-on-Severn, in the Forest of Dean. On 14 Oct. he was at Tintern, and from 16 to 21 Oct. at Chepstow (Parl. Writs, II. i. 451-452), whence he despatched the elder Despenser to Bristol, where on 26 Oct. he met his fate. On the same day the proclamation of the Duke of Aquitaine as guardian of the realm showed that success had given the confederates wider hopes than the destruction of the Despensers and the avenging of Earl Thomas (F?dera, ii. 646).

Edward next made an attempt to take ship for Lundy, whither he had already sent supplies as to a safe refuge; but contrary winds prevented his landing (T. de la Moor, p. 309), and he again disembarked in Glamorgan. On 27 and 28 Oct. he was at Cardiff. On 28 and 29 Oct. he was at Caerphilly, still issuing from both places writs of summons and commissions of array (F?dera, ii. 646; Parl. Writs, II. i 453). Between 5 and 10 Nov. he was at Neath beseeching the men of Gower to come to his aid (Parl. Writs, II. i. 454) On 10 Nov. he sent the abbot of Neath ana others to negotiate with the queen. Meanwhile Henry of Lancaster and Rhys ap Howel, a Welsh clerk newly released from tne Tower by the queen, were specially despatched to effect his capture. Bribes and spies soon made his retreat known. On 16 Nov. the king and all his party fell into the hands of the enemy, and were conducted to the castle of Llantrissaint (Ann, Paul p. 319; Knighton, c. 2545, says they were captured at Neath). On 20 Nov. Baldock and the younger Despenser were handed over to the queen at Hereford, where they were speedily executed. On the same day Edward, who had been retained in the custody of Lancaster, was compelled to surrender the great seal to Bishop Adam of Orlton at Monmouth (F?dera, ii. 646). Edward was thence despatched to Kenilworth, where he remained the whole winter, still in Lancaster's custody, and treated honourably and generously by his magnanimous captor.

A parliament assembled at Westminster on 7 Jan. 1327. At Orlton's instigation the estates chose Edward, duke of Aquitaine, as their king. Bishop Stratford drew up six articles justifying Edward's deposition. But a formal resignation was thought desirable by the queen's advisers. Two efforts were made to persuade Edward to meet the parliament (Parl. Writs, II. i. 457; Lanercost p. 257), but on his resolute refusal a committee of the bishops, barons, and judges was sent to Kenilworth. On 20 Jan. Edward, clothed in black, gave them audience. At first he fainted, but, recovering himself, he listened with tears and groans to an address of Orlton's. Then Sir W. Trussell, as proctor of parliament, renounced homage to him, and Sir T. Blount, the steward of the household, broke his staff of office. Edward now spoke, lamenting his ill-fortune and his trust in traitorous counsellors, but rejoicing that his son would now be king (Knighton, c. 2550). The deputation then departed, and Edward Il's reign was at an end.

The deposed king remained at Kenilworth until the spring, on the whole patiently bearing his sufferings, but complaining bitterly of his separation from his wife and children. Some curious verses are preserved which are said to have been written by him (they are given in Latin in Fabian, p. 185, but the French original is given in a manuscript at Longleat, Hist MSS, Commission 3rd Rep. 180). The government of Isabella and Mortimer was, however, too insecure to allow Edward to remain alive and a possible instrument of their degradation. He was transferred at the suggestion of Orlton from the mild custody of his cousin to that of two knights, Thomas de Gournay and John Maltravers, who on 3 April removed him by night from Kenilworth. Such secrecy enveloped his subsequent movements that very different accounts of them have been preserved. Sir T. de la Moor (pp. 315-19), who has preserved the most circumstantial narrative (but cf. Archæologia, xxvii. 274, 297), says he was taken first to Corfe Castle and thence to Bristol. But on his whereabouts becoming known some of the citizens formed a plot for his liberation, whereupon he was secretly conducted by night to Berkeley. Murimuth (pp. 53-5) gives a rather different account of his wanderings, but brings him ultimately to Berkeley. The new gaolers now inflicted every possible indignity upon Edward, and entered on a systematic course of ill-treatment which could have but one end. He was denied sufficient food and clothing, he was prevented from, sleeping, he was crowned with a crown of hay, and shaved by the roadside with ditch water. Yet the queen reproved the guards for their mild treatment. At last Thomas of Berkeley was removed from his own castle, so that the inhumanity of the gaolers should be deprived of its last restraint . Edward was now removed to a pestilential chamber over a charnel-house in the hope that he would die of disease; but as his robust constitution still prevailed, he was barbarously murdered in his bed on 21 Sept. His dying shrieks, resounding throughout the castle, sufficiently attested the horror of his end. It was given out that he had died a natural death, and his body was exposed to view as evidence of his end ('Documents relating to the Death and Burial of Edward II,' by S. A. Moore, in Archæologia, l. 215-226). At last it was buried with considerable pomp in the abbey of St. Peter at Gloucester, now the cathedral (ib.) In after years his son erected a tomb over his remains, which is one of the glories of mediæval sculpture and decorative tabernacle work (Archæol. Journ, xvii. 297-310). His misfortunes had so far caused his errors to be forgotten, that it was much debated by the people whether, like Thomas of Lancaster, he had not merited the honour of sanctity (Knighton, c. 2551). The Welsh, among whom he was always popular, kept green the memory of his fate by mournful dirges in their native tongue (Walsingham, i. 83).

Edward's death was so mysterious that rumours were soon spread by the foes of the government that he was still alive. For believing such rumours Edmund of Kent incurred the penalties of treason in 1328. In the next generation a circumstantial story was repeated that Edward had escaped from Berkeley, and after long wanderings in Ireland, England, the Low Countries, and France, ended his life in a hermit's cell in Lombardy (letter of Manuel Fieschi to Edward III from Cartulary of Maguelone in No. 37 of the Publications de la Société Archéologique de Montpellier (1878); cf. article of Mr. Bent in Macmillan's Magazine, xli. 393-4, Notes and Queries, 6th series, ii. 381, 401, 489, and Stubbs, Chron. Edw. I and II, ii. ciii-cviii).

Edward's family by his wife consisted of (1) Edward of Windsor, born at Windsor on 13 Nov, 1312, who succeeded him [see Edward III]; (2) John of Eltham, born at Eltham; (3) Eleanor, also called Isabella (Ann. Paul. p. 283), born at Woodstock on 8 June 1318, and married in 1332 to Reginald, count of Guelderland; (4) Joan of the Tower, born in that fortress in July 1321, married in 1328 to David, son of Robert Bruce, and afterwards king of Scots; she was dead in 1357 (Sandford, Genealogical History, pp. 145-56).

[Some of the best authorities for Edward II's life and reign are collectod by Dr. Stubbs in his Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I and Edward II in the Rolls Series, with vary valuable prefaces. They include the short and incomplete biography by Sir T. de la Moor, and also the Annales Paulini. Annales Londinienses, and the Lives by the Monk of Malmesbury and canon of Bridlington. Other chroniclers are A. Muirmuth and W. of Hemingburgh (Engl. Hist. Soc.), the continuator of Trivet (ed. Hall). 1722, the Annals of Lanercost and Scalachronica (Bannatyne Club), Henry of Knighton in Twysden's Decora Scriptores, Higden's Polychronicon. Trokelowe (Rolls Ser.), Blaneford (Rolls Ser.). Walsingham(Rolls Ser.) The chief published original documents are those collected in Rymer's F?dera, vol. ii. Record edition. Parliamentary Writs, vol. ii. and the Rolls of Parliament, vol. i. The Rev. C. H. Hartshorne has published an itinerary of Edward II in Collectanea Archæologica, i. 118-44, British Arch. Association. The best modern accounts of the reign are in Scubbs's Const. Hist vol. ii. and Pauli's Geschichte von England, vol. iv.]

T. F. T.
Edward II King of England (I10780)
229 EDWARD III (1312-1377), king, eldest son of Edward II and Isabella, daughter of Philip IV of France, was born at Windsor Castle on 13 Nov. 1312, and was baptised on the 16th. His uncle, Prince Lewis of France, and other Frenchmen at the court wished that he should be named Lewis, but the English lords would not allow it. The king, who is said to have been consoled by his birth for the loss of Gaveston (Trokelowe, p. 79), gave him the counties of Chester and Flint, and be was summoned to parliament as Earl of Chester in 1320. He never bore the title of Prince of Wales. His tutor was Richard de Bury [q. v.]. afterwards bishop of Durham. In order to avoid doing homage to Charles IV of France the king transferred the county of Ponthieu to him on 2 Sept, 1321, and the dutchy of Aquitaine on the lOth (F?dera, ii. 607,608). He sailed from Dover on the 12th, joined his mother in France, and did homage to his uncle for his French fiefs (Cont. Will. of Nanges, ii. 60). He accompanied his mother to Hainault, and visited the court of Count William at Valenciennes in the summer of 1326 (Froissart, i. 23, 233). Isabella entered into an agreement on 27 Aug. to forward the marriage of her son to Philippa. the count's daughter (Froissart, ed. Luce, Pref. cl). Edward landed with his mother and the force of Hainaulters and others that she had engaged to help her on 27 Sept. at Colvasse, near Harwich, and accompanied her on her march towards London by Bury St. Edmunds, Cambridge, and Dunstable. Then, hearing that the king had left London, the queen turned westwards, and at Oxford Edward heard Bishop Orlton preach his treasonable sermon [see under Adam of Orlton. From Oxford he was taken to Wallingford and Gloucester, where the queen's army was joined by many lords. Thence the queen marched to Berkeley, and on 26 Oct. to Bristol. The town was surrendered to her, and the next day Hugh Despenser the elder [q. v.] was put to death, and Edward was proclaimed guardian of the kingdom in the name of his father and during his absence (F?dera, ii. 646). On the 28th he issued writs for a parliament in the king's name. When the parliament met at Westminster on 7 Jan. 1327 the king was a prisoner, and an oath was taken by tbe prelates and lords to uphold the cause of the queen and her son. On the 13th Orlton demanded whether they would have the king or his son to reign over them. The next day Edward was chosen, and was presented to the people in Westminster Hall (W. Dene, Anglia Sacra, i. 367; for fuller accounts of this revolution see Stubbs, Chron. of Edwards I and II, vol. ii. Introd., and Const. Hist. ii. 358 sq.) As Edward declared that he would not accept the crown without his father's consent, the king was forced to agree to his own deposition.

The new king's peace was proclaimed on 24 Jan.; he was knighted by his cousin Henry, earl of Lancaster, and was crowned on Sunday, the 29th (F?dera, ii. 684). He met his parliament on 3 Feb.: a council was appointed for him, and the chief member of it was Lancaster, who was the young king's nominal guardian. All real power, however, was in the hands of the queen and Mortimer, and for the next four years Edward was entirely governed by them (Avesbury, p. 7). Isabella obtained so enormous a settlement that the king was left with only a third of the revenues of the crown (Murimuth, p. 53). Peace was made with France on 31 March; both kings were to restore whatever had been seized during time of peace, and Edward bound himself to pay fifty thousand marks to the French king (F?dera, ii. 700). Although negotiations were on foot for a permanent peace with Scotland, both countries prepared for war, and on 5 April the king ordered all who owed him service to meet at Newcastle on 29 May (ib. 702). He marched with his mother to York, where he was joined by Sir John of Hainault and a body of Flemish. While he was holding a feast on Trinity Sunday a fierce quarrel broke out between the Hainaulters and the English archers, in which many were slain on both sides (Jehan le Bel, i. 39; Froissart, i. 45). The truce was actually broken by the Scots, who invaded the northern counties under Randolph, earl of Moray, and Douglas. Edward marched from York to Durham without gaining any tidings of the enemy, though he everywhere beheld signs of the devastation they had wrought. He crossed the Tyne, hoping to intercept the Scots on their return. After remaining a week on the left bank of the river without finding the enemy, he ordered his troops, who had suffered much from constant rain, to recross the river. At last an esquire named Thomas Rokesby brought him news of the enemy and led the army to the place where they were encamped, a service for which the king knighted him and gave him 100l. a year (F?dera. ii. 717). The Scots, twenty-four thousand in number, occupied so strong a position on the right bank of the Wear that Edward, though at the head of sixty-two thousand men, did not dare to cross the river and attack them. It was therefore decided, as they seemed to be cut off from returning to their country, to starve them into leaving their position and giving battle. Early in the morning of the fourth day it was discovered that they had decamped. Edward followed them and found them even more strongly posted than before at Stanhope Park. Again the English encamped in front of them, and the first night after Edward's arrival Douglas, at the head of a small party, surprised the camp, penetrated to the King's tent, cut some of the cords, and led his men back with little loss (Bridlington, p. 96; Jehan le Bel, i. 67; Froissart, i. 08, 279). After the two armies had faced each other for fifteen days or more the Scots again decamped by night, and Edward gave up all hope of cutting off their retreat or forcing them to fight, his army was unable to move with the same rapidity as the Scots, who were unencumbered with baggage; he was altogether outmanoeuvred, and led his troops back to York, much chagrined with the ill success of his first military enterprise. He had to pay 14,000l. to Sir John of Hainault for his help (F?dera, ii. 708); he raised money from the Bardi, Florentine bankers (ib. 712), received a twentieth from the parliament that met at Lincoln on 15 Sept., and a tenth from the clergy of Canterbury (Knighton, c. 2552). The king s father was put to death on 21 Sept. On 15 Aug. Edward wrote from York to John XXII for a dispensation for his marriage with Philippa of Hainault, for his mother and the Countess of Hainault were both grand-children of Philip III of France (F?dera, ii. 712). The dispensation was granted; Philippa arrived in London on 24 Dec, and the marriage was performed at York on 24 Jan. 1328 by William Melton, archbishop of York, the king being then little more than fifteen, and his bride still younger. At the parliament held at York on 1 March peace was made with Scotland, and the treaty was confirmed in the parliament which met at Northampton on 24 April. By this treaty Edward gave up all claims over the Scottish kingdom; a marriage was arranged between his sister Joan and David, the heir of King Robert; a perpetual alliance was made between the two Kingdoms, saving the alliance between Scotland and France, and the Scottish king bound himself to pay Edward 20,000l. (4 May, ib. pp. 734, 740). The treaty was held to be the work of Isabella and Mortimer, and was generally condemned in England as shameful (Avesbury, p. 7; Walsinqham, i. 192). Isabella seems to have got hold of a large part of the money paid by the Scottish king (F?dera, ii. 770, 785). Edward now sent two representatives to Paris to state his claim to the French throne, vacant by the death of Charles IV. He claimed as the heir of Philip IV, through his mother, Isabella. By the so-called Salic law Isabella and her heirs were barred from the succession, and even supposing that, though females were barred, they had nevertheless been held capable of transmitting a right to the throne, Charles of Evreux, the son of Jeanne of Navarre, daughter of Philip IV, would have had at least as good a claim as Edward. The throne was adjudged to Philip of Valois, son of a younger brother of Philip IV. The insolence and rapacity of the queen-mother and Mortimer gave deep offence to the nobles, and the nation generally was scandalised at the connection that was said to exist between them and enraged at the dishonourable peace with Scotland. Lancaster, the head of the party which held to the policy of the 'ordainers' of the last reign, and the chief lord of the council, was denied access to the king, and found himself virtually powerless. He determined to make a stand against the tyranny of the favourite, and, hearing that Mortimer had come up to the parliament at Salisbury on 24 Oct. with an armed retinue, declared that he would not attend, and remained at Winchester under arms with some of his party. His action was upheld by the king's uncles, the Earls of Kent and Norfolk, by Stratford, bishop of Winchester, and others. Edward was forced to adjourn the parliament till the following February, and Mortimer wished him to march at once to Winchester against the earl. Shortly afterwards the king rode with Mortimer and the queen to ravage the earl's lands (W. Dene, Anglia Sacra, i. 309:Knighton, c. 2557). Lancaster made a confederation against the favourite at London on 2 Jan. 1329 (Barnes, p. 31), and marched with a considerable force to Bedford in the hope of meeting him. Meanwhile his town of Leicester was surrendered to Mortimer and the queen, and before long Kent and Norfolk withdrew from him. Peace was made between the two parties by Mepeham, archbishop of Canterbury, and Lord Beaumont and some other followers of the earl were forced to take shelter in France.

Early in February messengers came from Philip Vl of France to Edward at Windsor, bidding him come and do homage for his French fiefs. He had received a like summons the year before, and now he laid the matter before the magnates assembled in parliament at Westminster. When they decided that he should obey the summons he appointed a proctor to declare that his homage did not prejudice his claim to the French crown. On 20 May he sailed from Dover, leaving his brother John, earl of Cornwall, as guardian of the kingdom (F?dera, ii. 763, 764). He landed at Whitsand,and thence went to Boulogne, and so to Montreuil, where Philip's messengers met him and conducted him to Amiens. There Philip awaited him with the kings of Bohemia, Navarre, and Majorca, and many princes and lords whom he had invited to witness the ceremony. The homage was done in the choir of Amiens Cathedral on 6 June, but the ceremony could scarcely have pleased Philip, for Edward appeared in a robe of crimson velvet worked with leopards in gold and wearing his crown, sword, and spurs. Philip demanded liege homage, which was done bareheaded and with ungirt sword. Edward refused this, and he was forced to accept general homage on Edward's promise that on his return he would search the records of his kingdom, and if liege homage was due would send over an acknowledgment by letters patent. Then Edward demanded restitution of certain lands that had been taken from his father. To this Philip answered that they had been taken in war (meaning that they did not come under the terms of the treaty of 1327), and that if Edward had any cause of complaint he should bring it before the parliament of Paris (ib, p. 765; Cont. Will, of Nangis, ii. 107). Edward returned to England on the 11th, well pleased with his visit and the honour that had been done him, and at once proposed marriages between his sister Eleanor and Philip's eldest son, and between his brother John and a daughter of Philip (ib, pp. 766, 777); but these proposals came to naught. Meanwhile Mortimer and Isabella had not forgiven the attempt that had been made against them, and Mortimer is said to have contrived a scheme which enabled him to accuse the Earl of Kent of treason [for particulars see under Edmund of Woodstock], The earl was tried by his peers, unjustly condemned, and put to death on 19 March 1330, Isabella and Mortimer hastening on his execution for fear that the king might interfere to prevent it, and, as it seems, giving the order for it without the king's knowledge (Knighton, c. 2557; Barnes, p. 41). On 4 March Queen Philippa was crowned, and on 15 June she bore Edward his first-born child, Edward, afterwards called the Black Prince [q. v.] The birth of his son seems to have determined Edward to free himself from the thraldom in which he was kept by his mother and her favourite. When parliament met at Nottingham in October, Isabella and Mortimer took up their abode in the castle, which was closely kept. The king consulted with some of his friends, and especially with William Montacute, how they might seize Mortimer. They, and the king with them, entered the castle by night through an underground passage and seized Mortimer and some of his party. He was taken to London, condemned without trial by his peers as notoriously guilty of several treasonable acts, and particularly of the death of the late king, and hanged on 29 Nov. By the king's command the lords passed sentence on Sir Simon Bereford, one of Mortimer's abettors, though they were not his peers, and he also was hanged. A pension was allotted to the queen-mother, and she was kept until her death in a kind of honourable confinement at Castle Rising in Norfolk, where the king visited her every year.

The overthrow of Mortimer made Edward at the age of eighteen a king in fact as well as in name. In person he was graceful, and his face was 'as the face of a god' (Cont, Murimuth, p. 226). His manners were courtly and his voice winning. He was strong and active, and loved hunting, hawking, tne practice of knightly exercises, and, above all, war itself. Considerable care must have been spent on his education, for he certainly spoke English as well as French(Froissart, i. 266 sq., 306, 324, 360, iv. 290, 326), and evidently understood German. He was fearless in battle, and, though over-fond of pleasure, was until his later years energetic in all his undertakings. Although according to modern notions his ambition is to be reckoned a grave defect in his character, it seemed in his day a kingly quality. Nor were his wars undertaken without cause, or indeed, according to the ideas of the time, without ample justification. His attempts to bring Scotland under his power were at first merely a continuation of an inherited policy that it would have been held shameful to repudiate, and later were forced upon him by tne alliance between that country and France. And the French war was in the first instance provoked by the aggressions of Philip, though Edward's assumption of the title of king of France, a measure of political expediency, rendered peace impossible. He was liberal in his gifts, magnificent in his doings, profuse in his expenditure, and, though not boastful, inordinately ostentatious. No sense of duty beyond what was then held to become a knight influenced his conduct. While he was not wantonly cruel he was hard-hearted; his private life was immoral, and his old age was dishonoured by indulgence in a shameful passion. As a king he had no settled principles of constitutional policy. Regarding his kingship mainly as the means of raising the money he needed for his wars and his pleasures, he neither strove to preserve prerogatives as the just rights of the crown, nor yielded anything out of consideration for the rights or welfare of his subjects. Although the early glories of his reign were greeted with applause, he never won the love of his people; they groaned under the effects of his extravagance, and fled at his coming lest his officers should seize their goods. His commercial policy was enlightened, and has won him the title of the 'father of English commerce' (Hallam, Const Hist. iii. 321), but it was mainly inspired by selfish motives, and he never scrupled to sacrifice the interests of the English merchants to obtain a supply of money or secure an ally. In foreign politics he showed genius; his alliances were well devised and skilfully obtained, but he seems to have expected more from his allies than they were likely to do for him, for England still stood so far apart from continental affairs that her alliance was not of much practical importance, except commercially. As a leader in war Edward could order a battle and inspire his army with his own confidence, but he could not plan a campaign; he was rash, and left too much to chance. During the first part of his reign he paid much attention to naval administration; he successfully asserted the maritime supremacy of the country, and was entitled by parliament the 'king of the sea' (Rot. Parl. ii. 311); he neglected the navy in his later years. Little as the nation owed him in otter respects, his achievements by sea and land made the English name respected. Apart from the story of these acts the chief interest of the reign is foreign to the purpose of a biographical sketch; it consists in the transition that it witnessed from mediæval to modern systems and ideas (Stubbs, Const. Hist. ii. 375, which should be consulted for an estimate of Edward's character). Parliament adopted its present division into two houses, and in various points gradually gained on the prerogative. In church matters, papal usurpations were met by direct and decisive legislation, an anti-clerical party appeared, the wealth of the church was attached, and a protest was made against clerical administration. As regrds jurisdiction, the reign saw a separation between the judicial work of the council and of the chancellor, who now began to act as an independent judge of equity. Chivalry, already decaying, and feudalism, already long decayed, received a deathblow from the use of gunpowder. Other and wider social changes followed the 'great pestilence' ? an increase in the importance of capital in trade and the rise of journeymen as a distinct class, the rapid overthrow of villenage, and the appearance of tenant-farmers and paid farm labourers as distinct classes. These and many more changes, which cannot be discussed in a narrative of the king's life, mark the reign as a period in which old things were passing away and the England of our own day began to be formed.

In spite of the treaty of 1327 matters remained unsettled between the kings of England and France; Philip delayed the promised restitutions and disturbed Edward's possessions in Aquitaine. Saintes was taken by the Duke of Alençon in 1329, and Edward in consequence applied to parliament for a subsidy in case of war. On 1 May 1330 negotiations were concluded at Bois-de-Vincennes, but the question of the nature of the homage was left unsettled by Edward (F?dera, ii. 791), who was summoned to do liege homage on 29 July and did not attend (ib. p. 797). When, however, he became his own master, he adopted a wiser policy, and on 31 March 1331 acknowledged that he held the duchy of Guyenne and the county of Ponthieu by liege homage as a peer of France (ib. p. 813). On Mortimer's downfall he appointed two of the Lancastrian party as his chief ministers, Archbishop Melton as treasurer, and Stratford as chancellor. He now crossed to France with Stratford and a few companions disguised as merchants, pretending, as he caused to be proclaimed in London, that he was about to perform a vow (ib, p. 815), for he feared that his people would believe, as in fact they did, that he was gone to do liege homage (Hemingburgh, ii. 303). He embarked on 4 April. While he was in France Philip accepted his acknowledgment as to the homage, and promised to restore Saintes and to pay damages (ib. p. 816). Edward returned on the 20th, and celeorated his return by tournaments at Dartford in Kent and in Cheapside (Avesbury, p. 10). The restitution of Agenois, however, remained unsettled, and in the parliament of 30 Sept. the chancellor asked the estates whether the matter should be settled by war or negotiation, and they declared for negotiation (Rot. Parl. ii. 61). The king was advised to visit Ireland, where the royal interest had begun to decline, but the matter was deferred. Lawlessness had broken out in the northern counties, and he had to take active measures against some outlaws who had seized and put to ransom his chief justice. Sir Richard Willoughby, near Grantham (Knighton, c. 2559). Early in 1332 he invited Flemish weavers to settle in England in order to teach the manufacture of fine cloth; for the prosperity of the kingdom largely depended on its wool, and the crown drew much revenue from the trade in it. The foreign workmen were at first regarded with much dislike, but the king protected them, and they greatly improved the woollen manufacture. Edward received an invitation from Philip to join him in a crusade, and though willing to agree put the matter off for three years at the request of the parliament which met 16 March. On 25 June he laid a tallage on his demesne. In order to avoid this unconstitutional measure the parliament of 9 Sept. granted him a subsidy, and in return he recalled his order and promised not to levy tallage save as his ancestors had done and according to his right (Rot. Parl. ii. 66). Meanwhile Lord Beaumont brought Edward Baliol [q . v.] to England, and Baliol offered to do the king homage if he would place him on the Scottish throne. Edward refused, and even ordered that he and his party should be prevented from crossing the marches, declaring that he would respect the treaty of Northampton (F?dera, ii. 843), for he was bound to pay 20,000l. to the pope if he broke it. Nevertheless he dealt subtly. Baliol was crowned on 24 Sept. in opposition to the young king David II, and on 23 Nov. declared at Roxburgh that he owed his crown to the help given him by Edward's subjects and allowed by Edward, and that he was his liegeman, and promised him the town of Berwick, and offered to marry his sister Joan, David's queen (ib. p. 847). Edward summoned a parliament to meet at York on 4 Dec. to advise him what policy he should pursue; few attended, and it was adjourned to 20 Jan. Meanwhile Baliol lost his kingdom and fled into England.

The parliament advised Edward to write to the pope and the French king, declaring that the Scots had broken the treaty. This they seem actually to have done on 21 March by a raid on Gilsland in Cumberland (Hemingburgh, ii. 307). The raid was revenged; Sir William Douglas was taken, and Edward, who was then at Pontefract waiting for his army to assemble, ordered that he should be kept in fetters (F?dera, ii. 856). On 23 April Edward laid siege to Berwick. The garrison promised to surrender if not relieved by a certain day, and gave hostages. Sir Archibald Douglas attempted to relieve the town, and some of his men entered it; he then led his force to plunder Northumberland. The garrison refused to surrender on the ground that they had received succour, and Edward hanged one of the hostages, the son of Sir Thomas Seton, before the town (Bridlington, p. 113; Fordun, iv. 1022; Hailes, iii. 96 sq.) Douglas now recrossed the Tweed, came to the relief of Berwick, and encamped at Dunsepark on 18 July. Edward occupied Halidon Hill, to the west of the town, his army was in great danger, and was hemmed in by the sea, the Tweed, the garrison of Berwick, and the Scottish host, which far outnumbered the English (Hemingburgh, ii. 309). On the 20th he drew up his men in four battles, placing his archers on the wings of each; all fought on foot, and he himself in the van. The English archers began the fight; the Scots fell in great numbers, and others fled; the rest charged up the hill and engaged the enemy hand to hand. They were defeated with tremendous loss; many nobles were slain, and it was commonly said in England that the war was over, for that there was not a Scot left to raise a force or lead it to battle (Murimuth,p. 71). Edward ordered a general thanksgiving for this victory (F?dera ii. 866). Berwick was at once surrendered, and he offered privileges to English merchants and others who would colonise it. He received the homage of the Earl of March and other lords, and, having restored Baliol to the throne, returned southwards and visited several shrines, especially in Essex. In November he moved northwards, and kept Christmas at York. He was highly displeased with the pope for appointing Adam of Orlton by provision to the see of Winchester at the request of the French king. In February 1334 he received Baliols surrender of all Scotland comprised in the ancient district of Lothian. On the 21st he held a parliament at York, and agreed that purveyance, a prerogative that pressed sorely on the people, should only be made on behalf of the king (Rot. Parl. ii. 378). He kept Whitsuntide at Newcastle, and there on 12 June Baliol renewed his concessions and did homage (F?dera, ii. 888). Edward, after appointing officers to administer the government in Lothian, returned to Windsor. On 10 July he held a council at Nottingham, where he again spoke of the proposed crusade, for he believed that matters were now settled with Scotland. A parliament was summoned, and when it met on 24 Sept. Baliol had again been expelled. The king obtained a grant, and about 1 Nov. marched into Scotland. Just before he started Robert of Artois, who had a bitter quarrel with King Philip, sought refuge at his court; he received him with honour, and Robert never ceased to stir him up against the French king. Edward passed through Lothian without meeting opposition, again restored Baliol, and spent Christmas at Roxburgh. At mid-Lent 1335 he gave audience at Gedling, near Nottingham, to ambassadors from Philip sent to urge him to make peace with Scotland; he refused, but granted a truce (ib. ii. 903). In July he entered Scotland by Carlisle, marched to Glasgow, was joined by Baliol, proceeded to Perth, ravaged the north, and returned to Perth, where on 18 Aug. he received the submission of the Earl of Atholl, whom he left governor under Baliol. Both Philip and Benedict XII, who was wholly under Philip's control, were now pressing him to make peace. The Scots were helped by money from France, and their ships were fitted out in French ports (ib. p. 911); an invasion was expected in August, and captains were appointed to command the Londoners in case it took place (ib. p. 917). The king's son, the young Earl of Chester, was sent to Nottingham Castle for safety, and the Isle of Wight and the Channel islands were fortified (ib, p. 919). Edward's seneschals in Aquitaine were also aggrieved by the French king. On 23 Nov. Edward made a truce with his enemies in Scotland, which was prolonged at the request of the pope (ib. pp. 926, 928). He spent Christmas at Newcastle. The party of Bruce, however, gained strength, Atholl was surprised and slain, and before the end of the year Baliol's cause was again depressed. Edward, who had returned to the south in February, on 7 April appointed Henry of Lancaster to command an army against the Scots (ib. p. 936), and in June entered Scotland himself with a large force, marched to Perth, and then by Dunkeld, through Atholl and Moray to Elgin and Inverness, ravaging as he went. The regent, Sir Andrew Murray, refused to give him battle, and, leaving a garrison in Perth and a fleet in the Forth, he returned to England. Meanwhile Philip expelled Edward's seneschals from Agenois, and in August openly declared that he should help the Scots (ib, p. 944). On the 16th Edward, hearing that ships were being fitted out in Norman and Breton ports to act against England, bade his admirals put to sea, reminding them that his 'progenitors, kings of England, had been lords of the English sea on every side,' and that he would not allow his honour to be diminished (Nicolas, Royal Navy, ii. 17). Some of these ships attacked certain English ships off the Isle of Wight and carried off prizes. War with France now seemed certain, and the parliament that met at Nottingham on 6 Sept. granted the king a tenth and a fifteenth, besides the subsidy of the same amount granted in March, together with 40s. a sack on wool exported by denizens and 60s. from aliens. A body of merchants was specially summoned by the king to this parliament, probably in order to obtain their consent to the custom on wool (Const. Hist. ii. 379). Moreover, Edward seized all the money laid up in the cathedral churches for the crusade. In March 1337 the exportation of wool was forbidden by statute until the king and council should determine what should be done. A heavy custom was laid on the sack and woolfells by ordinance, an unconstitutional act, though to some extent sanctioned by parliament (ib. p. 526). The importation of cloth was also forbidden by statute, but foreign workmen were encouraged to settle here.

Edward now set about forming alliances in order to hem Philip in on the north and east, and sent Montacute, whom he created Earl of Salisbury, and others to make alliance with foreign powers, giving them authority, in spite of the interests of the English merchants, to make arrangements about the wool trade (ib. p. 966; Longman, i. lO8). Lewis, count of Flanders, was inclined to the French alliance, but his people knew their own interest better, for their wealth depended on English wool, and the year before, when the count had arrested English merchants, the king had seized all their merchants and ships (F?dera, ii. 948). James van Artevelde, a rich and highly connected citizen of Ghent, and the leader of the Flemish traders who were opposed to the count, entered into negotiations with Edward and procured him the alliance of Ghent, Bruges, Ypres, and Cassel (Jehan le Bel, p. 1327; Froissart,i. 394). Edward also gained the Duke of Brabant as an ally by permitting staples for wool to be set up in Brussels, Mechlin, and Louvain (F?dera, p. 959), and made treaties for supplies of troops with his brothers-in-law the Count of Gueldres and the margrave of Juliers, and his father-in-law the Count of Hainault (ib. p. 970). Further, he negotiated with the Count Palatine about his appointment as imperial vicar, and on 26 Aug. made a treaty for the hire of troops with the Emperor Lewis of Bavaria (ib, p. 991). This highly displeased Benedict XII, who was at deadly feud with Lewis, and was besides quite in the hands of Philip, and he remonstrated with Edward, who replied courteously but without giving way. Edward tried hard to gain the Count of Flanders, and proposed a marriage between the count's son and his little daughter Joan (ib. pp. 967, 998), though at the same time he offered her to Otto, duke of Austria, for his son (ib. p. 1001). In March the French burnt Portsmouth and ravaged Guernsey and Jersey (ib. p. 989; Nicolas). The king made great preparations for war; on 1 July he took all the property of the alien priories into his own hands; pawned his jewels, and in order to interest his people in his cause issued a schedule of the offers of peace he had made to Philip, which he ordered should be read in all county courts (F?dera, p. 994). On 7 Oct. he wrote letters to his allies, styling himself 'king of France' (ib. p. 1001). Count Lewis, who was now expelled from Flanders by his subjects, kept a garrison at Cadsand under his brother Sir Guy, the bastard of Flanders, which tried to intercept the king's ambassadors and did harm to his allies the Flemings. Edward declared he 'would soon settle that business,' and sent a fleet under Sir Walter Manny and Henry of Lancaster, earl of Derby, against it. They gained a complete victory on 10 Nov., and brought back Sir Guy prisoner. Then two cardinals came to England to make peace, and Edward promised that he would not invade France until 1 March 1338, and afterwards extended the term (ib, pp. 1009, 1014).

Philip, however, continued his aggressions on the king's French dominions, and war became imminent. In February parliament granted the king half the wool of the kingdom, twenty thousand sacks, to be delivered at Antwerp, where he hoped to sell it well, and on 16 July he sailed from Orwell in Suffolk with two hundred large ships for Antwerp, for he intended to invade France from that side in company with his allies. He found that they were by no means ready to act with him, the princes who held of the emperor being unwilling to act without his direct sanction, and he remained for some time in enforced inactivity, spending large sums on the pay of his army, and keeping much state at the monastery of St. Bernard at Antwerp. Meanwhile some French and Spanish galleys sacked Southampton and captured some English ships, and among them the 'cog' Christopher, the largest of the king's vessels (Cont. Will, of Nangis; Minot, Political Songs, i. 64 sq.) At last on 5 Sept. a meeting took place between Edward and the emperor at Coblentz. The interview was held in the market-place with much magnificence (Knighton, c. 2571; Froissart, i. 425). Lewis appointed Edward imperial vicar, and expected him to kiss his foot, which he refused to do on the ground that he was 'an anointed king' (Walsingham, i. 223). Edward now held courts at Arques and other places, heard causes as the emperor's representative, and received homages. Still his allies did not move, though they agreed to recover Cambray for the empire in the following summer. Influenced probably by the pope's remonstrances (ib. i. 208 seq.), Edward in October sent ambassadors to treat with Philip, and though he at first forbade them to address Philip as king, he afterwards allowed them to do so, probably at Benedict's request (F?dera, ii. 1066, 1068). Nothing came of their mission. In 1339 he was in want of money, pawned his crowns, and borrowed fifty-four thousand florins of three burghers of Mechlin (ib. pp. 1073, 1085). After many delays he and his allies laid siege to Cambray (cannon are said to have been used by the besieging army, Nicolas, Royal Navy, i. 184; it is also said by Barbour, iii. 136, ed. Pinkerton, that 'crakys of war' had been used by Edward in Scotland in 1327; this, however, is highly doubtful, Brackenbury, Ancient Cannon in Europe, pt. i.) Finding Cambray difficult to take, the allies gave up the siege, and in October Edward crossed the Scheldt into France. On coming to the river he was left by the Counts of Namur and Hainault, who held of the French crown. He pillaged Vermandois, and advanced to La Flamengrie. Here he was confronted by Philip, and sent a herald to demand battle. Philip appointed a day, and he drew up his army with much skill in a strong position, placing the horses and baggage in a wood at his rear, and commanding the van in person on foot (Avesbury, p. 45). When the appointed day came, Philip would not attack him, though the French army was much stronger than his, and knowing that he could put but little confidence in his allies he led them back to Hainault, parted from them, and returned to Brussels. After entering into a close alliance with the Duke of Brabant and the cities of Brabant and Flanders, he spent Christmas at Antwerp with much pomp. Van Artevelde now pointed out that if he wanted the help of tne Flemings he must take the title of 'king of France,' which he had as yet only used incidentally, for he would then become their superior lord, and they would not incur a penalty which they had bound themselves to pay to the pope in case they made war on the king of France. This was insisted on by the Flemish cities and lords at a parliament at Brussels, and on 26 Jan. 1340 Edward assumed the title of king of France, and quartered the lilies of France with the leopards of England (Nicolas, Chronology, p. 318; Barnes, p. 155).

Meanwhile several attacks had been made on the English coast by French and Genoese ships; the war with Scotland still went on in a languid fashion, and the people, who saw no return for the sacrifices they had made for the French war, were getting tired of it. In the January parliament of this year the commons made their offer of supplies conditional on the acceptance of certain articles. This determined the king to return. His debts, however, now amounted to 30,000l., and his creditors wanted some security before they let him go. He left his queen behind, and further left the Earls of Derby and Salisbury and others as pledges that he would shortly return (Cont, Will, of Nangis, ii. 167). He landed at Orwell on 21 Feb. and held a parliament in March, which granted him large supplies for two years, and among them the ninth sheaf, fleece, and lamb, and 40s. on the sack of wool, while on his side certain statutes were framed to meet the complaints of the commons ? tallages were not to be levied by the king on his demesne; the assumption of the title of king of France was not to bring England into subjection to France; the crown was not to abuse its rights of purveyance, presentation to vacant benefices, and the like (Const Hist, ii. 382; Rot. Parl. ii. 113). After raising all the money he could, Edward was about to embark again, and was at Ipswich at Whitsuntide, when the chancellor, Stratford, who had been translated to the see of Canterbury in 1333, and his admiral. Sir John Morley, told him that 'they had news that the French fleet was in the Sluys waiting to intercept him, and begged him not to sail. 'I will go,' he said, 'and you who are afraid without cause may stay at home' (Avesbury, p. 55). He sailed in the cog Thomas on the 22nd, with about two hundred vessels, and was Joined by the northern squadron of about fifty sail under Morley. Next day off Blankenberg he saw the masts of the enemy's fleet in tne Sluys, and sent knights to reconnoitre from the coast. As after their return the tide did not serve, Edward did not attack that day, and prepared for battle about 11 a.m. on the 24th. The French fleet of 190 galleys and great barges was superior to his in strength (Jehan le Bel, i. 171), for many of his ships were small. Nineteen of their ships were the biggest that had ever been seen, and grandest of all was the Christopher that had been taken from the English. Edward's fleet seems to have been 'to the leeward and westward' of the enemy, and about noon he ordered his ships to sail on the starboard tack, so as to get tne wind, which presumably was north-east, and avoid having the sun in the faces of the archers. Then, having made their tack and got the wind, his ships entered the port and engaged just inside it. The French ships seem to have hugged the shore, and could not manoeuvre, for they were lashed together in four lines. All in three of the lines were taken or sunk, the Christopher and other English ships being retaken; the fourth line escaped in the darkness,for the battle lasted into the night. The king's victory was complete, and the naval power of France was destroyed (Nicolas, Royal Navy ii. 48 seq., 501, where references are given). Edward's campaign was futile. The last grant was not yet turned into money, and was already pledged, and the king wrote urgently for supplies (F?dera, ii. 1130). On 23 July he and his allies besieged Tournay, and on the 26th he wrote a letter to 'Philip of Valois' inviting him to meet him in single combat or with a hundred men each, and so to end the war. Philip answered that the letter was not addressed to him, and that he would drive him out of France at his own will(ib. p. 1131). The siege lasted eleven weeks. No money came to Edward; Robert of Artois was defeated at St. Omer; Philip had overrun a large part of Guyenne; and the Scots were gaining ground rapidly. On 25 Sept. a truce was made between England and France and Scotland, and the king dismissed his army. He was forced to leave the Earl of Derby in prison in Flanders for his debts (ib. p. 1143), and, after a stormy passage of three days, arrived unexpectedly at the Tower of London on the night of 30 Nov. (ib, p. 1141).

The next day Edward dismissed his chancellor, the Bishop of Chichester, brother of Archbishop Stratford, who had lately resigned the chancellorship, and his treasurer, and imprisoned several judges and others. This sudden move was caused by his irritation at not having received the supplies he needed, and by the influence of the archbishop's enemies, of whom some were opposed to clerical administration and others were jealous of him and belonged to a court party. The archbishop took refuge at Canterbury, and on 14 Dec. the king gave the great seal to Sir Robert Bourchier [q. v.], the first lay chancellor, and appointed a lay treasurer. He required Stratford to pay to the merchants of Louvain debts for which he had become surety on Edward's own behalf, declaring that otherwise he, the king, should have to go to prison, and summoned him to appear. Stratford replied by preaching irritating sermons and forbidding the clergy to pay the late grant. Edward on 12 Feb. 1341 put forth a letter or pamphlet, called the libellus famosus against Stratford, accusing the archbishop of urging him to undertake the war, and of having occasioned his failure before Tournay by retarding supplies, and containing much vague and unworthy abuse. Stratford's answer was dignified, and his case was strong, for it is pretty evident that the king's dissatisfaction with him was partly caused by his desire for peace. The king made a weak rejoinder. He had incited the Duke of Brabant to summon Stratford to answer in his court for the bonds into which he had entered; he wrote to Benedict XII against him, cited him to answer charges in the exchequer court, tried to prevent his taking his seat in the parliament of 23 April, and caused articles of accusation to be laid before the commons. Stratford declared that he would only answer for his conduct before his peers. The lords reported that this was their privilege, and thus secured it for their order. The king was checked, and on 7 May was reconciled to the archbishop (Birchington, p. 20 seq.; Avesbury, p. 71; Hemingburgh, ii. 363 seq.; F?dera ii. 1143, 1147, 1152; Const Hist. ii. 384; Collier, iii. 71). In return for help in collecting the grant of 1340 for this year, he conceded a statute providing that ministers should be appointed in parliament with the advice of his lords and counsellors, should be sworn in parliament, and should be liable to be called upon to answer for their actions. On 1 Oct., however, he issued letters annulling this statute and declaring openly that he had 'dissembled' in order to gain his purpose (F?dera, ii. 177). No parliament was summoned for two years after this shameful breach of faith. King David's cause was now prospering in Scotland, and in the autumn Edward marched northwards, intending to carry on the war on a large scale after Christmas (ib. ii. 1181). He is said to have relieved the castle of Wark, then besieged during a Scottish raid, and to have fallen in love with the Countess of Salisbury, who held it for her husband, then a captive in France, but she did not return his passion (Jehan le Bel, i. 266, Froissart, ii. 131, who both tell the story at considerable length). Jehan le Bel says that he afterwards violated the lady (ii. 131); Froissart indignantly denies this, but only in the late Amiens recension (iii. 293). Considerable doubt has been thrown upon the story because the countess was much older than the king, and because in May Edward made an agreement for the earl's release (F?dera, ii. 1193). The friendship that existed between the king and the earl would give a peculiarly dark character to Edward's crime if it was committed. It is possible that Jehan le Bel may have been mistaken as to the countess, but scarcely possible that Edward did not commit the crime of which he is accused upon some lady or other. The fleet which he ordered to meet him was damaged by a gale; Stirling and Edinburgh were taken by the Scots, and he made a truce at Newcastle. After spending Christmas at Melrose he returned to England. In the course of 1341 Lewis of Bavaria, who had repented of his alliance with him soon after he had made it, revoked his appointment as imperial vicar and allied himself with France. Edward's attempts to penetrate into France through Flanders had only involved him in debt, and his Flemish and German allies had failed to give him efficient help. Now a new way of attack was opened to him, for in September John of Montfort came to him offering to hold Brittany of him if he would help him against Charles of Blois, to whom the duchy had been adjudged (ib. ii. 1176). On 20 March 1342 Edward sent a force over to Brittany under Sir Walter Manny, and in October he landed in person at Brest (Knighton, c. 2582), laid siege to Vannes, Rennes, and Nantes, without taking any of them and ravaged the country. The Duke of Normandy, Philip's son, advanced against him with a much larger force, but did not dare to attack him, for he posted his troops well. Still John kept the king shut in a corner near Vannes while the Genoese and Spanish fleets intercepted ships bringing provisions from England, and both armies suffered considerably. On 19 Jan. 1343 a truce for three years was made at Ste.-Madeleine, near Vannes, by the intervention of Pope Clement VI, and Edward re-embarked. After a tempestuous voyage, which is said to have lasted five weeks (ib. c. 2583), he landed at Weymouth on 2 March (F?dera, ii. 1222). In the parliament of 28 April the commons petitioned, among other articles, that the merchants should not grant the tax of 40s, on the sack of wool without their consent, and that statutes might not be annulled, as after the last parliament held in 1341. In conjunction with the lords they also petitioned against the papal usurpation of appointing to benefices by provision. On 10 Sept. the king wrote to the pope against reservations and provisions, complaining that by their means the revenues of the church were given to foreigners, that the rights of patrons were defeated, and that the authority of the royal courts was diminished (Walsinqham, i 255). Moreover on 30 Jan. 1344 he ordered that all persons bringing bulls of provision into the Kingdom should be arrested (F?dera, iii. 2). In this month the king held a 'Round Table,' or tournament and feast, at Windsor with extraordinary magnificence, and vowed at the altar of the castle chapel that he would restore the 'Round Table' of Arthur. With this intention he built the round tower of the castle, and he afterwards fulfilled his vow by instituting the order of the Garter ({{sc|Murimuth, p. 154; Walsingham, i. 263; F?dera, iii. 6). Great preparations were made for renewing the war; for messengers came to him from Gascony representing the rapid increase of the French power there, and he was further moved by the news of the fate of the Breton lords who were put to death in Paris. Nevertheless on 6 Aug. he gave authority to ambassadors to treat for peace before Clement, as a private person, not as pope (F?dera, iii. 18, 19). In April 1345 he appointed Derby to command in Gascony; on 20 May he received at Lambeth the homage of John of Montfort, and on the 26th wrote to the pope that Philip had notoriously broken truce in Brittany, Gascony, and elsewhere, and that he declared war upon him (ib, pp. 36-41). Having sent the Earl of Northampton with a force to Brittany, he embarked at Sandwich with the Prince of Wales on 3 July (ib. p. 50), and crossed to Sluys; for affairs in Flanders threatened the loss of the Flemish alliance. A scheme was arranged between him and Van Artevelde for persuading the people of Flanders to accept the prince as their lord. Van Artevelde, however, was murdered at Ghent, and Edward returned home on the 26th. In this year the Bardi of Florence, the most powerful bankers in Italy, failed, chiefly through Edward's debts to them, for he owed them nine hundred thousand gold florins; the Peruzzi, to whom he owed six hundred thousand florins, also failed, and the stoppage of these two houses ruined many smaller ones, so that the king's default brought widespread misery on Florence (Gio. Villani, xii. c. 54). In the summer of 1346 Edward intended to lead an army to help Derby in Guyenne, but shortly before he set out he was persuaded by Sir Geoffrey Harcourt, who had entered his service, to strike at the north of France, which was then unprepared to meet attack, for the Duke of Normandy and his army were engaged in the south (on the mistake of Froissart and Avesbury about this see Nicolas, Royal Navy, ii. 88). He sailed on 11 July from the Isle of Wight (F?dera iii. 85; not the 7th as Cont. Murimuth, p. 175), with, it is said, one thousand ships, tour thousand men-at-arms, ten thousand bowmen, and a considerable force of Welsh and Irish badly armed foot-soldiers, and landed the next day at La Hogue (Avesbury,p. 123); the French vessels in the harbour were taken, the larger part of his fleet was dismissed, and the rest sent to ravage the coast. The army marched in three columns, the king commanding the centre; the wings diverged during the day, so that each ravaged a different tract, and united with the centre at night. Barfleur was taken on the 14th, and Valonges on the 18th, then Carentan and St. Lo, where the army was refreshed by finding a thousand tuns of wine, and on the 26th Edward came to Caen. He took the town easily by assault the next day, and sacked it thoroughly. Here he is said to have found a paper containing a plan for a second Norman conquest of England in 1337; this he sent home to be read in all churches (ib. p. 130); it is not unlikely that it was a forgery designed to rouse the popular spirit. At Caen he dismissed the remainder of the fleet, which had done much harm to the French shipping along the Norman coast. In spite of a remark attributed by Froissart (iii. 145) to Harcourt, that Edward intended to march to Calais, his only idea as yet was to do as much mischief as he could in northern France, and then retire into Flanders before Philip could raise an army to intercept him. Had he intended to besiege Calais, he would not have dismissed his ships. He left Caen on the 31st, and on 2 Aug. arrived at Lisieux, where ho was met by two cardinals with offers of peace, which he rejected. He then marched towards Rouen, but finding the bridge broken down, and the French in some force there, he turned up the left bank of the Seine, ravaging the country as he went. Everywhere he found the bridges broken, and as by this time a French force had gathered and followed his march on the opposite side of the river, he had no time to repair them. On the 13th he arrived at Poissy, and by detaching a body of troops to threaten Paris, which was only about twelve miles distant, he gained time to repair the bridge there, and on the 16th crossed the river, he now struck northwards; and marched through the Beauvoisin, while Philip, who had now collected an army much larger than his, pursued him closely, intending to crush the little English force in a corner between the Somme and the sea. He halted at Airanes, and sent two marshals with a large body of troops to endeavour to find or force a passage across the Somme. When they returned unsuccessful he was much troubled; for both he and all his army saw that they were in pressing danger. Early on the 23rd he left Airanes in haste, and the French, who arrived there shortly afterwards, found the meat that the English were about to eat on the spits. His object now was to gain Abbeville. On arriving before it he reconnoitred the town in person from the hills of Caubert, and finding that he could not take it fell back on Oisemont, which he carried easily by assault. Here a man offered to guide his army to a ford called Blanquetaque, above the village of Port, where he could cross at low water. He gave the order to march at midnight, and on arriving at the passage found it guarded by Godemar du Fay. After a sharp struggle the passage was forced (Avesbury; Froissart; by Cont. of Will of Nangis, ii. 200, Godemar is unjustly accused of making only a slight resistance), and he and his army crossed into Ponthieu. Edward was now able to choose his own ground for fighting; for Philip, who had been just too late to prevent his crossing the river, was not able to follow him immediately, and turned aside to Abbeville. Edward took the castle of Noyelles, held a council of war, and the next day, the 25th, marched along the road between Havre and Flanders to Crécy. On Saturday the 26th Philip advanced from Abbeville to give him battle. Edward had chosen and strengthened his position with great skill. His army occupied some high ground on the right bank of the Maye: the right wing was covered by the river and the village of Crécy, where it was defended by a series of curtains, the left extended towards Wadicourt and here, where it might have been open to a flank attack, it was barricaded by piles of wagons; the English front commanded a slight ravine called the Vallée-aux-Clercs; the baggage and horses, for all fought on foot, were placed in the rear on the left in a wood, ana were imparked with thickets and felled trees. His position thus resembled an entrenched camp. In case of defeat he commanded the ancient causeway now called the Chemin de l'Armée, by which he could have crossed the Authie at Ponche (Seymour de Constant; Louandre; Archæologia, vol. xxxviii.) Early in the morning he and his son received the sacrament. Then he drew up his army in three divisions, placing the right wing or van under the command of the prince; the third division, which he commanded in person, forming a reserve. He rode through the lines on a palfrey, encouraging the men, and at 10 a.m. all sat down in their ranks to eat and drink. The archers were thrown forwards in the form of a harrow, and some small cannon were posted between them (Froissart, iii. 416; Amiens MS.; Gio. Villani, xii. c. 65, 66; Istorie Pistolesi, p. 516. This assertion has been much questioned, chiefly because it does not appear in the earliest text of Froissart, and because it is held to be unlikely that Edward would have taken cannon with him in his hasty march. The presence of the Genoese in the French army, however, invests the two contemporary Italian narratives with special authority, and it should be remembered that the cannon then used were extremely small. It is certain that Edward took cannon with him from England; Brackenbury; Archæologia, vol. xxxii.) Edward watched the battle from a mill. It began after the heavy shower which came on at 3 P.M. had cleared away, and lasted until nightfall. It was decided by bad generalship and want of discipline on the French side, and on the English side by the skill of the bowmen and the steady valour of the two front divisions [see under Edward, Prince of Wales] . Edward appears to have led forward his division when the French king took part in the fight; the two first lines of the French army had by that time been utterly broken, and the remainder was soon routed. He remained on the field the next day, and large numbers of the French, some of whom were fugitives, while others were advancing to join the king's army not knowing that it had already been routed, were massacred almost without resistance; many prisoners were also made on this day. The whole loss of the French exceeded, we are told, and was probably about equal to, the number of the English army (Aylesbury, p. 140), and among the slain were the king of Bohemia, the Duke of Lorraine, the Counts of Alençon, Harcourt, Flanders, Blois, Aumale, and Nevers, eighty bannerets, and perhaps about thirty thousand men of lower rank. Edward caused the knights who had fallen to be buried honourably, and gave special funeral honours to the king of Bohemia.

On the 28th the king began his march towards Calais, arrived before the town on 3 Sept. and determined to lay siege to it (ib. p. 136); it was a strong place, and the inhabitants had done much harm to the English and Flemings by their piracies (Gio. Villani, xii. c. 95). He built a regular town before the walls (Froissart, iv. 2, 203), sent for a fleet to blockade the harbour, and laid siege to the town with about thirty thousand men. He used cannon in the siege which threw balls of three or four ounces weight, and arrows fitted with leather and winged with brass(Brackenbury When the governor expelled five hundred persons from the town in order to husband his provisions, the king fed them and gave them money for their journey (Jehan le Bel, ii. 96; Froissart magnifies the number to seventeen hundred, iv. 3, 204). Knighton (c. 2593), speaking probably of a later event, says that when, at the time that the town was suffering from famine, five hundred persons were expelled, Edward refused to allow them to pass his lines, and they all perished. Meanwhile the Scots, who at Philip's instance had invaded England, were routed at Nevill's Cross, Durham, on 17 Oct., and there King David was taken prisoner and confined in the Tower; Derby made himself master of nearly all Guyenne, and in the summer of 1347 the English cause prospered in Brittany, and Charles of Blois was made prisoner. In April some stores were brought into Calais by sea, and after this Edward ordered a stricter blockade; his fleet dispersed a convoy of forty-four ships laden with provisions on 25 June (Avesbury, p. 156), and the next day a letter was intercepted from the governor to the French king informing him of the starving condition of the garrison, and asking for relief. Edward sent the letter on to Philip, bidding him come to the relief of the town ({{sc|Knighton]}, c. 2593). In July Philip led an army towards Calais. A portion of it sent to dislodge the Flemings who were acting with Edward at Quesnoy was defeated. He appeared at Sangatte on the 27th. Two cardinals in vain tried to make terms in his interests. He was unable to get at the English, who were securely posted behind the marshes, and challenged Edward to come out to battle. Edward declared that he accepted the challenge (Avesbury, p. 163); it is probable that he answered more wisely (Jehan le Bel, ii. 131; Froissart, iv. 50, 278). Anyway, two days later, on 2 Aug., the French decamped. The next day the town surrendered at discretion. The garrison came forth with swords reversed, and a deputation of the townsmen with bare heads and ropes in their hands. Edward at first intended, or made as though he intended, to put the inhabitants to the sword as a punishment for their piracies, but spared them at the intercession of his queen (Jehan le Bel, ii. 135; Froissart, iv. 57, 287; see also Luce's note in his Summary, p. xxv; there is no adequate reason for doubting any material part of this famous story, comp. Knighton, c. 2595; Stow, p. 244; Gio. Villani, xii. c. 95; nor is the incident of the self-devotion of Eustace de St.-Pierre improbable). During the summer his army suffered much sickness, arising from lack of good water. With some few exceptions he banished the people of Calais; and sent over to England offering grants and privileges to those who would colonise the town (F?dera, iii. 130). After agreeing to a truce for nine months, mediated by Clement and signed 28 Sept. (ib. p. 136), he returned home with his wife and son, and after a stormy passage landed at Sandwich on 12 Oct. (ib, p. 139; Cont. Murimuth, p. 178).

All England was filled with the spoils of Edward's expedition, so that there was not a woman who did not wear some ornament, or have in her house fine linen or some goblet, part of the booty the king sent home from Caen or brought back from Calais (Walsingham, i. 272). Flushed with triumph Edward and his courtiers gave themselves up to extravagance and pleasure. During the three months after his return splendid tournaments were held at Bury, at Eltham, where 'garters' were worn by twelve of the knights, and at Windsor (Nicolas, Orders of Knighthood, i. 11 sq.) Much license prevailed at some of the meetings of this sort, which were attended by many ladies of loose life and bold manners, greatly to the scandal of the nation (Knighton, c. 2597). The king freely indulged his love for fine dress and the trappings of chivalry. On St. George's day, 23 April 1349, he carried out the plan for an order of knighthood formed in 1344 by the institution of the order of the Garter; the ceremonies and festivities were magnificent. Edward himself bore a 'white swan, gorged or,' with the vaunting motto, 'Hay, hay, the wythe swan: By God's soul I am thy man' Another of his mottoes was, 'It is as it is.' The origin of the 'Garter' and of the motto of the order is unknown. The story that connects them with the Countess of Salisbury is worthless, and is first found in 'Polydore Vergil,' p. 486 (ed. 1651). In connection with the foundation of the order, Edward rebuilt the chapel of Windsor and dedicated it to St. George, and refounded the college (Ashmole, p. 178). Early in 1348 messengers came to Edward from the heads of the Savarian party in the empire inviting him to accept the imperial dignity; for Lewis of Bavaria was now dead, and their enemy Clement VI was advocating the election of Charles of Moravia. Edward, however, declined the honour, declaring that he preferred to prosecute his own right (Knighton, c. 2596; Gio. Villani, xii. c. 105; Raynaldus, xxiv. 468). In spite of the spoils of France the expenses of the war bore heavily on the country. During the king's absence money had been raised by various illegal methods, and the refusal of the commons in the parliament of January 1348 to give advice on the war shows that they feared further expense and would not take a share in the responsibility. After some strong complaints a grant for three years was made on certain conditions, one of which was that the king should restore a loan of twenty thousand sacks of wool that the council had obtained from the merchants without consent of parliament (Const. Hist. ii. 397 sq.) In August the plague reached this country, broke out in London in November, and raged with fearful violence in the summer of 1349; no parliament was held that year, and all the courts were closed for two years. A murrain broke out among cattle; the harvest rotted on the land for lack of reapers, and a time of scarcity followed. This first plague remained more or less till 1357. About half the population was swept off, three archbishops of Canterbury died within a twelve-month, and one of the king's daughters, Joan, died of it in August 1348 at Bordeaux while on her way to meet her betrothed husband, Don Pedro of Castile. The diminution of the population caused wages to be doubled, and in June 1350 the king published an ordinance requiring labourers to work for the same wages as before the plague and providing penalties for demanding or granting more. On 9 Feb. 1351 the statute of labourers was enacted in parliament, and other attempts were made later in the reign to keep down wages and prevent labourers from migrating to different parts of the country to seek higher pay, but without much effect. (For information on the plague see Rogers, History of Prices, i. 60, 265, 667, and article in Fortnightly Review vol. iii.; art. 'Plague,' Encyclopædia Brit, 9th ed.; Knighton, c 2699 sq.)

Towards the end of 1349 Edward was informed by the governor of Calais that the French hoped to gain possession of the town by paying him a sum of money on 1 Jan. He put sir Walter Manny at the head of three hundred knights, among whom he served as a simple knight, crossed over to Calais, surprised the party which came to receive the surrender, and distinguished himself by his valour, engaging in single combat with Sir Eustace de Ribaumont, whom he made prisoner. After the fight he sat down to a feast with his prisoners, crowned Sir Eustace with a chaplet of pearls and gave him his liberty (Jehan le Bel, p. 1351; Froissart, iv. 81, 313). During the summer of 1350 a fleet was fitted out, for Edward desired to take vengeance on the fleet of Charles of La Cerda, grandson of Alfonso X of Castile, which had been largely employed by the French against him. On 10 Aug. he declared that this fleet, which was lying at Sluys, threatened to invade England (F?dera, iii. 201), though it seems at the time to have been engaged in commerce. He embarked at Winchelsea in the cog Thomas on the 28th, to intercept the Spaniards, whose fleet was much stronger than his own. The next day, which was Sunday, he sat on deck in a black velvet jacket and beaver hat listening to music and singing, but looking earnestly for the signal of the enemy's approach (Froissart, iv. 91). The Spanish fleet of forty large galleys laden with merchandise hove in sight about 4 P.M. A severe fight took place, and the king behaved with much galantry, changing his ship for one of the Spaniards which he had taken just before his own sank. He gained a complete victory, the number of ships taken being variously estimated from fourteen to twenty-six. In the evening he landed and spent the night in revelry with the queen and her ladies and his knights; for this battle, which is called L'Espagnols-sur-mer, took place but a few miles off Winchelsea, where the court was, and within sight of land (Nicolas, Royal Navy, ii. 103-13, where references are given). On 1 Aug. 1351 a truce was made wit 
Edward III King of England (I10778)
230 EDWARD or EADWARD the martyr (963??978), king of the English, the eldest son of Eadgar, was the child of Æthelflæd, and was born probably in 963 [see under Eadgar]. He was brought up as his father's heir, his education was entrusted to Sideman, bishop of Crediton, who instructed him in the scriptures, and he grew a stout and hardy lad (Vita S. Oswaldi, p. 449). He was about twelve years old when his father died in 975. The circumstances of his election to the throne will be found in the article on Dunstan. It should be added that the author of the 'Life of St. Oswald,' writing before 1005, says that the nobles who opposted his election were moved to do so by his hot temper, for the boy used not only to abuse but to beat his attendants. While it is likely enough that he was imperious and quick tempered, the faction that, at the instigation of Eadgar's widow, Ælfthryth, upheld the claim made on behalf of her son was of course swayed by other considerations. A notice of the meetings of the 'witan,' held to settle the dispute between the seculars and regulars, which constilutes the sole interest of this short reign, will aiso be found under Dunstan. It is evident that the monastic party was far less powerful under Endward than it had heen in the time of his father. Dunstan seems to bare retained his influence at the court, though the East-Anglian party headed by Æthelwine certainly lost ground, and there is reason to believe that Ælfhere the Mercian ealdorman had the chief hand in the management of affairs. The banishment of Oslac, whom Eadgar had made Earl of Deiran Northumbria, is perhaps evidence of an intention to undo the policy of the last reign by attempting to bring the Danes of the north into more immediate dependence on the crown. Eadward was assassinated on 18 March 978. According to the earliest detailed account of tlie murder (ib.) the thegne of the faction that had upheld the claim put forward on behalf of his half-brother Æthelred plotted to take away his life, and decided on doing so on one of his visits to the child. On the evening of his murder he rode to Corfe, or Corfes-gate, as it was then called, from the gap in which the town stands, in Dorsetshire, where Æthelred was living with his mother Ælfthryth. He had few attendants with him, and the thegne, evidently of Ælfthryth's household and party, came out with their arms in their hands, and crowded round him as though to do him honour. Among Ihem was the cup-bearer ready to do his office. One of them seized the king's hand, and pulled him towards him as though to kiss him ? the kiss of the traitor may he an embellishment, for the salute would surely not have been offered by a subject ? while another seized his left hand. The young king cried, 'What are ye doing, breaking my right hand?' and as he leaped from his horse the conspirator on his lelt stabbed him, and he fell dead. His corpse was taken to a poor cottage at Wareham, and was there buried without honour and in unconsecrated ground The murder excited great indignation, which was increased when it became evident that the king's kinsmen would not avenge him. 'No worse deed was done since the English race first sought Britain,' wrote the chronicler. In 980 Archbishop Dunstan and Ælfhere, the beads of the rival ecclesiastical parties, went to Wareham and joined in translating the body with great pomp to Shaftesbury. There many miracles were wrought at the king's tomb, and great crowds resorted to kneel before it. Eadwardwas reverenced as a saint and martyr. He was officially styled martyr as early as 1001 (Kemble, Codex Dipl. 706), and the observance of his massday was ordered by the 'witan' in 1008 (Thorpe), a law that was re-enacted by Court at Winchester (ib.) Political feelings can scarcely have had anything to do with the murder of a king whose burial rites were performed by Dunstan and Ælfhere in common. Although the biographer of St. Oswald says nothing of Ælfthryth, it is evident from his account of the murder that it was done not by any of the great nobles, but by the thegna of her household, and his silence as to her name is accounted for by the fact that she may have been alive when the biographer wrote between 990 and 1006, for she seems to have died after 999 and before 1002, and that he wrote in the reign of her son Æthelred. Osbern, writing about 1090, is the first plainly to attribute the murder to Eadward's step-mother (Memorials of Dunstan, p. 114), and he is followed by Eadmer (ib. 215). Florence (i. 145) says that he was slain by his own men by ÆIfthryth's order. Henry of Huntingdon, while attributing his death to men of his own family, mentions the legend that tells how Ælfthryth stabbed him as she handed him a cup of drink (748). This legend is elaborately related by Wilham of Malmesbury (Gesta Regum, i. 258). The fact that his body, hastily as it was interred, was buried at Wareham gives some probability to the story that he was dragged for some distance by the stirrup. The deep feeling aroused by his death seems to show that the young king was personally popular, and the affection he showed for his half-brother and the story of the child's grief at his death are perhaps evidences of a loveable nature. Osbem's remarks on the general good opinion men had of him should not, however, be pressed, for Eadward's character had then long been removed from criticism. One charter of Eadward dated 977 is undoubtedly genuine (Kendle, Codex Dipl. 611).

[Vita S.Oswaldi, Historians of York, i. 448-S3 (Rolls Ser.); Adelard, Osbero, Eadmer, Memorials of St. Dunstan, 61, 114, 215 (Rolls Ser.); Anglo-Saxon Chron. sub ann. 975-80; Florence of Worcester, i. 145 (Engl. Hist. Soc.); William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum. i. 258 (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Henry of Huntingdon, Mon. Hist. Brit. 748; Thorpe's Ancient Laws. i. 308, 358; Kemble's Codex Diplomaticus, 611, 706 ; Robertson's Historical Essays in connection with the Land, the Church. &c., 169; Freeman's Norman Conquest, i. 288-93, 341, 365,684; Green's Conquest of England, 363-7.]

W. H. 
the Martyr, St. Edward King of England (I11232)
231 EDWARD or EADWARD, called the Confessor (d. 1066), king of the English, the elder son of Æthelred the Unready by his marriage in 1002 with Emma, daughter of Richard the Fearless, duke of the Normans, was born at Islip in Oxfordshire (Kemble, Codex Dipl. 862), and was presented by his parents upon the altar of the monastery of Ely, where it is said that he passed his early years and learnt to sing psalms with the boys of the monastery school (Liber Eliensis ii. c. 91). When Swend was acknowledged king, in 1013, Emma fled to Normandy to the court of her brother, Richard the Good, and shortly afterwards Æthelred sent Eadward and his younger brother Ælfred [q. v.] to join her there under the care of Ælthun, bishop of London. On Swend's death, in February 1014, Eadward and his mother were sent to England by Æthelred in company with the ambassadors who came over to ascertain whether the 'witan' would again receive him as king. When Æthelred was restored to his kingdom he left Eadward and his brother to be educated at the Norman court, where they were treated with the honour due to their birth (Will. of Jumièges, vi. 10). Towards the end of Cnut's reign, Duke Robert asserted their right to the throne, and Eadward set sail with the duke from Fécamp to invade England; the wind drove the Norman fleet to Jersey and the enterprise was abandoned (ib,; Wace, 1. 7897 sq.; Gesta Regum, ii. 180). The assertion of William of Jumièges that Cnut soon afterwards offered half his kingdom to the æthelings may safely be disregarded. In 1036, when Cnut was dead, and Harold ruled over the northern part of England, while Harthacnut, though still in Denmark, reigned probably as an under-king over Weasex, the æthelings made an attempt to enforce their claim. Eadward is said to have sailed with forty ships, to have landed at Southampton, and to have defeated a force of English with great loss (Will, of Poitiers, p. 78). He probably sailed in company with his brother, and stayed at Winchester, where his mother dwelt, while Ælfred tried to reach London. When the news came of his brother's overthrow and death, Emma is said to have helped him to leave the kingdom in safety (Flor. Wig. i. 191-2; Kemble, Codex Dipl.. 824, doubtful). He returned to England in 1041, probably at the invitation of his half-brother Harthacnut, then sole king, who was childless, and, though young, was in weak health. Several Normans and Frenchmen of high birth accompanied him, and chief among them his nephew Ralph, son of his sister Godgifu and Drogo of Mantes (Vita Eadwardi, l. 335; Historia Rames, p. 171). The king received him with honour, and he took up his abode at court, though the story that he was invited by Harthacnut to share the kingship with him can scarcely be true (Encomium Emmæ, iii. 13 ; Saxo, p. 202).

At the time of Harthacnut's death, in June ' 1042, Eadward appears to have been in Normandy (Vita, l. 196; Will, of Poitiers, p. 85). Nevertheless, he was chosen king at London, even before his predecessor was buried. This election was evidently not held to be final, and was probably made by the Londoners without the concurrence of tne 'witan' (on the circumstances attending Eadward's election and coronation see Norman Conquest, ii. 517 sq.) Negotiations appear to have passed between Eadward and Earl Godwine, the most powerful noble in the kingdom, who was perhaps anxious to prevent him from bringing over a force of Normans (Henry of Huntingdon, p. 759), and these negotiations were no doubt forwarded by the Norman Duke William, though it is not necessary to believe that Eadward owed his crown to the duke's interference, and to the fear that the English had of his power. Godwine and other earls and certain bishops brought him over from Normandy, and on his arrival in England a meeting of the 'witan' was held at Gillingham. According to Dr. Freeman this was the Wiltshire Gillingham, for the meeting was, he holds, directly followed by the coronation at Winchester. On the other hand, Eadward's biographer speaks of a coronation at Canterbury, and as a contemporary writing for the king's widow can scarcely be mistaken on such a point, it seems not unreasonable to suppose that this was the Gillingham in Kent. Some opposition was raised in the assembly to Eadward's candidature, probably by a Danish party which upheld the claim of Swend Estrithson, the nephew of Cnut (Gesta Regum ii. 197; Adam of Bremen, ii. 74). Although Godwine, both as the husband of Swend's aunt Gytha and as the trusted minister of Cnut, must naturally have been inclined to the Danish cause, he must have seen that the nation was set on the restoration of the line of native kings, for he put himself at the head of Eadward's supporters, and by his eloquence and authority joined with a certain amount of bribery secured his election, the few who remained obstinate being noted for future punishment. Eadward received the crown and was enthroned in Christ Church, Canterbury, and then, if this attempt to construct a consecutive narrative is correct, at once proceeded to Winchester, where it was customary for the king to wear his crown and hold a great assembly every Easter. There, on Easter day, 8 April 1043, he was solemnly crowned by Eadsige, archbishop of Canterbury, assisted by Ælfric of York and other bishops, Eadsige exhorting him as to the things that were for his and for his people's good (Anglo-Saxon Chron.) The opposition to his election and the subsequent punishment of the leaders of the Danish party have been made the basis of a fable, which represents the English as rising against the Danes at the death of Harthacnut, and expelling them from the kingdom by force of arms(Brompton, col. 934; Knighton, col. 2326). At Winchester Eadward received ambassadors irom the German king Henry, afterwards the Emperor Henry III, his brother-in-law, who sent them to congratulate him, to bring him presents, and to make alliance with him. Henry, king of the French, also sought his alliance, and Magnus of Norway, who was now engaged in making himself master of Denmark, is said to have taken him for 'father,' and bound himself to him by oaths, while the great vassals of these kings are also described as doing him homage (Vita, 1 . 205 sq . ) As regards Magnus and the nobles of other Kingdoms it is probable that the biographer has exaggerated, though just at that moment the Norwegian king may well have made some effort to secure the friendship of England. In the following November Eadward, by the advice of the three chief earls of the kingdom, seized on the vast treasures of his mother, Emma, and shortly afterwards deprived Stigand, her chaplain and counsellor, of his bishopric. The reason of these acts was that Emma 'had done less for him than he would before he was king, and also since then' (A.-S, Chron.); since her marriage with Cnut she had thrown in her lot witn the fortunes of the Danish dynasty, had now probably refused to assist the party of Eadward, and may even have espoused the cause of Swend. Her fall was followed by the banishment of several of the leading Danes. Of the three earls, Godwine, earl of Wessex, Leofric of Mercia, and Siward of Northumbria, who virtually divided England between them, Godwine was the ablest and most powerful. The king was bound to him as the main agent in setting him on the throne, and on 23 Jan. 1045 married his daughter Eadgyth [see Edith, d. 1075].

Eadward is described as of middle stature and kingly mien; his hair and his beard were of snowy whiteness, his face was plump and ruddy, and his skin white; he was doubtless an albino. His manners were affable and gracious, and while he bore himself majestically in public, he used in private, though never undignified, to be sociable with his courtiers. Although he was sometimes moved to great wrath he abstained from using abusive words. Unlike his countrymen generally he was moderate in eating and drinking, and though at festivals he wore the rich robes his queen worked for him, he did not care for them, for he was free from personal vanity. He was charitable, compassionate, and devout, and during divine service always behaved with a decorum then unusual among kings, for he very seldom talked unless some one asked him a Question (Vita), That he desired the good of his people there can be no question; but it is equally certain that he took little pains to secure it. His virtues would have adorned the cloister, his failings ill became a throne. The regrets of his people when under the harsh rule of foreigners and the saint ship with which he was invested after his death have to some extent thrown a veil over his defects; but he was certainly indolent and neglectful of his kindly duties (Ailred, col. 388; Gesta Regum, ii. 196; Saxo, p. 203). The division of the kingdom into great earldoms hindered the exercise of the royal power, and he willingly left the work of government to others. At every period of his reign he was under the influence and control, either of men who had gained power almost independently of him, or of his personal favourities. These favourites were cnosen with little regard to their deserts, and were mostly foreigners; for his long residence in Normandy made him prefer Normans to Englishmen. Besides those who came over with him in the reign of Harthacnut, many others also came hither after he was made king. When he was at Winchester, at the time of his coronation he sent gifts to the French (Norman) nobles, and to some of them granted vearly pensions. Save as regards ecclesiastical preferments, the influence of Earl Godwine appears to have been strong enough at first to keep the foreigners at the court, simply in the position of personal favourites, but after a while the king promoted them to offices in the state, as well as in the church. The court was the scene of perpetual intrigues, and, slothful as he was. Eadward seems to have taken part in these manoeuvres. Apart from his share in them he did little except in ecclesiastical matters. He favoured monasticism, and gave much to monasteries both at home and abroad. Foreign churchmen were always sure to gain wealth if they came to this country, as they often did, on a begging expedition, and to receive preferment if thev stayed here. Bishoprics were now as a rule virtually at the king's disposal, and Eadward certainly did not endeavour to appoint the best men to them. In this matter, as in all else, he was often guided by his partiality for his favourites, or by some court intrigue. The first intrigue of this kind was carried out by Godwine, who in 1044, with the king's co-operation, arranged the appointment of a coadjutor-archbishop of Canterbury, in order to secure the position of his adherent Eadsige [q. v.] Although Eadward was probably not personally guilty of simony, he made no effort to prevent others from practising it; and this evil, which did the greatest mischief to the church, and against which vigorous efforts were now being made in other lands, was shamefully prevalent here during his reign, and was carried on by those who were most trusted by him. His alleged refusal to avail himself of marital privileges, which is dwelt on with special unction by his monastic admirers, is not distinctly asserted either by the writers of the 'Chronicle,' or by Florence, or by the king's contemporary biographer. It is spoken of, though only as a matter of report, by William of Jumièges, and was generally believed in the twelfth century. The concurrence of the queen is asserted by Æthelred (Ailred) of Rievaux, who gives many evidently imaginary details. Some expressions in the 'Vita Eaawardi' seem to make it probable that Eadward, who must have been about forty at the time of his marriage, lived with his young and beautiful wife, though making her 'tori ejus consocia' (I. 1015), rather as a father than as a husband (II. 1365, 1420, 1559). It is possible that he was physically unfit for married life (the whole question is exhaustively discussed by Dr. Freeman, Norman Conquest ii. 47, 530-5). A leading feature in his character seems to have been a certain childishness, which comes out forcibly in the story that one day, when he was hunting ? a pastime to which he was much addicted ? a countryman threw down the fences which compelled the stags to run into the nets. The King fell into a rage, and cried, 'By God and his mother, I will do you a like ill turn if I can' (Gesta Regum, ii. 196). Again, it is said that he was once an unseen witness of a theft from his treasury. Twice the thief filled his bosom, and when he came to the chest for a third supply the king heard the footstep of his treasurer, and cried to the thief to make haste, for 'By the mother of God,' he said, 'if Hugolin [his Norman treasurer] comes, he will not leave you a coin.' The thief made off, and when the treasurer was aghast at the loss, the king told him that enough was left and that he who had taken what was gone wanted it more than either of them, and should keep it (Ailred, col. 376).

During the first six or seven years of Eadward's reign, while he was evidently under the influence of Godwine, he showed some signs of activity. A Scandinavian invasion was threatened, for as soon as Magnus had taken possession of Denmark, he sent to Eadward demanding the throne of England in virtue of an agreement with Harthacnut (Laing, Sea Kings ii. 397; Corpus Poeticum Boreale, ii. 178). A fleet was fitted out to meet the expected invasion, and the king appears to have taken a personal part in the preparations. Magnus, however, had to engage in a war with Swend, and, though he was victorious, died in 1047, before he could carry out his design on England. About this time a raid was made on the southern coasts by two Norwegian leaders, and Eadward embarked with his earls and pursued the pirates. The ships of the vikings took shelter in Flanders, and when, in 1049, the Emperor Henry called on Eadward to help him against his rebellious vassal Count Baldwin, the king gathered his fleet at Sandwich and lay there in readiness to take an active part against the common enemy. While he was there he was reconciled to Godwine's son Swegen, the seducer of the abbess of Leominster, who had left the kingdom, had been outlawed, and had betaken himself to a searover's life, and he even promised to restore him all that he had forfeited. Swegen's brother Harold, and his cousin Beorn [q. v.], who had profited by his disgrace, persuaded the king to change his mind, and to refuse his request. In revenge Swegen slew Beorn, and was again outlawed; the next year his outlawry was reversed [see under Aldred], Meanwhile, the foreign party was rapidly gaining strength; it was headed by Robert, who had come over to England as abbot of Jumièges, and had, in 1044, been made bishop of London. He had been one of the king's friends during his residence in Normandy, and soon gained such unbounded influence over him that it is said that if he declared 'a black crow to be white the king would sooner believe his words than his own eyes' (Ann, Winton, p. 21); he used this influence to set Eadward against Godwine. Another Norman, named Ulf, one of Eadward's clerks or chaplains, received the vast bishopric of Dorchester from the king in 1049. He was scandalously unfit for such preferment, and 'did nought bishop-like therein' (Anglo-Saxon Chron.) One effect of Eadward's foreign training, and of the promotion of foreign ecclesiastics, was an increase of the relations between our church and Latin Christendom. In 1049 Eadward sent representatives to the council held by Leo IX at Rheims, that they might bring him word what was done there (ib.), and the next year he sent ambassadors to Home for another purpose. Before he came to the throne he had, it is said, made a vow of pilgrimage to Rome, and its non-fulfilment troubled his conscience. Accordingly, we are told, though the details of the story are somewhat doubtful, that he consulted the 'witan' on the subject, and that they declared that he ought not to leave the kingdom, and advised him to apply to the pope for absolution. He certainly sent Ealdred [see under Aldred] and another bishop to the council of Rome, and it is said that Leo there granted him absolution on condition that he gave to the poor the money that the journey would have cost him, and built or restored a monastery in honour of St. Peter(Ailred, col. 381; Kemble, Codex Dipl. 824, doubtful; Anglo-Saxon Chron. sub an. 1047). He afterwards fulfilled the pope's command by building the West Minster. The same year Ulf attended another papal council at Vercelli, apparently seeking the confirmation of his appointment, which was a strange thing for an English bishop to do. The utter unfitness of the man whom Eadward had preferred was apparent to all, and 'they wellnigh broke his staff because he could not perform his ritual,' but he saved his bishopric by a large payment of money. The rivalry between Godwine and his adherents and the foreign party came to a trial of strength on the death of Archbishop Eadsige in October 1050. Ælfric [q. v.], a kinsman of Godwine, who was canonically elected to the archbishopric, and whose claims were upheld by the earl, was rejected by the king in favour of Robert of Jumièges, who received the see the following year. Eadward perhaps gratified himself by appointing Spearhafoc, abbot of Abingdon, a skilful goldsmith, to succeed Robert, in the bishopric of London, for he was engaged to make a splendid crown for the king, a circumstance that suggests a corrupt motive for his preferment (Historia de Abingdon, i. 403). Eadward gave his abbey to a Norwegian bishop, who is said to have been his own kinsman, inducing the monks, though against their will, to receive him, by promising that at the next vacancy their rignt of election should be unfettered, a promise he did not keep (ib. p. 464). When Robert returned from Rome with his pall, Spearhafoc applied to him for consecration, presenting him with the king's sealed writ commanding him to perform the rite; this Robert refused to obey, declaring that the pope had forbidden him to do so, which makes it probable that the appointment was simoniacal. Eadward, however, gave Spearhafoc his 'full leave' to occupy the bishopric, unconsecrated as he was (Anglo-Saxon Chron. Peterborough, sub an. 1048). In the same year that Eadward made these ecclesiastical appointments (1051) he stopped the collection of the heregeld, a tax levied for the maintenance of the fleet, and disbanded the seamen. The remission of this tax was a highly popular measure, and was, according to legend, granted by the king in consequence of his seeing the devil sitting on the heap of treasure it had produced (Hoveden,i. 110). It should probably be connected with the decline of the influence exerted on Eadward by Earl Godwine, who could scarcely have approved of his thus doing away with the means of naval defence.

In the autumn of this year the men of Dover incurred the king's displeasure by resisting the outrages committed by one of his foreign visitors, Eustace, count of Boulogne, the second husband of his sister Godgifu. Eustace complained to Eadward, and he commanded Godwine, in whose earldom Dover lay, to march on the town and harry it. Godwine refused to obey this tyrannical order, and Archbishop Robert took occasion to excite the king against him, reminding him that the earl was, as he asserted, guilty of the cruel murder of his brother Ælfred (Vita, l. 406). A second cause of quarrel arose from the outrages committed by the garrison of a castle built by one of Eadward's French followers in Herefordshire, the earldom of Godwine's son Swegen. Eadward summoned a meeting of the 'witan,' and the Earls Leofric and Siward arrayed their forces on the king's side against those of Godwine and his sons. The king, who was at Gloucester, was for a while very fearful, but gained confidence when ho found himself strongly supported, and refused Godwine's demands. Civil war was prevented by the mediation of Leofric; Swegen's outlawry was renewed; and Godwine and Harold were summoned to appear at the witenagemot at London. They demanded a safeconduct and hostages, and when these were refused, the earl and his family fled the country and were outlawed. Archbishop Robert is said to have endeavoured to bring about a divorce between the king and queen, and, though he did not insist on this, he persuaded Eadward, who listened willingly enough to his counsel, to seize on the queen's possessions and send her off in disgrace to a nunnery . The foreign party had now undisputed influence over the king; Spearhafoc was deprived of the bishopric of London, and one of Eadward's Norman clerks named William was consecrated to the sec. William, duke of the Normans, came over to England with a large number of followers to visit his cousin, and Eadward received him honourably and sent him away with many rich gifts (Anglo-Saxon Chron. Worcester; Flor. Wig.; Wace, l. 10648 sq.) It is probable that during this visit Eadward promised to do what he could to promote the duke's succession to the English throne (Norman Conquest ii. 294-300, iii. 677 sq.) In 1052 Godwine made an attempt to procure a reconciliation with the king, and his cause was urged by ambassadors from the French king and the count of Flanders, but his enemies prevented Eadward from attending to their representations. At last he determined to return by force. Harold plundered the coast of Somerset with some Irish ships, and Godwine, after making one ineffectual attempt to effect a landing with ships that he gathered in Flanders, joined his son, sailed up the Thames, anchored off Southwark, and was welcomed by most of the Londoners. Eadward did not hear of the earl's invasion until his fleet had reached Sandwich. On receiving the news he summoned his forces to meet him, hastened up to London with an army, and occupied the north side of the river. There he received a demand from the earl that he and his house should be restored. He refused for some while, and the earl's men were so enraged that they could with difficulty be withheld from violence. Stigand, since 1047 bishop of Winchester, mediated between the two parties, hostages were given, and it was determined to lay the whole Question before an assembly which should be held the next day, 15 Sept. As soon as this arrangement came to their ears, all the foreigners, churchmen as well as laymen, fled in haste, Robert and Ulf escaping from England by ship. The assembly was held outside London, and there the earl knelt before the king, and adjured him by the cross he bore upon his crown to allow him to purge himself by oath of what was laid against him. The earl's cause was popular, he was declared innocent, he and his family were restored to all they had held before their outlawry, and Archbishop Robert and all the Normans who had acted unjustly and given evil counsel were declared outlaws. Eadward, who found himself deserted by his foreign favourites, and with far less power in the assembly than the earl, yielded to the entreaties of his advisers, and was formally reconciled to him and his sons. The reconciliation was speedily followed by the return and restoration of the queen. As far as matters of government were concerned Eadward was now wholly under the power of Godwine and his party, and their ascendency was shown by the appointment of Stigand to the archbishopric of Canterbury, which he held in defiance of the law of the church during the lifetime of Robert. On the death of Godwine, who was seized with a fit while feasting with the king in April 1053, Eadward appointed his eldest surviving son, Harold, to succeed him as earl of the West-Saxons, and from that time left the government in Harold's hands. At the same time he was not deprived of the society of his Norman favourites, for the sentence of outlawry proclaimed at the restoration of Godwine only touched those foreigners who had abused their power, and a large number of Normans remained in England during the remainder of the reign, and held oflices in the court. With the exception, however, of the king's nephew, Ralph, who was allowed to retain his earldom, and William, bishop of London, who was personally popular, no great offices in church or state were alter 1052 held by Normans (Norman Conquest ii. 358).

Whatever the truth may be about Eadward's promise to Duke William with respect to the succession, he either of his own accord, or prompted by a decree of the 'witan,'sent for his nephew, Eadward the ætheling, in 1054, to come to him from Hungary, intending to make him his heir. The ætheling arrived in England in 1057. He was, however, kept ? we are not told by whom ? from seeing his uncle, and died shortly afterwards (Anglo-Saxon Chron., Abingdon; Flor. Wig.) No other Englishman appears to have been so beloved by Eadward as Tostig, the brother of Harold. This stem and violent man gained great influence over the weak king, who in spite of his saintliness was spiteful and cruel when any one offended him, and must therefore have been glad to find a counsellor and companion as unscrupulous as he was himself when his passion was roused, and of a far stronger will than his own. Tostig was also dearer to the queen than any of her brothers, and Harold's scheme for increasing his own power by appointing him to rule over the earldom of Northumberland, at the death of Siward in 1055, was therefore acceptable at court. A further attempt to raise the power of the house of Godwine was the banishment of Ælfgar, earl of the East- Angles, who was accused of treason against the king and the people, Ælfgar, who according to most of our authorities was almost or altogether guiltless, was driven to rebellion, and in alliance with Gruffydd, of North Wales, made war on England, and did much mischief. Before long, however, Eadward reinstated him in all his possessions, and Gruffydd made submission to the English king and acknowledged his superiority. The wars of Harold in Wales, and his conquest of the country, scarcely concern the king personally. On 3 May 1060 Eadward was present at the consecration of the collegiate church founded by Harold at Waltham. The Welsh war ended in 1063, and in August Harold presented the king with the head of Gruffydd, who had been slain by his own people, and with the beak of his ship. Eadward granted Wales to two of Gruffydd's kinsmen, and received their submission. He was hunting with Tostig in the forests near Wilton, in October 1065, when Harold brought him tiding of the insurrection of the north. The appointment of Tostig to the earldom of Northumberland had been disastrous. He seems to have passed most of his time with the king in the south of England; for he handed over the government of his vast earldom to a deputy. The Northumbrians, no doubt, were offended at finding their land reduced to the position of a 'mere dependency' (Norman Conquest ii. 485). Tostig's violence and treachery enraged them; his Absence encouraged them to revolt. The insurgents held an assembly at York, and chose an earl for themselves, Morkere, the younger son of Ælfgar, who during the last years of his life had been earl of Mercia, and had at his death been succeeded by his elder son Eadwine. Although the revolt of the north against Tostig lessened the power of Godwine's house, it does not follow that it was a check to the plans of Harold; for he had by this time formed an alliance with Eadwine and Morkere, and had married their sister. He now appeared before the king with the news that Tostig's followers had been slain, and that Morkere and the northern army had already advanced as far south as Northampton. Eadward at first seems to have believed that there was no cause for anxiety, and simply sent Harold to the insurgents with the command that they were to lay down their arms, and seek justice in a lawful assembly (Vita, l. 1159). They answered that they demanded the banishment of Tostig and the recognition of Morkere as their earl, and that on these conditions only they would return to their loyalty. After two other attempts to pacify them by negotiation the king seems to have awoke to the serious nature of the revolt. He left his hunting, and held an assembly at Britford, near Salisbury. There Tostig accused Harold before the king of stirring up this revolt against him, and Harold cleared himself of the charge by the process of law known as compurgation (ib. I. 1182). Eadward was eager to call out the national forces and put down the revolt with the sword. To this the nobles, evidently with Harold at their head, strongly objected, and when they were unable to dissuade him they withdrew from him and left him powerless. Harold met the insurgents at Oxford on 28 Oct., and yielded to all their demands. Three days later Eadward, unable to protect his favourite, loaded him with presents, and parted with him with exceeding sorrow, and Tostig and his family left England. Mortification and sorrow brought an illness on Eadward, from which he never recovered; and he called on God to avenge him on those who had failed him at his need and baffled his hopes of crushing the insurgents (ib, l. 1195 sq.)

Ever since 1051 Eadward had been carrying on the work of rebuilding the monastery of Thomey beyond the western gate of London in fulfilment of the charge laid upon him by the pope. The monastic buildings were completed in 1061, and during the last years of his life he pressed on the erection of the church, which he built a little to the west of the old one, so that the monks might be able to continue to perform service without interruption(Kemble, Codex Dipl. 824, 825, spurious; Vita, l. 974 sq.) A tenth of all his possessions was devoted to the work. His church was the earliest example in England of the Norman variety of romanesque architecture, and remained in the twelftn century as the model which others strove to imitate (Gesta Regum ii. c. 228). It was consecrated on Innocents' day, 28 Dec. 1065. Eadward was too ill to be present at the magnificent ceremony, and his place was taken by his queen. He was now lying on his deathbed in his palace hard by, and when he heard that all had been duly accomplished he rapidly grew worse, and on 3 Jan. was so weak that he could no longer speak intelligibly (Vita l. 1447). On the 5th he recovered his power of speech, and talked with those who stood round his bed: his queen, who was warming his feet in her bosom. Archbishop Stigand, Harold, his Norman staller Robert, and some few of his personal friends. He prophesied that a time of evil was coming on the land, and signified by an allegory how long that time would last. All heard him with awe save Stigand, who whispered in Harold's ear that age and sickness had robbed him of his wits. He took leave of his queen, commended her to the care of the earl, her brother, and it is said named him as his successor (ib. l. 1503; Anglo-Saxon Chron. Peterborough and Abingdon; Flor. Wig. i. 224). Then he bade him be gracious to those foreigners who had left their own land to come and dwell as his subjects, and who had served him faithfully, and gave directions for his burial. He received the last sacrament and then died. He was buried the next day in his newly consecrated church of St. Peter at Westminster, probably by Abbot Eadwine (Norman Conquest, iii. 28; here, as elsewhere, Dr. Freeman uses that important record, the Bayeux tapestry, to good effect). The so-called laws of Eadward are said to have been drawn up from declarations made on oath by twelve men of each shire in 1070 (Hoveden, ii. 218); the earliest extant version of them was perhaps compiled by Ranulf Glanvill (ib. pref. xlvii). Probably in 1070 the Conqueror declared that all should live under Eadward's law, together with such additions as he had made to it, and a like promise was made by Henry I in his charter of 1100 (Select Charters, 81, 98). These grants, which should be compared with Cnut's renewal of Eadgar's law [see under Canute], signified that the people should enjoy their national laws and customs, and that English and Normans should dwell together in peace and security. Eadward's tomb before the high altar soon became the scene of many miracles (Vita, l. 1609). As the last English king of the old royal line he was naturally remembered with feelings of affection, that found expression in acts of devotion and legends of his holiness. Among these legends his vision that the seven sleepers of Ephesus had turned on to their left sides is one of the most famous (Estorie, l. 3341 sq.). Another of greater historical importance, as proving that he practised the custom of episcopal investiture, must be reserved for the life of Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester (Ailred, col. 406). He is said to have healed many persons, and especially those suffering from ulcers, by touching them. William of Malmesbury declares that those who knew him while he lived in Normandy said that he performed some miracles of this kind before he came to the throne, and that it was therefore a mistake to assert, as some people then did, that he had this power, not because of his holiness, but in virtue of his hereditary royalty (Gesta Regum, ii. 222). By the end of the twelfth century it appears to have generally been believed that the kings of England had the gift of healing in virtue of their anointing (Peter of Blois, Ep. 150), and down to the early part of the eighteenth century the power of curing the ?king's evil? was held to descend as an ?hereditary miracle? upon all the rightful successors of the Confessor (Collier, Ecclesiastical History, i. 530). It was, of course, no part of the Norman policy to check the popular reverence for a king who was the kinsman of the Conqueror, and whose lawful successor William claimed to be, and as the monks of Westminster declared that the body of their patron had not undergone decay, his tomb was opened in 1102 by Gilbert Crispin, the abbot, and Gundulf, bishop of Rochester, who, it is said, found that the report was true (Ailred, col. 408). In 1140 an attempt was made by Eadward's biographer, Osbert, or Osbern, of Clare, prior of Westminster, to procure his canonisation by Innocent II. Osbert's scheme came to nothing, and Eadward was canonised by Alexander III in 1161, his day, of course, being that of his death (Monasticon, i. 308; Norman Conquest, iii. 33). The body of the new saint was first translated by Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury, in the presence of Henry II, on 13 Oct. 1163, and the event is still commemorated on that day in the calendar of the English church (Paris, ii. 221). At the coronation of Henry III, in 1236, the Confessor's sword was carried before the king by the Earl of Chester (ib. iii. 337). This sword, which was called ?custein,? or ?curtana,? formed part of the regalia, and the present ?sword of state? is the counterpart of it (Loftie, Tower of London, p. 19). Henry held the Confessor, to whom indeed he bore a certain moral resemblance, in special reverence, and caused his eldest son, Edward I, to be named after him (Trivet, p. 225). Moreover, to do him honour, he rebuilt the abbey of Westminster, and on 13 Oct. 1269 performed with great splendour the second translation of the relics, which were laid in a shrine of extraordinary magnificence (Wikes, p. 226). The shrine was spoiled in the reign of Henry VIII, but the body of the king was not disturbed. Queen Mary restored the shrine, and the body of the Confessor was for the third time translated, on 20 March 1556?7 (Grey Friars Chronicle, p. 94, and Machyn, Diary, p. 120, Camd. Soc.).

[Dr. Freeman has devoted vol. ii. of his Norman Conquest almost wholly to the reign of the Confessor, and it has not been possible to add anything material to what he has recorded. In the above article several events of the reign have been left out because they do not seem to have concerned the king personally; they will be found in Dr. Freeman's work. Lives of Edward the Confessor, ed. Luard (Rolls Ser.), contains, with some less important pieces, the Vita Æduuardi Regis, written for Queen Eadgyth, and La Estorie de Seint Aedward le Rei, a poem dedicated to Eleanor, queen of Henry III. This poem is largely based on the Vita S. Edwardi of Ailred [Æthelred] of Rievaux, Twysden, written early in the reign of Henry II. This again is taken almost bodily from the Vita by Osbert the prior, mentioned above. Osbert's work, which has never been printed, is in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS. 161 (Luard's Lives, pref. xxv; Hardy's Cat. of MSS. i. 637). See also Anglo-Saxon Chron. (Rolls Ser.); Florence of Worcester (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Symeon of Durham (Rolls Ser.); William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Henry of Huntingdon, Mon. Hist. Brit.; Kemble's Codex Dipl. iv. (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Historia Ramesiensis (Rolls Ser.); Liber Eliensis (Stewart); Chron. de Abingdon (Rolls Ser.); Roger of Howden (Rolls Ser.); Brompton, Knighton, Twysden; William of Poitiers (Giles); Wace's Roman de Rou (Taylor); William of Jumièges (Duchesne); Saxo, Historia Danica (Stephanius); Encomium Emmæ [Cnutonis Gesta] (Pertz); Matthew Paris (Rolls Ser.); Wikes's Ann. Monast. iv. (Rolls Ser.); Dugdale's Monasticon; Green's Conquest of England; Dart's Westmonasterium; Stanley's Memorials of Westminster.]

W. H.
Confessor, Edward the King of England (I6567)
232 EDWARD, EADWARD, or EADWEARD, called the Elder (d. 924), king of the Angles and Saxons, the elder son of King Ælfred and Ealhswyth, was brought up most carefully at his father's court with Ælfthryth, his sister, who was next above him in age; they were both beloved by all, and were educated as became their rank, learning psalms and English poetry and reading English books (Asser, p. 485). Eadward distinguished himself in his father's later wars with the Danes, and the taking of the Danish camp on the Colne and the victory at Buttington in 894 are attributed to him (Æthelweard, p.518). Although he had no special part of the kingdom assigned to him, he bore the title of king in 898, probably as his father's assistant (Kemble, Codex Dipl. 324). He was, we are told, as good a soldier as his father, but not so good a scholar (Flor. Wig.) On Ælfred's death, which took place on 28 Oct. 901, he was chosen by the 'witan' to succeed to the kingdom (Æthelweard, p. 519), and was crowned on the Whitsunday following. His succession was disputed by one of his cousins, the ætheling Æthelwald, a son of Æthelred, the fourth son of Æthelwulf, who seized on two of the king's vills, Wimborne in Dorsetshire and Twynham (Christ Church) in Hampshire. The king led an army against him and encamped at Badbury, near Wimborne, but Æthelwald shut himself up in the town with his men and declared that he would 'either live there or lie there' (A.-S, Chron.) Nevertheless he escaped by night, and went to the Danes in Northumbria, who received him as king. Eadward entered Wimborne and sent the lady with whom Æthelwald lived back to her nunnery, for she had taken the veil before she joined her lover. For two or three years after this Eadward seems to have reigned in peace, save that there was some fighting between the Kentishmen and the Danes. Meanwhile Æthelwald was preparing to attack the kingdom, and in 904 he came to Essex from 'over sea' with a fleet that he had purchased, received the submission of the people, and obtained more ships from them. With these he sailed the next year to East Anglia and persuaded the Danes to join him in an invasion of Mercia. They overran the country, and even entered Wessex, crossing the Thames at Cricklade in Wiltshire, and then ravaged as far as Bredon in Worcestershire. Eadward retaliated by laying waste the western districts of East Anglia, and then ordered his army to return. The Kentishmen refused to obey the order, and waited to give battle to the Danes. A fierce conflict took place, and the Danes kept the battle-ground, but they lost more men than the English, and among the slain was the ætheling Æthelwald. His death put an end to the war. The next year (906) the peace which Ælfred had made with Guthrum-Æthelstan was renewed at Eadward's dictation at Ittingford, and he and the Danish under-king of East Anglia, Guthrum Eohricsson, joined in putting out laws which though binding both on tne English and the Danes, expressly recognised and confirmed the differences between the usages of the two peoples, though, indeed, these differences were very superficial (Thorpe, Ancient Laws, p.71).

The death of Æthelwald delivered Eadward from a dangerous rival, and enabled him, as soon as opportunity offered, to enter on his great work, the widening and strengthening of his immediate kingdom and the reduction of princes who reigned beyond its borders to a condition of dependence. He styled himself in his charters 'Angul-Saxonum rex,' treating the two races over which he reigned as one people. The treaty of 878 had left his house the kingship of the western half of the Mercian Angles and of the Saxons of the south; his father had ruled over both as separate peoples; he, though as yet there was little if any fusion between them, seems to have marked by this change in the royal style his intention to treat them as one (Green, Conquest of England p. 192). At the same time an important political distinction existed between them, for the Mercians were still governed by their own ealdorman, descended probably from the line of ancient Mercian kings. This, however, proved to be a source of strength rather than of weakness, for the ealdorman Æthelred had married the king's sister Æthelflæd [see Ethelfleda, and Eadward owed much of the prosperity of his reign to this marriage, and much too to the fact that no son was born of it to carry on the old line of separate, though now dependent, rulers.

The first measure of defence against Danish attacks was taken by Æthelred and his wife, who in 907 'restored,' that is fortified and colonised, Chester, and thus gained a port that might be used by ships employed in keeping off invasion by the Irish Ostmen, and established a stronghold commanding the Dee. In 910 Eadward was again at war with the Danes; they seem to have broken the peace, and in return an army of West-Saxons and Mercians ravaged Northumbria for the space of forty days. A battle was fought on 6 Aug. at Tettenhall in Staffordshire,where the Danes were defeated. Then Eadward went into Kent to gather his fleet together, for the Northmen infested the Channel, and he bade a hundred ships and their crews meet him there, so well had his father's work in naval organisation prospered. While he was in Kent in 911 the Northmen, reckoning that he had no other force at his disposal beyond that in his ships (A.-S. Chron.), again broke the peace, and,refusing to listen to the terms offered them by the king and the 'witan,' swept over the whole of Mercia to the Avon, and there embarked, no doubt in ships from Ireland, and did some damage to Wessex as they sailed on the Severn (Æthelweard, p. 519). They were stoutly resisted by the levy of those parts, and sustained much loss. Eadward's army, composed of both West-Saxons and Mercians, defeated them at Wodensfield in Staffordshire, with the loss of their two kings, Halfdan and Ecwils, and many of their principal men. In the course of this or of the next year the ealdorman Æthelred died, and Eadward gave the ealdormanship of Mercia to his widow Æthelflæd. At the same time he annexed London and Oxford, 'with all the lands which belonged thereto' (A.S. Chron.), he detached them from the Mercian ealdormanry, and definitely united them to the WestSaxon land. After the accession of Æthelflæd as sole ruler, with the title of the Lady of the Mercians, she carried on with extraordinary vigour the work, already begun during her husband's life, of guarding her dominions from attack by building 'burhs' or fortified settlements at different points of strategic importance, such as Tamworth and Stafford [see under Ethelfleda]. Meanwhile Eadward pursued a similar policy in the south-east. No longer waiting for the Danes to attack him, he advanced his border by building two burhs at Hertford to hold the passage of the Lea, and then marched into Essex and encamped at Maldon, while his men fortified Witham on the Blackwater. He thus added a good portion of Essex to his dominions, and 'much folk submitted to him that were before under the power of the Danish men' (ib.) Then, perhaps, followed a period of rest as far as Eadward and the West-Saxons were concerned, though Æthelflæd still went on with her work, securing the Mercian border against the Danes and the Welsh. In 915 Eadward was suddenly called on to defend his land from foreign invasion, for a viking fleet from Brittany under two jarls sailed into the Severn, attacked the Welsh, and took the Bishop of Llandaff prisoner. Eadward ransomed the bishop, and sent a force to guard the coast of Somerset. The Northmen landed, and were defeated with great loss by the levies of Gloucester and Hereford; they then made attempts to land at Watchet and Porlock in Somerset, but were beaten off. Some landed on one of the Holms in the Bristol Channel, and many of them died of hunger on the island. Finally the remainder of them sailed away to Ireland. Later in the year Eadward began to advance his border in a new direction, and attacked the Danish settlements on the Ouse; he took Buckingham after a siege of four weeks, and raised fortifications there. Then the jarl Thurcytel, who held Bedford, and all the chief men there, and many of those who belonged to the settlement of Northampton, submitted to him.

From the submission of Thurcytel, which should probably be placed under 915 (A.-S. Chron., Mercian; Florence; under 918, according to A.-S. Chron. Winton, followed by Green), the chronology of the reign is very confused. In this attempt to deal with it, as far as seems necessary for the present purpose, the Mercian has for obvious reasons been preferred to the Winchester version of the 'Chronicle,' considerable weight has been given to Florence of Worcester, and the deaths of Æthelflæd in 918 and Eadward in 924 have been assumed as settled. After receiving the submission of Thurcytel and his 'holds,' Eadward went to Bedford early in November, stayed there a month, and fortified it with a 'burh' on the southern side of the river. After a while Thurcytel and his Danes, finding that England was no place for them under such a King, obtained his leave to take ship and depart to 'Frankland.' Eadward restored Maldon and put a garrison there, perhaps in 917 {A.-S. Chron., Winton, 920; Florence,918), and the next year advanced to Towcester, built a 'burh' there, and ordered the fortification of Wigmore in Herefordshire. Then a vigorous effort was made by the Danes of Mercia and East Anglia to recover the ground thev had lost. They besieged Towcester, Bedford, and Wigmore, but in each case were beaten off. A great host, partly from Huntingdon and partly from East Anglia, raised a 'work' at Tempsford as a point of attack on the English line of the Ouse, leaving Huntingdon deserted. This army was defeated, with the loss of the Danish king of East Anglia and many others, and an attack made on Maldon by the East Angles, in alliance with a viking fleet, was also foiled. Finally Eadward compelled the jarl Thurferth and the Danes of Northampton 'to seek him for father and lord,' and fortified Huntingdon and Colchester. The year was evidently a critical one; the struggle ended in the complete victory of the English king, who received the submission of the Danes of East Anglia, Essex, and Cambridge.

Meanwhile the Lady of the Mercians had, after some trouble, compelled the Welsh to keep the peace, and had then turned against the Danes of the Five Boroughs, subduing Derby and Leicester. She lived to hear that the people of York had submitted to her, and then died at Tamworth on 12 June 918 [on this date see under Ethelfleda. Her vigorous policy had done much to forward the success of her brother. Between them they had succeeded in setting up a line of strongly fortified places which guarded all the approaches from the north from the Blackwater to the Lea, from the Lea to the Ouse, and from the Ouse to the Dee and the Mersey. Eadward was completing the reduction of the Fen country by the fortification of Stamford, when he heard of her death. He reduced Nottingham, another of the Five Boroughs, and caused it to be fortified afresh and colonised partly by Englishmen and partly by Danes. This brought the reconquest of the Mercian Danelaw to a triumphant close, and Eadward now took a step bv which the people of English Mercia, as well as of the newly conquered district, were brought into immediate dependence on the English king, Æthelflæds daughter Ælfwyn was, it is said, sought in marriage by Sihtric, the Danish king of York (Caradoc, p. 47). This marriage would have given all the dominions that Æthelflæd had acquired, and all the vast influence which she exercised, into the hands of the Danes. Eadward therefore would not allow Ælfwyn to succeed to her mother's power, and in 919 carried her away into Wessex. The notice of this measure given by Henry of Huntingdon probably preserves the feelings of anger and regret with which the Mercians saw the extinction of the remains of their separate political existence. The ancient Mercian realm was now fully incorporated with Wessex, and all the people in the Mercian land, Danes as well as English, submitted to Eadward. A most important step was thus accomplished in the union of the kingdom.

The death of Æthelflæd appears to have roused the Danes to fresh activity; Sihtric made a raid into Cheshire (Symeon, an. 920), and a body of Norwegians from Ireland, who had perhaps been allowed by Æthelflæd to colonise the country round Chester, laid siege to, and possibly took, the town ('urbem Legionum,' Gesta Regum § 133. Mr. Green appears to take this as Leicester, and to believe that the passage refers to the raid of the Danes from Northampton and Leicester on Towcester, placed by the Winchester chronicler under 921, and by Florence, followed in the text, under 918. The help that the pagans received from the Welsh makes it almost certain that William of Malmesbury records a war at Chester, and possibly the siege that in the 'Fragment' of MacFirbisigh is assigned to the period of the last illness of the Mercian ealdorman Æthelred; see under Ethelfleda. Eadward recovered the city, and received the submission of the Welsh, 'for the kings of the North Welsh and all the North Welsh race sought him for lord.' He now turned to a fresh enterprise; he desired to close the road from Northumbria into Middle England that gave Manchester its earliest importance, as well as to prepare for an attack on York, where a certain Ragnar had been received as king, Accordingly he fortified and colonised Thelwall, and sent an army to take Manchester in Northumbria, to renew its walls and to man them. This completed the line of fortresses which began with Chester, and he next set about connecting it with the strong places he had gained in the district of the Five Boroughs, for he strengthened Nottingham and built a 'burh' at Bakewell in Peakland, which commanded the Derwent standing about midway between Manchester and Derby. After recording how he placed a garrison in Bakewell, the Winchester chronicler adds: 'And him there chose to father and to lord the Scot king and all the Scot people, and Regnald, and Eadulf's son, and all that dwelt in Northumbrian whether Englishmen, or Danish, or Northmen, or other, and eke the king of the Strathclyde Welsh and all the Strathclyde Welsh' (an. 924, A.-S. Chron., Winton; but this is certainly too late, and 921 seems a better date; comp. Flor. Wig.) In these words the most brilliant writer on the reign finds evidence of a forward march of the king, of a formidable northern league formed to arrest his progress, of the submission of the allies, and of a visit to the English camp, probably at Dore, in which 'the motley company of allies' owned Eadward as their lord (Conquest of England, pp. 216,217). While there is nothing improbable in all this, the picture is without historical foundation. It is best not to go beyond what is written, especially as there is some ground for believing that the 'entry cannot be contemporary'(ib.) We may, however, safely accept it as substantially correct. Its precise meaning has been strenuously debated, for it was used by Edward I as the earliest precedent on which he based his claim to the allegiance of the Scottish crown (Hemingburqh, ii. 198). Dr. Freeman attaches extreme importance to it as conveying the result, in the case of Scotland, of 'a solemn national act,' from which may be dated the 'permanent superiority' of the English crown (Norman Conquest, i, 60, 128, 610). On the other hand, it is slighted by Robertson (Scotland under her Early Kings, ii. 384 sq.) It must clearly be interpreted by the terms used of other less important submissions. When the kings made their submission they entered into exactly the same relationship to the English king as that which had been entered into by the jarl Thurferth and his army when they sought Eadward 'for their lord and protector.' They found the English king too strong for them, and rather than fight him they 'commended' themselves to him, and entered into his 'peace.' The tie thus created was personal, and was analogous to that which existed between the lord and his comitatus. It marked the preponderating power of Eadward,but in itself it should perhaps scarcely be held as more than 'an episode in the struggle for supremacy in the north' (Green). Eadward thus succeeded in carrying the bounds of his immediate kingdom as far north as the Humber, and in addition to this was owned by all other kings and their peoples in the island as their superior.

In the midst of his wars he found time for some important matters of civil and ecclesiastical administration. Two civil developments of this period were closely connected with his wars. The conquest of the Danelaw and the extinction of the Mercian ealdormanry appear to have led to the extension of the West-Saxon system of shire-division to Mercia. While it is not probable that this system was carried out at all generally even in Mercia 'till after Eadward's death, the beginning of it may at least be traced to his reign, and appears in the annexation of London and Oxford with their subject lands Middlesex and Oxfordshire. Another change, the increase of the personal dignity of the king and the acceptance of a new idea of the duty of the subject, is also connected with conquest. The conouered Danes still remained outside the English people, they had no share in the old relationship between the race and the king, they made their submission to the king personally, and placed themselves imder his personal protection. Thus the king's dignity was increased, and a new tie, that of personal loyalty, first to be observed in the laws of Ælfred, was strengthened as regards all his people. Accordingly, at a witenagemot held at Exeter, Eadward proposed that all 'should be in that fellowship that he was, and love that which he loved, and shun that which he shunned, both on sea and land.' The loyalty due from the dwellers in the Danelaw was demanded of all alike. The idea of the public peace was gradually giving place to that of the king's peace. Other laws of Eadward concern the protection of the buyer, the administration of justice, and the like. In these, too, there may be discerned the increase of the royal pre-eminence. The law-breaker is for the first time said to incur the guilt of 'oferhyrnes' towards the king; in breaking the law he had shown 'contempt' of the royal authority (Thorpe, Ancient Laws, pp. 68-75 Stubbs, Constitutional History, i. 175, 183). In ecclesiastical afiairs Eadward seems to have been guided by his father's advisers. He kept Grimbold with him and, at his instance it is said, completed the 'New Minster,' Ælfred's foundation at Winchester, and endowed it largely (Liber de Hyda, 111; Ann, Winton, 10). Asser appears to have resided at his court(Kemble, Codex Dipl. 335, 337), and he evidently acted cordially with Archbishop Plegmund. The increase he made in the episcopate in southern England is connected with a story told by William of Malmesbury, who says (Gesta Regum, ii. 129) that in 904 the West-Saxon bishoprics had lain vacant for seven years, and that Pope Formosus wrote threatening Eadward and his people with excommunication for their neglect, that the king then held a synod over which Plegmund presided, that the two West-Saxon dioceses were divided into five, and that Plegmund consecrated seven new bishops in one day. As it stands this story must be rejected, for Formosus died in 896. Still it is true that in 909 the sees of Winchester, Sherborne, and South-Saxon Selsey were all vacant, and that Eadward and Plegmund separated Wiltshire and Berkshire from the see of Winchester and formed them into the diocese of was Ramsbury, and made Somerset and Devonshire, which lay in the bishopric of Sherborne, two separate dioceses, with their sees at Wells and Crediton. Five West-Saxon bishops and two bishops for Selsey and Dorchester were therefore consecrated by Plegmund, possibly at the same time (Anglia Sacra, i. 554; Reg. Sac. Anglic, 13).

The 'Unconquered King,' as Florence of Worcester calls him, died at Farndon in Northamptonshire in 924, in the twenty-fourth year of his reign (A.-S. Chron., Worcester; Florence; Symeon; 925 A.-S.Chron,Winton). As Æthelstan calls 929 the sixth year of his reign (Kemble, Codex Dipl. 347, 348), it is obvious that Eadward must have died in 924, and there are some reasons for believing that he died in the August of that year (Memorials of Dunstan, introd; lxxiv n.) He was buried in the 'New Minster' of Winchester. By Eegwyn, a lady of high rank (Flor. Wig.), or, according to later and untrustworthy tradition, a shepherd's daughter(Gesta Regum, ii. 131, 139; Liber de Hyda, 111), who seems to have been his concubine he had his eldest son Æthelstan, who succeededhim,possibly a son named Ælfred, not the rebel ætheling of the next reign, and a daughter Eadgyth, who in the year of her father's death was given in marriage by her brother to Sihtric, the Danish king of Northumbria. By 901 he was married to Ælflæd, daughter of Æthelhelm, one of his thegns, and Ealhswith (Kemble, Codex Dipl. 333). She bore him Ælfweard, who is said to have been learned, and who died sixteen days after his father, and probably Eadwine, drowned at sea in 933 (A.-S. Chron. sub an.), possibly by order of his brother (Symeon, Mon. Hist. Brit. p. 686; Gesta Regum, § 139), though the story, especially in its later fuller form, is open to doubt (Freeman, Hist, Essays, i. 10-15), and six daughters: Æthelflæd, a nun perhaps at Wilton (Gesta Regum, iii. 126) or at Rumsey (Liber de Hyda, 112); Eadgifu, married in 919 by her father to Charles the Simple, and after his death to Herbert, count of Troyes, in 951 (Acta SS. Bolland. Mar. xii. 750); Æthelhild, a nun at Wilton; Eadhild, married by her brother to Hugh the Great, count of Paris; Ælgifu, called in France Adela, married about 936 to Eblus, son of the count of Aquitane (Richard Pict., Bouquet,ix. 21); Eadgyth or Edith married in 930 to Otto afterwards emperor, and died on 26 Jan. 947, after her husband became king, but before he became emperor, deeply regretted by all the Saxon people (Widukindi. 37, ii. 41). Eadward's second wife (or third, if Eegwyn is reckoned) was Eadgifu, by whom he had Eadmund and Eadred, who both came to the throne, and two daughters, Eadburh or Edburga, a nun at Winchester, of whose precocious piety William of Malmesbury tells a story (Gesta Regum, ii. 217), and Eadgifu, married to Lewis, king of Arles or Provence. Besides these, he is said to have had a son called Gregory, who went to Rome and became a monk, and afterwards abbot of Einsiedlen.

[Anglo-Saxon Chron. sub ann.; Florence of Worcester, sub ann, (Engl. Hist. Soc,); William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum §§ 112, 124-6, 129, 131, 139 (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Gesta Pontificum, 177, 395 (Rolls Ser.); Henry of Huntingdon 742, Mon. Hist. Brit.; Symeon of Durham 686, Mon. Hist. Brit.; Æthelweard, 519, Mon. Hist. Brit.; Liber de Hyda, 111, 112 (Rolls Ser.); Annales Winton. 10 (Rolls Ser.); Thorpe's Ancient Laws and Institutes, 68-75; Kemble's Codex Dipl. ii.188-49; Three Irish Fragments by Dubhaltach MacFirbisigh, ed. O'Donovan (Irish Archæol and Celtic Soc.); Widukind's Res Gestæ Saxionicæ, i. 37, ii. 41, Pertz; Caradoc's Princes of Wales, 47; Recueil des Historians, Bouquet, ix. 21; Stubb's Constitutional Hist. i. 176, 183, and Registrum Sacrum Anglic 13; Freeman's Norman Conquest, i. 58-61, 610; Robertson's Scotland under her early Kings, ii. 384 sq.; Green's Conquest of England, 178-215-the best account we have of the wars of Eadward and Æthelflæd; Lappenberg's Anglo-Saxon Kings (Thorpe), ii. 85 sq.]

W. H. 
the Elder, Edward King of Wessex (I11236)
233 ELEANOR of Castile (d. 1290), queen of Edward I, daughter of Ferdinand III of Castile, by his second wife, Joanna, half-sister of Alfonso X, and heiress through her mother of the counties of Ponthieu and Montreuil, a princess of great beauty and discretion, met her future husband at Burgos, and was married to him in the monastery of Las Huelgas in October 1254. Her marriage was politically important, for in consideration of it Alfonso transferred to Edward his claims on Gascony, and it also brought him the succession to her mother's possessions; Edward settled 1,000l. a year upon her, which was to be increased to 1,500l. on his attaining the throne (F?dera, i. 519). She stayed for a year with her husband in Gascony, and came to England shortly before him, landing at Dover, and entering London 17 Oct. 1255, where she was received with much state, and was lodged in the house occupied by her brother Sanchey, archbishop-elect of Toledo, in the New Temple. Sanchey was visiting England with reference to the projected marriage of the king's daughter Beatrix, and his extravagance at the king's expense filled the Londoners with anger against Eleanor's fellow-countrymen (Matt. Paris, v. 509, 513). She was joined by her husband before the end of November. When Edward returned from France, in February 1263, he placed her in Windsor Castle, and she appears to have remained there until after the battle of Lewes, when, on 18 June 1204, the king, who was then wholly under the power of the Earl of Leicester, was made to command her departure. She then took refuge in France, remained there until after the battle of Evesham, and returned to England 29 Oct. 1265.

She accompanied her husband on his crusade in 1270. When, after he had been wounded by an assassin at Acre, it was proposed to cut all the inflamed flesh out of his arm, the surgeon ordered that she should be taken away from him, evidently lest her unrestrained grief should increase his danger, and she was led away 'weeping and wailing' (Hemingburgh, i. 336). The famous story of her saving his life by sucking the poison from the wound is noticed as a mere report by the Dominican Ptolomæus Lucensis (d. 1327?) in his 'Ecclesiastical History' (xxiii. c. 6), and is evidently utterly unworthy of credit. She was crowned with her husband on 19 Aug. 1274. After her return in 1265 she appears never to have been long absent from Edward. Though pious and virtuous, she was rather grasping. Archbishop Peckham interfered on behalf of some of her overburdened tenants, and told her that reparation must precede absolution. She had given scandal by joining with Jewish usurers, and getting estates from christians (Peckham Reg. ii. 619, iii. 939). She appears to have fallen sick of a low fever in the end of the summer of 1290, and was probably placed by the king at 'Hardeby' (Rishanger, p. 120) or Harby in Nottinghamshire. After he had met his parliament at Clipstone he returned to Harby on 20 Nov., and remained with her until her death on the 28th. Her corpse was embalmed, and her funeral procession left Lincoln on 4 Dec.; her body was buried at Westminster on the 17th by the Bishop of Lincoln, and her heart was deposited in the church of the Dominicans. The route taken by the funeral procession is ascertained by the notices of the crosses that the king erected to her memory at Lincoln, Grantham, Stamford, Geddington, Northampton, Stony Stratford, Woburn, Dunstable, St. Albans, Waltham, West-cheap, and Charing. The effigy on her tomb, of remarkable beauty, appears to have been the work of an English goldsmith named William Torrell.

[For authorities see Strickland's Queens, i. 418; Ptolomæi Lucensis Hist. Eccl., Rerum Ital. SS., Muratori, xi. 743, and col. 1168. For details concerning Eleanor's sickness, death, funeral, and the chantries and other foundations in her honour see Archæologia, xxix. 186, and Engl. Hist. Rev. (April 1888), X. 315.]

W. H 
of Castile, Eleanor Queen Consort of England, Countess de Ponthieu (I10783)
234 ELEANOR, ALIENOR, or ÆNOR, Duchess of Aquitaine, Queen of France and Queen Of England (1122?-1204), is said to have been born in 1122. Her father was William X, duke of Aquitaine; her mother, Ænor de Châtelleraut, died before her husband. Eleanor's grandfather, William IX, the famous troubadour and crusader, had married Philippa, daughter of William, count of Toulouse, and their son, William X, was thus able to bequeath a somewhat shadowy claim over this lordship to his daughter's second husband, Henry II of England (Geoffrey of Vigeois, pp. 304, 299; Chron. Malleacense, p. 403). Through the above-mentioned Philippa, whose mother was the daughter of William the Conqueror's brother, Robert, earl of Montaign, Eleanor was distantly related to her future husband Henry II (Rob. de Monte, p. 509).

William X, duke of Aquitaine, died at Compostella on Good Friday 1137. Before starting on his pilgrimage he had made arrangements for the marriage of his eldest daughter Eleanor to Louis, afterwards Louis VII, eldest son of Louis VI, king of France. By his will, which is preserved in an old chronicle, he bequeathed Aquitaine and Poitou to his prospective son-in-law. The younger Louis assumed the inheritance at Limoges (29 June 1137), and a few days later, probably on Sunday, 4 July, the marriage was celebrated at Bordeaux in presence of the nobles of Gascony, Poitou, and Saintonge (Chron, ap. Bouquet, xii. 115-16; Chron. of Tours, p. 1153; Geoffrey of Vigeois, pp. 304-5; Suger, p. 62). By this alliance the whole of south-west Gaul, from the borders of Brittany and Anjou to the Pyrenees, was added to the domams of the new French king (Will, of Newb. p. 102), who his father about 1 Aug. 1137 (Will. of Jumièges, p. 585).

On Easter aay 1146 Louis and Eleanor, moved by the eloquence of St. Bernard, took the cross and started on the crusade, after receiving the pope's blessing at St. Denys, on 8 June 1147 (Suger, pp. 126-7; Ono de Diogilo, 1205-10). The story that Eleanor raised a troop of armed ladies and rode at their head as an Amazonian queen (Strickland, pp. 298-9; Larrey, p. 59; for the origin of this myth, see Nicetas, De Manuele Comneno. p. 80, ed. Bekker, Bonn, 1835) seems to be as purely fabulous as the tales which relate her amours in the Holy Land with Saladin, who was at this time a mere boy of thirteen. It is, however, certain that during this expedition her character was compromised by an intrigue of some kind or other with her uncle, Raymond I, prince of Antioch. This may possibly be no more than the scandal attaching itself to a close intimacy with her kinsman, who was eager to divert the efforts of the crusading host to his own aggrandisement; nor does Suger's letter to the king, in which he commends him for concealing his anger against his wife till after their return to France, enumerate any definite charge. In the latter half of 1149 Eleanor joined her husband in Calabria, whence they returned to their own kingdom by way of Rome(Will, of Tyre, xiv. c. 27; Epp. Sugerii, pp. 518-19).

For more than two years Eleanor continued to live with her husband, and in this period bore him a daughter, Alice, afterwards married to Theobald, count of Blois (Vita Ludov. vii. 126). In 1151 or 1152 they established order in Aquitaine, on the return from which expedition the question of divorce was raised, perhaps for the second time (Chron. of Tours, pp. 1015-16). A church council held at Beaugency under the presidency of Samson, archbishop of Rheims, dissolved the marriage on the plea of consanguinity (21 March 1152), and some contemporary historians declare this action to have been taken with the approval of St. Bernard and Pope Eugenius (Vita Ludov. p. 127; Richard OF Poitiers, p. 101). Although long before the twelfth century came to a close it was currently reported that Louis repudiated his wife for adultery, it seems impossible to admit that such a charge was ever proved against her. The proceedings may perhaps have been due to Louis' disappointment in not having a son to succeed him. If we may trust an early chronicle of the next century, there was no lack of princes ready to espouse the divorced queen. At Blois a nasty night voyage saved her from falling into the hands of Count Theobald; at Tours, whither she fled from Blois, she narrowly escaped being seized by Geoffrey, the brother of her future husband (Chron. of Tours, 1616; cf. Will. of Newburgh,i. 171, and Walter Map, De Nug. Cur, p. 226). There is nothing improbable in these tales, but they probably belong to the same class as Brompton*s legend of her intrigue with Henry II's father, Geoffrey, which Walter Map accepts, although Geoffrey seems to have died m 1152 (Brompton, pp. 1044-5; Hist. Gaufredi, p. 292; Hen. Hunt. p. 283). All, however, that is certain is that she made her way to Poitiers, whence she sent an embassy to Henry, who had just succeeded his father as Count of Anjou and Duke of Normandy. Dazzled by the prospect of so brilliant an alliance, he accepted ner overtures and married her about Whitsuntide (Gervase of Cant. ii. 149; Rob. de Monte, p. 500).

Louis, who had hoped that his daughters would inherit the principality of their mother, now made war upon the young duke. A fever soon brought this contest to a close, and next year (1153) Henry was able to invade England. In 1154 he became king of England, and was crowned with his wife (17 Dec.) by Archbishop Theobald (Gervase of Cant. ii. 147-8, 159-60; Rob. de Monte).

Eleanor's second son, Henry, was born at London in March 1155, Matilda at London in 1156, Richard at Oxford in September 1157. Towards the end of 1158 she crossed over to Cherbourg, after Geoffrey's birth in September, to spend Christmas there with her husband. Eleanor was born at Falaise in 1161, Joan at Angers in October 1165, John in 1166 (Rob. de Monte, sub ann.)

In 1159 Henry attacked Toulouse under shelter of his wife's claims; and sixteen years later these claims were to some extent admitted, when Raymond V did homage to the king and his two elder sons at Limoges in February 1173 (Roger of Hoveden,i. 217, ii. 47; Brompton, p. 1051). During the long years of the Becket controversy Eleanor does not appear prominently; but a letter from John of Salisbury warns the archbishop that he must not look to the queen for help (1165). Five years later she seems to have been privy to the whole course of events relating to the coronation of the young Henry, and indeed to have had the business of detaining the young wife at Caen while her eldest son was being crowned in England laid upon her (Epp. Joh. Sarieb, ap. Bouquet, xvi. 242,431.)

The peculiar position in which Eleanor stood with regard to Aquitaine may have influenced Henry II when in 1168, after the revolt of the Counts of March and Aquitane , he left her in the disturbed district under the care of Count Patrick of Salisbury (Rob. de Monte, p. 517). Two years later it was at her intercession that the king invested his son Richard with the duchy (about August 1170) (Geoffrey of Vigeois, p. 318; Roger of Hoveden, ii. 5, 6). Her affection for her children induced her to abet them in the great rebellion of 1173, if indeed she was not, as some contemporary accounts assert, the prime mover of the revolt. Eleanor had prepared to follow her three elder sons in their flight, and had even put on man's attire to facilitate her escape, when she was seized by the king's orders and put under strict guard, from which she was not fully released till her husband's death sixteen years later (Gery. of Cant. i. 242; Rob. de Monte, p. 521). A letter is still preserved that must have been written about the spring of 1173, when she was already contemplating this step, in which the Archbishop of Rouen urges her to return to 'her lord and husband before things get worse,' and warns her that it is really herself and her sons that she is injuring by her conduct (Epp, Petri Bles. ap. Bouquet, xv. 630). For the next sixteen years the chroniclers are almost silent as regards the queen. Somewhere about Easter 1174 she was led into England along with her daughter-in-law. According to Geoffrey of Vigeois her place of confinement was Salisbury; another account makes it Winchester. Probably she was not treated with great severity, for though we find Henry negotiating with the papal legate (c. October 1175) about a divorce from his 'hated queen,' she was apparently still produced in public for occasions of ceremony. Thus she was present at the concord between Henry and his sons in December 1184; and in the following spring Richard restored Poitou to her at his fathers command. According to one writer she was released from prison in this year (1185) at the request of Baldwin, the newly elected archbishop of Canterbury. Possibly, too, the dying petition of the young king Henry (d. 11 June 1183), in which he entreated his father on behalf of his captive mother, may have softened the old king's heart; added to which, since the death of Rosamond (about 1176), he had perhaps no longer the same inducements to seek a divorce (Geoff, of Vig. p. 331; Rob. de Monte, p. 523; Gervase of Cant. i. 256; Roger of Hoveden, ii. 288, 304; De Morte &c, Henrici Jun. ap. Stevenson, Ralph of Coggeshall, pp. 267, 273).

The death of her husband (6 July 1189) freed Eleanor even from the semblance of restraint. In the days that elapsed before the coronation of Richard it was her efforts that secured the recognition of her son in England and the peace of the country. She made a royal progress through the land; she released the county prisoners from the gaols; and received oaths in her son's name. In earlier days men had seen the fulfilment of Merlin's prophecies when the 'eagle of the broken treaty' urged her sons to their revolt against her husband; now they found a more generous application of the prophecy, and imagined that in thus preparing for the coronation of her third-born son the same eagle 'was rejoicing in her third nesting' (Rog. of Hoveden, iii. 4; Ralph de Dic. ii. 67; cf. Rich, of Poitiers, ap. Bouquet, xii. 420; Epp, Joh. Sarisb. ap. Bouquet, p. 534).

In the spring of 1190 Eleanor accompanied her son and his betrothed bride, Alice of France, to Normandy. On 30 March 1191 she brought Richard's future wife, Berengaria of Navarre, to Sicily; and three days later started back home by way of Rome, where she had an interview with Pope Celestine III on the matter of Geoffrey's election to the see of York. The Christmas of this year she spent in Normandy at Bonneville. She reached Portsmouth 11 Feb. 1192 (Rich, of Devizes, p. 55). A little later in the same spring she prevented John from crossing to France, as she suspected he was meditating some treachery towards his brother. In the same spirit she exacted an oath of fealty from all the lords of the realm to the same king (Lent 1192). When the news of Richard's captivity arrived, she was the very soul of the resistance offered to the contemplated invasion of Philip and John. Her commands brought all the English, noble and ignoble, knights and rustics alike, to guard the south-eastern coast (Easter 1193). She assumed the custody of Wallingford Castle and Windsor from the doubtful fidelity of John, who had now returned to England (April). It was to her that Richard wrote his orders about the collection of his ransom, and it was with her seal that the money-bags were stamped for protection when it was raised. In December the king called her to his presence; at Mayence, on 2 Feb. 1194, she was present when the emperor displayed the fatal evidence of her youngest son's complicity in the plot against his brother; and lastly, it was into her keeping that the captive king was delivered two days later (Rog. of Hoveden, iii. 4, 5, 32, 95, 100, 179, &c.; Ralph de Dic.. ii. 67, &c.; Gervase of Cant. i. 515; Rich, of Devizes, p. 557).

In the same year she attended the great council of Nottingham (30 March 1194), and on 17 April was present at Richard's solemn recoronation in St. Swithin's Church, Winchestor. In 1198 she was accused of being privy to the attempted escape of Philip, bishop of Beauvais, Philip Augustus's cousin (Rog. of Hoveden, iii. 231, iv. 40-1).

It was owing to Eleanor's influence that Richard had consented to pardon his brother John; and on the death of this king (6 April 1199) the aged mother at once exerted herself to secure the succession of her youngest son. When the barons of Anjou declared for her grandson Arthur, she joined Richard's mercenary leader Marchadeus, and laid waste the district. Early in the next year, though now almost eighty years old, she started for Castile, to make arrangements for the marriage of Alfonso's daughter Blanche, her own grandchild, with Philip Augustus's son Louis, afterwards Louis VIII. On her return she spent Easter at Bordeaux (9 April), and soon alter, 'worn out with the toils of her journey and old age,' betook herself to the abbey of Fontevraud, which already sheltered the bodies of her husband and two of her children. From this seclusion she was called once more by the outbreak of war between John and Philip in 1202. She was staying at Mirabeau, with only a scanty guard, when her grandson Arthur, accompanied by Geoffrey de Lusignan and Hugh Brown, laid siege to the castle, and would have had to surrender had not the king, hearing of her position, made a night march to her assistance, and taken her assailants captive (about 30 July 1202). Two years later Eleanor died (1 April 1204), and was buried at Fontevraud (Will. of Newburgh, ii.424; Rog. of Hoveden, iii. 367, iv. 84, 89, 96, 107; Matt. Paris, ii. 488; Rigord, ap. Bouquet, xvii. 55; Ralph of Coggeshall, p. 135; Annals of Waverley, p. 256).

Eleanor had two children by her first husband, Louis VII: Mary (d. 1198), who married Henry, count of Champagne; and Alice, who married Theobald, count of Blois. Her sons by Henry II have been mentioned above, except her first-born, William (1153-1156). Her daughters by Henry were Matilda (1156-1189), who married Henry of Saxony; Eleanor (1162-1214), who married Alfonso III of Castile; and Joan (1165-99), who married first William II of Sicily, and secondly Raymond of Toulouse.

[Authorities quoted above. They are nearly all to be found in the great collections of Bouquet and Migne. William of Newburgh and the English historians are quoted from the Rolls Ser. edition; Geoffrey of Vigeois from Labbé, Bibliotheca MSS.; Robert de Monte from Perte, vol. vi. The Chronicle of Tours is printed in Martène and Dorand's Amplissima Collectio. Walter Map's De Nugis Curialium has been edited for the Camden Society by T. Wright. For Brompton see Twysden's Decem Scriptores. For the Historia Gaufredi in Marchegay's Comtes d'Anjou; Richard of Devizes for the English Historical Society.] 
d'Aquitaine, Eleanor Duchess of Aquitaine (I10826)
235 EMMA (d. 1052), called Ælfgifu, queen, the daughter of Richard the Fearless, duke of the Normans, by Gunnor, and legitimated by the duke's subsequent marriage with her mother (Will. of Jumièges, viii. c. 36), is said to have been accomplished and beautiful, and is called the gem of the Normans, (Henry of Huntingdon, p. 752). She was married to King Ethelred or Æthelred the Unready [q. v.] in 1002. This marriage prepared the way for the future conquest of England by the Normans, and was held to give the conqueror some right to the crown (ib. p. 751; Norman Conquest, i. 332 sq.). She arrived in England in Lent, and adopted the English name Ælfgifu, by which she is generally designated in the attestations of charters, though she is also called Emma, and sometimes by both names (Flor. Wig. i. 156; A.-S. Chron., Canterbury, sub an. 1013; Codex. Dipl. 719, 728 sq.) Winchester and other cities and jurisdictions, or rather the profits of them, were assigned her as her 'morning gift.' Among these was Exeter, where she appointed as her reeve a Frenchman, or Norman, named Hugh, who betrayed the city to the Danes. Her marriage with Æthelred was certainly not a happy one, and the king is said to have been unfaithful to her. She bore him two sons, Eadward, called the Confessor, and Ælfred [q. v.] When Sweyn conquered England in 1013 she took refuge with her brother, Duke Richard the Good. She was attended in her flight by Ælfsige, abbot of Peterborough, and appears to have left her sons in England, and to have been joined by them in Normandy (A.-S. Chron. sub an. 1013). After the death of Sweyn she probably returned to England with her husband, who died 23 April 1016. She is said to have defended London when it was besieged by Cnut in the May of that year [see under Canute]. In July 1017 she was married to Cnut, after having obtained his assent to her stipulation that the kingdom should descend to her son by him should she bear him one (Enc. Emmæ, ii. 16). She is said to have extended the dislike she felt towards her English husband to the sons she had by him (Gesta Regum, ii. 196); she was much attached to Cnut, and evidently wished that her English marriage should as far as possible be forgotten. Indeed her encomiast, when speaking of her marriage with Cnut, goes so far as to call her 'virgo.' Like her Danish husband she gave many gifts to monasteries, and especially enriched the Old Minster at Winchester. She and her little son Harthacnut, whom she bore to Cnut, were present at the translation of Archbishop Ælfheah in 1023, and she is said, on exceedingly doubtful authority, to have joined her brother Richard in mediating between her husband and Malcolm of Scotland (Rudolf Glaber, ii. 2). When Cnut died in 1035 she and Earl Godwine strove to procure the kingship for her son Harthacnut, who was then in Denmark. Harold, one of Cnut's sons by an earlier connection, opposed them, and caused all Emma's treasures at Winchester to be seized. The kingdom was divided; Harold became king north of the Thames, while Harthacnut was acknowledged in Wessex, and as he remained absent Emma and Earl Godwine ruled for him. Cnut's housecarls were faithful to his widow (A.-S. Chron., Peterborough, sub. ann. 1036). When one or both of her sons by Æthelred attempted to gain the kingdom in 1036, Emma appears to have favoured their enterprise. Ælfred was on his way to Winchester to see her when he was set upon by his enemies, and when she heard of his fate she sent Eadward, who is said to have been with her, back to Normandy (A.-S. Chron., Abingdon and Worcester; Flor. Wig. i. 196). The foolish legend that accuses her of complicity in the murder of Ælfred and of an attempt to poison Eadward is not worth discussion (Ann. Winton. ii. 17, 22; Brompton, col. 934 sq.; Norman Conquest, i. 544). The author of the Encomium Emmæ, who wrote for the queen's gratification, and who accordingly ignores her earlier marriage altogether, and speaks of the æthelings as if they were her sons by Cnut, says that Harold, in order to get them into his power, wrote a letter to them in their mother's name, complaining that she was deprived of power, and requesting that one of them would come over secretly and give her advice (Enc. Emmæ, iii. 3). That her favourite son Harthacnut was nominally king in Wessex, that Godwine had been in favour of his candidature, and that she was acting as regent for him, are not facts that make it unlikely that Emma should have been anxious for the success of the æthelings. Her power was rapidly passing away, for people became impatient of Harthacnut's prolonged absence; she saw the cause of her enemy Harold daily gaining ground; Earl Godwine was probably already inclined to go over to his side, and, whether the story of the forged letter is true or not, the letter as we have it probably states no more than the truth as regards the decay of her authority (for a different view see Norman Conquest, i. 553). In the course of the next year Wessex accepted Harold as king, and forsook Harthacnut, and before the winter Emma was banished 'without any mercy,' words which may perhaps imply that no time was allowed her to collect her goods (A.-S. Chron., Worcester). She sought shelter at the court of Baldwin V, count of Flanders, the son of one of her nieces, a daughter of Richard the Good, and the husband of Adela, who had been betrothed to her nephew Richard III. He received her hospitably, and maintained her at Bruges (ib.; Enc. Emmæ, iii. 7). She is said to have sent messengers to her son Eadward asking him to help her, but according to the story Eadward, though he visited her, declared that he could do nothing for her. After he had returned to Normandy she is said to have applied to Harthacnut, who certainly in 1039 prepared to assert his claim to the English throne, sailed with a few ships to Flanders, and remained with her during the winter (Enc. Emmæ, iii. 8 sq.). In June 1040, after the death of Harold, she returned to England with Harthacnut, and appears to have held a position of considerable influence during his short reign (Hist. Rames. p. 151). One of the earliest acts of Eadward after he became king was to despoil her of her wealth. In November 1043 he rode from Gloucester, where he seems to have been holding some council, in company with Earls Godwine, Leofric, and Siward, appeared suddenly at Winchester, and seized all her treasure, 'because she had done less for him than he would both before he became king and also since' (A.-S. Chron., Worcester). Whatever the exact cause may have been for this act, it seems to prove that the relations between her and Eadward were not such as would make it probable that she had applied to him for help before she sent to Harthacnut. As the seizure of her goods was approved by the three great earls, it is not unlikely that, faithful to her old feelings in favour of the Danish line, she had countenanced the partisans of Sweyn of Denmark (Norman Conquest, ii. 58?62). Enough was left her for her maintenance, and she was ordered to live quietly at Winchester, where the old palace was in the Conqueror's reign still called her house (ib. iv. 59 n.) After her disgrace she took no active part in public affairs, though, as in 1044 she witnessed two of her son's charters with reference to the church of Winchester (Codex. Dipl. 774, 775), some reconciliation probably took place between them. The legend that she was accused of unchastity, and cleared herself by the ordeal of hot iron, has no foundation of fact (it appears in Ann. Winton. ii. 21, and Brompton, col. 941, and is fully examined in Norman Conquest, ii. 368 sq.). She died on 6 March 1052, and was buried by her husband Cnut in the Old Minster at Winchester (1051, A.-S. Chron., Abingdon, 1052, Worcester).

[Anglo-Saxon Chron.; Florence of Worcester (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Encomium Emmæ, Pertz; William of Jumièges, Duchesne; Henry of Huntingdon, Mon. Hist. Brit.; William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Hist. Ramesiensis (Rolls Ser.); Ann. Winton., Ann. Monastici (Rolls Ser.); Brompton, Twysden; Freeman's Norman Conquest, vols. i. ii.] 
de Normandie, Emma (I6415)
236 ETHELRED or ÆTHELRED II, the Unready (968?-1016), king of England, son of Eadgar and Ælfthryth, was born either in 968 or 969, for he was scarcely seven years old when his father died in 975. His defilement of the baptismal font is said to have caused Dunstan to foretell the overthrow of the nation during his reign (Henry of Huntingdon, p. 748). On the death of his father a strong party was in favour of electing him king instead of his brother Eadward [q. v.] He lived with his mother at Corfe, and Eadward had come to see him when he was slain there. The child wept bitterly at his brother's death, and it was said that his mother was enraged at his tears, and, not having a scourge at hand, beat him so severely with some candles that in after life he would never have candles carried before him, a story that, foolish as it is, may perhaps imply that he was badly brought up in childhood (Gesta Regum, sec. 164). He succeeded his brother as king, and was crowned by Dunstan at Kingston on 14 April 978 (A.-S. Chron. Abingdon, and Flor. Wig.; 979, A.-S. Chron. Worcester; on the discrepancy see Mon. Hist. Brit. p. 397 n. b); the archbishop on the day of his coronation is said to have prophesied evil concerning him because he came to the throne through the murder of his brother; it is more certain that Dunstan exacted a pledge of good government from him, and delivered an exhortation on the duties of a christian king (Memorials of Dunstan, p. 355 sq.). Æthelred was good-looking and of graceful manners (Flor. Wig.); his 'historical surname,' the Unready, does not imply that he lacked energy or resource, but rede, or counsel (Norman Conquest, i. 286). He was by no means deficient in ability, nor was he especially slothful (Gesta Regum, sec. 165); indeed, throughout his reign he constantly displayed considerable vigour, but it was generally misdirected, for he was impulsive, passionate, cruel, and apt to lean on favourites, whom he did not choose for any worthy reasons; he had no principles of action, and was guided by motives of temporary expediency. During the first years of his reign there was no change in the government by the great ealdormen. The death of Ælfhere, ealdorman of Mercia, in 983, was probably a considerable loss to the country; he was succeeded by his son Ælfric, who was banished by the king in 985, cruelly it is said (Henry of Huntingdon. Dunstan, though he still attended the meetings of the witan, evidently took no part in political matters. The system of defence worked out by Eadgar must have perished at this time, which was naturally a period of disorganisation. A worthless favourite named Æthelsine appears to have exercised considerable influence over the young king, and to have led him to commit and to sanction many acts of oppression (Kemble, Codex Dipl. p. 700). By his advice Æthelred laid claim to an estate belonging to the bishopric of Rochester, some violence ensued, and in 986 Æthelred laid siege to Rochester; he was unable to take it, and ravaged the lands of the see. Dunstan interfered on behalf of the bishop, and, when the king disregarded his commands, paid him a hundred pounds of silver to purchase peace, declaring his contempt for Æthelred's avarice, and prophesying that evil would shortly come on the nation (Flor. Wig.; Osbern). It is probable that by this date Æthelred had been some time married to his first wife, Ælfgifu [see under Edmund Ironside]. From 980 to 982 several descents were made on different parts of the coast by the Danes and Northmen. Southampton, Thanet, and Cheshire were ravaged; the coasts of Devon and Cornwall suffered severely, and a raid was made on Portland. To these years may perhaps be referred the story that Swend, the future king of Denmark, came over to England as a fugitive, and no doubt as the leader of a viking expedition, that Æthelred treated him as an enemy, and that he was hospitably received by the Scottish king (Adam Brem. ii. c. 32). These attacks were made simply for the sake of plunder; they ceased for a while after 982, and when they were renewed took a more dangerous form, for the invaders began to settle in the country. In 988 they landed in Somerset, but were beaten off after a sharp struggle. An invasion of a more formidable kind was made in 991 by a Norwegian force under King Olaf Tryggvason, Justin, and Guthmund; Ipswich was plundered, and the ealdorman Brihtnoth [q. v.] was defeated and slain at Maldon in Essex. Then Archbishop Sigeric, Æthelweard [see under Ethelwerd], the ealdorman of the western provinces, and another West-Saxon ealdorman, named Ælfric, offered to purchase peace of the Northmen, and promised to pay them ten thousand pounds of silver. So large a sum could not be raised quickly, and the Northmen threatened to ravage Kent unless they were paid. Sigeric obtained the money to make up the deficiency from Æscwig, bishop of Dorchester, and pledged an estate to him for repayment (Kemble, Codex Dipl. p. 689). The treaty was accepted by the king and the witan, and was concluded with the Norwegian leaders (Ancient Laws, p. 121). This was the first time that the disastrous policy was adopted of buying off the invaders. Unworthy as the step was, it is sometimes condemned too hastily. It was not taken consciously as an escape from the duty of defending the land; the men who made, and the king and the counsel who ratified, the treaty could not have done so with the expectation that other payments of a like kind would follow, and their action must be judged by itself. It was a moment of supreme danger, for the whole of the south of the country lay open to the enemy, and the three men who bore rule over it may well have thought that as no troops were ready their first duty was to save the people from impending destruction. And the money was not paid with the idea that the Norwegians would in return leave England; the treaty as made by Æthelred distinctly contemplates their remaining; each party, for example, was to refrain from harbouring the Welsh, the thieves, and the foes of the other. In fact, the king, by the advice of the archbishop and the two West-Saxon ealdormen, bought the alliance of Olaf and his host against all other enemies. War was actually going on with the Welsh, and their prince, Meredydd, was in alliance with the Northmen, whose help he had hired (Brut, ann. 988, 991; Norman Conquest, i. 313). And Æthelred can scarcely have failed to take into account the probability of a Danish invasion, and if so, he and his advisers may have flattered themselves with the hope of dividing their foes, and keeping off the Danes by the help of the Northmen (Conquest of England, p. 375). Even allowing that such a hope was certain to fail, time was gained by the treaty, and if it had been used in vigorous and sustained preparations for defence, the advice of the archbishop and the ealdormen might have turned out well. Unfortunately the kingdom was found defenceless again and again, and Æthelred and his nobles, having once got rid of immediate danger by a money payment, bought peace of the Danes on other occasions when they must have been fully aware of the folly of what they were doing. According to William of Malmesbury Æthelred made another treaty this year. He had causes of complaint against the Norman duke, Richard the Fearless; the ports of Normandy afforded convenient anchorage to the Scandinavian pirates, and it is not unlikely that they found recruits among the duke's subjects. War seemed imminent, and Pope John XV undertook the office of mediator. A peace was made which provided that neither should receive the enemies of the other, nor even the other's subjects, without 'passports from their own sovereign' (Gesta Regum, secs. 165, 166; this, the only authority for this treaty, is, of course, late; the grounds on which Dr. Freeman accepts the story will be found in Norman Conquest, i. 313, 633; it certainly seems unlikely that any one should have invented the pope's letter).

The peace purchased of the Northmen was broken by Æthelred. In 992 he and the witan ?decreed that all the ships that were worth anything? should be gathered together at London (A.-S. Chron.) He put the fleet under the command of two bishops and two lay leaders, Thored, possibly his father-in-law, and Ælfric, the Mercian ealdorman he had banished (Henry of Huntingdon, p. 740). The scheme of taking the Northmen's fleet by surprise was defeated through the treachery of Ælfric. Nevertheless the English gained a complete victory. Enraged at Ælfric's conduct, the king blinded his son Ælfgar. The Northmen sailed off, and did much damage in Northumbria and Lindsey. In 994 the two kings, Olaf of Norway and Swend of Denmark, invaded the land with nearly a hundred ships; their forces were beaten off from London by the burghers on 8 Sept., but ravaged Essex, Kent, Surrey, and Hampshire, and then 'took horses and rode whither they would.' Æthelred and the witan now offered them money and provisions if they would cease their ravages. They took up winter quarters in Southampton, and a tax was levied on Wessex to pay the crews, while a tribute of sixteen thousand pounds was raised from the country generally as the price of peace (it is possible that Æscwig gave the help which was the subject of an arrangement made in a witenagemot of the next year on this occasion; the threat of ravaging Kent, and the fact that Sigeric seems to have been acting on his own responsibility, appear, however, to point to the peace of 991). Æthelred for once used the time thus gained with prudence, for he sent Ælfheah, bishop of Winchester, and the ealdorman Æthelweard on an embassy to Olaf [see under Ælfheah]. The result was that the alliance between the invading kings was broken. Olaf came to Æthelred at Andover, made alliance with him, and, being already baptised, was confirmed by the bishop. Æthelred took him 'at the bishop's hands,' and gifted him royally; he promised that he would invade England no more, and kept his word. Swend sailed off to attack the Isle of Man, and the invasion ended. About two years of peace followed. In 995 Æthelred, probably at a meeting of the witan, acknowledged the faults of his youth, and made a grant to the bishop of Rochester (Kemble, Codex Dipl. p. 688). The next year he held another meeting at Celchyth (Chelsea), where the ecclesiastical element seems to have predominated (ib. 696). At some earlier date he had published at Woodstock a code regulating the English law of bail and surety, and in 997, at a witenagemot that met at Calne, and was adjourned to Wantage, a code was published on police matters, evidently designed for the Danish districts (Ancient Laws, pp. 119, 124; Codex Dipl. p. 698). At these meetings the king again acknowledged the sins of his youth, and restored some land he had unjustly taken from the church of Winchester. In this year the ravages of the Danes began again, though for about two years they were not especially serious, being chiefly confined first to the western coasts and then to the coast of Sussex. During the winter of 998, however, they took up quarters in the Isle of Wight, and forced the people of Hampshire and Sussex to send them provisions. This fresh trouble drove Æthelred to a renewed attempt to pacify heaven; he made a fresh and detailed acknowledgment of his youthful errors, especially in the Rochester matter, laid the blame chiefly on Æthelsine, whom he had deprived of his rank and wealth, and made full restitution to the bishop (Codex Dipl. p. 700). At the same time he was giving his confidence to another favourite as unworthy as Æthelsine, one Leofsige, whom in 994 he had made ealdorman of the East-Saxons (ib. p. 687). Kent was ravaged in 999, and Æthelred made another effort to defend his land. He commanded that the Danes should be attacked both by a fleet and an army, but the whole administration was hopelessly disorganised, and 'when the ships were ready they delayed from day to day, and wore out the poor men that were on board, and the more forward things should have been the backwarder they were time after time. And in the end the expedition by sea and land effected nothing except troubling the people, wasting money, and emboldening their foes' (A.-S. Chron. an. 999; for the causes of this inefficiency see Lappenberg, ii. 160; Norman Conquest, i. 324).

After the ravaging of Kent the Danes sailed off to Normandy in the summer of 1000, probably to sell their booty. Æthelred took advantage of their absence and of the preparations of the previous year to strike at the viking settlements close at hand; he led an army in person into Cumberland, which was a stronghold of the Danes, and ravaged the country, while his fleet wasted the Isle of Man (A.-S. Chron.; Henry of Hunting- don, p. 750; for another view of these proceedings see Norman Conquest, i. 328). To this year also is perhaps to be referred Æthelred's invasion of the Cotentin, for it was probably closely connected with the visit of the Danish fleet to Normandy. William of Jumièges (v. 4) says that Æthelred expected that his ships would bring him the Norman duke, Richard II, with his hands tied behind his back, but that they were utterly defeated. This expedition, if it ever took place, must have led to the marriage of Æthelred and the duke's sister Emma. While the Danish fleet was wasting the coasts of Devonshire the next year it was joined by Pallig, the husband of Gunhild, Swend's sister, who had been entertained by Æthelred and had received large gifts from him. The renewal of the war again stirred up the king to endeavour to get heaven on his side. In a charter of this year, granted with consent of the witan, the troubles of the country are set forth, and the king gives, in honour of Christ, and of his brother, the holy martyr Eadward, the monastery of Bradford to the nuns of Shaftesbury, where Eadward was buried, to be a place of refuge for them (Codex Dipl. p. 706). Early in 1002 he and the witan decreed that peace should again be bought of the Danish fleet, and he sent Leofsige to the fleet to learn what terms would be accepted. Leofsige agreed with the Danes that they should receive provisions and a tribute of 24,000l. Some change in the politics of the court seems to be indicated by Æthelred's promotion of his high-reeve, Æfic, above all his other officers (ib. p. 719). The terms in which this promotion is described have been interpreted as conferring a distinct office, that of 'chief of the high-reeves,' an office that has further been taken as a 'foreshadowing of the coming justiciary' (Conquest of England, p. 394). This theory, however, is not warranted by any recorded evidence. In the south of England, at least, the high-reeve held an office that was analogous to that of the shire-reeve. The political tendency of the period was towards a division of the kingdom into large districts; ealdormen, instead of being simply officers each with his own shire, were appointed over provinces containing different shires, and in the same way the other shire-officer, the reeve, became the high-reeve of a wider district. There is no evidence that Æfic held any administrative office other than, or superior to, that of other high-reeves; the words of Æthelred's charter seem to refer to nothing more than a title of honour, which may indeed scarcely have been recognised as a formal title at all. Æfic's promotion excited the jealousy of the king's favourite, Leofsige, and while on this mission to the Danes he slew the new favourite in his own house, an act for which he was banished by the king and the witan (A.-S. Chron.; Codex Dipl. p. 719). In Lent Emma came over from Normandy; her marriage with Æthelred was evidently not a happy one, and in spite of her great beauty he is said to have been unfaithful to her (Gesta Regum, sec. 165). The king now attempted to rid himself of his foes by treachery, and, on the ground that the Danes were plotting to slay him and afterwards all his witan, gave orders that 'all the Danish-men that were in England should be slain.' Secret instructions were sent in letters from the king to every town, arranging that this massacre should take place everywhere on the same day, 13 Nov. As there was at this time peace between the English and the Danes, the foreign settlers were taken by surprise. Women as well as men were certainly massacred (Flor. Wig.), and among them there is no reason to doubt Swend's sister, Gunhild, the wife of the traitor Pallig, who was put to death after having seen her husband and her son slain before her eyes (Gesta Regum, sec. 177). The massacre could not of course have extended to all parts of England, for in East Anglia and in some of the Northumbrian districts the Danes must have outnumbered the English. Still, not only in the purely English country, but also in many districts where the Danes, though dominant, were few in number, there must have been a great slaughter. Nor can the guilt of this act be extenuated by declaring that every man among the Danes was a 'pirate' (Norman Conquest, i. 344). It is fairly certain that many had settled down in towns and were living in security. A curious notice exists of the slaughter of those who were living in Oxford; it is in a charter of Æthelred, and the king there speaks of the Danes as having ?sprung up in this island as tares among wheat,? an expression that indicates that men of both races were living side by side (Early Hist. of Oxford, p. 320). In this charter, which bears date 1004' Æthelred speaks of this event as a 'most just slaughter' which he had decreed with the counsel of his witan.

The only result of the massacre was that the invasions were renewed with more system and determination. Swend himself came with the fleet in 1003. That year the storm fell on the west; Exeter was betrayed to the foe; an attempt made by the local forces of Hampshire and Wiltshire to come to a pitched battle failed, and Wilton and Salisbury were sacked and burnt. On his return the next year Swend attacked East Anglia, burnt Norwich and Thetford, but met with a gallant resistance from the ealdorman Ulfcytel, the husband of one of the king's daughters. In 1005 there was a famine, so the fleet sailed back for a while to Denmark. During these years of misery nothing is known of Æthelred save that he made some grants to monasteries and to his thegns. Early the next year, however, one of those domestic revolutions took place which expose the thoroughly bad state of his court. For some years a thegn named Wulfgeat had stood far higher than any one else in the king's favour and had enjoyed considerable power of oppression (Flor. Wig.; Wulfgeat appears in 987, Codex Dipl. p. 658). All his possessions were now confiscated, probably by the sentence of the witan, as a punishment for the unjust judgments he had given, and because he had abetted the king's enemies. Moreover, while Æthelred was at Shrewsbury, where he seems to have been holding his court, Ælfhelm, the earl of part of Northumbria, evidently of Deira (Yorkshire), was treacherously slain, under circumstances that, as far as we know them [see under EADRIC, STREONA], point to the king as the instigator of the deed. Shortly afterwards Ælfhelm's two sons were blinded by Æthelred's orders. It is probable that the murder of Ælfhelm, and possible that the treason of Wulfgeat, may in some way have been connected with a raid of Malcolm, king of Scots, that took place at this time; it was checked by Uhtred, son of Earl Waltheof, and the king made him earl over both the Northumbrian earldoms, and soon after gave him his daughter Ælfgifu to wife. The fall of Wulfgeat made way for the rise of another unworthy favourite, Eadric, called Streona [q. v.], whom the king shortly afterwards made ealdorman of the Mercians, and who married another of Æthelred's daughters. Later in the year the ?great fleet? came back again from Denmark, and the ravages began again. Æthelred made another attempt to withstand the invaders, and called out the levies of Wessex and Mercia. All harvest-time they were under arms, but no good came of it; the Danes marched, plundered, and destroyed as they would, and then retired to their ?frith-stool,? the Isle of Wight. About midwinter they began their work of destruction afresh, and Æthelred held a meeting of the witan to consult how the land might be saved from utter ruin. It was again decided to purchase peace, and this time the sum that was wrung from the people to buy off the invaders was 36,000l. After receiving this enormous sum the Danes left the land in peace for about two years.

The year 1008 is the date of a series of laws put forth by Æthelred with the counsel of the witan (Ancient Laws, p. 129). They contain several good resolutions, repeat some older enactments, deal with ecclesiastical as well as secular matters, and forcibly express a sense of the pressing need of patriotic unity. Provision was made for national defence; a fleet was to be raised and to assemble each year after Easter, and desertion from the land-force was to be punished by a fine of 120s. (a re-enactment of Ine's law of 'fyrd-wite'), and when the king was in the field the life and property of the deserter were to be at his mercy. The laws published at a witenagemot held at Enham (ib. p. 133) seem to belong to about the same date, and are of much the same character. Probably by mere chance, they do not mention the presence and action of the king. The fleet was raised by an assessment on every shire, inland as well as on the coast. The hundred was taken as the basis of the assessment, which was in ships and armour, not in money. Every three hundred hides furnished a ship, every ten a boat, every eight a helmet and breastplate (Earle, Saxon Chron. pp. 336, 337; Constitutional Hist. i. 105; on the difficulties as regards the assessment, see also Norman Conquest, i. 368; it does not seem clear why it should be supposed that any part of the levy affected private landowners, except as contributors to the quota of their shire). Æthelred's assessment was quoted by St. John and Lyttelton acting for the crown in Hampden's case in 1637 (Tryal of John Hambden, pp. 53, 91). The fleet met at Sandwich about Easter 1009, and Æthelred himself went abroad. An accusation was brought against Wulfnoth, the ?Child? of the South-Saxons; he sailed off with twenty ships and began plundering the coast. Æthelred sent his accuser, Brihtric, a brother of Eadric Streona, after him with eighty ships. Some of Brihtric's ships were wrecked and others were burnt by Wulfnoth. When the king heard this he went home, each crew took its ship to London, and the great effort that had been made came to nothing. Then a fleet came over under the jarl Thurcytel (or Thurkill), and soon after another under two other leaders; Canterbury and Kent purchased peace, and the Danes sailed to the Isle of Wight and thence devastated the southern shires. Æthelred now ordered 'the whole nation' to be called out; he took the command of a large army, and he and his people are said to have been prepared to conquer or die (Flor. Wig.) Once he intercepted the enemy, but no attack was made, owing, it is said, to the bad advice of Eadric. The ravages continued unhindered, and early in 1010 Oxford was burnt. Later in the year East Anglia was attacked, and, after a gallant though unsuccessful resistance by Ulfcytel, was thoroughly harried. A series of ravages followed that seem to have crushed all hope of further resistance. By the beginning of 1011 sixteen shires had been overrun (A.-S. Chron.) Then Æthelred and the witan again offered tribute, and 48,000l. was demanded. During the truce Thurcytel's fleet sacked Canterbury, took Archbishop Ælfheah [q. v.], and, after keeping him in captivity for seven months, slew him on 13 April 1012. Meanwhile an expedition was made against the Welsh, who had probably taken advantage of the state of the country to make raids on Mercia [see under Eadric]. The tribute was paid at last, and the 'great fleet' dispersed, Thurcytel, with forty-five ships, taking service under Æthelred, who promised to supply him and his men with food and clothing, and gave him an estate in East Anglia in return for his oath to defend the country against all invaders (A.-S. Chron.; Encomium Emmæ, i. 2; Gesta Regum, sec. 176). In the summer of 1013 Swend came over with a splendid fleet and received the submission of all northern England. Æthelred shut himself up in London, and when the Danish army, after pillaging Mercia and marching westward to Winchester, turned eastward, and appeared before the city, a vigorous defence was made, in which the king is said to have borne a foremost part, and the army again marched into the west. Swend was formally chosen as king, and Æthelred took shelter on Thurcytel's ships, which lay in the Thames. Emma went over to Normandy to her brother, the king sent the two sons he had by her to join her there, sailed to the Isle of Wight, stayed there over Christmas, and early in January 1014 crossed over to Normandy. He is said to have taken over treasure with him from Winchester, and, though the city was then in the hands of Swend, it is not impossible that his voyage to Thurcytel's station, the Isle of Wight, may have been made in order to meet some keeper of the royal ?hoard.? He was hospitably received by Duke Richard, and resided at Rouen (Will. of Jumièges, v. 7).

When Swend died in February the 'fleet' chose his son Cnut as king, but all the witan, clergy, and laity determined to send after Æthelred. Accordingly he received messengers from the assembly who told him that 'no lord was dearer to them than their lord by birth, if he would rule them rightlier than he had done before.' Then he sent messengers to the witan, and with them his son Eadward [see Edward the Confessor], promising that he would for the future be a good lord to them, and would be guided by their will in all things. A favourable answer was sent back, and as Olaf (afterwards St. Olaf, king of Norway) happened to be in some Norman port with his ships, he brought Æthelred back to England in Lent (Othere, Corpus Poeticum Boreale, ii. 153). He was joyfully received, and a witenagemot was held in which some laws were published containing more good resolutions, and a declaration that ecclesiastical and secular matters ought to be dealt with in the same assemblies. At the head of a large force he marched into Lindsey, drove Cnut out, ravaged the district and slaughtered the people, evidently as a punishment for the help they had given to his enemies. The satisfaction that was felt at his return was lessened by his ordering that 21,000l. (A.-S. Chron.) or 30,000l. (Flor. Wig.) should be paid to Thurcytel's fleet. The next year he held a great gemot at Oxford, and during its session he, and probably the witan also, must have agreed to the treacherous murder of Sigeferth and Morkere, chief thegns in the Seven Boroughs, by Eadric. He confiscated their property, and ordered Sigeferth's widow to be kept at Malmesbury. Contrary to his wish his son Eadmund married her. When Cnut returned to England in September, Æthelred lay sick at Corsham in Wiltshire. He was in London early the next year, and when Eadmund gathered an army to oppose Cnut, his troops refused to follow him unless the king and the Londoners joined them, but Æthelred was probably too ill to do so. A little later he joined the ætheling. When he had done so he was told that there was a plot against his life, and he thereupon went back to London again. Cnut was preparing to lay siege to the city when Æthelred died there on St. George's day, 23 April, 1016. He was buried in St. Paul's. By his first wife, Ælfgifu, he had seven sons, Æthelstan, who died 1016; Ecgberht, who died about 1005; Eadmund, who succeeded him; Eadred; Eadwig, a young man of noble character and great popularity (Flor. Wig. an. 1016; Gesta Regum, sec. 180), who was banished by Cnut and was slain by his order in 1017; Eadgar; and Eadward (Codex Dipl. p. 714); and apparently three daughters, Wulfhild, married to Ulfcytel, ealdorman of East Anglia; Eadgyth, married to Eadric Streona; and Ælfgifu, married to Earl Uhtred; the Æthelstan who fell in battle with the Danes in 1010 and is called the king's son-in-law (A.-S. Chron.; Flor. Wig.), was probably Æthel- red's sister's son (Henry of Huntingdon). By his second wife, Emma, he had two sons, Eadward, who came to the throne; and Ælfred [q. v.], who was slain in 1036; and a daughter, Godgifu, who married, first, Drogo, count of Mantes; and, afterwards, Eustace, count of Boulogne.

[Little can be added to Dr. Freeman's account of Æthelred in his Norman Conquest, i. 285?417; Green's notices (Conquest of England) are chiefly valuable when they bear on the intrigues of the court, but some of his statements appear fanciful; Lappenberg's Anglo-Saxon Kings, trans. Thorpe, ii. 150 sq.; Anglo-Saxon Chron.; Florence of Worcester; William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum; Kemble's Codex Dipl. vol. iii. (all Engl. Hist. Soc.); Henry of Huntingdon, Mon. Hist. Brit.; Adam of Bremen; Encomium Emmæ, both Rer. Germ. Scriptt., Pertz; William of Jumièges, Duchesne; Parker's Early Hist. of Oxford (Oxford Hist. Soc.); Vigfusson and Powell's Corpus Poet. Boreale; Tryal of John Hambden, Esq., 1719; Stubbs's Constitutional Hist.] 
the Unready, Æthelred II King of England (I5199)
237 FITZALAN, EDMUND, Earl of Arundel (1285-1326), son of Richard I Fitzalan, earl of Arundel [q. v.], and his Italian wife Alisona, was born on 1 May 1285 (Cal. Genealogicum, ii. 622). In 1302 he succeeded to his father's titles and estates. On Whitsunday (22 May) 1306 he was knighted by Edward I, on the occasion of the knighting of Edward the king's son and many others, and was at the same time married to Alice, sister and ultimately heiress of John, earl Warenne (Ann. Worcester in Ann. Mon. iv. 558; Langtoft, ii. 368). He then served in the campaign against the Scots, and was still in the north when Edward I died. At Edward II's coronation he was a bearer of the royal robes (F?dera, ii. 36). On 2 Dec. 1307 he was beaten at the Wallingford tournament by Gaveston, and straightway became a mortal enemy of the favourite (Malmesbury, in Stubbs's Chron. Ed. I and Ed. II, Rolls Series, ii. 156). In 1309 he joined Lancaster in refusing to attend a council at York on 18 Oct. (Hemingburgh, ii. 275), and in 1310 was appointed one of the lords ordainers (Rot. Parl. i. 443 b). In 1312 he was one of the five earls who formed a league against Gaveston (Malmesbury, p. 175), and he warmly approved of the capture of the favourite at Scarborough. Even after Gaveston's murder Arundel adhered to the confederate barons and was with Lancaster one of the last to be reconciled to the king. In 1314 he was one of the earls who refused to accompany Edward to the relief of Stirling, and thus caused the disaster of Bannockburn (ib. p. 201). In 1316 he was appointed captain-general of the country north of the Trent, and in 1318, after being one of the mediators of a fresh pacification, was made a member of the permanent council then established to watch the king. In 1319 he served against the Scots.

The Despensers now ruled Edward, and the marriage of Arundel's eldest son to the daughter of the younger Hugh was either the cause or the result of an entire change in his political attitude. He consented indeed to their banishment in 1321, but afterwards pleaded the coercion of the magnates. When Edward's subsequent attempt to restore them began, Arundel still seemed to waver in his allegiance. Finally in October he joined Edward at the siege of Leeds Castle, and henceforth supported consistently the royal cause (ib. 263, 'propter affinitatem Hugonis Despenser,' a phrase suggesting that the marriage had already been arranged). In 1322 he persuaded the Mortimers to surrender to the king at Shrewsbury (Ann. Paul. in Stubbs's Chron. Ed. I and Ed. II, i. 301), acted as one of the judges of Thomas of Lancaster at Pontefract (ib. p. 302), and received large grants from the forfeited estates of Badlesmere and the Mortimers. The great office of justice of Wales was transferred from Mortimer to him (Abbrev. Rot. Orig. i. 262), and in that capacity he received the writs directing the attendance of Welsh members to the parliament at York (Rot. Parl. i. 456). His importance in Wales had been also largely increased by his acquisitions of Kerry, Chirk, and Cydewain. In 1325 he also became warden of the Welsh marches (Parl. Writs, ii. iii. 854), and in 1326 he still was justice of Wales (F?dera, ii. 641). In 1326 he and his brother-in-law Earl Warenne were the only earls who adhered to the king after the invasion of Mortimer and Isabella. He was appointed in May chief captain of the army to be raised in Wales and the west; but he does not seem to have been able to make effectual head against the enemy even in his own district. He was captured in Shropshire by John Charlton, first lord Charlton of Powys [q. v.], and led to the queen at Hereford, where on 17 Nov. he was executed without more than the form of a trial, to gratify the rancorous hostility of Mortimer to a rival border chieftain (Ann. Paul. p. 321, says beheaded, but Knighton, c. 2546, says 'distractus et suspensus'). His estates were forfeited, and the London mob plundered his treasures.

By his wife Alice, sister of John, earl Warenne, Arundel had a fairly numerous family. His eldest son, Richard II Fitzalan [q. v.], ultimately succeeded to his title and estates. He had one other son, Edmund, who seems to have embraced the ecclesiastical profession, and to have afterwards abandoned it. Of his daughters, Aleyne married Roger L'Estrange, and was still alive in 1375 (Nicolas, Testamenta Vetusta, p. 94), and Alice became the wife of John Bohun, earl of Hereford. A third daughter, Jane, is said to have been married to Lord Lisle (compare the genealogies in Eyton, Shropshire, vii. 229, and in Yeatman, House of Arundel, p. 324).

[Rymer's F?dera, vol. i.; Rolls of Parliament, vol. ii.; Parl. Writs, vol. ii.; Stubbs's Chronicles of Edward I and Edward II (Rolls Series); Knighton in Twysden, Decem Scriptores; Walter of Hemingburgh (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Dugdale's Baronage, i. 316-17; Doyle's Official Baronage, i. 70; Tierney's Hist. of Arundel, 212-24; Vincent's Discoverie of Errours in Brooke's Catalogue of Nobility, p. 26.]

T. F. T. 
FitzAlan, Edmund 9th Earl of Arundel (I11409)
238 FITZALAN, RICHARD I, Earl of Arundel (1267-1302), was the son of John III Fitzalan, lord of Arundel, by his wife Isabella, daughter of Roger Mortimer of Wigmore, and was therefore the grandson of John II Fitzalan [q. v.] He was probably born on 3 Feb. 1267 (Eyton, vii. 258, but cf. Calendarium Genealogicum, i. 347, which makes him a little older). His father died when he was five years old, and his estates were scandalously wasted by his grandmother Matilda, and her second husband, Richard de Amundeville (Eyton, iv. 122). He was himself, however, under the wardship of his grandfather, Mortimer, though several custodians, among whom was his mother (1280), successively held his castle of Arundel. In 1287 he received his first writ of summons against the rebel Rhys ap Maredudd, and was enjoined to reside on his Shropshire estates until the revolt was put down (Parl. Writs, i. 599). He is there described as Richard Fitzalan, but in 1292 he is called Earl of Arundel in his pleas, in answer to writs of quo warranto (Placita de quo warranto, pp. 681, 687). It is said, without much evidence, that he had been created earl in 1289 (Vincent, Discovery, p. 25), when he was knighted by Edward I. But the title was loosely and occasionally assigned to his father and grandfather also, though certainly without any formal warranty, for the doctrine of the act of 11 Henry VI, that all who possessed the castle of Arundel became earls without other title, was certainly not law in the thirteenth century (Lords' Report on the Dignity of a Peer, but cf. Dugdale, Baronage, i. 315). In 1292 his zeal to join the army was the excuse for a humiliating submission to Bishop Gilbert of Chichester, after a quarrel about his right of hunting in Houghton forest (Tierney, pp. 203-7, from Bishop Rede's Register). In 1294 he was again spoken of as earl in his appointment to command the forces sent to relieve Bere Castle, threatened by the Welsh insurgent Madoc (Parl. Writs, i. 599). In all subsequent writs he equally enjoys that title, though his absence in Gascony prevented his being summoned to the model parliament of 1295. In 1297 he again served in Gascony. In 1298, 1299, and 1300 he held command in Scotland, and in the latter year appeared, a 'beau chevalier et bien amé' and 'richement armé,' at the siege of Carlaverock (Nicolas, Siege of Carlaverock, p. 50). His last attendance in parliament was in 1301 at Lincoln, where he was one of the signatories of the famous letter to the pope. His last military summons was to Carlisle for 24 June 1301. He died on 9 March 1302 (Doyle, i. 70).

Fitzalan married Alice or Alisona, daughter of Thomas I, marquis of Saluzzo (Muletti, Memorie Storico-diplomatiche di Saluzzo, ii. 508), an alliance which is thought to point to a lengthened sojourn in Italy in his youth. By her he left two sons, of whom the elder, Edmund Fitzalan [q. v.], succeeded him, while the younger, John, was still alive in 1375 (Nicolas, Testamenta Vetusta, p. 94). Of their two daughters, one, Maud, married Philip, lord Burnell, and the other, Margaret, married William Botiler of Wem (Dugdale, i. 315).

[Parliamentary Writs, i. 599-600; Calendarium Genealogicum, ii. 622; Nicolas's Le Siège de Carlaverock, pp. 50, 283-5; Doyle's Official Baronage, i. 69-70; Dugdale's Baronage, i. 315; Eyton's Shropshire, iv. 122, 123, vii. 260-1; Lords' Report on the Dignity of a Peer, pp. 420, 421; Tierney's Hist. of Arundel, pp. 201-12.]

T. F. T. 
FitzAlan, Richard I Earl of Arundel (I11405)
239 FITZALAN, RICHARD II, Earl of Arundel and Warenne (1307?-1376), son of Edmund Fitzalan, earl of Arundel [q. v.], and his wife, Alice Warenne, was born not before 1307. About 1321 his marriage to Isabella, daughter of the younger Hugh le Despenser, cemented the alliance between his father and the favourites of Edward II. In 1326, however, his father's execution deprived him of the succession both to title and estates. In 1330, after the fall of Mortimer, he petitioned to be reinstated, and, after some delay, was restored in blood and to the greater part of Earl Edmund's possessions (Rot. Parl. ii. 50). He was, however, forbidden to continue his efforts to avenge his father by private war against John Charlton, first lord Charlton of Powys [q. v.] (ib. ii. 60). In 1331 he obtained the castle of Arundel from the heirs of Edmund, earl of Kent. These grants were subsequently more than once confirmed (ib. ii. 226, 256). In 1334 Arundel received Mortimer's castle of Chirk, and was made justice of North Wales, his large estates in that region giving him considerable local influence. The justiceship was afterwards confirmed for life. He was also made life-sheriff of Carnarvonshire and governor of Carnarvon Castle. Arundel took a conspicuous part in nearly every important war of Edward III's long reign. After surrendering in 1336 his 'hereditary right' to the stewardship of Scotland to Edward for a thousand marks (F?dera, ii. 952), he was made in 1337 joint commander of the English army in the north. Early in 1338 he and his colleague Salisbury incurred no small opprobrium by their signal failure to capture Dunbar (Knighton, c. 2570; cf. Liber Pluscardensis, i. 284, ed. Skene). On 25 April he was elevated to the sole command, with full powers to treat with the Scots for truce or peace (F?dera, ii. 1029, 1031), of which he availed himself to conclude a truce, as his duty now compelled him to follow the king to Brabant (Chron. de Melsa, ii. 385), where he landed at Antwerp on 13 Dec. (Froissart, i. 417, ed. Luce). In the January parliament of 1340 he was nominated admiral of the ships at Portsmouth and the west that were to assemble at Mid Lent (Rot. Parl. ii. 108). On 24 June he comported himself 'loyally and nobly' at the battle of Sluys, and was one of the commissioners sent by Edward from Bruges in July to acquaint parliament with the news and to explain to it the king's financial necessities (ib. ii. 118 b). Later in the same year he took part in the great siege of Tournay (Luce, Chronique des Quatre Premiers Valois, p. 4, ed. Soc. de l'Histoire de France). In 1342 he was at the great feast given by Edward III in honour of the Countess of Salisbury (Froissart, iii. 3). His next active employment was in the same year as warden of the Scottish marches in conjunction with the Earl of Huntingdon. In October of the same year he accompanied Edward on his expedition to Brittany (ib. iii. 225), and was left by the king to besiege Vannes (ib. iii. 227) while the bulk of the army advanced to Rennes. In January 1343 the truce put an end to the siege, and in July Arundel was sent on a mission to Avignon. In 1344 he was appointed, with Henry, earl of Derby, lieutenant of Aquitaine, where the French war had again broken out ; and at the same time was commissioned to treat with Castile, Portugal, and Aragon (F?dera, iii. 8, 9). In 1345 he repudiated his wife, Isabella, on the ground that he had never consented to the marriage, and, having obtained papal recognition of the nullity of the union, married Eleanor, widow of Lord Beaumont, and daughter of Henry, third earl of Lancaster. This business may have prevented him sharing in the warlike exploits of his new brother-in-law, Derby, in Aquitaine. He was, however, reappointed admiral of the west in February 1345, and retained that post until 1347 (Nicolas, Hist. of Royal Navy, ii. 95). In 1346 he accompanied Edward on his great expedition to northern France (Froissart, iii. 130), and commanded the second of the three divisions into which the English host was divided at Crecy (ib. iii. 169, makes him joint commander with Northampton, but Murimuth, p. 166, includes the latter among the leaders of the first line). He was afterwards with Edward at the siege of Calais (Rot. Parl. ii. 163 b}. In 1348 and 1350 Arundel was on commissions to treat with the pope at Avignon (F?dera, iii. 165, 201). In 1350, however, he took part in the famous naval battle with the Spaniards off Winchelsea (Froissart, iv. 89). In 1351 he was employed in Scotland to arrange for a final peace and the ransom of King David (F?dera, iii. 225). In 1354 he was one of the negotiators of a proposed truce with France, at a conference held under papal mediation at Guines (ib. iii. 253), but on the envoys proceeding to Avignon (ib. iii. 283), to obtain the papal ratification, it was found that no real settlement had been arrived at, and Innocent VI was loudly accused of treachery (Cont. Murimuth, p. 184). In 1355 Arundel was one of the regents during the king's absence from England (F?dera, iii. 305). In 1357 he was again negotiating in Scotland, and in 1358 was at the head of an embassy to Wenzel, duke of Luxembourg (ib. iii. 392). In August 1360 he was joint commissioner in completing the ratifications of the treaty of Bretigny. In 1362 he was one of the commissioners to prolong the truce with Charles of Blois (ib. iii. 662). In 1364 he was again engaged in diplomacy (ib. iii. 747).

The declining years of Arundel's life were spent in comparative seclusion from public affairs. In 1365 he was maliciously cited to the papal court by William de Lenne, the foreign bishop of Chichester, with whom he was on bad terms. He was supported by Edward in his resistance to the bishop, whose temporalities were ultimately seized by the crown. He now perhaps enlarged the castle of Arundel (Tierney, Hist. of Arundel, p. 239). His last military exploit was perhaps his share in the expedition for the relief of Thouars in 1372.

Arundel was possessed of vast wealth, especially after 1353, when he succeeded, by right of his mother, to the earldom of Warenne or Surrey. He frequently aided Edward III in his financial difficulties by large advances, so that in 1370 Edward was more than twenty thousand pounds in his debt. Yet at his death Arundel left behind over ninety thousand marks in ready money, nearly half of which was stored up in bags in the high tower of Arundel (Harl. MS. 4840, f. 393, where is a curious inventory of all his personal property at his death).

One of Arundel's last acts was to become, with Bishop William of Wykeham, a general attorney for John of Gaunt during his journey to Spain (F?dera, iii. 1026). He died on 24 Jan. 1376. By his will, dated 5 Dec. 1375, he directed that his body should be buried without pomp in the chapter-house of Lewes priory, by the side of his second wife, and founded a perpetual chantry in the chapel of St. George's within Arundel Castle (Nicolas, Testamenta Vetusta, pp.94-6). By his first marriage his only issue was one daughter. By his second he had three sons, of whom Richard, the eldest [see Fitzalan, Richard III], was his successor to the earldom. John, the next, became marshal of England, and perished at sea in 1379. According to the settlement made by Earl Richard in 1347 (Rot. Parl. iv. 442), the title ultimately reverted to the marshal's grandson, John VI Fitzalan. The youngest, Thomas [see Arundel, Thomas], became archbishop of Canterbury. Of his four daughters by Eleanor, two are mentioned in his will, namely Joan, married to Humphrey Bohun, earl of Hereford, and Alice, the wife of Thomas Holland, earl of Kent. His other daughters, Mary and Eleanor, died before him.

[Rymer's F?dera, vol. iii. Record edit.; Rolls of Parl. vol. ii.; Dugdale's Baronage, i. 316-18; Doyle's Official Baronage, i. 71-2; Froissart's Chroniques, vols. i-iv. ed. Luce (Société de l'Histoire de France); Murimuth and his Cont. (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Knighton in Twysden, Decem Scriptores; Tierney's Hist. of Arundel, pp. 225-240.]

T. F. T. 
FitzAlan, Richard II KG, 10th Earl of Arundel (I10998)
240 FITZALAN, RICHARD III, Earl of Arundel and Surrey (1346-1397), born in 1346, was the son of Richard II Fitzalan, earl of Arundel [q. v.], and his second wife, Eleanor, daughter of Henry, third earl of Lancaster. He served on the expedition to the Pays de Caux under Lancaster (Nicolas, Scrope and Grosvenor Roll, i. 220). In January 1376 he succeeded to his father's estates and titles. Though the petitions of the Good parliament contain complaints of the men of Surrey and Sussex against the illegal jurisdiction exercised by his novel 'shire-court' at Arundel over the rapes of Chichester and Arundel (Rot. Parl. ii. 348), he was appointed one of the standing council established in that parliament to restrain the dotage of Edward III (Chron. Angliæ, 1328-1388, p. lxviii, Rolls Ser.) At Richard II's coronation he acted as chief butler (Rot. Parl. iii. 131). He was placed on the council of regency (ib. iii. 386), and in 1380 put on a commission to regulate the royal household. In 1377 he was appointed admiral of the west. His earlier naval exploits were but little glorious, yet French authorities credit him with the merit of having saved Southampton from their assault (Luce, Chronique des Quatre Premiers Valois, p. 263, ed. Soc. de l'Histoire de France). About Whitsuntide 1378 he attacked Harfleur, but was subsequently driven to sea (ib. p. 273). In the same year he and the Earl of Salisbury were defeated by a Spanish fleet, though they afterwards compelled Cherbourg to surrender (Walsingham, i. 371). He next accompanied John of Gaunt on his expedition to St. Malo, where his negligence on the watch gave the French an opportunity to destroy a mine and so compel the raising of the siege (Froissart, liv. ii. ch. xxxvi. ed. Buchon). Arundel barely escaped with his life (Chronique des Quatre Premiers Valois, p. 275). The earl showed an equal sluggishness in defending even his own tenants when the French ravaged the coasts of Sussex (Wals. i. 439; cf. Chron. Angliæ, p. 168). In 1381 he and Michael de la Pole were approved in parliament as councillors in constant attendance upon the young king and as governors of his person (Wals. ii. 156; Rot. Parl. iii. 1046). In 1383 he was proposed as lieutenant of Bishop Spencer of Norwich's crusading army, but the bishop refused to accept him (ib. iii. 155 a). In 1385 he took part in the expedition to Scotland.

Arundel definitely joined the baronial opposition that had now reformed under Gloucester, the king's uncle. He took a prominent part in the attack on the royal favourites in 1386, acted as one of the judges of M. de la Pole (Wals. ii. 152), and was put on the commission appointed in parliament to reform and govern the realm and the royal household (Rot. Parl. iii. 221). His appointment as admiral was now renewed with a wider commission, rendered necessary by the projected great invasion of England, which brought Charles VI to Sluys (Froissart, iii. 47; cf. Wallon, Rich. II, liv. v. ch. iii.) In the spring of 1387 he and Nottingham prepared an expedition against the French, which, on 24 March, defeated a great fleet of Flemish, French, and Spanish ships off Margate, and captured nearly a hundred vessels laden with wine (Wals. ii. 154-6; Monk of Evesham, p. 78; Froissart, iii. 53. The different accounts vary hopelessly; see Nicolas, Hist. of Royal Navy, ii. 317-24). This brilliant victory won Arundel an extraordinary popularity, which was largely increased by the liberality with which he refused to turn the rich booty to his own advantage. For the whole year wine was cheap in England and dear in Netherlands (Froissart, iii. 54). Immediately after he sailed to Brest and relieved and revictualled the town, which was still held for the English, and destroyed two forts erected by the French besiegers over against it (Knighton, c. 2692). He then returned in triumph to England, plundering the country round Sluys and capturing ships there on his way. All danger of French invasion was at an end.

In 1387 Richard II obtained from the judges a declaration of the illegality of the commission of which Arundel was a member. His rash attempt to arrest the earl produced the final conflict. Northumberland was sent to seize Arundel at Reigate, but, fearing the number of his retainers, retired without accomplishing his mission (Monk of Evesham, p. 90). Warned of this treachery, Arundel escaped by night and joined Gloucester and Warwick at Harringhay, where they took arms (November 1387). At Waltham Cross on 15 Nov. they first appealed of treason the evil councillors of the king, and on 17 Nov. forced Richard to accept their charges at Westminster Hall. When the favourites attempted resistance, another meeting of the confederates was held on 12 Dec. at Huntingdon, where Arundel strongly urged the capture and deposition of the king. But the reluctance of the new associates, Derby and Nottingham, caused this violent plan to be rejected (Rot. Parl. iii. 376). But Arundel continued the fiercest of the king's enemies. In the parliament of February 1388 he was one of the five lords who solemnly renewed the appeal (ib. iii. 229; Knighton, cc. 2713-2726). He specially pressed for the execution of Burley, though Derby wished to save him, and for three hours the queen interceded on her knees for his life (Chronique de la Traison, p. 133).

In May 1388 Arundel again went to sea, still acting as admiral, and now also as captain of Brest and lieutenant of the king in Brittany. Failing to do anything great in that country, he sailed southward, conquered Oléron and other small islands off the coast, and finally landed off La Rochelle, and took thence great pillage (Froissart, iii. 112, 113, 129). Next year, however, he was superseded as admiral by Huntingdon (Knighton, c. 2735), and in May was, with the other lords appellant, removed from the council. He was, however, restored in December, when Richard and his old masters finally came to terms (Nicolas, Proceedings of Privy Council, i. 17).

For the next few years peace prevailed at home and abroad. The party of the appellants began to show signs of breaking up, though Arundel still remained faithful to his old policy. In 1392 he was fined four hundred marks for marrying Philippa, daughter of the Earl of March and widow of John Hastings, earl of Pembroke (Rot. Pat. 15 Rich. II, in Dallaway's Western Sussex, II. i. 134, new edit.) A personal quarrel of Arundel with John of Gaunt marks the beginning of the catastrophe of Richard II's reign. The new Countess of Arundel was rude to Catharine Swynford (Froissart, iv. 50). Henry Beaufort [see Beaufort, Henry, bishop of Winchester], if report were true, seduced Alice, Arundel's daughter (Powel, Hist. of Cambria, p. 138, from a pedigree of the Stradlings, whose then representative married the daughter born of the connection; cf. Clark, Limbus Patrum Morganiæ et Glanmorganiæ, p. 435). In 1393, when Arundel was residing at his castle of Holt, a revolt against John of Gaunt broke out in Cheshire, and Arundel showed such inactivity in assisting in the restoration of peace that the duke publicly accused him in parliament of conniving at the rising (Wals. ii. 214 ; Ann. Ric. II, ed. Riley, p. 161). Arundel answered by a long series of complaints against Lancaster (Rot. Parl. iii. 313). Some of these so nearly touched the king as to make him very angry, and Arundel was compelled to apologise for what he had said. The actual English words that he uttered in his recantation are preserved in the Rolls of Parliament. A short retirement from court now seems to have ensued (Ann. Ric. II, p. 166), but Arundel soon returned, only to give Richard fresh offence by coming late to the queen's funeral and yet asking leave to retire at once from the ceremony (ib. p. 169; Wals. ii. 215). The king struck Arundel with a cane with such force as to shed blood and therefore to pollute the precincts of Westminster Abbey. On 3 Aug. Arundel was sent to the Tower (F?dera, vii. 784), but was released on 10 Aug. (ib. vii. 785), when he re-entered the council. The appointment of his brother Thomas as archbishop of Canterbury may mark the final reconciliation.

After the stormy parliament of February 1397, Arundel and Gloucester withdrew from court, after reproaching the king with the loss of Brest and Cherbourg. It was probably after this, if ever, that Arundel entertained Gloucester, Warwick, and his brother the archbishop at Arundel Castle, when they entered into a solemn conspiracy against Richard (Chronique de la Traison, pp. 5-6, though the date there given, 23 July 1396, must be wrong, and 28 July 1397, the editor's conjecture, is too late, one manuscript says 8 Feb. ; Chronique du Religieux de Saint-Denys, ii. 476-8, in Collection de Documents Inédits, cf. Froissart, iv. 56. The statement is in no English authority, and has been much questioned, cf. Wallpn, ii. 161, 452). Nottingham, who, though Arundel's son-in-law and one of the appellants, had now deserted his old party, informed Richard of the plot. The king invited the three chief conspirators to a banquet on 10 July (Ann. Ric. II, p. 201). From this Arundel absented himself without so much as an excuse, but the arrest of Warwick, who ventured to attend, was his justification. He was, however, in a hopeless position. His brother pressed him to surrender, and persuaded him that the king had given satisfactory promises of his safety (ib. 202-3 ; Wals. ii. 223). He left accordingly his stronghold at Reigate, and accompanied the archbishop to the palace. Richard at once handed him over into custody, while Thomas returned sorrowfully to Lambeth (Eulog. Hist. iii. 371). This was on 15 July. Arundel was hurried off to Carisbrooke and thence after an interval removed to the Tower. On 17 Sept. a royalist parliament assembled. The pardons of the appellants were revoked (Rot. Parl. iii. 350, 351). On 20 Sept. Archbishop Arundel was impeached. Next day the new appellants laid their charges against the Earl of Arundel before the lords. He was brought before them, arrayed in scarlet. With much passion he protested that he was no traitor, and that the charges against him were barred by the pardons he had received. A long and angry altercation broke out between him and John of Gaunt and Henry of Derby, his old associate. He refused to answer the charges, denounced his accusers as liars, and when the speaker declared that the pardon on which he relied had been revoked by the faithful commons, exclaimed, 'The faithful commons are not here' (Monk of Evesham, pp. 136-8; Rot. Parl. iii. 377; Ann. Ric. pp. 214-19). He was, of course, condemned, though Richard commuted the barbarous penalty of treason into simple decapitation. The execution immediately followed. He was hurried through the streets of London to Tower Hill, amidst the lamentations of a sympathising multitude. Brutally illtreated by the bands of Cheshiremen who had been collected to overawe the Londoners, he displayed extraordinary firmness and resolution, 'no more shrinking or changing colour than if he were going to a banquet' (Wals. ii. 225-6; cf. Religieux de Saint-Denys, ii. 552). He rebuked with much dignity his treacherous kinsfolk (Nottingham was not present, though Walsingham and Froissart, iv. 61, say that he was), and exhorted the hangman to sharpen well his axe. Slain by a single stroke, he was buried in the church of the Augustinian friars. The people reverenced him as a martyr, and went on pilgrimage to his tomb. At last Richard, conscience-stricken though he was at his death, avoided a great political danger by ordering all traces of the place of his burial to be removed. But after the fall of Richard the pilgrimages were renewed, and the next generation did not doubt that his merits had won for him a place in the company of the saints (Adam of Usk:, p. 14, ed. Thompson). Arundel was very religious and a bountiful patron of the church. So early as 1380 he was admitted into the brotherhood of the abbey of Tichfield. In the same year he founded the hospital of the Holy Trinity at Arundel for a warden and twenty poor men (Dugdale, Monasticon, ed. Caley, &c. vi. 736-7). Between 1380 and 1387 he enlarged the chantry projected by his father into the college of the Holy Trinity, also at Arundel. This establishment now included a master and twelve secular canons, and superseded the confiscated alien priory of St. Nicholas (ib. vi. 1377-1379; Tierney, Arundel, pp. 594-613). In his will he left liberal legacies to several churches.

By his first wife, Elizabeth (d. 1385), daughter of William de Bohun, earl of Northampton, Arundel had three sons and four daughters. The second son, Thomas [see Fitzalan, Thomas], ultimately became earl of Arundel. Of his daughter Elizabeth's four husbands, the second was Thomas Mowbray, earl of Nottingham [q. v.] Another daughter, Joan, married William, lord Bergavenny. A third, Alice, married John, lord Charlton of Powys. By Philippa Mortimer Arundel had no children.

[Walsingham's Chronicle of Richard II, ed. Riley; Eulogium Historiarum; Wright's Political Poems and Songs; Chronicon Angliæ, 1328-1388 (all in Rolls Series); Chronique de la Traison et Mort de Richard (Engl. Hist. Soc.); French Metrical History of the Deposition of Richard II, in Archæologia, vol. xx.; Monk of Evesham's Hist. Rich. II, ed. Hearne, 1729; Knighton in. Twysden, Decem Scriptores; Chronique du Religieux de Saint-Denys, vol. i. (Documents Inédits sur l'Histoire de France); Froissart, vols. iii. and iv. ed. Buchon, is often wrong in details; Rolls of Parliament, vols. ii. and iii.; Rymer's F?dera, vol. vii.; Dugdale's Baronage, i. 318-320; Doyle's Official Baronage, i. 73-4; Sir N. H. Nicolas's History of the Royal Navy, vol. ii.; Wallon's Richard II, with good notes on the authorities, is, with Stubbs's Constitutional History of England, vol. ii., the fullest modern account; Dallaway's Western Sussex, n. i. 130-7, new edit.; Tierney's History of Arundel, pp. 240-276; Nichols's Collection of Royal Wills, pp. 120-143, contains in full Arundel's long and curious testament, written in French and dated 1392; it is taken from the Register of Archbishop Arundel.]

T. F. T.
FitzAlan, Richard III 11th Earl of Arundel, KG (I10997)
241 GLOUCESTER, MILES de, Earl of Hereford (d. 1143), was the son and heir of Walter de Gloucester, hereditary castellan of Gloucester and sheriff of the shire, by Berta, his wife. Walter's father, Roger de Pistres, had been sheriff before him, but was dead in 1086 (Domesday Book). Walter was in favour with Henry I, three of whose charters to him are extant (Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters). He held the post of a royal constable. Early in 1121 his son Miles was given the hand of Sibyl, daughter of Bernard de Neufmarché, the conqueror of Brecknock, with the reversion of her father's possessions (ib.) In the Pipe Roll of 1130 Walter is found to have been succeeded by his son, having died (or retired to Llanthony Abbey, according to its chronicle) in or before 1129 (Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I). Miles was now (i.e. from 1128 at least) sheriff of Gloucestershire and Staffordshire, a justice itinerant, and a justice of the forest. He had also (though the fact has been doubted) been granted his father's office of constable by a special charter (Dugdale MSS.) In conjunction with Pain Fitzjohn [see Fitzjohn, Pain], sheriff of Herefordshire and Shropshire, he ruled the whole Welsh border 'from the Severn to the sea.' (Gesta Stephani, p. 17).

On the accession of Stephen he set himself to secure the allegiance of these two lords-marchers, who at length, on receiving a safe-conduct and obtaining all they asked for, did him homage (ib.) It was at Reading that they met the king early in 1136. This we learn from two charters there tested, one of which was printed by Madox (History of the Exchequer, p. 135), by which Stephen confirms to Miles, sicut baroni et justiciario meo, the shrievalty of Gloucestershire, the constableship of Gloucester Castle, and the 'honour' of Brecknock. Miles is next found attending the Easter court at Westminster as one of the royal constables (Rymer, Foedera, new ed. i. 16), and, shortly after, the Oxford council in the same capacity (Rich. Hexham, p. 149). He was then despatched to the aid of the widow of Richard Fitz-Gilbert [see Clare, Richard de, (d. 1136?)], who was beleaguered in her castle by the Welsh and whom he gallantly rescued (Gesta, p. 13). Meanwhile he had married his son and heir, Roger, to Cecily, daughter of Pain Fitzjohn, who inherited the bulk of her father's possessions (Duchy Charters). Two years later (1138) he received, in his official capacity, King Stephen at Gloucester in May (Cont. Flor. Wig. ii. 105). He has been said to have renounced his allegiance a few weeks later (Angevin Kings, i. 295), but careful investigation will show that he was with Stephen in August (1138) at the siege of Shrewsbury, and that his defection did not take place till 1139. In February (1139) Stephen gave Gloucester Abbey to Miles's kinsman Gilbert Foliot [q. v.] at his request (ib. ii. 114). In the summer (1139), however, he joined his lord, the Earl of Gloucester, in inviting the empress to England (ib. ii. 110, 117). On her arrival he met her at Bristol, welcomed her to Gloucester, recognised her as his rightful sovereign, and became thenceforth her ardent supporter. She at once gave him St. Briavels Castle and the Forest of Dean. His first achievement on her behalf was to relieve Brian Fitz-Count [q. v.] who was blockaded at Wallingford (Gesta, p. 59). In November (1139) he again advanced from Gloucester and attacked and burnt Worcester (Cont. Flor. Wig. p. 119). He also captured the castles of Winchcombe, Cerne, and Hereford (Gesta, p. 60). Meanwhile he was deprived by Stephen of his office of constable (Cont. Flor. Wig. p. 121). He took part (Gesta, p. 69) in the victory at Lincoln (2 Feb. 1141), and on the consequent triumph of the empress he accompanied her in her progress, and was one of her three chief followers on her entry (2 March) into Winchester (Cont. Flor. Wig. p. 130; Will. Malm. p. 743). We find him with her at Reading when advancing on London (Add. Cart. pp. 19, 576), and on reaching St. Albans she bestowed on him a house at Westminster (Duchy Charters, No. 16). He was among those who fled with her from London shortly after, and it was on his advice, when they reached Gloucester, that she ventured back to Oxford (Cont. Flor. Wig. p. 132). There, on 25 July (1141), she bestowed on him the town and castle of Hereford and made him earl of that shire (Foedera, i. 14), in avowed consideration of his faithful service. With singular unanimity hostile chroniclers testify to his devotion to her cause (Gesta, p. 60). He even boasted that she had lived at his expense throughout her stay in England (Cont. Flor. Wig. p. 133). As ?Earl Miles? he now accompanied her to Winchester (Gesta, p. 79), and on the rout of her forces (14 Sept.) he escaped thence, with the greatest difficulty, to Gloucester, where he arrived 'exhausted, alone, and with scarcely a rag to his back.' (Cont. Flor. Wig. p. 135). Towards the end of the year (1141) we find him at Bristol making a grant to Llanthony Priory in the presence of the empress and the Earl of Gloucester (Mon. Angl. vi. 137). In 1142 he is proved by charters to have been with the empress at Oxford and to have received her permission to hold Abergavenny Castle of Brian Fitz-Count (Duchy Charters, No. 17). It is probably to the summer of this year that we must assign a formal deed of alliance between the Earl of Gloucester and himself, as a hostage for the performance of which he gave the earl his son Mahel. In 1143 his pressing want of money wherewith to pay his troops led him to demand large sums from the church lands. The Bishop of Hereford withstood his demands, and, on the earl invading his lands, excommunicated him and his followers, and laid the diocese under interdict (Gesta, p. 102; Mon. Angl. vi. (1), 133). The earl's kinsman, the Abbot of Gloucester, appealed to the legate on his behalf against the bishop's severity (Foliot, Letters, No. 3). On Christmas-eve of this year (1143) the earl was slain while hunting by an arrow shot at a deer (Sym. Durh. ii. 315; Gervase, i. 126; Gesta, pp. 16, 95, 103). A dispute at once arose for possession of his body between the canons of Llanthony and the monks of Gloucester. The case was heard before the bishops of Worcester, Hereford, and St. David's, and was terminated by a compromise on 28 Dec. (1143). The earl was then buried at Llanthony (Gloucester Cartulary, i. lxxv; Foliot, Letters, No. 65) in the chapter-house.

He had transferred the original house of Austin canons at Llanthony in Monmouthshire to a site on the south side of Gloucester in 1136. This house was thenceforth known as Llanthonia Secunda. (Mon. Angl. vi. (1), 127, 132).

The earl was succeeded by his son and heir, Roger, who bore hatred to the church for his father's excommunication, and compelled the prior of Llanthony, as a friend of the Bishop of Hereford, to resign (ib. p. 133). He even troubled his kinsman, Gilbert Foliot, on his becoming bishop of Hereford (Foliot, Letters, No. 6), and was by him, after three warnings, formally excommunicated (ib. No. 78).

Subsequently, however (temp. Stephen), he founded Flaxley Abbey, a Cistercian house, within the Forest of Dean (Flaxley Cartulary), possibly on the spot of his father's death. The Gloucester Cartulary also shows him as confirming the gifts of his predecessor. In the early part of 1144 we find him at Devizes with the empress (Duchy Charters, No. 19), and he is again found there with her son in 1149 (Brit. Arch. Assoc. xl. 146 [for Bedford read Hereford]), with whom he marched northwards to Carlisle (Gervase). Another duchy deed (Box A) records his formal alliance with Earl William of Gloucester. On the accession of Henry (1154) he resisted his authority, but was persuaded (circa March 1155) by the Bishop of Hereford to surrender his castles (Gervase), and thereupon received a charter confirming him in almost all his father's possessions (Cart. 1 John m. 6). He was with the king at Bridgnorth in July (Mon. Angl. v. 483) and at Salisbury soon after (Journ. Arch. Inst. No. 61, p. 312). Dying without issue in the same year (1155) his earldom became extinct, but the shrievalty of Hereford and Gloucester passed to his brother Walter. On the death of the latter and two other brothers without issue the family possessions passed to their sisters, Bertha bringing Abergavenny to Braose, but Margaret, the eldest sister, taking the bulk (Liber Niger) to the Bohuns afterwards (1199), in recognition of their descent from Miles, earls of Hereford, and constables of England.

[Domesday Book (Record Commission); Rymer's F?dera (ib.); Pipe Roll, 31 Hen. I (ib.); Rotuli Chartarum (ib.); Cartulary of St. Peter's, Gloucester (Rolls Ser.); Symeon of Durham (ib.); Gesta Stephani in vol. ii. of Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, &c. (ib.); Gervase of Canterbury (ib.); Florence of Worcester (Engl. Hist. Soc.); William of Malmesbury (ib.); Round's Ancient Charters (Pipe Roll Soc.); Dugdale's MSS. (Bodl. Library); Additional Charters (Brit. Mus.); Duchy of Lancaster Charters (Public Record Office); Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum; Madox's History of the Exchequer; Hearne's Liber Niger; Gilbert Foliot's Letters (Giles's Patres Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ); Crawley-Boevey's Cartulary of Flaxley Abbey; Norgate's England under the Angevin Kings; Ellis's Landholders of Gloucestershire (Bristol and Glouc. Arch. Soc. vol. iv.); Archæological Journal; Journal of British Arch. Assoc.]

of Glouchester, Miles Earl of Hereford, Lord High Constable of England (I3802)
242 GRUFFYDD ab CYNAN (1055?-1137), king of Gwynedd or North Wales, was, through his father Cynan, son of Iago, a descendant of Rhodri Mawr and of the ancient royal line of Gwynedd. When a series of vigorous usurpers had occupied the North Welsh throne, Cynan took refuge among the Norsemen of Dublin, and, if we may trust the Welsh biographer of Gruffydd, married 'Raguell, daughter of Auloed, king of the city of Dublin and of a fifth part of Ireland, and of Man and many other islands.' It is plain, however, that after the battle of Cluantarbh no Danish king ruled over much of Ireland outside the Danish cities. Auloed, says Gruffydd's biographer, to whose rather doubtful testimony our knowledge of Gruffydd's early life is due, was the son of King Sihtric and a descendant of Harald Haarfagr. His wife was a daughter of King Brian. So that Gruffydd sprang from the noblest royal lines of Wales, Norway, and Ireland. He was born about 1055 at Dublin, and was nursed at a place called by the Welsh the 'Cymmwd of Columcille,' three miles from his parents' house. After Cynan's death his mother inspired him with the desire to emulate his father's exploits and save Gwynedd from the usurpers. With the help of his friends and kinsfolk, he collected a fleet of Irish Danes and appeared off Abermenai.

Gruffydd's name now first appears in the chronicles. In 1075 (Brut y Tywysogion, s.a. 1073) he attacked Anglesey, and was welcomed by the men of Lleyn and Arvon (Life). With the help of the Norman marcher, Robert of Rhuddlan, he defeated and slew Cynwric, and drove into flight Trahaiarn, son of Caradog. Trahaiarn, however, soon defeated his troops at the battle of Bron yr Erw and drove him back to Ireland. Another attempt was equally a failure, and Gruffydd remained several years longer in Ireland.

About 1081 (Ann. Cambr.; Bruty Tywysogion, s. a. 1079; Gwentian Brut, s. a. 1080), Gruffydd ab Cynan again came to Wales with his Norse allies, and was joined by Rhys ab Tewdwr [q. v.], who two or three years before had made himself king of Deheubarth. At the battle of Mynydd Carno, Gruffydd and Rhys defeated aud slew Trahaiarn (Ann. Cambr.; Gwentian Brut). His death gave Gruffydd a foothold in Gwynedd, where he now ruled for some years in peace. Gruffydd's biographer, who denies Rhys any share in the victory, adds that war between the two allies at once broke out, in which Gruffydd terribly ravaged Rhys's territory.

The older Welsh chronicles make no further mention of Gruffydd until 1099. His biographer tells, however, how he was betrayed by his 'barwn,' Meiryawn Goch (i.e. the Red), into the hands of Earl Hugh of Chester, who kept him in close confinement in Chester Castle for either twelve or sixteen years. During this period Hugh built four castles in Gwynedd which gave him command of all the country. These details can hardly be correct, but the fact of Gruffydd's imprisonment, if not by the earl, by the earl's chief follower, is confirmed by the epitaph which Ordericus Vitalis composed on Robert of Rhuddlan (Historia Ecclesiastica, iii. 288, ed. Le Prévost, 'cepit Grithfridum regem '). This must, however, have been before 1087, in which year Ordericus throws a new light on Gruffydd's movements. Again in alliance with Rhys, son of Tewdwr, and again supported by a fleet of Irish Norsemen, Gruffydd took advantage of the Norman revolt against Rufus and retaliated on Robert of Rhuddlan for his frequent devastations of Snowdon by a predatory expedition. He was compelled to retire when Robert hurried from the siege of Rochester to defend his dominions. By July Robert had reached his border stronghold of Dwyganwy. On 3 July Gruffydd entered the Conway with three ships and plundered the neighbourhood. He had the good fortune to slay Robert, who had rashly rushed down from the castle with but one companion to protect his lands. But Gruffydd was not strong enough to resist his followers. He cut off Robert's head with his own sword and retreated hastily by sea (Ord. Vit. iii. 280-9). The Normans still dominated Anglesey by Earl Hugh's castle of Aberlleiniog. He was not without rivals or partners in the rule of Gwynedd. In 1094, when the North Welsh rose in revolt, it is Cadwgan ab Bleddyn [q. v.], rather than Gruffydd, who takes the foremost place among the Cymry (Brut y Tywysogion, sub an. 1092; Anglo-Saxon Chron. sub an. 1097). Only the doubtful authority of the 'Gwentian Brut' connects Gruffydd by name with this movement, and he seems to have lived the life of a wandering viking, constantly taking refuge in Ireland or Man (Life}. A curious tale of his viking days comes from the life of St. Gwenlliw (Lives of the Cambro-British Saints, p. 151, Welsh MSS. Soc.) But the rising, whoever led it, was successful, and the destruction of the castle in Anglesey secured for the Welsh the special patrimony of Gruffydd (Flor. Wig. sub an. 1094). In 1095 William Rufus himself led an expedition into Snowdon with little result (Ann. Cambr. sub an. 1095, and Anglo-Saxon Chron. sub an. both agree in this). His expeditions in 1097 were equally unsuccessful. If Gruffydd had attacked him, boasts his biographer, none of his army would have remained alive. Yet in 1098 the two Earls Hugh of Chester and Shrewsbury again appeared in Mona and built or rebuilt the castle of Aberlleiniog. 'The Britons agreed in council to save Mona and invited to their defence a fleet that was at sea from Ireland.' But the pirates were bribed by the French, and Gruffydd and Cadwgan were compelled to retreat to Ireland. In 1099, however, a new revolt followed close after King Magnus's invasion of Anglesey and the death of Hugh of Shrewsbury, which brought the two Welsh kings back again. At last terms were arranged with the English and Gruffydd was left in possession of Mona, which he now governed quietly for several years. While his ally Cadwgan became vassal of Robert of Belleme for Ceredigion, Gruffydd seems to have held Anglesey as an independent prince (Freeman, William Rufus, ii. 424). He had, according to his biographer, visited the court of Henry I, and obtained from him the possession of Lleyn, Eivionydd, Ardudwy, and Arllechwedd. As he got these districts by the mediation of Hervey, the Breton bishop of Bangor, it must have been before 1109, the date of Hervey's translation to Ely. In 1114 a new war between Gruffydd and the Earl of Chester led to an invasion of Gwynedd by Henry I in person. After Owain ab Cadwgan had been tricked into making peace, Gruffydd also sought peace and was pardoned in return for a large tribute (Brut y Tywysogion, sub an. 1111; Ann. Cambr. sub an. 1114). In 1115 Gruffydd ab Rhys (d. 1136) [q. v.] of South Wales took refuge with Gruffydd ab Cynan. According to the 'Brut y Tywysogion,' Henry I sent for the northern Gruffydd and persuaded him to give up his fugitive namesake. When Gruffydd ab Rhys took sanctuary at Aberdaron, Gruffydd ab Cynan was only prevented by the remonstrances of the clergy from violating the sanctuary. Gruffydd ab Cynan remained for several years at peace with Henry. In 1120 he ended the long vacancy of the see of Bangor by procuring the election of Bishop David (d. 1139?) [q. v.], and wrote a letter to Archbishop Ralph which procured the consecration of his nominee (Eadmer, Hist. Nov. p. 259, gives the letter). In 1121 he supported Henry when that king invaded Powys, and entirely deserted the sons and grandsons of Cadwgan (Brut y Tywysogion, sub an. 1118). During his old age he put his sons over the remoter cantreds of his dominions, and they ravaged Powys and Ceredigion in many a bloody foray. Towards the end of his life Gruffydd became again on good terms with Gruffydd ab Rhys.

The latter part of Gruffydd's reign is celebrated as a period of peace and prosperity by his biographer. Between 1130 and 1135 were 'four successive years without any story to be found' (ib.), so quiet were the times. Gruffydd was especially praised 'for collecting together into Gwynedd those who had been before scattered into various countries by the Normans.' He thus made Mon and Gwynedd the centres of the national life.

His fame rose above that of the other petty Welsh rulers, and Ordericus (Hist.Eccl. iv. 493) couples him as 'princeps Brittonum' with Henry I himself the 'princepsAnglorum.' He prepared the way for the great resistance to Norman aggression which, under his son Owain, preserved the independence of Gwynedd. He was a good friend to the clergy, and built so many churches that, says his biographer, 'Gwynedd became splendid with white churches like the firmament with stars.' In his will he left donations to many Welsh, Irish, and English churches. Gruffydd's reign marks an epoch in the growth of Welsh literature. He gave the same impulse to the poets of the north that Rhys ab Tewdwr's return from Brittany and the curiosity of the Norman conquerors gave to the prose writers of South Wales. Meiler, the oldest of the Welsh bards, who had lamented in his youth the fall of Trahaiarn at the hands of Gruffydd, wrote in his extreme old age an elegy on Gruffydd himself, which is almost the first Welsh poem of literary value whose date can be precisely fixed. A long series of bards, of whom Gwalchmai, Meiler's son, was one of the most distinguished, now flourished in North Wales. The loss of Gruffydd's pencerdd (chief bard) at the fight at Aberlleiniog (Life, p. 118) was worthy of special mention by his biographer.
Dr. Powel in his 'History of Cambria,' 1584, says that Gruffydd 'reformed the disordered behaviour of the Welsh minstrels by a very good statute which is extant to this day.' In 1592 Dr. John David Rhys published these laws in his 'Cambro-Brytannicæ Linguæ Institutiones.' They were said to have been promulgated at a great gathering of bards and minstrels at Caerwys, though the Earl of Chester rather than Gruffydd must always have borne rule in the region that is now Flintshire. There is no reference to such an assembly in the best manuscript of the biography of Gruffydd, but in a manuscript of inferior authenticity, 'The Book of Richard Davies of Bangor,' is a passage describing the Caerwys meeting, and telling how the chief prize at the Eisteddfod was gained by a 'Scot' (Irishman), who was presented by Gruffydd with a golden pipe (Myvyrian Archæology, ii. 604, note, translated in Stephens, Literature of the Kymry, p. 57). Gruffydd's Irish education is thought to have led him to introduce bagpipes into Wales, somewhat to the disparagement of the harp. His musical laws are also said to have been largely derived from Irish sources. It has been debated with much animation among Welsh antiquaries, whether these Irish innovations in any way impaired the originality of the national music (T. Price (Carnhuanawc) Hanes Cymru; but cf. the more moderate comments of Stephens, Literature of the Kymry, p. 58). The 'Gwentian Brut'; (p. 112) says that Gruffydd was present at a great South Welsh gathering of minstrels held by Gruffydd ab Rhys in 1135.

In his old age Gruffydd is said to have become blind. He died in 1137 (Annales Cambria), having assumed the monastic habit and having received extreme unction from Bishop David of Bangor. He was eighty-two years old. He was buried in a splendid tomb at Bangor on the left of the high altar (Life).

Gruffydd is described by his biographer as of low stature, with yellow hair, a round face, fine colour, large eyes and very beautiful eyebrows. He had a fine beard, a fair skin, and strong limbs. He was able to speak several languages. His wife was Angharad, daughter of Owain, son of Edwin (Brut y Tywysogion, p. 153). Her beauties are minutely described by the biographer. By her Gruffydd had three sons: Cadwallon (who in 1124 slew his mother's three brothers, and in 1132 was slain by his cousins), Cadwaladr [q. v.], and Owain, afterwards famous as Owain Gwynedd [q. v.] He also had by her many daughters (ib.; the Life says five, and gives their names), one of whom, Gwenllian, was the wife, first of Cadwgan ab Bleddyn, and then of Gruffydd ab Rhys. Gruffydd was also the father of several illegitimate children.

[The Brut y Tywysogion (Rolls Ser.) is very full for this period, but as it deals mainly with South Wales its notices of Gruffydd are comparatively scanty; the Annales Cambriæ (Rolls Ser.) is shorter but sometimes more precise; the 'Grwentian' Brut y Tywysogion, published by the Cambrian Archæological Association, adds some details that can hardly be accepted; the English chroniclers, especially Ordericus Vitalis, Historia Ecclesiastica, vols. iii. and iv. ed. Le Prévost (Soc. de l'Histoire de France), add a little; the chief source, however, is the detailed biography 'Historia Hen Gruffud vab Kenan vab Yago,' commonly called Hanes Gruffydd ab Cynan, published in the Myvyrian Archæology of Wales, ii. 583-605, and, apparently more precisely, in the Archæologia Cambrensis, 3rd ser. Nos. xlv. and xlvi. 1866, by the Rev. Robert Williams; appended to the latter edition is a Latin translation by Bishop Robinson of Bangor (1566-1585), preserved in the library at Peniarth, and there published for the first time; the biography is worked up in elaborate literary form, with classical parallels and quotations, and, though wanting in chronology and almost too minute not to excite some suspicion, its outline corresponds fairly with that derived from the other sources; the Myvyrian Archæology of Wales, i, 189-191 (ed. 1801) for Meiler's elegy; Stephens's Literature of the Kymry, 2nd edit.; Freeman's William Rufus works up in detail Gruffydd's relations with England; Powel's History of Cambria; Walter's Das alte Wales (Bonn, 1859); J. D. Rhys, Cambro-Brytannicæ Cymræcæve Linguæ Institutiones (1592) for the Musical Laws, translated in the Transactions of the Cymmrodorion Soc. i. 283-293.]
T. F. T.
ap Cynan, Gruffydd King of Gwynedd (I11093)
243 HENRY I (1068-1135), king, fourth son of William the Conqueror and Matilda, was born, it is said, at Selby in Yorkshire (Monasticon, iii. 485; Freeman, Norman Conquest, iv. 231, 791), in the latter half of 1068, his mother having been crowned queen on the previous Whitsunday (Orderic, p. 510). As the son of a crowned king and queen of England he was regarded by the English as naturally qualified to become their king; he was an English ætheling, and is spoken of as 'clito,' which was used as an equivalent title (ib. p. 689; Brevis Relatio, p. 9; comp. Gesta Regum, v. 390). He was brought up in England (Cont. William of Jumièges, viii. 10), and received an unusually good education, of which he took advantage, for he was studious and did not in after life forget what he had learnt (Orderic, p. 665; Gesta Regum, u. s.). The idea that he understood Greek and translated 'Æsop's Fables' into English is founded solely on a line in the 'Ysopet' of Marie de France, who lived in England in the reign of Henry III, but it is extremely unlikely, and there is so much uncertainty as to what Marie really wrote or meant in the passage in question that it is useless to build any theory upon it (Poésies de Marie de France, par B. de Roquefort, i. 33?44, ii. 401; Dr. Freeman seems to think that the idea is fairly tenable, Norman Conquest, iv. 229, 792-4). It is certain that he understood Latin (Orderic, p. 812), and could speak English easily (William Rufus, i. pref. viii). At least as early as the thirteenth century he was called 'clerk,' the origin of the name Beauclerc (Wykes, iv. 11; Norman Conquest, iv. 792). While he was with his father at Laigle in Normandy, in 1077, when the Conqueror was on bad terms with his eldest son Robert, he and his brother, William Rufus, went across to Robert's lodgings in the castle, played dice with their followers in an upper room, made a great noise, and threw water on Robert and his men who were below. Robert ran up with Alberic and Ivo of Grantmesnil to avenge the insult, a disturbance followed, and the Conqueror had to interfere to make peace (Orderic, p. 545). His mother at her death in 1083 left Henry heir of all her possessions in England, but it is evident that he did not receive anything until his father's death (ib. p. 510). The next year, when his father and brothers were in Normandy, he spent Easter by his father's order at the monastery of Abingdon, the expenses of the festival being borne by Robert of Oily (Chron. de Abingdon, ii. 12). At the Whitsuntide assembly of 1086 his father dubbed him knight at Westminster, and he was armed by Archbishop Lanfranc. He was with his father when the Conqueror lay dying the next year at Rouen, and, on hearing his father's commands and wishes about his dominions and possessions, asked what there was for him. 'I give thee 5,000l.,' was the answer. 'But what,' he said, 'can I do with the money if I have no place to live in?' The Conqueror bade him be patient and wait his turn, for the time would come when he should be richer and greater than his brothers. The money thus left had been his mother's, and he went off at once to secure the treasure. He returned for his father's funeral at Caen.

Robert of Normandy, who was in want of money, asked Henry for some of his treasure; Henry refused, and the duke then offered to sell or pledge him some part of his dominions. He accordingly bought the Avranchin and the Côtentin, along with Mont St. Michel, for 3,000l., and ruled his new territory well and vigorously (Orderic, p. 665). In 1088 he went over to England, and requested Rufus to hand over to him his mother's lands. Rufus received him graciously, and granted him seisin of the lands, but when he left the country granted them to another. Henry returned to Normandy in the autumn in the company of Robert of Bellême, and the duke, acting on the advice of his uncle, Bishop Odo, seized him and shut him up in prison at Bayeux, where he remained for six months, for Odo made the duke believe that Henry was plotting with Rufus to injure him (ib. p. 673). In the spring of the following year the duke released him at the request of the Norman nobles, and he went back to his county, which Robert seems to have occupied during his imprisonment, at enmity with both his brothers. He employed himself in strengthening the defences of his towns, and attached a number of his nobles to himself, among whom were Hugh of Chester, the lord of Avranches, Richard of Redvers, and the lords of the Côtentin generally. When the citizens of Rouen revolted against their duke in favour of Rufus in November 1090, Henry came to Robert's help, not so much probably for Robert's sake, as because he was indignant at seeing a city rise against its lord (William Rufus, i. 248). He joined Robert in the castle, and headed the nobles who gathered to suppress the movement. The rebellious party among the citizens was routed, and Conan, its leader, was taken prisoner. Henry made him come with him to the top of the tower, and in bitter mockery bade him look out and see how fair a land it was which he had striven to subject to himself. Conan confessed his disloyalty and prayed for mercy; all his treasure should be given for his life. Henry bade him prepare for 'speedy death.' Conan pleaded for a confessor. Henry's anger was roused, and with both hands he pushed Conan through the window, so he fell from the tower and perished (Orderic, p. 690; Gesta Regum, v. 392). In the early part of the next year Robert and William made peace, and agreed that Cherbourg and Mont St. Michel, which both belonged to Henry, should pass to the English king, and the rest of his dominions to the Norman duke. Up to this time Henry had been enabled to keep his position mainly by the mutual animosity of William and Robert. Now both his brothers attacked him at once. He no longer held the balance between them in Normandy, and the lords of his party fell away from him. He shut himself up in Mont St. Michel, and held it against his brothers, who laid siege to it about the middle of Lent, each occupying a position on either side of the bay. The besieged garrison engaged in several skirmishes on the mainland (Flor. Worc.) Their water was exhausted, and Henry sent to the duke representing his necessity, and bidding him decide their quarrel by arms and not by keeping him from water. Robert allowed the besieged to have water. After fifteen days Henry offered to surrender if he and his men might march out freely. He was accordingly allowed to evacuate the place honourably (Orderic, p. 697).

The surrender of Mont St. Michel left Henry landless and friendless, and for some months he wandered about, taking shelter first in Brittany and then in the Vexin. In August he accompanied his two brothers to England, and apparently joined in the expedition against Malcolm of Scotland (Gesta Regum, iv. 310; Historiæ Dunelm. Scriptores Tres, p. xxii; William Rufus, ii. 535?8). Then he probably resumed his wandering life, travelling about attended only by a clerk, a knight, and three armed followers. Apparently at the end of 1092 he received a message from the men of Domfront inviting him to become their lord. He was received at Domfront by Archard, the chief man of the town, who had instigated his fellow-townsmen to revolt against Robert of Bellême, their former lord. Henry promised that he would never give up the town to any other lord, and would never change its laws and customs (Orderic, pp. 698, 788). Domfront, situated on the Varenne, dominated part of the border of Normandy towards Maine; lies not far to the east of Henry's old county, and was a place of great strength (for geographical description see William Rufus, i. 319). The interests of Henry and Rufus were now one; both alike desired to win all the parts of Normandy they could from the duke. Henry from his new fortress carried on constant war against the duke and Robert of Bellême; before long he regained a large part of his old territory in the west (ib. p. 321), and in doing so certainly acted with the goodwill of Rufus, though there appear to have been some hostilities between them (Orderic, p. 706; too much weight must not be given to this passage; in the first place it is rather vague and may apply to an earlier period, and in the second a war such as that which Henry was carrying on, consisting of attacks on single towns and castles, was certain to lead to quarrels with others besides those immediately concerned). Some places in his old county yielded to him out of affection, for, as the people of Domfront had discerned, he was a good lord, others he took by force of arms, and his old friends and followers again joined him. In 1094 he received an invitation from Rufus, who was then carrying on open war against Robert in Normandy, to meet him with Hugh of Chester at Eu, and because the duchy was in too disturbed a state for them to pass through it safely, Rufus sent ships to bring them (A.-S. Chron. sub an.). They sailed, however, to Southampton, and waited at London for the king, who met them there shortly after Christmas. Henry stayed with Rufus until Lent, and then returned to Normandy with a large supply of money, and carried on war against Robert with constant success (ib. an. 1095). When Normandy passed into the possession of Rufus in 1096, Henry joined him and remained with him, receiving from him the counties of Coutances and Bayeux, with the exception of the city of Bayeux and the town of Caen, and having further committed to his charge the castle of Gisors, which Rufus built on the frontier against France (Cont. William of Jumièges, viii. 7).

On 2 Aug. 1100 Henry was hunting in the New Forest, when men came hastening to him one after another telling him of the death of Rufus. According to popular belief he had shortly before gone into a hut to mend his bowstring, and an old woman had declared that she had learnt by augury that he would soon become king. When he heard of his brother's death, it is said that he grieved much, and went to where his body lay (Wace, ll. 10105?38). In reality he spurred at once to Winchester, where the royal treasure was kept, and demanded the keys of the treasury from the guards (Orderic, p. 782). William of Breteuil refused to deliver them, declaring that, as Robert was his father's first-born, he was the rightful heir. The dispute waxed hot, and men came running to the spot, and took the count's part (Dr. Freeman's assumption that these men were Englishmen as opposed to Normans seems unwarranted). Henry clapped his hand on his sword, drew it, and declared that no one should stand between him and his father's sceptre. Friends and nobles gathered round him, and the treasury was delivered over to him. The next day such of the witan as were at hand met in council, and after some opposition chose Henry as king, chiefly owing to the influence of Henry Beaumont, earl of Warwick (Gesta Regum, v. 393). As king-elect he bestowed the see of Winchester, which Rufus had kept vacant since January 1098, on William Giffard [q. v.]; he then rode to London, and was crowned at Westminster on Sunday, 5 Aug., by Maurice, bishop of London, for Archbishop Anselm [q. v.] was then in exile. Thomas, archbishop of York, hastened from the north to perform the ceremony, but came too late. When he complained of this as an infringement of his right, the king and the bishops told him that it was necessary to hasten the coronation for the sake of the peace of the kingdom (Hugh the Chantor, ii. 107). At his coronation he swore to give peace to the church and people, to do justice, and to establish good law. On the same day he published a charter in which, after declaring that he had been made king by the 'common concent of the barons,' he forbade the evil customs introduced during the last reign. The church was to be free, its offices and revenues neither sold nor farmed, and the feudal incidents of relief, marriage, and wardship were no longer to be abused by the king as instruments of oppression. As he did by his tenants-in-chief so were they to do by their tenants, a provision which may be said to have been founded on the law of his father that all men, of what lord soever they held, owed the king allegiance, a provision wholly contrary to the feudal idea. The coinage was to be reformed, and justice done on those who made or kept bad money. Wills of personalty were permitted. Men who incurred forfeiture were no longer to be forced to be at the king's mercy. Knights who held by knight-service were to have their demesne lands free of tax, and were to be ready both with horses and arms to serve the king and defend his realm. Good peace was to be kept throughout the kingdom, and the 'law of King Edward,' with the amendments of the Conqueror, was restored. The forests were, with the common consent of the barons, to remain as they were in the days of the king's father (Select Charters, pp. 95?8). This charter was taken by the barons in the reign of John as the basis of their demands. Henry also wrote a letter to Anselm inviting him to return, and declaring that he committed himself to the counsel of the archbishop and of those others whose right it was to advise him (Epp. iii. 41). There was great joy among the people at his accession, and they shouted loudly at his coronation, for they believed that good times were at last come again, and saw in their new king the 'Lion of Justice' of Merlin's prophecy (Gesta Regum, v. 393; Orderic, pp. 783, 887).

Henry was thirty-two at his accession. He was of middle height, broad-chested, strong, stoutly built, and in his later years decidedly fat (Orderic, p. 901). His hair was black and lay thickly above his forehead, and his eyes had a calm and soft look. On fitting occasions his talk was mirthful, and no press of business robbed him of his cheerfulness. Caring little what he ate or drank, he was temperate, and blamed excess in others (Gesta Regum v. 412). He was, however, exceedingly licentious, and was the father of a large number of natural children by many mistresses. At the same time he was free from the abominable vices which Rufus had practised, and, sensual as he was, his accession was at once followed by a reform in the habits of the court (ib. p. 393). In common with all his house he was devoted to hunting, and one of his lords who quarrelled with him gave him the nickname of 'Pie-de-Cerf,' because of his love of slaying deer (Wace, l. 10566). From the studies of his youth he acquired an abiding taste for books. He formed a collection of wild beasts at Woodstock, where he often resided (Gesta Regum, v. 409; Henry of Huntingdon, pp. 244, 300). He was an active, industrious king, and when in England constantly moved about, visiting different places in the southern and central parts of the kingdom, though he seems very seldom to have gone north of the Humber. In his progresses the arrangements of his court were orderly, for he was a man of method; there were no sudden changes of plan, and people brought their goods to the places on his route, certain that the court would arrive and stay as had been announced, and that they would find a market. The morning he gave to affairs of state and to hearing causes; the rest of his day to amusement (De Nugis Curialium, p. 210). He was not without religion. Reading Abbey he founded (ib. p. 209; Gesta Regum, v. 413; Monasticon, iv. 28); he completed the foundation of the abbey of Austin canons at Carlisle; he formed the see of Carlisle (Creighton, Carlisle, pp. 31?5; John of Hexham, col. 257; Waverley Annals, ap. Annales Monast. ii. 223); Cirencester Abbey, and Dunstable (Dunstable Annals, ib. iii. 15) and Southwyke priories, all for Austin canons, were founded by him (Monasticon, vi. 175, 238, 243), together with some other houses. He was a benefactor to some older English foundations, and rebuilt many churches in Normandy which suffered during his wars. He was liberal to pilgrims and to the military orders in Palestine (Cont. William of Jumièges, viii. 32), and seems to have treated clergy of holy life with respect. Contemporaries were much impressed by his wisdom; he did not love war, and preferred to gain his ends by craft. An unforgiving enemy, he was said to be an equally steadfast friend. He was, however, such a thorough dissembler that no one could be sure of his favour; and Robert Bloet [q. v.], bishop of Lincoln, declared that when he praised any one he was sure to be plotting that person's destruction (De Contemptu Mundi). He was cruel, and his cruelties proceeded from a cold-hearted disregard of human suffering. Policy rather than feeling guided his actions. Without being miserly, he was avaricious, and the people suffered much from his exactions, which, though apparently not exorbitant in amount, were levied with pitiless regularity alike in times of scarcity and plenty. His justice was stern. Unlike his father, he caused thieves, robbers, and other malefactors to be hanged, and sometimes inflicted such sweeping punishments that the innocent must have suffered along with the guilty. Criminals were constantly blinded and mutilated, though in his later years he often substituted heavy fines for these punishments. He strictly enforced the forest laws; no one was allowed, except as a special privilege, to hunt on his own land or to diminish the size of his woods; all dogs in the neighbourhood of a forest were maimed, and little difference was made between the slayer of a deer and of a man (Orderic, p. 813; William of Newburgh i. c. 3). On the whole, however, Henry's harsh administration of justice was good for the country; while it brought suffering to the few, it gave peace and security to the many. His despotism was strong as well as stern; no offender was too powerful to be reached by the law. Private war he put down peremptorily, and peace and order were enforced everywhere. He exalted the royal authority, and kept the barons well under control, both by taking sharp measures against those who offended him, and by choosing his counsellors and chief officers from a lower rank, raising up a number of new men, whom he enriched and ennobled in order to make them a counterpoise to the power of the great houses of the Conquest (Orderic, p. 805). Although he kept a large number of stipendiary soldiers, to whom he was a liberal master (Cont. William of Jumièges, viii. 22), he was persuaded by Anselm to sharply restrain them from injuring the people, as they had done in his brother's time, and as they did in the earlier years of his own reign ({[sc|Eadmer}}, Historia Novorum, iv. col. 470). Trade was benefited by his restoration of the coinage, and the severity with which he punished those who issued bad money or used false measures; he is said to have made the length of his own arm the standard of measure throughout the kingdom (Gesta Regum, v. 411). The peace and order which he established were highly valued by the people, and the native chronicler, though he makes many moans over his exactions, yet, writing after his death, and looking back in a time of disorder to the strong government of the late reign, says of him: 'Good man he was, and great awe there was of him. No one durst misdo another in his time. Peace he made for man and deer. Whoso bare his burden of gold and silver no man durst say to him aught but good' (Anglo-Saxon Chron. sub an. 1135; for Henry's character, both as a man and as a king, see more at large in Norman Conquest, v. 153?61, 839?45, where full references are given; also Stubbs, Constitutional History, vol. i. secs. 110?12).

In the first days of his reign Henry imprisoned, in the Tower of London, Ranulf Flambard [q. v.], bishop of Durham, the evil minister of Rufus, and began to appoint abbots to the abbeys which his brother had kept vacant in order to enjoy their revenues. He met Anselm at Salisbury, on his return to England about Michaelmas, and required him to do homage as his predecessor had done, and receive back from him the temporalities of the see, which were then in the king's hands. Anselm refused, and Henry, who could not afford to quarrel with him, and would probably in any case have been unwilling to do so, agreed to delay the matter, in order that the pope might be consulted whether he could so far change his decrees as to bring them into accordance with the ancient custom of the kingdom. In this dispute as to the question of investiture [for which see under Anselm] Henry took his stand on the rights of his crown as handed down by his predecessors, and on the undoubted usages of his realm. He made no new demand; the innovation was introduced by Anselm, who, in obedience to papal instructions, refused to accept the temporalities from Henry, as he had accepted them from Rufus, and as former archbishops had accepted them from former kings. Nor did Henry make the quarrel a personal matter; he did not persecute the archbishop, or thwart him in the exercise of his office, as Rufus had done. He behaved throughout with a due regard to law, and on the whole acted fairly, though he naturally availed himself of every lawful means to gain his point. He was urged by his coun- sellors, and especially by the bishops, to marry and reform his life. He had for some time been in love with Eadygyth (Edith) or Matilda [q. v.], daughter of Malcolm Canmore, king of Scotland, by Margaret, daughter of Edward the Exile, son of Edmund Ironside [q. v.] Matilda had been brought up in the convent at Romsey, and many people declared that she had taken the veil. Anselm, however, pronounced that she was not a nun, and married her to the king, and crowned her queen in Westminster Abbey on 11 Nov. 1100. The English were delighted to see their king take a wife of 'England's right kingly kin' ({A.-S. Chronicle, a. 1100). Before long, his example was followed by others, and intermarriages between Normans and English became common. They were encouraged by Henry, who by this and other means did all he could to promote the amalgamation of the two races within his kingdom (De Nugis Curialium, p. 209). His efforts were so successful that he has been called the 'refounder of the English nation' (William Rufus, ii. 455). For a while he devoted himself to his queen, but before long returned to his old mode of life. His marriage was not pleasing to the Norman nobles, who knew his early misfortunes, and as yet held him in little respect; they sneered at the domestic life of the king and queen, calling them by the English names Godric and Godgifu (Godiva). Henry heard their sneers but said nothing (Gesta Regum, v. 394; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 236). Already they were plotting against him in favour of Robert, who had returned from the crusade, and had again resumed his government, such as it was, of Normandy, though Henry kept the castles which he held in virtue of his grant from Rufus. Some hostilities were carried on in Normandy between his men and the duke's. At Christmas the king held his court at Westminster, and there received Louis, who had lately been made joint king of France by his father, Philip. While Louis was with him a letter came from Bertrada, Philip's adulterous wife, purporting to have been sent by Philip, and requesting Henry to keep Louis in lifelong imprisonment. Henry, however, sent his guest home with many presents (Symeon of Durham, ii. 232; Orderic, p. 813, places this visit under 1103. Symeon's date seems better; comp. Recueil des Historiens, xii. 878, 956). At Christmastide Flambard escaped from the Tower and fled to Normandy, where he stirred up Robert against his brother. During the spring of 1101 the conspiracy of the Norman nobles against the king spread rapidly, and when the Whitsun assembly met it was known that Robert was about to make an invasion. A large number both of nobles and of the people generally came to the assembly to profess their loyalty. Henry and the nobles met with mutual suspicions. Among the nobles only Robert FitzHamon, Richard of Redvers, Roger Bigot, Robert of Meulan, and his brother Henry, earl of Warwick, were steadfast to him; all the rest were more or less on Robert's side. The English people and the bishops were loyal, and by the advice of Anselm Henry renewed his promises of good government (Gesta Regum, v. 394; Eadmer, Historia Novorum, iii. col. 430). He gathered a large army, and was joined by Anselm in person. With him he went to Pevensey, and sent a fleet to intercept the invaders. Some of the seamen were persuaded to join the duke, who landed near Portsmouth on 20 July. Henry advanced to meet him, and though some of his lords, and among them Robert of Bellême, now earl of Shrewsbury, deserted him, many were kept from following their example by the influence of Anselm. The king and the duke met at Alton in Hampshire (Wace, l. 10393). Henry's army was largely composed of Englishmen. He rode round their battalions, telling them how to meet the shock of a cavalry charge, and they called to him to let them engage the Normans. No battle took place; for the brothers had an interview, were reconciled, and came to terms. Henry agreed to give up all he held in Normandy except Domfront, which he kept according to his promise to the townsmen, to restore the lands in England which Robert's adherents had forfeited, and to pay the duke three thousand marks a year. Robert renounced his claim on England and on homage from Henry, and both agreed that if either should die without leaving an heir born in wedlock the other should succeed to his dominions (A.-S. Chronicle, sub an.; Orderic, p. 788). The duke went back to Normandy, and Henry bided his time to take vengeance on the lords who had risen against him. By degrees one after another at various times and by various means he brought them to judgment and punished them (ib. p. 804). One of them, Ivo of Grantmesnil, began to carry on war in England on his own account, was cited before the king's court, and was forced to part with his lands for the benefit of the king's counsellor, Robert of Meulan, and to go on a crusade.

Henry now prepared to deal with Robert of Bellême, the most powerful noble in his kingdom, and his enemy alike in England and in Normandy. He knew that while Robert remained lord of so many strong fortresses, and held an almost independent position in the Severn country, where he could easily find Welsh allies, it was hopeless to attempt to carry out his design of enforcing order and of humbling the great feudatories. His war with the earl [for particulars see Bellême, Robert of] was the principal crisis in his reign. Not only did Robert's wealth and dominions make him a dangerous foe, but the chief men in Henry's army also sympathised with him. Henry depended on the loyalty of men of lower degree. In fighting out his own quarrel he was also fighting against the foremost representative of a feudal nobility, which would, if triumphant, have trampled alike on the crown, the lesser landholders, and the nation generally. The shouts which were raised on the surrender of Shrewsbury, the earl's last stronghold in England, and the song which celebrated his banishment, show that the people knew that the king's victory insured safety for his subjects. During the early part of the war the earl received help from the Welsh under Jorwerth and his two brothers, who ruled as Robert's vassals in Powys and the present Cardigan. The king won Jorwerth over to his side by promising him large territories free of homage, and he persuaded his countrymen to desert the earl and uphold the king. When, however, he claimed the fulfilment of Henry's promise, it was refused, and in 1103 he was brought to trial at Shrewsbury and imprisoned.

It is characteristic of the spirit in which Henry carried on his dispute with Anselm that while in 1102 he allowed the archbishop to hold his synod at Westminster, he in 1103 banished William Giffard [q. v.], the bishop-elect of Winchester, for refusing to receive consecration from Gerard [q. v.] of York. He was anxious for a settlement of the question, and willingly gave Anselm license to go to Rome. Henry was relieved from some anxiety by the death of Magnus Barefoot, king of Norway, who was slain while invading Ireland, and he enriched himself by seizing on 20,000l. deposited by the Norwegian king with a citizen of Lincoln. Some interference in the affairs of Normandy was forced on the king by the attacks made on his son-in-law, Eustace of Pacy, lord of Breteuil, the husband of his natural daughter, Juliana. Robert of Meulan was sent to threaten the duke and his lords with the king's displeasure unless they helped Eustace, and his mission was successful (Orderic, p. 811). Duke Robert came over to England, and was persuaded by the queen to give up the pension of three thousand marks which the king had agreed to pay him (Flor. Wig. ii. 52; Gesta Regum, v. 395). Normandy was in a state of confusion. Henry's enemies, and above all Robert of Bellême, who was now in alliance with the duke, were active, and were joined by William of Mortain, one of the king's bitterest foes, who claimed the earldom of Kent as heir of Bishop Odo. Since the overthrow of Robert of Bellême the king had become too strong for the nobles. William was tried in 1104 and sentenced to banishment. He went over to Normandy and attacked some of the castles belonging to men of the king's party. Henry himself crossed with a considerable fleet, and visited Domfront and other towns, apparently those held by the lords who also had English estates. In an interview with Robert he complained of his alliance with Robert of Bellême and of his general misgovernment. Robert purchased peace by ceding to him the lordship of the county of Evreux. Henry's lords seem to have fought with some success. The king returned before Christmas. It was a time of trouble in England; for he was determined to invade Normandy, and accordingly taxed his subjects to raise funds for his expedition. He was collecting an army, and, as he had not yet made his decree against military wrongdoing, his soldiers oppressed the people, plundering, burning, and slaying (A.-S. Chron. sub an.). He held his Christmas court at Windsor, and in Lent 1105 left England with a large force. He landed at Barfleur, and spent Easter day at Carentan. Thither came Serlo, bishop of Seez, who had been driven out of his see by Robert of Bellême, and prepared to celebrate mass. The king and his lords were sitting at the bottom of the church, among the goods and utensils which the country-folk had placed there to preserve them from plunder. Serlo called on the king to look at these signs of the misery of the people, and exhorted him to deliver them and the church from those who oppressed them. He wound up by inveighing against the custom of wearing long hair which prevailed among the men of the English court, and spoke to such good effect that the king allowed him then and there to shear off his locks, and the courtiers followed the king's example (Orderic, p. 816). Geoffrey, count of Anjou, and Elias, count of Maine, came to his help; Bayeux, with its churches, was burnt, and Caen, where the treasure of the duchy was kept, was bribed to surrender. On 22 July Henry met Anselm at Laigle. There was some talk of a possible excommunication, which would have damaged his position. The interview was amicable, and terms were almost arranged. Although he won many of the Norman barons over by gifts, he failed to take Falaise, and found it impossible to complete the conquest of the duchy that year. He returned to England in August. (For this expedition see ib. pp. 816?18; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 235; Versus Serlonis, Recueil des Historiens, xix. præf. xcj; Norgate, Angevin Kings, i. 11.)

On his return he laid a tax on the clergy, who kept their wives in disobedience to Anselm's canon, and, finding that it brought in little, extended it to all the secular clergy alike. A large number appeared before him at London in vestments and with bare feet, but he drove them from his presence. Then they laid their griefs before the queen, who burst into tears and said she dared not interfere (Eadmer, iv. col. 457). Robert of Bellême came over to endeavour to obtain the king's pardon, and was sent back indignant at his failure. Duke Robert also came early in 1106 and found the king at Northampton; he failed to persuade the king to give up his conquests and make peace. Contrary to his usual custom, Henry held no court at Easter or Whitsuntide, and spent the one feast at Bath and the other at Salisbury. In July he again went over to Normandy. On 15 Aug. he had a satisfactory interview with Anselm at Bec, and the archbishop returned to England. At Caen he received a visit from Robert of Estouteville, one of the duke's party, who offered to surrender the town of Dives to him, proposing that he should go thither with only a few men. Henry did so, and found that a trap had been laid for him, for he was attacked by a large number. Nevertheless, his men routed their assailants and burnt both castle and monastery (Orderic, p. 819). He raised a fort outside Tinchebray, a town between Vire and Flers, belonging to the Count of Mortain, and stationed one of his lords there to blockade the place. As the count succeeded in introducing men and stores, and the siege made no progress, Henry appeared before the town in person. Robert and his army found him there on 2 Sept. Henry's army, which comprised allies from Anjou, Maine, and Brittany, had the larger number of knights, while Robert had more foot-soldiers. The clergy urged the king not to fight with his brother. Henry listened to their exhortations, and sent to Robert, representing that he was not actuated by greed or by a desire to deprive him of his dukedom, but by compassion for the people who were suffering from anarchy, and offering to be content with half the duchy, the strong places, and the government of the whole, while Robert should enjoy the revenues of the other half in idleness. Robert refused. Both armies fought on foot, with the exception of the duke's first line, and Henry's Breton and Cenomannian cavalry, which he placed at some little distance from his main body under the command of Count Elias. The Count of Mortain, who led the first line of the ducal army, charged the king's first line under Ranulf of Bayeux and shook without routing it. Then Elias with his cavalry fell on the flank of the duke's second line of foot, and cut down 225. Thereupon Robert of Bellême, who commanded the rear of the army, fled, and the whole of the duke's forces were scattered (ib. p. 821; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 235). The duke, the Count of Mortain, Robert of Estouteville, and other lords were made prisoners, and the battle completed the conquest of the duchy. It was regarded as an English victory, and a reversal of the battle of Hastings, fought almost on the same day forty years before, for it made Normandy a dependency of the English crown (Will. of Malm. v. 398; Norman Conquest, v. 176). The war in Normandy helped on Henry's work of consolidating the Norman and English races in England, and this process was still further forwarded by his later wars with France. His subjects in England of either race were counted Englishmen as opposed to Normans or Frenchmen (Angevin Kings, i. 23, 24). Duke Robert was kept a prisoner until his death in 1134; there is no ground for the story current in the thirteenth century (Ann. Monast. ii. 50, iv. 15, 378) that he was blinded (Orderic, p. 823). Henry caused William of Mortain to be blinded, and kept him in prison until he died. In the middle of October he held a council of the Norman lords at Lisieux, in which he resumed the grants made by his brother, and ordered the destruction of all 'adulterine' or unlicensed castles, and at the same time held a council of the Norman church. In order to accustom the Norman lords to his rule he held a court at Falaise the following January, and it was there probably that he caused Robert of Montfort sur Risle to be tried for disloyalty and banished by legal process. In March he again held a council at Lisieux, and settled the affairs of the duchy, where he pursued the same policy as in England, depressing the baronage and protecting the lower classes from tyranny and violence (ib.).

He returned to England in Lent, and according to his custom held courts at Easter and Whitsuntide, the first at Windsor, the second at Westminster. On 1 Aug. he held a council at Westminster, at which the terms of the compromise between the crown and the papacy were finally settled [see under Anselm]. The issue of the struggle was that the church was freed from the feudal character which had gradually, and especially in the reign of Rufus, been imposed upon it, and that the king tacitly recognised a limitation of secular authority. On the other hand, Henry surrendered a shadow and kept the substance of power; for the appointment of bishops remained as much as before in the king's hands. At this council five vacant sees were filled by the consecration of bishops, some of whom had been elected long before. One of the new bishops, Roger, consecrated to the see of Salisbury, formerly the king's chancellor, was now made justiciar. Henry used the revenues and offices of the church as a means of rewarding his ministers, whom he chose from the clergy rather than from the baronial class. He employed Bishop Roger to develope a system of judicial and fiscal administration. The curia regis, or king's court, became specially active in judicial matters, and while the three solemn courts were regularly held, at which the king came to decisions on more important judicial cases in the presence, and theoretically by the advice, of his counsellors, the permanent court of which he, or in his absence his justiciar, was the head, and which was composed of the great officers of the household and any others whom he might select, gained greater distinctness; the king further sent out justices to go on circuit to transact judicial business and to settle and enforce the rights of the crown. The court of exchequer was organised for the purpose of royal finance; it seems to have consisted of the justiciar and the other ordinary members of the curia regis, and to have been the body which received the royal revenue from the various officers appointed to collect it. Its business was recorded, and the earliest exchequer roll known to be in existence is that of the thirty-first year of Henry I. From this it appears that the royal revenue was then fully 66,000l. The ordinary direct taxes were the danegeld, the ferm, or composition paid by the shires, and certain fixed amounts paid by towns. Besides these sources of revenue there were, among others, the feudal incidents, the sale of offices, and the profits of the royal jurisdiction (see Constitutional History, i. 376?91; Angevin Kings, i. 25?7). In July 1108 Henry again crossed over to Normandy, where trouble was beginning. He had given Robert's son William, called 'Clito,' into the charge of Elias of Saint-Saen, and now, by the advice of his courtiers, wanted to get hold of the lad. An attempt to seize him in the absence of Elias failed, and his guardian refused to give him up, and when Henry took his castle from him, went from one lord to another asking help for his young charge. Many of the Norman nobles were ready to uphold their old duke's son, and his cause was favoured by several of the great French feudatories, and by Louis VI, who, after his father's death, was crowned king on 3 Aug. (Orderic, pp. 837, 838). During all the earlier part of 1109 Henry remained in Normandy, and in the course of the next year a quarrel broke out between him and Louis about the border fortress of Gisors. According to the French statement an agreement had been made between them, when Henry conquered the duchy, that Gisors should be a kind of neutral ground, and should belong to neither of them. Henry, however, turned out the castellan and made it his own. Louis gathered a large army and marched to meet him at the town of Neauffles; the Epte flowed between the two armies, and could only be crossed by a crazy bridge. Messengers came to Henry from Louis asserting his grievance and offering to decide the matter by combat. Henry would not hear of this. After some altercation Louis offered to fight the matter out if Henry would allow the French army to cross over the river, but Henry answered that if Louis came over to the Norman side he would find him ready to defend his land. The two armies retired each to its own quarters. This was the beginning of a long border warfare between the Normans and the French, during which Louis did much harm to the castles and lands on the Norman march (Suger, Vita Ludovici Grossi, ap. Recueil, xii. 27, 28). About 1111 Theobald, count of Blois, Henry's nephew, relying on his uncle's help, began to make war on Louis on his own account (ib. p. 35). Meanwhile Henry continued his work of repressing the baronage, and in 1110 banished from England Philip of Braiose, William Malet, and William Bainard, and confiscated their lands. While he was fighting in Normandy he kept England at peace. In 1111 Fulk V of Anjou joined Louis against him, for Fulk had married the daughter and heiress of Elias of Maine, and on the death of his father-in-law revived the old claim of his house on Maine; the war increased in importance, and Henry remained in Normandy for about two years. He seems to have acted warily, to have trusted much to good management and bribes, and to have avoided actual fighting as much as possible. He caught his old enemy, Robert of Bellême, sent him over to an English prison, and captured his town of Alençon. The Norman barons were not universally faithful, and Henry banished the Count of Evreux and William Crispin. By the beginning of 1113 the war seems to have died out. Henry spent the festival of the Purification (2 Feb.) at the monastery of Evroul, and early in Lent met Fulk at Pierre-Pécoulée, near Alençon, and there made peace with him, for, as he had by gifts won over to his side many of the nobles of Maine, the count was not unwilling to come to terms; he did homage to Henry for Maine, and promised to give his daughter in marriage to Henry's son William. Henry pardoned the Count of Evreux and some other banished lords. Shortly afterwards Henry and Louis made peace at Gisors. The amount of Henry's success may be gauged by the concessions of the French king, who acknowledged his right to Bellême, Maine, and all Brittany. He received the homage of the Count of Brittany, subdued the forces which held out in Bellême, and then returned to England.

During Henry's reign the English power in Wales was strengthened by colonisation and conquest. The English regarded with dislike the large number of Flemish which had settled in their country since the Conquest, and Henry in 1111 settled them in the southern part of Dyfed or Pembrokeshire, where they formed a vigorous Teutonic colony, held their ground against the Welsh, and converted a land originally Welsh into an outlying English district, ?Little England beyond Wales? (Gesta Regum, iv. 311, v. 401; Flor. Wig. ii. 64; Orderic, p. 900; Ann. Cambriæ, an. 1106; Freeman, English Towns and Districts, pp. 33?9). Barnard, an English bishop of Norman race, was appointed to the see of St. David's, and professed obedience to Canterbury (Councils and Eccl. Docs. i. 307); obedience was likewise professed by the Bishop of Llandaff, who was consecrated by Anselm in 1107. Owen, the prince of Powys, caused a good deal of trouble, and carried on constant wars against the Normans and Flemings until he was slain in 1116. After one of his raids Henry granted the present Cardiganshire to Gilbert of Clare, who subdued the district in 1111. After his return from Normandy, Henry, in the summer of 1114, led a large army into Wales against Gruffyd of North Wales and Owen. On his approach the Welsh made peace with him, and after ordering castles to be built he returned, and on 21 Sept. embarked at Portsmouth for Normandy, where he remained until the following July. His relations with Scotland, where three of his wife's brothers reigned in succession, were uniformly peaceful. David I [q. v.], the queen's youngest brother, passed his youth at the English court, and Henry gave him an English wife and an English earldom. At the same time he was careful to strengthen the borders against the Scots as well as against the Welsh. The eastern border he gave in charge to Ranulf Flambard, bishop of Durham, whom he reinstated in his see in 1107 (Orderic, p. 833); over the western border he first set an earl of Carlisle, and on his death divided the district of Carlisle into baronies, and gave it a county organisation. He also carried on the work begun by his brother of making Carlisle an English city by completing the monastery of Austin canons, and making it the cathedral church of a bishop of Carlisle. In 1114 he sent his daughter Matilda over to Germany to be the wife of the Emperor Henry V; at the time of her betrothal in 1110 he had levied an aid which the English chronicler says was specially burdensome because it came in a year of scarcity. When he was in Normandy in 1115 he made all the barons do homage and swear fealty to his son William as heir to the duchy, and on 19 March 1116 he caused the prelates, nobles, and barons throughout the whole of England to do the like at an assembly which he held at Salisbury (Anglo-Saxon Chron. a. 1115; Flor. Wig. ii. 69; Eadmer, Historia Novorum, v. col. 496; {[sc|Dr. Stubbs}} considers this to have been a general muster of landowners, Constitutional History, i. 358; and William of Malmesbury says that the oath was taken by all freemen of every degree in England and Normandy, Gesta Regum, v. 419. In the face of the English chronicler and Florence this may perhaps be put down as merely rhetorical).

After Easter Henry again visited Normandy, and, taking up the quarrel of his nephew Theobald with Louis VI, sent forces into France, took the castle of St. Clair, and did much damage. Provoked by this invasion, Louis adopted the cause of Robert's son William, and attacked Normandy, and, as he knew that the dukes had thoroughly fortified the border, seized by a clever stratagem a little town called Gue Nichaise, where there was a bridge across the Epte. Henry tried to blockade him by building two forts against his quarters, but Louis called them ?Malassis? and ?hare's-form? (trulla leporis), stormed Malassis, and carried on a desultory warfare Suger, p. 43; Orderic, p. 842). The French king was joined by Baldwin of Flanders and Fulk of Anjou, who combined with him to place William Clito in possession of Normandy. Many of the Norman barons revolted, and Amaury of Montfort, who claimed Evreux, the fief of his uncle William, was active in gaining fresh adherents to the league against Henry. During 1117 Henry remained in Normandy, and in the following year matters became serious. While Count Baldwin was mortally wounded at Eu, and the king did not suffer any important defeat, the defection of his lords still continued. On 1 May of this year his queen, Matilda, died, and he also lost his faithful counsellor, Robert of Meulan. To this time also is to be referred a conspiracy which was made by one of his chamberlains to assassinate him. The plot was discovered, and the traitor punished by mutilation. It is said to have had a considerable effect on the king; he increased his guards, often changed his sleeping-place, and would not sleep without having a shield and sword close at hand (Suger, p. 44; Gesta Regum, v. 411). Hearing that Richer of Laigle had admitted the French into his town, he marched against it, but was stopped by William of Tancarville, who brought him false news that Hugh of Gournay, Stephen of Albemarle, and others of his rebellious lords were at Rouen. When he found that they were not there, he attacked Hugh of Gournay's castle, la Ferté, but heavy rain forced him to abandon the siege. Having laid waste the country he attacked and burnt Neubourg. In September he seized Henry of Eu and Hugh of Gournay at Rouen, imprisoned them, and reduced their castles. He held a council at Rouen in October, and endeavoured to make peace with his lords. While he was there Amaury of Montfort made himself master of Evreux. About the middle of November he attacked Laigle, and was hit on the head by a stone sent from the castle by the French garrison; his helmet, however, protected him. In December Alençon rebelled against his nephews Theobald and Stephen, and was occupied by Fulk of Anjou. Henry had caused Eustace de Pacy, the husband of his natural daughter Juliana and lord of Breteuil, to send him his two little daughters as hostages for his good faith, and had put a castellan, Ralph Harenc, in charge of his tower of Ivry, making him send his son as a hostage to Eustace. By the advice of Amaury of Montfort, Eustace, who was on the rebels' side, put out the boy's eyes. On this Henry, in great wrath, sent his two grand-daughters to Harenc that he might serve them in the same way. Harenc tore out their eyes, and cut off the tips of their noses. Their parents then fortified all their castles against Henry, and Juliana gathered a force, and shut herself in the castle of Breteuil. The townsmen who were loyal sent to Henry, and he appeared before the castle in February 1119. Juliana tried to kill her father by a shot from an engine. She failed, and was forced to offer to surrender. Her father would not allow her to leave the castle except by letting herself down into the moat and wading through the icy water (Orderic, p. 848; De Contemptu Mundi, p. 311; Lingard, ii. 12). During the early months of the year the war went on much as in the year before; the Norman lords still remained disloyal, Louis took Andelys, which was held by the king's natural son Richard, by surprise, and the French became masters of all the neighbouring country. Henry was losing ground, and Amaury of Montfort scornfully rejected his offer of reconciliation.

In May 1120 Henry joyfully received his son William, who came over to him from England. The object of his coming was shown by the despatch of messengers to Count Fulk to propose that the marriage contract between William and Fulk's daughter Matilda should be fulfilled. Fulk agreed and made peace with Henry, offering to end the ancient dispute between the houses of Normandy and Anjou by settling Maine upon his daughter, and to give up Alençon provided that the king would restore it to William Talvas, son of Robert of Bellême, and heir of its ancient lords (Orderic, p. 851; Suger, p. 45; Gesta Regum, v. 419). This marriage, which was celebrated in June at Lisieux, changed the aspect of the war, for the alliance with Count Fulk enabled Henry to devote all his energies to repelling Louis and punishing his rebellious vassals. In the summer he made a terrible raid on the disloyal lords; he laid siege to Evreux, and finding it well defended called the Bishop Audoin to him, for Audoin, in common with the bishops and clergy of the duchy generally, was loyal to Henry, and asked him whether it would not be well for him to fire the town provided that if the churches were burnt he would rebuild them. As the bishop hesitated to give an answer, the king set fire to the town and burnt it, churches and all, he and his nobles giving the bishop ample pledges that he would rebuild the churches, which he afterwards did. When Amaury heard that his town was burnt, he sent to Louis for help. On 20 Aug. Henry, who had heard mass that morning at Noyon, was riding towards Andelys to make war, with five hundred of his best knights, when his scouts told him that the French king, who had ridden out from Andelys with four hundred knights, was close at hand. The two bands met on the plain of Brenneville. Besides William the Ætheling two of Henry's natural sons, Robert and Richard, fought in their father's company; Richard with a hundred knights remained mounted, the rest of Henry's knights fought on foot. Among the knights of Louis fought William of Normandy. Louis neglected to marshal his force; William Crispin, a rebel Norman, charged Henry's forces with eighty horse. He and his men were surrounded, but he made his way to the king and struck him a deadly blow on the head, but Henry's headpiece saved him, though it was broken by the blow, and wounded his head so that the blood flowed. All the eighty knights were taken. A body of knights from the Vexin for a moment shook the Norman lines, but was quickly repulsed. When Louis saw that William Crispin and the knights whom he led did not return from their charge, he and his men took flight, and the Normans pursued some of the fugitives as far as Andelys. Henry's men took 140 prisoners and the banner of the French king. Henry returned this banner to Louis together with his charger, and William the Ætheling sent back the charger of his cousin William of Normandy. Henry also sent back without ransom some knights who owed allegiance to Louis as well as to himself. Only three knights were slain out of the nine hundred engaged in the fight; for all were clad in complete armour, and on both sides there was a feeling of knightly comradeship which prevented any sanguinary conflict; indeed the aim of both sides was rather to make prisoners than to slay the enemy. The whole affair was more like a great tournament than a battle (Orderic, pp. 853?5; Suger, p. 45; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 241, where some details are probably untrustworthy). Louis raised a large force and overran part of Normandy and Chartres, gaining nothing by his raid, while Henry organised his army. In October Louis, who evidently felt himself overmatched, appeared before Calixtus II at the Council of Rheims, and made his complaints against the English king. Geoffrey, archbishop of Rouen, rose to reply to the charges brought against his lord, but the council would not hear him. The pope, however, was anxious to make peace with the emperor, and did not care to offend the father of the empress. Meanwhile Henry received the submission of several rebel lords, and was reconciled to Amaury of Montfort, Eustace, and Juliana, Hugh of Gournay, and others, who agreed, though against their wills, to let William Clito and Elias of St.-Saen remain in exile. In November he met the pope at Gisors, and replied in person to the charges brought against him by Louis of usurping the inheritance of his brother and nephew, declaring that he had offered to make William earl of three counties in England, and to bring him up with his own son. His answers on these and other points thoroughly satisfied the pope, by whose intercession a peace was arranged in 1120 between Henry and Louis and the Count of Flanders; all conquests were to be restored, captives liberated, and offences pardoned, and Louis accepted the homage of Henry's son, and thus gave a pledge that he should succeed to his father's fiefs (Orderic, p. 866; Norman Conquest, v. 193). Henry thus passed safely and honourably through the most dangerous crisis of his reign. After devoting some time to settling the affairs of the duchy, he embarked at Barfleur on 25 Nov. to return to England, from which he had been absent for four years. His only legitimate son, William, was to follow him, with his half-brother Richard, his half-sister the Countess of Perche, many young lords and ladies, and the king's treasure, in the White Ship. The ship foundered, and all were drowned except a butcher of Rouen. Although Henry's lords were mourning their own losses, they concealed the disaster from the king for a day after the news had come, for they feared to tell him. At last the young son of Count Theobald knelt before him and told him of his loss. Henry fell senseless to the ground, and though in a few days he restrained his grief, and applied himself to his kingly business, he was deeply affected by his son's death (Orderic, pp. 868 sq.; Gesta Regum, v. 419; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 242; Symeon, ii. 259; Wace, ll. 10203?10288; Benoit, ll. 41039?41152).

The disaster ruined his schemes at the very moment when their success appeared certain, and when it seemed as though nothing could prevent his son from inheriting both his kingdom and duchy. All his dominions would now naturally pass at his death to his enemy, William Clito. By the advice of his counsellors he married again, taking to wife, on 29 Jan. 1121, Adela, or Adelaide, daughter of Godfrey VII, count of Louvain, in the hope of having a son by her, and also, it is said, to keep himself from disgraceful conduct (Gesta Regum, v. 419; Eadmer, col. 517). Unfortunately the marriage proved barren. After Whitsuntide Henry led an army into Wales, where the natives had taken advantage of the death of the Earl of Chester to rise in revolt. He marched as far as Snowdon (Symeon, ii. 264), and received the submission of the Welsh nobles, who gave him their sons as hostages, and paid him tribute, so that he is said to have fully subdued the land (Giraldus Cambrensis, iii. 152). While on this expedition, and as the army was passing through English territory, he was hit by an arrow which was shot at him secretly. His armour saved him from harm. The man who made the attempt was not discovered, and Henry swore 'by God's death,' his favourite oath, that he was no Welshman, but one of his own subjects (Gesta Regum, v. 401). Shortly before this time Henry brought to a close a quarrel with Thurstan, archbishop of York. His rule was as despotic in ecclesiastical as in civil matters, and in both alike he maintained the principle of holding to the hereditary rights of the crown. After the death of Anselm in 1109, he broke the promise of his coronation charter by keeping the see of Canterbury vacant until 1114, when he summoned the suffragan bishops and the monks of Christ Church to Windsor, and allowed the election of Ralph, bishop of Rochester, to the archbishopric. This election led to a dispute with Pope Paschal II, who in 1115 wrote to Henry, complaining that his legates were shut out from the kingdom, and that he translated bishops without papal license. On the other hand, the king informed the bishops that the pope had infringed the privileges enjoyed by his father and brother. He commanded Thurstan, the archbishop-elect of York, to make profession to Archbishop Ralph. Thurstan refused, and was upheld in his refusal by Pope Paschal and his successors, Gelasius II and Calixtus II. A long quarrel ensued, in which Henry upheld the rights of Canterbury. He allowed Thurstan to attend the pope's council at Rheims in 1119, on his promising that he would not receive consecration from the pope, and so evade the profession, and allowed the English prelates to go thither also, warning them that, as he intended to abide by the ancient customs and privileges of his realm, they had better not bring back any idle innovations. Finding that Thurstan, in spite of his promise, was trying to obtain consecration from Calixtus, he charged the bishops to prevent it. They were too late, and the pope consecrated Thurstan, whereupon the king forbade him to enter England, and seized the estates of his see. Nor would Henry at Gisors assent to the pope's demand for his restoration. Thurstan, however, did Henry a service by forwarding the negotiations with Louis, and Henry allowed him to return, and gave him the temporalities (Eadmer, v. col. 499 sq.; Hugh the Chantor, pp. 129 sq.).

Although Henry sent the young widow of his son back to her father against his own will?for, besides her importance as a kind of hostage for Count Fulk's conduct, he seems to have been fond of her (Orderic, p. 875)?he did not return the money which formed part of her dower, nor would he satisfy the envoys from the count who came to his court, probably on this matter, at Christmas 1122. The settlement of the county of Maine, however, was broken by William's death, and Fulk was induced, partly by his anger at the retention of the dower, and partly by the persuasions of Louis of France and Amaury of Montfort, count of Evreux, to give the county to William Clito, to whom he betrothed his second daughter Sibyl. At the same time in 1123 a revolt was excited among the Norman lords, chiefly through the instrumentality of Amaury and of Waleran of Meulan, the son of Henry's late counsellor. Henry heard of the movement, and crossed over from Portsmouth immediately after Whitsuntide, leaving his kingdom under the care of his justiciar, Roger, bishop of Salisbury, who was at this period, after the king himself, all powerful both in church and state. In September the rebels met at Croix-St. Leuffroy, and arranged their plans. As soon as Henry knew of their meeting, he gathered his forces at Rouen, and took the field in October. His promptitude would have taken them by surprise had they not received timely warning from Hugh of Montfort, of whom the king required the surrender of his castle. Henry burnt Montfort, and forced the garrison to surrender the fortress, and then laid siege to Pont Audemer, the town of Waleran. The town was burnt, but the castle was held by a strong garrison, partly composed of men who had pretended to be on Henry's side, while some, the poet Luke de Barré among them, were fierce and valiant warriors. In spite of his age Henry was as active during this siege as the youngest soldier of his army, superintending everything himself, teaching the carpenters how to build a tower against the castle, scolding bad workmen, and praising the industrious, and urging them on to do more. At last, after a siege of six weeks, the castle was surrendered. On the other hand Gisors was taken by a treacherous stratagem. Henry at once hastened thither, and the rebels evacuated the town on his approach. In returning he seized Evreux. Heavy rains compelled him for a time to forbear further operations. While his rebellious lords seem to have been no match for him, their attempts gained importance from the fact that they were upheld by Louis, who was ready, if matters went ill with Henry, to take a prominent part in the war. In order to prevent this, Henry's son-in-law, the emperor, threatened France with an invasion, but did not advance further than Metz (Suger, pp. 49, 50; Otto of Freising, vii. 16). A decisive blow was struck on 25 March 1124, when Ranulf of Bayeux, who held Evreux for the king, defeated a large force led by Waleran, and took him and many others captive at Bourgthéroulde. This battle virtually ended the war, and after Easter Henry pronounced sentence on the rebel prisoners at Rouen. Many were imprisoned, Hugh of Montfort being confined miserably at Gloucester. Waleran, whose sister was one of the king's mistresses, was kept in prison in England until 1129, and then pardoned and received into favour. Two rebels who had forsworn themselves were condemned to lose their eyes. A like doom was pronounced against the warrior poet, Luke de Barré, for he had mortally offended the king by his satirical verses, as well as by his repeated attacks upon him. Charles, count of Flanders, who chanced to be at the court, and many nobles remonstrated at this, for, as they pleaded, Luke was not one of Henry's men, and was taken while fighting for his own lord. Henry acknowledged this, but would not remit his sentence, for he said that Luke had made his enemies laugh at him. Luke escaped his doom by dashing out his own brains (Orderic, pp. 880, 881). The king's success was crowned by the publication of a papal decree, obtained by his persuasion, annulling the marriage contract between William Clito and the daughter of the Count of Anjou, on account of consanguinity (ib. p. 838; D'Achery, Spicilegium, iii. 497). The war cost much money, and Englishmen moaned over the burdens which were laid upon them; 'those who had goods,' the chronicler writes, 'were bereft of them by strong gelds and strong motes; he who had none starved with hunger.' The law was enforced vigorously, and sometimes probably unjustly; at Huncote in Leicestershire the king's justices at one time hanged forty-four men as thieves, and mutilated six others, some of whom, it was generally believed, were innocent. At the end of the year Henry sent from Normandy, commanding that severe measures should be taken against debasers of the coin, which had deteriorated so much that it was said that a pound was not worth a penny in the market. The offenders were punished with mutilation.

On the death of his son-in-law the emperor in 1125, Henry sent for his daughter Matilda, who went back to him, and in September 1126 he returned to England with his queen, his daughter, and his prisoners. Finding that it was unlikely that his queen would have children, he determined to secure the succession for his daughter, and at the following Christmas assembly at Westminster caused the prelates and barons to swear that if he died without a male heir they would receive Matilda as Lady both of England and Normandy. Among those who took this oath were David, king of Scots, who had come to the English court at Michaelmas, and Stephen, count of Boulogne, the king's nephew, and the brother of Count Theobald (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, sub an. 112 
of England, Henry I King of England (I10845)
244 HENRY II (1133-1189, king of England, was the eldest child of Matilda, daughter of Henry I, and Geoffrey Plantagenet (1113-1150), count of Anjou. Geoffrey represented a family which in two centuries grew from the defenders of the Angevin march against Bretons and northmen into the lords of three important counties, Anjou, Touraine, and Maine, and from dependence on the ducal house of France into rivalry with the ducal house of Normandy, and thus at last with the royal house of England, and it was for the purpose of extinguishing this rivalry, and providing England and Normandy, after Henry I's death, with a sovereign in whom the blood of the hitherto hostile races should be united, that Matilda (whose first husband, the Emperor Henry V, had left her a childless widow) was married to the Angevin count in 1128. Geoffrey was then scarce fifteen?ten years younger than his wife?and it was not till 1133 that their first child was born, at Le Mans on Mid-Lent Sunday, 5 March ('Acta Pontif. Cenomann.' c. 36, in Mabillon, Vet. Analecta, p. 322). From his very birth, says a writer of the time, 'many peoples looked to him as their future master;' and the most important part of his destiny was indicated in the name by which he was baptised, and the surname by which he was commonly described, 'Henry FitzEmpress.' He was before all things King Henry's grandson and chosen successor, destined by Henry to continue his work of building up a strong government in England. The English witan were at once made to swear him fealty as his grandfather's heir; and the first two years of his life were chiefly spent with his mother at her father's court in Normandy. The king's death (December 1135), however, set the Norman and English barons free to repudiate an engagement made under compulsion to a child not yet three years old, the child too of a woman whom they scarcely knew, and of a man whom they hated with all the accumulated force of the hate that parted Anjou from Normandy; and Matilda found her son's heritage, on both sides of the sea, wrested from her by her cousin Stephen. Through the ten years of war that followed, the boy's education went on where and how it could. His earliest tutor was one Master Peter of Saintes, 'learned above all his contemporaries in the science of verse,' who took charge of him by his father's desire (Anon. Chron., Rer. Gall. Scriptt. xii. 120), probably after his mother went to England in 1139. In 1142 his uncle Earl Robert of Gloucester brought him over to join her, and for the next four years he was 'imbued with letters and instructed in good manners beseeming a youth of his rank,' by a certain Matthew in Robert's house at Bristol. In 1147 he rejoined his father, who had now conquered Normandy. Shortly after Matilda's return next year both she and Geoffrey seem to have made over to their son the claims which they had been holding in trust for him on both sides of the sea (Chron. S. Albin. a. 1149; Hist. Pontif., in Pertz, Mon. Germ. Hist. xx. 532, 533). In 1149 he ventured upon an expedition to England, and was knighted at Carlisle on Whitsunday by his great-uncle, David king of Scots; in the summer of 1151 he received from King Louis of France the investiture both of Normandy and of his father's hereditary dominions; and in September Geoffrey's death left him sole master of them all. To these territories, stretching from the Somme to the Loire and covering the whole western side of the royal domain of France, Henry in May 1152 added the great duchy of Aquitaine by his marriage with its duchess Eleanor, the divorced wife of the French king. The young duke found himself strong enough to disregard a citation before the royal court ('Gesta Ludov. Reg.,' in {[sc|Duchesne}}, Hist. Franc. Scriptt. iv. 411; 'Hist. Ludov. Reg.,' ib. p. 414), to repel an attack made by Louis upon Normandy, to crush a rebellion of his own brother Geoffrey in Anjou, and to risk another visit to England at Epiphany 1153. Nine months of fighting and negotiation ended in the treaty of Wallingford (November), whereby Stephen and Henry adopted each other as father and son, Henry leaving the crown to Stephen for his life, on a promise of its reversion at his death, and Stephen undertaking to govern meanwhile according to Henry's advice; as Roger of Howden expresses it, 'the king made the duke justiciar of England under him, and by him all the affairs of the kingdom were settled.' The discovery of a plot among the king's Flemish troops to assassinate Henry drove him back to France early in 1154. On 24 Oct. Stephen died. Contrary winds detained Henry in Normandy till 7 Dec.; but the 'mickle awe' with which he was already regarded in England sufficed to keep the land in peace during the interregnum; and on Sunday, 19 Dec., he was crowned at Westminster.

There was little of regal dignity in the young king's look and ways, in his square-built, thick-set frame, his sturdy limbs, his bullet-shaped head with its mass of close-cropped tawny hair, his 'lion-like' face with its freckled skin, and its prominent eyes that, for all their soft grey colour, could glow like balls of fire when the demon-spirit of Anjou was roused; in his absorbing passion for the chase; in the disregard of conventionalities shown by his coarse gloveless hands, his careless dress, his rough-and-ready speech; in the restlessness which kept him on his feet from morning till night, scorning every seat but the saddle, grudging every minute withdrawn from active occupation, beguiling with scribbling or with whispered talk the enforced tranquillity even of the hour of mass, dragging his weary courtiers about the country in ceaseless journeys, often to the most unlikely and inconvenient places, with equal indifference to their comfort and to his own; or in the outbreaks of a temper which mounted to sheer momentary madness, when he would utter the most unaccountable blasphemies, or gnaw the rushes from the floor and lie rolling among them like one possessed. Yet already England had discerned in this uncouth lad of twenty-one the quiet strength of a born ruler of men. 'All folk loved him,' says the English chronicler, summing up the impression left by the five months which had elapsed between Henry's treaty with Stephen and his return to Normandy, 'for he did good justice and made peace.' And 'justice' and 'peace,' in the sense which those words conveyed to the men of his day, were to be the main characteristics of his reign in England.

Henry's first kingly act was the issuing of a charter declaring, as the basis of his scheme of government, the restitution and confirmation of all liberties in church and state as settled by his grandfather. He next put in force certain hitherto unfulfilled provisions of the treaty of 1153, for the expulsion of Stephen's Flemish mercenaries, the demolition of castles built by individual barons without royal license and held by them independently of royal control, and the restoration of royal fortresses and other crown property which had passed into private hands during the anarchy. William of Aumale in Yorkshire, Hugh of Mortimer and Roger of Hereford in the west, openly resisted this last decree; but in January 1155 Henry's mere approach brought William to restore Scarborough; Roger submitted in April; and a siege of Hugh's castle of Bridgnorth by the king in person ended in its surrender, 7 July. By the close of the year order was fairly re-established throughout the realm. The old machinery of justice, of finance, of general administration, was at work again; judges went on circuit through the country; capable ministers were set over the various departments of state business; even the succession to the crown had been thought of and carefully provided for in a council at Wallingford, 10 April 1155. The part of Henry's life-work bequeathed to him by his English grandfather was so well in train that he could safely turn his attention to that other, and probably in his eyes more important work, which he had inherited from his paternal ancestors: the building up of an empire which, as had been foretold to one of them, was to spread from the rock of Angers to the ends of the earth. It spread now from the Flemish border to the Pyrenees, commanding the whole western coast of France, and covering more than half the soil whose nominal lord paramount was King Louis VII of France. But it was made up of five distinct fiefs, with claims of suzerainty over some half-dozen others; all held on different tenures, all jealous of one another, and most of them in a state of chronic disaffection, which Louis, jealous as he naturally was of his formidable vassal and rival, might easily turn to his own advantage; Henry's brother Geoffrey, too, claimed the Angevin patrimony, which his father's will had destined for him on Henry's accession to the English throne. Early in 1156, therefore, Henry returned to France; he renewed his homage to Louis, fought Geoffrey into accepting a money-compensation for his claims, and secured his hold over Aquitaine; then he came back (1157) to enforce the surrender of a few royal castles still held by the Earls of Warren and Norfolk; to demand and win from his cousin Malcolm of Scotland the homage due from a Scottish to an English king, and the restoration of the three English counties?Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmoreland?granted to Malcolm's father by Stephen; and to claim at the sword's point the homage of the princes of Wales. Another visit to Normandy in 1158 resulted in Henry's acquisition of the county of Nantes on the death of its ruler, his brother Geoffrey, and a successful assertion of his right to the overlordship of Brittany, with the sanction of the French king, whose daughter Margaret was now betrothed to Henry's eldest son. Next year Henry ventured to assert his wife's claim to the overlordship of Toulouse, and when the claim was denied prepared to enforce it with an army consisting of the great barons of his realm with the Scottish king at their head, and a crowd of mercenaries hired with the proceeds of a 'great scutage,' a tax levied upon every knight's fee throughout his dominions instead of the personal service due from the knights. The Quercy was conquered and the war carried to the gates of Toulouse, but when Louis threw himself into the city Henry withdrew, out of reverence for the feudal etiquette which forbade a vassal to fight against his overlord in person. In May 1160 a truce was made; in November Henry secured his Norman frontier by marrying his son to Margaret, and thus gaining possession of her dowry, the Vexin; a triple alliance between France, Blois, and Champagne failed to wrest from him the advantage which he had won; and he was seen as virtual arbiter of western Europe in 1162, when his adhesion to Pope Alexander III in his struggle with the emperor turned the scale in Alexander's favour, and compelled Louis, with whom the pope had taken refuge, to make a formal alliance with the English king in Alexander's presence at Chouzy.

In the intervals of his continental warfare Henry had been feeling his way towards a scheme of administrative reform in England. He had come to his throne just when the social, industrial, intellectual, and religious movements which had been stirring throughout Europe since the beginning of the century were all at their most critical stage. All of them, save the last, seemed to have been checked in England by the troubles of the anarchy, but no sooner was outward order restored than the forces which hitherto had been working in the dark confronted Henry in the light of day. He saw that the mere re-establishment of the old administrative routine of his grandfather's time could no longer suffice for a country where the very confusion of the past nineteen years, the loosening of accustomed restraints, the abeyance of accustomed authority, had fostered a new spirit of self-assertion and independent activity in burgher and yeoman and clerk, as well as in earl and baron and knight. The breakdown of the higher judicature, and the consequently unchecked corruption of the lower courts, had given an enormous advantage to the revived canon law, of which the clergy were the representatives and interpreters. The new relations, too, with the continent into which men were brought by the accession of their Angevin king were opening wider fields for commercial enterprise, which in its turn stimulated the growth of industrial activity at home, and the intercourse with foreign churchmen and foreign scholars was quickened, whence the English clergy, and through them the English people, were learning to scrutinise more closely and criticise more sharply the relations of king and people, church and state. Henry saw the opportunity which such a transitional state of society afforded for the building up of a system of financial, judicial, and military organisation in direct dependence upon the king, wherein men should find their surest safeguard amid the dangers that beset them on every side in the rapidly changing conditions of the national life. Only a few incidental notices enable us to mark some of his early steps in the path of administrative and legal reform. At the outset of his reign he had re-established in working order the old financial machinery of the exchequer and the judicial machinery of the curia regis. In 1158 he caused the debased coinage of his predecessor and that which had been illegally issued from private mints during the anarchy to be all alike superseded by a new and uniform currency. He facilitated the removal of suits from the local courts to the curia regis; he facilitated the administration of justice in the curia regis itself and in the provincial visitations of its judges, by introducing new methods of procedure; he gave a new development to the system of inquest by sworn recognitors, by applying it to an important branch of civil litigation in a 'great assize,' which sanctioned the settlement of disputes concerning land by the sworn verdict of twelve chosen knights of the district, instead of by ordeal of battle between the claimants as heretofore. He broke through the dependence of the crown upon its feudal tenants for the supply of a military force by a series of skilfully planned innovations, culminating in the scutage of 1159, which, while it conferred a benefit upon the tenants-in-chivalry by exempting them from service beyond sea, swept away their old exemption from money-taxation, and enabled the king henceforth to replace them whenever he chose by a paid force under his own immediate control.

But the scutage touched other privileges besides those of the tenants-in-chivalry; it was levied not only upon the knight's fees of the lay lords, but also, and more stringently, upon those held under the churches. It was thus Henry's first step towards the execution of a plan for breaking down the barriers which, under the name of clerical immunities, kept a large part of the population free of all legal restraint save that of the canon law, and altogether beyond the reach of his kingly authority and justice. The chief agent of Henry's reforms hitherto had been his chancellor, Thomas Becket, and it was to secure for his plans the co-operation of Thomas on a wider scale, and in a capacity which would add enormously to its value and usefulness, that he set constitutional tradition, ecclesiastical propriety, and public opinion all alike at defiance by raising his brilliant, worldly chancellor to the primacy of all England (June 1162). Instead of co-operation, he met from his new archbishop an uncompromising opposition. His proposal of a change in the mode of levying the land-tax, which would have transferred its profits from the sheriffs to the exchequer, was defeated by Thomas's resistance (July 1163); his attempts to bring criminal clerks to justice broke against the shield of the canon law with which Thomas sheltered the delinquents; his demand, made in a great council at Westminster (October 1163), for a public acknowledgment of what he called the 'customs of his grandfather,' in other words, of his royal supremacy over all persons and all causes throughout his realm, was answered by the bishops, under their primate's guidance, with a declaration that they would only agree to the customs ?saving the rights of their order;? and a vague verbal promise of assent which he at last wrung from them was revoked as soon as the customs were set forth in the form of written constitutions at the council of Clarendon (January 1164). Henry saw that in making Thomas archbishop he had but laid a stumbling-block across his own path, and he thrust it roughly aside. In October 1164 he summoned Thomas before a council at Northampton to answer a string of charges concerning his conduct as chancellor and as archbishop. From the outset it was plain that the primate's condemnation was a foregone conclusion. Insults of every kind were heaped upon him; every offer of compromise was scornfully rejected or made vain by the introduction of some new and unexpected charge; the bishops were compelled to join with the lay barons in sitting in judgment on their primate, till a prohibition from Thomas himself, enforced by an appeal to Rome, scared them into a protest to which Henry found it necessary to yield; the lay lords, with ?certain sheriffs and lesser barons ancient in days? whom the king had summoned to join them, were ready to depose the archbishop as a traitor, but he checked the delivery of their sentence by another appeal to the pope, fought his way out of the council, and finally escaped over sea.

Thomas's flight left Henry master of the field, and the constitutions of Clarendon were put in force at once. By these constitutions disputes about presentations and advowsons were transferred from the ecclesiastical to the royal courts; appeals to Rome without leave from the king, and ordination of villeins without leave from their lords, were forbidden; the right of sanctuary was annulled as regards chattels forfeited to the crown; clerks were made amenable to lay tribunals; the provisions of the 'great assize' were applied to disputes about church lands; and an appeal to the witness of twelve local jurors summoned by the sheriff was introduced to protect laymen from injustice in the bishops' courts. With these provisions those 'customs' of the Norman kings which forbade bishops and beneficed clerks to quit the realm or excommunicate the king's tenants-in-chief without his license, and regulated the election and the temporal liabilities of bishops, were now for the first time coupled together in a written code, which Henry probably meant as the first instalment of a much wider code, whereby he hoped to remodel the entire legal and administrative system of the country. Two years later, in fact, he boldly undertook to deal single-handed, on his own sole responsibility, with the whole question of the administration of justice in all criminal cases whatsoever. In his assize of Clarendon (February 1166) he applied the principle of jury-inquest to criminal cases by ordaining that in every shire criminals should be arrested and brought before the sheriffs and the itinerant justices, to be by them dealt with according to rules laid down in the same assize, on the presentment of twelve freemen of every hundred, and four of every township, bound by oath in full shire-court, to denounce all known malefactors in their districts; and he summarily set aside all claims to exemption, either from service on the juries or from liability to the interference of sheriffs and justices, founded on private jurisdictions or special franchises of any kind. In four ways especially Henry's assize is a landmark in English history. It was the first attempt made by an English king to put forth a code of laws, as distinct from a mere reassertion of traditional 'custom.' It was the first attempt to break down the feudal system of government by bringing its countless independent jurisdictions and irresponsible tribunals into subjection to one uniform judicial administration. It re-established once for all, so far as England was concerned, the old Teutonic principle of the right and the duty of a people to govern itself, in its own courts and by its own customary procedure, as against the Roman law which was fast taking its place in continental Europe; and it opened an almost boundless field for the training of the English people in self-government, by bringing home to every man his share in the administration of justice and police. About the same time Henry seems to have issued the assize of novel disseisin, which enabled any man disseised of his freehold without legal sentence to claim within a given period reinstatement by a writ from the king. The act whereby Henry thus ?cast his protection over possession made the disturbance of seisin a cause of complaint to the king himself,? though apparently little noticed at the time, was in fact ?perhaps the greatest event in the history of English law? (Maitland, Introd. to Select Pleas in Manorial Courts, Selden Soc., i. liv).

At the moment when Henry thus opened a new era in the history of English government, he was in the hottest of his fight with the church. In vain had he sought to prevent the pope and the French king from espousing the cause of Thomas; still more vainly had he driven into exile every man, woman, and child who could be charged with any sort of connection with the primate; Pope Alexander, ill as he could afford it at the moment, risked a breach with England by receiving Thomas honourably. Louis offered a shelter in France to him and his fellow-sufferers, and Henry found himself held up to the general scorn and indignation of orthodox Christendom. He turned to the eagerly-offered alliance of the emperor and the antipope, promised his daughter's hand to the emperor's cousin, Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony, and threatened to withdraw from Alexander the spiritual obedience of the whole Angevin dominions. A Welsh war furnished him with a means of evading the consequences of these pledges, and of gaining a breathing space, which was turned to good account for England by the issuing of the assize of Clarendon. In Lent 1166 he recrossed the Channel to take up again the threads, complicated as they were by his embroilment with the church, of his continental policy; to reopen diplomatic relations with all parties at once: with the Marquis of Montferrat, whose influence at Rome was secured for the royal cause by the offer of a daughter of England as wife for his son; with the duke and the nobles of Brittany, whose heiress Henry was bent upon wedding to his third son, Geoffrey; with Louis of France, whose assent was needed for this arrangement, and also for the recognition of little Henry as heir of Normandy and Anjou, and for that of the second son, Richard, as heir of Aquitaine; with the emperor on one hand and with his Lombard foes on the other; with the kings of Castile and Sicily, who proposed to become Henry's sons-in-law; with the discontented barons of Aquitaine, who were profiting by the troubles of their Angevin duke to break loose from his hated control; as well as with Thomas and Alexander, who were perpetually threatening to lay the English kingdom under interdict and excommunicate the king himself. In four years the work seemed all but done; Henry had secured the alliance of Germany and of Castile by the marriages of his two elder daughters, Matilda and Eleanor (1168?9); he had betrothed his youngest daughter, Joanna, to King William of Sicily (1169); he had broken the opposition of the Bretons in three successive campaigns (1166?9), and gained the French king's formal sanction to his plans for his three sons in the treaty of Montmirail (January 1169). In an unlucky hour he resolved to complete the new settlement of his dominions by the coronation of his eldest son, a scheme which he had planned seven years before, but which had been set aside owing to his quarrel with Thomas, who as metropolitan of all England was alone qualified to crown an English king. Now, seeing no hope of agreement with Thomas, Henry was rash enough to fall back upon a license for the boy's coronation by Archbishop Roger of York, granted by the pope three years ago, but since withdrawn; and at his command Roger, though forbidden by both Thomas and Alexander under pain of suspension, crowned the young king at Westminster, 14 June 1170.

This action was the greatest blunder of Henry's life. The crowning of the heir during his father's lifetime was an innovation wholly at variance with all English constitutional theory and practice, and the moment was singularly ill-chosen for such an unprecedented step. For fifteen years Henry had been developing a scheme of government whereby all separate jurisdictions, all local and personal privileges, were to be brought into direct subjection to the authority of the crown. For six years he had been literally, throughout his English realm at least, over all persons and all causes supreme, and there had been no outward obstacles to hinder the working of his administrative system. It worked, indeed, regularly and in the main successfully, but not without a great deal of very severe friction; and the adherents of Thomas were far from being the only section of the community who saw in Henry's reforms nothing but engines of regal tyranny and extortion. The first visitation of the judges after the assize of Clarendon carried terror and desolation into every shire, while it brought to the treasury an enormous increase of wealth from the fines of justice and the goods and chattels of the criminals condemned under the assize. Scarcely was it concluded when a visitation of the forests was held in 1167, and this again was followed next year by the levy of an aid for the marriage of the king's eldest daughter. The people writhed helplessly under these manifold burdens; the barons watched in sullen silence for an opportunity to break the yoke which Henry was rivetting more tightly upon them year by year. Henry's own sense of an impending crisis in England, on his return thither in March 1170, was shown in the sweeping measure by which he sought to anticipate it. He suspended from their functions all the sheriffs of the counties and all the bailiffs of his own demesnes, and appointed a body of special commissioners to institute during the next two months an inquiry into every detail of the administration, judicial, financial, political, of every royal officer throughout the country and of every local tribunal, no matter to whom appertaining, during the last four years. When the two months expired, out of twenty-seven sheriffs only seven were reinstated in their office; to the places thus left vacant Henry appointed officers of the exchequer whom he knew and trusted. Three days later the feudal nobles, whose claims of hereditary jurisdiction and independence he had thus afresh trampled underfoot, were called upon to do homage and fealty to a new king, chosen by Henry himself to share with him in the sacred dignity which till now had been exclusively his own. The oath was taken readily enough; its possible results were perhaps better foreseen by some of those who took it than by him who demanded it. Meanwhile the wrath of primate and pope at the insult to Canterbury, and the wrath of the French king at the insult to his daughter, who had not been allowed to share in her husband's coronation, rose to such a pitch that in July Henry was driven to a formal reconciliation with both Louis and Thomas. But there was no real peace with either. The king was keeping Christmas at Bures, near Bayeux, when the Archbishop of York and the bishops of London and Salisbury came to tell him that Thomas on his return to England had refused to absolve them from the papal sentence under which they lay for their share in the coronation, and was setting his royal will at defiance. 'What a parcel of fools and dastards have I nourished in my house,' he burst out, 'that not one of them will avenge me of this one upstart clerk!' Four knights took him at his word, and on 29 Dec. 1170 he was 'avenged,' far otherwise than he desired, by the martyrdom of St. Thomas of Canterbury.

For the moment all seemed lost. Alexander threatened to interdict the whole Angevin dominions and excommunicate the king unless he would do penance for the murder and submit unconditionally to the demands of the church, and at once despatched two legates to execute the threat. But the hour of extreme danger was always the hour which Henry turned to account for some specially daring piece of work; and it was at this most perilous crisis of his life that he added a new realm to his dominions. As early as 1155 he had planned the conquest of Ireland, and it was afterwards said that he had obtained from Pope Adrian IV a bull to sanction the enterprise; this bull, however, has never been found among the papal archives, and its genuineness is disputed (cf. Analecta Juris Pontifici, Mai?Juin 1882, Paris; F. A. Gasquet in Dublin Review, 3rd ser. x. 83). The scheme, opposed by his mother, was left in abeyance till at the close of 1166 Diarmait Mac Murchadha, king of Leinster, having been driven from his throne, besought Henry's aid in regaining it, and offered him his homage in return. Henry accepted the homage, and proclaimed that any of his subjects who chose might enlist in the service of the Irish king. A band of knights from the South Welsh border availed themselves of the permission; by the end of 1170 they were masters of the Irish coast from Waterford to Dublin; their leader, Richard de Clare (d. 1176) [q. v.], was married to Diarmait's daughter; on Diarmait's death (May 1171) he set himself up as Earl of Leinster, and was in a fair way to become the head of an independent feudal state whose growth might soon have threatened England with a new peril, if Henry had not summarily taken the matter into his own hands. The papal legates were on the point of entering Normandy when he announced to his barons that he was going to Ireland. Early in August he landed at Portsmouth; a month later he received the submission of Earl Richard, whom he had summoned to a meeting on the Welsh border; by the end of September he was at Pembroke, and a fleet of four hundred ships was gathering in Milford Haven; and on 17 Oct. he landed at Waterford with some four thousand men. He had left strict orders both in Normandy and in England that the ports should be closed to all clerks, and that no man should follow him unless specially summoned; but more effectual than these precautions was the stormy wind of the western sea, which for nearly six months severed all communication between Ireland and the rest of the world. Those six months were fateful alike for Ireland and for England; in them was laid the foundation of Ireland's subjection to the English crown. The hostile parties, whether of natives or invaders, all alike saw their only hope in submission to the new comer, and all alike laid themselves at his feet. Before Christmas 1171?which he kept at Dublin, in a palace built of wattles after the Irish fashion?Waterford, Wexford, Limerick, and Cork were in his hands, and all the Irish princes, except the king of Connaught, had given him hostages and promised tribute. The bishops and clergy made their formal submission to him at Cashel. With the promise of their spiritual obedience their conqueror might hope to strike a bargain with Rome; and the tidings which at last (March 1172) reached him from England made him feel that the bargain must be struck without delay. What little he could do for Ireland at the moment he did before he left her. He compelled Earl Richard and his fellow-adventurers to resign their conquests to him, and parcelled them out afresh as fiefs to be held in obedience to himself as sovereign; he appointed Hugh de Lacy to act as his representative and vicegerent; he fortified and garrisoned the coast towns; and he started Dublin, ruined as it was by three sieges in two years, on a new career of prosperity by granting it to the burghers of Bristol to colonise and raise into a trading centre as free and flourishing as their own native city. He sailed from Wexford on Easter night; by the middle of May he was in Normandy; on Sunday 21 May he met the legates at Avranches, purged himself of complicity in the primate's death, promised expiation, and abjured his 'customs;' four months later he repeated his submission, and was publicly absolved.

It was no light matter that had moved the king thus to break off the work which he had but just begun in Ireland and to surrender the constitutions which he had so stubbornly maintained for eight years in the teeth of primate and pope; it was the discovery that in leaving his eldest son as king in his stead he had placed within reach of his foes a weapon which they were quick to use against him, and which was only too ready to lend itself to their use. Father and son no sooner met again than the young king asserted his claim to be acknowledged as actual ruler of England, or, if not of England, then of Normandy and the Angevin lands. Henry, busy now with a scheme for the marriage of his youngest son John to the heiress of Maurienne, which would have given him command over all the passes of the Alps, not only refused the claim but proposed to settle upon John three of the most important castles in Anjou and Touraine. The young king hereupon fled to the court of France, and on his appearance there a vast conspiracy came to light. The French king, the counts of Blois, Flanders, and Boulogne, the king of Scots, a crowd of barons in England, Normandy, Aquitaine, and the Angevin lands, his brothers Richard and Geoffrey, his mother Queen Eleanor, ranged themselves at once upon his side; and Henry had scarcely time to fortify the Norman frontier, recall some of his troops from Ireland, and gather a force of Brabantine mercenaries at the cost of every penny he possessed, before a general war broke out (June 1173). Normandy, attacked on two sides at once, was saved by the death of the Count of Boulogne and by a rapid march of Henry which drove Louis from Verneuil; and another equally rapid march upon Dol crushed the revolt in Brittany. In a flying visit to England (Eyton, Itin. Hen. II, p. 173) Henry, it seems, had already concerted measures for its security with the justiciar, Richard de Lucy; here the actual outbreak had been delayed by the absence of the chief rebel, Earl Robert of Leicester; and Leicester no sooner landed in Suffolk than he was defeated and made prisoner by the royal forces (17 Oct.) Next spring, while Henry was crushing out rebellion in Anjou and Aquitaine, a Scottish invasion stirred up a rising in the north; scarcely were the northern rebels defeated by the king's illegitimate son Geoffrey, bishop-elect of Lincoln, when East Anglia was overrun by a host of Flemings brought in by the traitor Earl of Norfolk, Hugh Bigod; the London citizens broke into anarchy; the young king threatened invasion from Flanders; and the justiciars in despair called Henry to the rescue. He crossed the sea in a terrific storm on 7 July, and made straight for Canterbury. Fasting, barefoot, in pilgrim's weeds, he entered the cathedral church, and there publicly did penance for the martyr's death, submitting to be scourged by all the seventy monks of the chapter, spending the night in vigil before the shrine, and loading it with costly gifts ere he set out next morning for London. Four days later a courier burst at midnight into the king's bedchamber, and woke him with tidings that on the very day, almost at the very hour, of his departure from Canterbury the Scottish king had been made prisoner at Alnwick (13 July 1174). Henry marched at once upon the English rebels, and in three weeks they were all at his feet. Then he recrossed the sea, forced Louis to raise the siege of Rouen, and by Michaelmas was in a position to dictate terms all round. The terms which he imposed on his sons, on the French king, and on the rebel barons amounted to little more than a return to the status quo ante bellum, with a pledge of general amnesty and reconciliation. The king of Scots, however, regained his freedom only by doing liege homage to the English king for his crown and all his lands, and giving up five of his strongest fortresses in pledge for his fidelity; and there was one captive whom Henry would not release at all. At the opening of the rebellion he had caught his wife, disguised in man's attire, attempting to follow her sons to the French court; he had put her in prison at once, and there, with one brief interval, he kept her for the rest of his own life.

In England his triumph was complete and final. He took up again at once his work of administrative reform, and carried it on thenceforth without check and without break. In January 1176 he issued the assize of Northampton; this was in effect a re-enactment of the assize of Clarendon, with important modifications and amendments of detail, and with the addition of several entirely new clauses, one of which originated the proceeding known as the 'assize of mort d'ancester,' while others defined the pleas, criminal and civil, which were to be reserved for the hearing of the royal justices, and another directed that every man in the realm, from earl to 'rustic,' should take an oath of fealty to the king. In the same year he wrung from a papal legate a partial assent to the constitutions of Clarendon, which enabled him to bring clergy as well as laity within the scope of a great visitation of the forests, held in punishment for the damage done in the rebellion. Next year he ordered a return of all tenements held in chief of the crown, with the names of the existing tenants and the services due from each. An inquiry into the several liabilities of the king's tenants-in-chivalry had been instituted ten years before, apparently for the assessment of the aide pour fille marier, and on that occasion the returns had been made by each baron for himself; the inquest of 1177, however, was seemingly designed to be of wider scope and more searching character, and was entrusted to the sheriffs and bailiffs of the different counties. In 1178 Henry reorganised the curia regis by restricting its highest functions to a small inner tribunal of selected counsellors, which afterwards grew into the court of king's bench. From 1176 to 1180 he was busy with a series of experiments which ended in the virtual establishment of the system of judges' circuits familiar to us now. By his assize of arms, 1181, he imposed on every free man the duty of bearing arms for the defence of the country; and by enacting that each man's liability should be determined by the amount, not of his land, but of his annual revenue and movable goods, he introduced into English finance the principle of direct taxation on personal property.

The English king's supremacy over the neighbour states and his importance in Europe at large grew with the growth of his power at home. Three Welsh campaigns (1157, 1163, 1165), and a series of negotiations conducted by Henry in person on his way to and from Ireland, had broken the independence of the Welsh princes; in the revolt of 1173, Rhys of South Wales appeared as the king's ally, and at its close David of North Wales was bound to him by a marriage with his sister. The loyalty of the Scottish king was secured in 1175, and in the same year the homage of the king of Connaught completed Henry's overlordship of Ireland. Next year his youngest daughter Joanna (1165?1199) [q. v.] was married to the king of Sicily, and welcomed in her new country with honours which showed how great was the reverence felt by its Norman rulers for the distant sovereign whom they were proud to acknowledge as the head of their race. The kings of Castile and Navarre chose him as arbiter in a family quarrel between themselves in 1177; the king of Arragon and the Count of Toulouse had done the like as early as 1173, when the latter had submitted to do homage to Henry for his county. In France itself the factions that raged around the deathbed of Louis VII and the ill-secured throne of his young successor, Philip Augustus, were driven to accept, nay to solicit, the mediation of the English king (1180?2); and the crowning-point of his glory seemed to be reached in 1185, when, as head of the Angevin house, he was implored by the patriarch of Jerusalem in person to undertake the deliverance of the Holy Land, where the Angevin dynasty and the Christian realm which they had been defending for half a century against the Moslems were both alike at their last gasp. The 'faithful men' of the land, however, assembled in council at Clerkenwell, refused to sanction such an undertaking (R. Diceto, ii. 33, 34); and Henry had ample reasons for yielding to their decision.

The peace-maker of Europe could not keep peace among his own sons. He had freely forgiven their rebellion, and fully reinstated all three in the positions which they had respectively occupied before it: Richard as duke of Aquitaine, Geoffrey as duke of Brittany, Henry as acknowledged heir to the overlordship of both, and to direct sovereignty over England, Normandy, and Anjou. But the brothers were jealous one of another, and their jealousy broke out at last in open war. In 1183 young Henry and Geoffrey joined the nobles of Aquitaine in a rising against their father and Richard, and twice, while besieging the rebels in their headquarters at Limoges, Henry himself narrowly escaped with his life. The young king's death (11 June) ended the strife for a while, but it opened the way to other quarrels. Henry proposed to transfer Aquitaine from Richard, now heir to the crown, to John, whose betrothal with Alice of Maurienne had come to nothing, but for whom he had in 1176 secured the rich heritage of Earl William of Gloucester, and whom in 1177 he had nominated king of Ireland. It was to Ireland, not to Aquitaine, that John was at last despatched by his father (1185); but his misconduct there forced Henry to recall him within a few months. Geoffrey meanwhile was plotting treason with Philip of France; in August 1186 he died, and Philip claimed the guardianship of his infant heir Arthur (1187?1203) [q. v.] The relations of Philip and Henry were already strained almost to breaking point; there was a standing dispute between them about the dower-lands of the young king's widow; there were other disputes about the overlordship of Auvergne, about the ownership of Berry, about the French king's right of intervention in a quarrel between Richard and the Count of Toulouse, and about Philip's sister Adela, who, as Richard's plighted bride, had been for fourteen years, or more, in the custody of Henry, and whom he would give up neither to her brother nor to her betrothed. The motives and the aim of Henry's policy at this juncture are as obscure to us now as they were to Richard then; but its outward aspect gave some colour of reason to the suspicion, adopted by Richard at Philip's instigation, that he was planning to oust Richard from his position as heir, and perhaps to rob him of his intended wife, in favour of John. Conference after conference failed to restore the good understanding of father and son, to satisfy Philip, or to force from Henry a definite avowal of his intentions. For a moment all differences were hushed by tidings of the capture of Jerusalem; the two kings took the cross together (October 1187), and Henry went to England to arrange for the collection of the 'Saladin tithe,' a tax of one-tenth of all the movable goods of clergy and laity, which was to defray the expenses of his crusade. In his absence an attack made by Richard on Toulouse gave Philip a pretext for invading Berry; Henry hastened to its defence; Philip fought and negotiated by turns with the father and the son; at last all three met in conference at Bonmoulins (18 Nov. 1188); Richard demanded an explicit recognition as heir to all his father's dominions, and on the refusal of his demand openly transferred his homage to the French king.

Henry was left alone, without troops, without money, without resources of any kind. His enemies saw their advantage and used it ruthlessly. They turned a deaf ear to his overtures of reconciliation, and to the remonstrances of the legates whom the pope, in terror for the peace of Europe and the success of the crusade, at once despatched to his support; they would be satisfied with nothing short of unconditional submission to their demands. Rather than stoop to this, Henry with a handful of followers shut himself up to await the end in his native city, Le Mans. The end came with startling rapidity. In a week Philip and Richard were masters of Maine; on 12 June 1189 they prepared to assault Le Mans; its defenders fired the suburbs; the city itself caught fire, and Henry with his little band fled for their lives towards Normandy. The wild words of blasphemy which Gerald de Barri (De Instr. Princ. dist. iii. c. 24) puts into the mouth of the fugitive king, if uttered at all, can only have been uttered in the irresponsible frenzy of despair; and as he lay that night at La Frênaye Henry recovered his self-control and planned the last adventure which was to be the fitting close of his adventurous life. Sending on his followers to Normandy with instructions for the gathering of fresh forces and the disposal of the Norman castles, he turned back almost alone and made his way through the heart of the conquered land to Chinon. Fever-stricken, death-stricken, he lay there or at Saumur while Philip and Richard stormed Tours; on 4 July he dragged himself, by a supreme effort, to meet them at Colombières. He was forced to put himself at their mercy, to pardon and release from their allegiance all those who had conspired against him, to renew his homage to Philip, to acknowledge Richard heir to all his lands, and to give him the kiss of peace. The kiss was given with a muttered curse; but it was not Richard's treason that broke his father's heart. That night Henry bade his vice-chancellor read him the list of the traitors whose names Philip had given up. The first name was that of John. 'Enough,' murmured the king as he turned his face to the wall; 'now let things go as they may; I care no more for myself or for the world.' For two days he lay tossing in anguish and delirium, cursing his sons and himself, muttering 'Shame, shame on a conquered king!' till the approach of death, and the tender care of the one child who had remained with him to the last, his illegitimate son Geoffrey, brought him back to reason, penitence, and peace, and on 6 July he passed quietly away. Two days later he was buried in the abbey church of Fontevraud, where the characteristic outlines of the face so vividly described by his courtiers may still be seen in the effigy sculptured on his tomb.

Henry's children by his queen are enumerated in the biography of their mother [see Eleanor of Aquitaine]. He is known to have had three illegitimate sons: Geoffrey, born probably before his accession to teh crown, possibly even before his marriage [see Geoffrey, archbishop of York [q. v.]; Morgan, whose mother is said to have been the wife of a knight called Ralf Bloeth (Hist. Dunelm. Scriptt. Tres, Surtees Soc., p. 35); and William Longespée [q. v.], afterwards Earl of Salisbury, who may have been a child of Fair Rosamond. The romantic adjuncts of the Rosamond legend [see Clifford, Rosamond] have been swept away, but its central fact remains. Of the darker tale about Adela of France (Gesta Ric., ed. Stubbs, p. 160; {[sc|Gir. Cambr.}} De Instr. Princ. dist. iii. c. 2; cf. Ric Devizes, in Howlett, Chron. of Stephen and Henry II, iii. 403) it can only be said, on the one hand, that it seems to have rested on evidence strong enough to convince her betrothed husband Richard and her brother Philip Augustus; and, on the other, that Richard was only too ready to believe any evil of his father, while Philip was equally ready to feign belief of anything, if it suited his policy at the moment. Still, though the pictures of Henry's private character given by lampooners such as Gerald de Barri and Ralph the Black may well be painted in needlessly glaring colours, we can hardly venture to say more in its defence than was said by another contemporary, that 'he left the palm of vice to his grandfather.' His nature was full of passion; but the passion was far from being all evil, though it was lavished too often upon unworthy objects, among the most unworthy being, unhappily, his own spoiled, ill-trained, mismanaged, but tenderly loved sons. Except in the case of his children, however, Henry's bestowal of honour and power was never dictated by blind partiality to a personal favourite. Despot as he was, his ministers were no mere tools of the royal caprice, but responsible statesmen such as the elder Earl Robert of Leicester, Richard de Lucy ?the loyal,? and Richard's successor, the great lawyer Ranulf de Glanville [q. v.], men who were not afraid to speak their minds and act upon their convictions, and to whom Henry, on his part, was not afraid to entrust the whole administration of affairs in his own absence from the country. His personal friends again, from Thomas Becket up to St. Hugh of Lincoln [q. v.], were far better men than himself; they were in fact among the purest and noblest characters of their time; and the more unlike they were to him, the holier and more unworldly were their lives, the more loyally and devotedly he clung to them, the more readily he accepted their counsel and their rebukes, and the more, too, he seems to have inspired in them a corresponding warmth of affection. The half droll, half pathetic stories of his relations with St. Hugh told in the ?Magna Vita S. Hugonis? reveal glimpses of a side of his character which is otherwise hardly perceptible in his career as an English king, but which has left traces to this day in the home-lands of his race, in the great hospitals which he built at Angers and at Le Mans, and in the remains or the records of the lazar-houses which he endowed in the chief towns of Normandy, that at Quévilly, near Rouen, indeed, being formed out of a hunting-seat which he had originally built for his own enjoyment.

Henry was a great builder, though not like his predecessors, of churches and abbeys. He founded but seven religious houses in the course of his life; the erection of three of these was part of the penance imposed on him for the death of St. Thomas; and though the commandery of Knights Templars at Vaubourg was founded in 1173, and the Charterhouse of Witham in the following year, while that of Le Liget in Touraine is said to date from 1175, they remained so insignificant that many years later Gerald de Barri could affect to ignore the very existence of two of them, and sneered at the niggardliness with which Henry was supposed to have fulfilled his vow at his predecessors' expense, by putting regular instead of secular canons into Harold's old foundation at Waltham, and foreign nuns from Fontevraud instead of English Benedictine sisters into the ancient abbey of Amesbury. His other religious foundations attained no greater fame; they were an Austin priory at Beauvoir in Normandy, established before his accession to the crown; a second near La Flèche in Maine, founded about 1180; a third at Newstead in Sherwood, dating possibly from 1170, more probably from 1166 or earlier; and a Gilbertine house at Newstead in Ancholm, which came into existence before 1175. Henry built much for himself, and, as he hoped, for his successors; Caen, Rouen, Angers, Tours were all adorned with royal palaces in his reign. He built yet more for his subjects, and while of his palaces scarcely a fragment remains, save the ruined pile at Chinon where he died, the waters of the Loire are kept in to this day by a great embankment or levée, thirty miles long, which he constructed as a safeguard against its frequent and disastrous floods. The 'Grand Pont' at Angers seems to have been built by him, in place of an earlier bridge destroyed by fire in 1177. The popular astonishment at the greatness of his architectural undertakings, and the rapidity with which they were accomplished, is expressed in the legend of the 'Pont de l'Annonain,' a viaduct over a swamp near Chinon, built by Henry, but locally said to have been reared by the devil in a single night at the bidding of his ancestor Fulk Nerra, the one other Angevin count who lived, side by side with Henry FitzEmpress, in the memory of the Angevin people. The English people, on the other hand, seem to have quickly cooled in their enthusiasm for the king whom before his accession they had 'all loved;' it was only by slow degrees, and after he was gone, that they learned to appreciate his real merits as a ruler. Henry never courted popularity. He by no means shunned personal contact with the multitude, and when he did go forth into their midst, he and they alike flung etiquette to the winds. But he did not lay himself out to please them, as his grandfather had done, by a routine, at once familiar and splendid, of daily life lived of set purpose before their very eyes. When counsellors, courtiers, and spectators had flocked together from far and near at his summons for a great judicial and political assembly, he would disappear at dawn and keep them all vainly awaiting his return till nightfall put an end to his day's hunting. His household was a by-word for confusion and discomfort, to which he himself was utterly indifferent, and which went on unchecked while he withdrew to his chamber and there buried himself in his own pursuits. Chief among these was the discussion of literary questions with the scholars who thronged his court, and whom he delighted to honour. He had inherited both from his father and from his maternal grandfather a great love of learning; he was probably the most highly educated sovereign of his day, and amid all his busy, active life he never lost his interest in literature and intellectual discussion; he loved reading only less than hunting, and it was said by one of his courtiers that his hands were never empty, they always held either a bow or a book. He could speak, and speak well, in at least two languages, French and Latin, and is said to have known something of every tongue 'between the Bay of Biscay and the Jordan' a definition which seems to exclude the English tongue. Of the varied elements, Angevin, Norman, and English, united in Henry FitzEmpress, the last indeed can hardly be traced at all in his strangely complex character. Yet the work that he did for England was the only part of his work that outlasted his own life, and it has lasted for seven centuries. It was under his rule that 'the races of conquerors and conquered in England first learnt to feel that they were one. It was by his power that England, Scotland, and Ireland were brought to some vague acknowledgment of a common suzerain lord, and the foundations laid of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It was he who abolished feudalism as a system of government, and left it little more than a system of land tenure. It was he who defined the relations established between church and state, and decreed that in England churchman as well as baron was to be held under the common law. It was he who preserved the traditions of self-government which had been handed down in borough and shire-moot from the earliest times of English history. His reforms established the judicial system whose main outlines have been preserved to our own day. It was through his "constitutions" and his "assizes" that it came to pass that all over the world the English-speaking races are governed by English and not by Roman law. It was by his genius for government that the servants of the royal household became transformed into ministers of state. It was he who gave England a foreign policy which decided our continental relations for seven hundred years.' 'Indirectly and unconsciously, his policy did more than that of all his predecessors to prepare England for the unity and freedom which the fall of his house was to reveal.'

[Notices of events in Henry's life before his accession to the crown can only be picked out here and there from Robert of Torigni (Chronicle, ed. Delisle, Soc. de l'Hist. de Normandie; Contin. Will. Jumièges, in Duchesne, Hist. Norm. Scriptt.), Hen. Huntingdon, l. viii (ed. Arnold, Rolls Ser.), the Gesta Stephani (ed. Howlett, in Chronicles of Stephen, &c., vol. iii.), and the last pages of the English Chronicle (ed. Thorpe). From his coronation to the close of his struggle with the church information has to be extracted from the letters of Gilbert Foliot and John of Salisbury (ed. Giles, Patres Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ) and the vast store of Materials for Hist. of Archbishop Becket (ed. Robertson and Sheppard), supplemented by Ralph de Diceto and Gervase of Canterbury (ed. Stubbs). From 1169 onwards our primary authorities are the Gesta Henrici (wrongly ascribed to Benedict of Peterborough) and Roger of Howden (ed. Stubbs), while R. Diceto is of increased importance. Henry's dealings with Ireland are recorded in Gerald de Barri's Expugnatio Hiberniæ (Gir. Cambr. Opera, vol. v. ed. Dimock), and in an Anglo-Norman poem (ed. F. Michel); his dealings with Wales, in Gerald's Itin. Kambriæ (Opera, vol. vi. ed. Dimock), and in the Annales Cambriæ and Brut y Tywysogion (ed. Williams ab Ithel). The Scottish war of 1173?4 has its special chronicler in Jordan Fantosme (ed. Michel, Surtees Soc., and Howlett, Chron. of Stephen, &c., vol. iii.). William of Newburgh (ed. Hamilton, Engl. Hist. Soc., and Howlett, as above, vol. i.) is a valuable contributor to the history of the whole reign. The Draco Normannicus (ed. Howlett, as above, vol. ii.) is more curious than really useful. For Henry's continental policy and wars we have, besides Robert of Torigni's Chronicle, the assistance of an Aquitanian writer, Geoffrey of Vigeois (Labbe, Nova Bibliotheca MSS. Libr., vol. ii.), and two French ones, Rigord and William of Armorica (Duchesne, Hist. Franc. Scriptt., vol. v.). From these two last, and Gerald's De Instructione Principum (Anglia Christiana Soc.), the story of the king's last days has been worked out in detail by Bishop Stubbs in his preface to Rog. Howden, vol. ii. Henry's person and character are described by Gerald (De Instr. Princ.), W. Map (De Nugis Curialium, ed. Wright, Camden Soc.), Ralph Niger (ed. Anstruther, Caxton Soc.), and Peter of Blois (Epistolæ, ed. Giles). His buildings &c. may be traced in Dugdale's Monasticon, Sainte-Marthe's Gallia Christiana, Stapleton's introduction to the Norman Exchequer Rolls (Soc. Antiqu.), the Chroniques d'Anjou, edited by Marchegay and Salmon (Société de l'Histoire de France), the Cartulaire de l'Hôpital St. Jean d'Angers (ed. C. Port), the Revue de l'Anjou, vol. xii. (1874), and the essay on the Home of our Angevin Kings in Green's Stray Studies. The Tractatus de Legibus Angliæ, which passes under R. Glanville's name, throws light on the king's legal reforms; the Pipe Rolls 1?4 Hen. II (ed. Hunter) have been published by the Record Commission, those of 5?12 Hen. II by the Pipe Roll Soc.; other documents for the history of his government are to be found in Bishop Stubbs's Select Charters, as well as in Gesta Hen., Rog. Howden, Rymer's F?dera, vol. i., the Liber Niger Scaccarii (ed. Hearne), and the appendices to Lord Lyttelton's Hist. of Hen. II. Lyttelton's own work is, in the words of a more modern authority, ?a full and sober account of the time.? An elaborate Itinerary of Henry II has been compiled by the Rev. R. W. Eyton. Dr. Stubbs has dealt with the constitutional side of the reign in Constit. Hist., chapters xii. xiii., and preface to Gesta Hen., vol. ii.; and with its more general aspects in Early Plantagenets, cc. ii?v., and preface to Rog. Howden, vol. ii. J. R. Green's Hist. of the English People, bk. ii. ch. iii., Short History, ch. ii. secs. 7, 8, and Stray Studies, pp. 361?381, are studies of Henry's character and career designed to form part of the groundwork for a history of the Angevin kings. Henry's claims to a place among English statesmen have also been vindicated in a monograph by Mrs. Green. A general account of the reign appears in England under the Angevin Kings, by the writer of this article.]

K. N.
Henry II King of England (I10825)
245 HENRY of Scotland (1114?-1152), son of David I, king of Scots [q. v.], and his wife Matilda, countess of Northampton, was probably born about 1114. In a treaty between David and the English king Stephen which followed David's invasion of England in 1136, Stephen granted to Henry the earldoms of Carlisle, Doncaster, and Huntingdon. To the last of these Henry's mother, as eldest daughter of Earl Waltheof, had an hereditary claim, as also to the earldom of Northumberland; and Stephen was afterwards said to have at the same time promised that if ever he should decide to re-establish the Northumbrian earl- dom he would have the claims of Matilda and her son fairly tried in his court before bestowing it on any other claimant. His refusal of a demand made by David at the close of 1137 for Henry's immediate investiture as Earl of Northumberland was one of the grounds of David's great expedition into Yorkshire in 1138, which ended in the rout of the Scots at the battle of the Standard (22 Aug.). At the opening of the battle Henry commanded the men of Cumberland and Teviotdale, who formed the second division of the Scottish host; at its close he led the remnant of his father's bodyguard in a last desperate charge, and hardly escaped with his life to rejoin his father at Carlisle. Next spring Stephen and David made peace, and Northumberland was granted to Henry. He afterwards accompanied Stephen to the siege of Ludlow, where he was caught and nearly dragged off his horse by a grappling-iron, and only rescued by the strength and bravery of Stephen. During this sojourn in England he fell in love with and married Ada or Adelina, daughter of William de Warren, earl of Surrey (Ordericus Vitalis, ed. Duchesne, Hist. Norm. Scriptt. 918 B; Chron. Mailros, a. 1139). Next year, on another visit to the English court, his life was again in danger, this time from the jealousy of Earl Ranulf of Chester, who claimed his earldom of Carlisle. He died on 12 June 1152 (Chron. S. Crucis Edinb. p. 31, Bannatyne Club). English and Scottish writers with one accord raise a lamentation over his untimely death, and picture him as a model of all that is excellent in a knight, a prince, and a man. Two of his sons, Malcolm and William, became successively kings of Scots; from the third, David, earl of Huntingdon, the houses of Bruce and Balliol inherited in the female line their claims to the crown of Scotland.

[Henry of Huntingdon, ed. Arnold (Rolls Ser.); Richard and John of Hexham, ed. Raine (Surtees Soc.); Æthelred of Rievaux's Relatio de Bello Standardi, in Hist. Angl. Scriptt. Decem, ed. Twysden, and also, with Richard of Hexham, in Chron. of Stephen and Henry II, vol. iii. ed. Howlett (Rolls Ser.)]

K. N. 
of Scotland, Henry Earl of Huntingdon and Northumberland (I4478)
246 HUNGERFORD, ROBERT, Lord Moleyns and Hungerford (1431-1464), was son and heir of Robert, lord Hungerford, and was grandson of Walter, lord Hungerford (d. 1449)[q.v.] He married at a very early age (about 1441) Alianore or Eleanor (b. 1425), daughter and heiress of Sir William de Molines or Moleyns (d. 1428), and he was summoned to parliament as Lord Moleyns in 1445, in right of his wife, the great-great-granddaughter of John, baron de Molines or Moleyns (d. 1371). Hungerford received a like summons till 1453. In 1448 he began a fierce quarrel with John Paston regarding the ownership of the manor of Gresham in Norfolk. Moleyns, acting on the advice of John Heydon, a solicitor of Baconsthorpe, took forcible possession of the estate on 17 Feb. 1448. Waynflete, bishop of Winchester, made a vain attempt at arbitration. Paston obtained repossession, but on 28 Jan. 1450 Moleyns sent a thousand men to dislodge him. After threatening to kill Paston, who was absent, Moleyns' adherents violently assaulted Paston's wife Margaret, but Moleyns finally had to surrender the manor to Paston (see Paston Letters, ed. Gairdner, i. xxxi, lxix, 75-6, 109-12, 221-3, iii. 449).

In 1452 Moleyns accompanied John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury, to Aquitaine, and was taken prisoner while endeavouring to raise the siege of Chastillon. His ransom was fixed at 7,966l., and his mother sold her plate and mortgaged her estates to raise the money. His release was effected in 1459, after seven years and four months' imprisonment. In consideration of his misfortunes he was granted, in the year of his return to England, license to export fifteen hundred sacks of wool to foreign ports without paying duty, and received permission to travel abroad. He thereupon visited Florence. In 1460 he was home again, and took a leading part on the Lancastrian side in the wars of the Roses. In June 1460 he retired with Lord Scales and other of his friends to the Tower of London, on the entry of the Earl of Warwick and his Kentish followers into the city; but after the defeat of the Lancastrians at the battle of Northampton (10 July 1460), Hungerford and his friends surrendered the Tower to the Yorkists on the condition that he and Lord Scales should depart free (William of Worcester [772-3], where the year is wrongly given as 1459). After taking part in the battle of Towton (29 March 1461)'a further defeat for the Lancastrians'Hungerford fled with Henry VI to York, and thence into Scotland. He visited France in the summer to obtain help for Henry and Margaret, and was arrested by the French authorities in August 1461. Writing to Margaret at the time from Dieppe, he begged her not to lose heart (Paston Letters, ii. 45-6, 93). He was attainted in Edward IV's first parliament in November 1461. He afterwards met with some success in his efforts to rally the Lancastrians in the north of England, but was taken prisoner at Hexham on 15 May 1464, and was executed at Newcastle. He was buried in Salisbury Cathedral. On 5 Aug. 1460 many of his lands were granted to Richard, duke of Gloucester (afterwards Richard III). Other portions of his property were given to Lord Wenlock, who was directed by Edward IV to make provision for Hungerford's wife and young children. Eleanor, lady Hungerford, survived her husband, and subsequently married Sir Oliver de Manningham. She was buried at Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire. 
Hungerford, Robert 3rd Baron Hungerford (I11213)
247 HUNGERFORD, Sir WALTER, Lord Hungerford (d. 1449), son and heir of Sir Thomas Hungerford [q. v.], by his second wife, Joan, was strongly attached to the Lancastrian cause at the close of Richard II's reign, his father having been steward in John of Gaunt's household. On Henry IV's accession he was granted an annuity of 40l. out of the lands of Margaret, duchess of Norfolk, and was knighted. In October 1400 he was returned to parliament as member for Wiltshire, and was re-elected for that constituency in 1404, 1407, 1413, and January 1413-14, and represented the county of Somerset in 1409. He acted as speaker in the parliament meeting on 29 Jan. 1413-14, the last parliament in which he sat in the House of Commons (cf. Manning, Lives of the Speakers, p. 55).

Hungerford had already won renown as a warrior. In 1401 he was with the English army in France, and is said to have worsted the French king in a duel outside Calais; he distinguished himself in battle and tournament, and received substantial reward. In consideration of his services he was granted in 1403 one hundred marks per annum, payable by the town and castle of Marlborough, Wiltshire, and was appointed sheriff of Wiltshire. On 22 July 1414 he was nominated ambassador to treat for a league with Sigismund, king of the Romans (Rymer, Foedera, vol. iv. pt. ii. p. 186), and as English envoy attended the council of Constance in that and the following year (cf. his accounts of expenses in Brit. Mus. Addit. MS. 24513, f. 68). In the autumn of 1415 Hungerford accompanied Henry V to France with twenty men-at-arms and sixty horse archers (Nicolas, Agincourt, p. 381). He, rather than the Earl of Westmoreland, as in Shakespeare's `Henry V,' seems to have been the officer who expressed, on the eve of Agincourt, regret that the English had not ten thousand archers, and drew from the king a famous rebuke (ib. pp. 105, 241). He fought bravely at the battle of Agincourt, but the assertion that he made the Duke of Orleans prisoner is not substantiated. He was employed in May 1416 in diplomatic negotiations with ambassadors of Theodoric, archbishop of Cologne (Rymer, vol. iv. pt. ii. p. 158), and in November 1417 with envoys from France ( In 1417 he was made admiral of the fleet under John, duke of Bedford, and was with Henry V in 1418 at the siege of Rouen. In November of the latter year he is designated the steward of the king's household (ib. vol. iv. pt. iii. p. 76), and was granted the barony of Homet in Normandy. He took part in the peace negotiations of 1419, and on 3 May 1421 was installed knight of the Garter (Beltz, Hist. of Garter, p. clviii).

Hungerford was an executor of Henry V's will, and in 1422 became a member of Protector Gloucester's council. In 1424 he was made steward of the household of the infant king, Henry VI, and on 7 Jan. 1425-6 was summoned to the House of Lords as Baron Hungerford. The summons was continued to him till his death. Hungerford became treasurer in succession to Bishop Stafford, when Bishop Beaufort's resignation of the great seal in March 1426-7 placed Gloucester in supreme power. He acted as carver at Henry VI's coronation in Paris in December 1430 (Waurin, Chron., Rolls Ser.,iv.11), but on the change of ministry which followed Henry VI's return from France in February 1431-2, he ceased to be treasurer. He attended the conference at Arras in 1435 (Wars of Henry VI in France, Rolls Ser., ed. Stevenson, ii. 431). He died on 9 Aug. 1449, and was buried beside his first wife in Salisbury Cathedral, within the iron chapel erected by himself, which is still extant, although removed from its original position. By his marriages and royal grants Hungerford added largely to the family estates. He was a man of piety, and built chantries at Heytesbury and Chippenham, and made bequests to Salisbury and Bath cathedrals. In 1428 he presented valuable estates to the Free Royal Chapel in the palace of St. Stephen at Westminster. He also built an almshouse for twelve poor men and a woman, and a schoolmaster's residence at Heytesbury. The original building was destroyed in 1765, but the endowment, which was regulated by statutes drawn up by Margaret of Botreaux, wife of Hungerford's son Robert, still continues (Jackson, Anc. Statutes of Heytesbury Almshouses, Devizes, 1863). Hungerford's will is printed in Nicolas's `Testamenta Vetusta,' pp. 257-9. He left his 'best legend of the lives of the saints' to his daughter-in-law, Margaret, and a cup which John of Gaunt had used to John, viscount Beaumont.

Hungerford married first, Catherine, daughter of Thomas Peverell; and secondly, Alianore, or Eleanor, countess of Arundel, daughter of Sir John Berkeley, who survived him. By the latter he had no issue. By his first wife he was father of three sons, Walter, Robert, and Edmund. Walter was made a prisoner of war in France in 1425, was ransomed by his father for three thousand marks, was in the retinue of the Duke of Bedford in France in 1435, and died without issue. Edmund was knighted by Henry VI after the battle of Verneuil on Whit-Sunday 1426 (Metcalfe, Book of Knights, p. 1), married Margaret, daughter and coheiress of Edward Burnell, and by her had two sons, Thomas, ancestor of the Hungerfords of Down Ampney, Gloucestershire, of the Hungerfords of Windrush, Oxfordshire, and the Hungerfords of Black Bourton, Oxfordshire; and Edward, ancestor of the Hungerfords of Cadenham, Wiltshire.

ROBERT HUNGERFORD, Baron Hungerford (1409-1459), the second but eldest surviving son of Walter, lord Hungerford, served in the French wars, and was summoned to parliament as Baron Hungerford from 5 Sept. 1450 to 26 May 1455. He died 14 May 1459, and in accordance with his will was buried in Salisbury Cathedral (Nicolas Testamenta Vet. p. 294). His son Robert, lord Moleyns and Hungerford (1431-1464), is noticed separately. Through his mother (Catherine Peverell) and his wife Margaret, the wealthy heiress of William, lord Botreaux, he added very largely to the landed property of his family in Cornwall (Maclean, Trigg Minor, i. 357). His wife lived till 7 Feb. 1478, surviving all her descendants, excepting a great-granddaughter, Mary [see under Hungerford, Robert, 1431-1461]. Her long and interesting will, dated 8 Aug. 1476, is printed in Nicolas's 'Testamenta Vetusta,' pp. 310 sq., and in Hoare's 'Modern Wiltshire, Hundred of Heytesbury.' A list of the heavy expenses she incurred in ransoming her son Robert appears in Dugdale's 'Baronage,' ii. 204 sq.

[Authorities cited; Dugdale's Baronage; Burke's Extinct Peerage; Collinson's Somerset, iii. 354; Hoare's Hungerfordiana, 1823; Maclean's Trigg Minor, i. 358 sq.; Hoare's Mod. Wiltshire, Heytesbury Hundred; Rymer's F?dera ; Stubbs's Const. Hist.; Nicolas's Battle of Agincourt, 1832; Monstrelet's Chroniques, ed. Doüet d'Arcq (Soc. de l'Hist. de France), 1862, ii. 404, iv. 93, vi. 314; Manning's Lives of the Speakers.] 
Hungerford, Sir Walter 1st Baron Hungerford, KG (I11032)
248 JOAN, JOANNA, ANNA, or JANET (d. 1237), princess of North Wales, is described in the 'Tewkesbury Annals' (a. 1236) as a daughter of John, king of England, 'and Queen Clemencia,' words which may possibly represent John's first wife, Isabel of Gloucester. (David Powel's statement that Joanna's mother was Agatha, daughter of Robert, earl Ferrers, rests upon no known authority.) Joanna must at any rate have been born some time before John's second marriage (1200). A charge for a ship 'to carry the king's daughter and the king's accoutrements to England' from Normandy in 1203 (Magn. Rot. Scacc. Norm., ed. Stapleton, ii. 569) probably refers to her. She seems to have been betrothed to Llywelyn ap Iorwerth [q. v.], prince of North Wales, early in 1205; part of her dowry, the castle of Ellesmere, was given by John to Llywelyn on 16 April (Rot. Chart. i. 147). The marriage is said to have taken place rather more than a year later (Ann. Wigorn. a. 1206), and thenceforth Joanna's task was to act as peacemaker between Wales and England. In 1211, when John led an army into North Wales, 'Llywelyn, being unable to bear the cruelty of the king, by the advice of his liegemen, sent his wife, who was daughter to the king, to make peace between him and the king in any manner that she might be able;' she succeeded in obtaining a safe-conduct for her husband, and his submission was accepted by her father for her sake (Brut y Tywysogion, a. 1210; Ann. Cambriæ and Ann. Wigorn. a. 1211). In September 1212, when John was preparing another attack on Wales, Joanna sent him a warning of treason among his barons, which, coupled with like warnings from other quarters, induced him to disband his host (Rog. Wend. ii. 61). In 1214 she interceded for some Welsh hostages in England, whose release she obtained next year (Rot. Claus. i. 181 b; Rymer, i. i. 126; Rot. Pat. i. 126). She continued her work of mediation after the accession of Henry III; a letter is extant in which she pleads earnestly with him for a good understanding between him and Llywelyn (Royal Letters, i. 487). In September 1224 she met Henry in person at Worcester (Rot. Claus. i. 622, 647 b); in the autumn of 1228 she had another interview with him at Shrewsbury (ib. 12 Hen. III, dors.), and on 13 Oct. 1229 she and her son David, acting apparently as Llywelyn's representatives, did homage to the king at Westminster (Cal. Rot. Pat. i. 14 b). David, who in 1240 succeeded his father as prince of North Wales, seems to have been Joanna's only son; but she also had a daughter, Ellen, married first to John Scot, earl of Chester, and secondly, in 1237 or 1238, to Robert de Quinci (Ann. Cambr. a. 1237; Matt. Paris, Chron. Maj. iii. 394; Ann. Dunstapl. a. 1237; Dugdale, Baronage, i. 688). It is not known whether she was the mother of Llywelyn's two other daughters, Gladys and Margaret. Gladys's first husband was Reginald de Braose, and her stepson, William de Braose, was hanged by Llywelyn in 1230, 'having been caught in the chamber of the prince with the princess Janet, wife of the prince' (Brut, a. 1231; cf. Matt. Paris, iii. 194; Ann. Margam, Tewkesb., Wigorn., a. 1230; Ann. Waverl. a. 1229; Ann. Cambr. a. 1227; Genealogist, v. 161?4). This affair seems to have been plotted by Llywelyn, to avenge himself on William for political injuries, and Joanna's part in it, if not wholly innocent, was that of her husband's accomplice. The 'Tewkesbury Annals' give the date of her death as 30 March 1236; but the Welsh chronicles say she died in February 1237, "at the court of Aber, and was buried in a new cemetery on the side of the strand,? ?with sore lamentations and great honour" (Brut and Ann. Cambr. a. 1237). At the place of her burial, Llanvaes in Anglesey, Llywelyn founded a Franciscan monastery in her memory (Brut, a. 1237; Monast. Angl. vi. iii. 1545). Her stone coffin, removed at the dissolution of the monastery, was rescued from use as a horse-trough early in the present century, and placed in Baron Hill Park, near Beaumaris. On the slab which formed its cover is sculptured an effigy of the princess (T. Wright, Archæological Album, p. 171).

[All the authorities are given above. The Annales Cambriæ, Brut y Tywysogion, M. Paris, Annals of Tewkesbury, &c. (Annales Monastici), Royal Letters, and R. Wendover are published in the Rolls Ser.; the Close, Patent, and Charter Rolls, and Rymer's F?dera, by the Record Commission.] 
Joan Lady of Wales and Snowdon (I11087)
249 JOHN (1167?-1216), king of England, youngest son of Henry II and his queen, Eleanor, was probably born at Oxford on 24 Dec. 1167 (Robert of Torigni, sub an.; Prose Chronicle, ap. Hearne, Robert of Gloucester, ii. 484; in 1166, Diceto, i. 325), and was in his boyhood nicknamed Lackland by his father, who divided his dominions among his elder sons. Henry loved him above any of his brothers, and made constant efforts to provide well for him. His education seems to have been committed to Ranulf de Glanville [q. v.] As early as 1171 a marriage was proposed for him with Alice, daughter and heiress of Humbert III, count of Maurienne, and before Christmas 1172 the marriage contract was signed; it was agreed that if Humbert left no son John should be heir of all his dominions, and if it turned out otherwise should have a rich provision. On his side Henry in February 1173 proposed to give him the castles and districts of Chinon, Loudun, and Mirebeau. This marriage scheme failed owing to the refusal of John's eldest brother Henry, as count of Anjou, to part with any of his territories. At the close of the war which ensued it was agreed, on 30 Sept. 1174, that a provision should be made for John; he was to have Nottingham and Marlborough, and certain castles and rents in Normandy, Anjou, Touraine, and Maine, and on the death of Reginald, earl of Cornwall, Henry kept the larger part of his possessions in his own hand, in order to bestow them on John. On 28 Sept. 1176 William, earl of Gloucester, agreed to give his daughter Isabella, more usually called Hadwisa or Avice, in marriage to John, and to make him heir of all his lands in the west of England and Glamorgan.

At a council at Oxford in May 1177 Henry declared John king of Ireland; he received the homage of the Norman lords of Irish lands as holding of him, as well as of his father, and Hugh de Lacy was appointed viceroy. After the death of his eldest brother John was, by Henry's command, taken to Normandy by Glanville in July 1183, and having crossed from Dover to Witsand met his father, who tried to prevail on Richard to give up the duchy of Aquitaine to John to be held of him as count of Poitou. Richard refused, and Henry declared that John and his brother Geoffrey, count of Brittany [q. v.], might make war upon him. John spent Christmas with his father at Le Mans, and in the following summer after Henry's return to England he and Geoffrey wasted Richard's lands. All three brothers were summoned to England in November by their father, who brought about a reconciliation. John remained at his father's court. In the spring of 1185 he expressed his wish to go on the crusade, but his father would not suffer him. On Mid-Lent Sunday, 31 March, Henry knighted him at Windsor, and sent him to govern Ireland. He sailed from Milford on 24 April, in company with Glanville and with a large force of mercenaries in sixty ships; landed the next day at Waterford, and was received by John Comyn [q. v.], archbishop of Dublin, and many of the King's lords, together with several Irishmen of rank. He treated the Irishmen with insolence, he or his followers pulling their long beards in mockery. They consequently deserted the English cause, and kept the kings of Limerick, Cork, and Connaught from coming to do fealty to him. John went to Dublin and alienated other Irish allies by granting away their lands, appointed unfit men as governors of the coast towns and other places, and offended the colonists by his overbearing conduct. On his arrival castles were built at Tibragny and Ardfinnan on the river Suir, and from them his men ravaged Munster, but were defeated with great loss by Donnell O'Brien, king of Limerick. As he spent on his own pleasures the money which he should have used in paying his mercenaries, the latter deserted to the Irish in large numbers, and John's force was soon so weakened that in September his father recalled him. Nevertheless Henry, on hearing of the murder of Hugh de Lacy, which took place on 25 July 1186, again sent him to Ireland to seize Lacy's lands. While he was waiting for a favourable wind he was recalled by his father, who had received tidings of the death of Geoffrey (19 Aug. 1186).

Henry had requested Urban III to allow him to have one of his sons crowned king of Ireland, and at Christmas two legates landed at Dover, bringing the pope's consent, and a crown of peacocks' feathers set in gold. John and the archbishop of Dublin were sent to meet them, but other business compelled Henry to put off the ceremony of coronation. Early in 1187 John was sent into Normandy; the king joined him at Aumâle, and in May gave him command of a fourth division of his army. In conjunction with Richard, John carried on operations in Berry; they were besieged by Philip of France in Châteauroux until 23 June, when the siege was raised. In June 1188, during Philip's invasion of Berry, John was sent by his father into Normandy, and crossed from Shoreham to Dieppe. Henry followed him later. Henry's partiality towards John offended Richard, who believed that his father wished to oust him from the succession in John's favour, and he accordingly allied himself with Philip. At the conference at La Ferté-Bernard on 4 June 1189, Henry proposed to Philip that John should marry his sister Adela, who had been affianced to Richard, but Philip would not consent, and demanded that John should go on the crusade. While Henry was suffering defeat and loss through his eagerness to forward John's interests, John was false to him, and secretly made an agreement with his brother Richard, the ally of his father's enemy. The unexpected news of this treachery gave Henry his death-blow [see under Henry II].

On the death of his father (6 July 1189) Richard received John graciously; gave him the county of Mortain, which had been granted to him by his father, though it is doubtful whether he had yet had possession of it; and promised him 4,000l. a year from land in England, and the hand of the heiress of the Earl of Gloucester, to whom he was already betrothed. On returning to England with Richard he further received from him the castles and honours of Marlborough, Luggarshall, Lancaster, Bolsover, and the Peak, the town of Nottingham, the honours of Tickhill and Wallingford, and the county of Derby, with the honour of Peverell. His marriage with Avice of Gloucester took place at Marlborough on 29 Aug., in spite of the remonstrance of Archbishop Baldwin, for John and his bride were related in the third degree. While his appeal was pending, Baldwin laid his lands under an interdict, which was relaxed in November by the legate, John of Anagni. In October the king sent John to receive the homage of the Welsh princes. Before the end of the year he received the four counties of Dorset, Somerset, Devon, and Cornwall, with all rights of jurisdiction. When Richard was about to leave Normandy and go on his crusade he caused John to swear at the council which he held in March that he would not enter England for the next three years without his leave, but the queen-mother persuaded the king to release him from this oath. This was a mistake, for Richard had made him so powerful that his presence in England was dangerous to the peace of the kingdom when the king was not there to overawe him. He returned by the beginning of 1191.

The grant of the four counties and the inheritance of his wife gave John almost kingly power in the west, while his other possessions enabled him to exert a strong influence in different parts of the kingdom, and especially in the Midlands, where he had many adherents. He had his own justiciar, chancellor, and other great officers, who held his courts and carried on administrative business, and he kept virtually royal state, residing chiefly at Lancaster or Marlborough (Hoveden, iii. Pref. xxv, xxxiii, lii, liii, with references). The unpopularity of Richard's chancellor, William Longchamp, bishop of Ely, made it easy for John to advance his own interests by placing himself at the head of the opposition to his brother's minister. His first object was to secure his succession to the throne. To do this it was necessary to crush Longchamp, for Richard intended that, if he had no children, his nephew Arthur should succeed him (Benedict, ii. 137). On 4 March a discussion took place between John and the chancellor about the right to the constableship of certain castles, apparently those of Nottingham and Tickhill, which were not included in the grant of the honours received by John, and as to the yearly income which he was to have from the exchequer. In the absence of Longchamp on the Welsh borders the disputed castles were surrendered to him by their constables, and John espoused the cause of Gerard de Camville, who broke into revolt against Longchamp [see Camville, Gerard De]. Longchamp felt himself overmatched. An arbitration between John and the chancellor was held at Winchester on 25 April, and the decision was favourable to John; he was declared heir to the throne, and as such received the homages of the earls and bishops present, and though he surrendered the castles, the chancellor was forced to deliver them to two of his friends to be held for the king. The arrival of Walter of Coutances, archbishop of Rouen, with powers from Richard put a check on John, and restored the balance of the parties. After a short renewal of hostilities another meeting was held at Winchester on 28 July 1191, and an award less favourable to John was published; the constables of the two castles were changed, Gerard was to be tried, and John was not to oppose the decision of the court; no mention. was made of the succession (Hoveden, iii. 134 n. and sqq.; Richard Of Devizes, pp. 32, 33; William Of Newburgh, ii. 46; Norgate, Angevin Kings, ii. 300). In September the news of the arrest of Archbishop Geoffrey [q. v.] was brought to John by his counsellor, Hugh of Nunant, bishop of Coventry. He saw the advantage to be gained from the affair, called a meeting of nobles and bishops at Reading, and invited Geoffrey to come to him there. At a council held at the bridge of Loddon, near Reading, it was decided to depose the chancellor. After making an attempt to bribe John, Longchamp promised to appear before the council and stand his trial. John marched out to meet him, but Longchamp made hastily for London. John followed him; the two parties skirmished just outside one of the suburbs, and John's justiciar was slain. The city was divided, the majority being on John's side, for a commune had been set up, and the citizens were anxious to have it confirmed. Longchamp shut himself in the Tower, and John and his friends reaching the city at night were admitted joyfully, the citizens coming out to meet him with torches and shouts of welcome. The next day, 8 Oct., he held a meeting of magnates and citizens at St. Paul's. In virtue of the king's commission the archbishop of Rouen assumed the office of chief justiciar, John and the other magnates swore to uphold the commune; all took an oath of fidelity to Richard and to John as his successor, and it is said that the assembly appointed John 'ruler of the whole kingdom,' and decreed that he should nominate the constables of all the castles except three (Richard Of Devizes, pp. 38, 39). Longchamp surrendered and left England.

John was for a while kept in check by the new justiciar. He spent Christmas at Howden with Hugh, bishop of Durham, then under the excommunication of Archbishop Geoffrey, and was therefore himself regarded as excommunicate by the archbishop. Longchamp threatened him with excommunication if he did not make him amends before Quinquagesima Sunday, and sent him an offer of 500l. if he would procure his restoration. The presence of the discredited and unpopular Longchamp in England would be certain to lead to strife, from which John anticipated personal advantage. He therefore consented to his proposal. About the same time Philip of France began to use him as a means of troubling Richard's dominions, and offered him his sister Adela in marriage, promising to give him with her all Richard's continental possessions. The queen-mother's return to England on 11 Feb. interrupted John's design of visiting France. The threat that if he set sail all his English lands and castles would be seized kept him at home. About the middle of March Longchamp, relying on John's promise, returned to England, and sent to the council then gathered in London to demand his restoration. The lords on learning from John that the chancellor's restoration depended on him, and that Longchamp had bribed him to take his side, offered him the larger bribe of two thousand marks, which converted him to their views. The chancellor was fined and forced to leave the country. Immediately after Christmas John received a message from Philip, telling him of the captivity of Richard, and renewing his offer to him. He crossed to Normandy, and demanded an oath of fealty from the seneschal and the barons. They refused, saying that they hoped that their lord would return. In February 1193 John went to Philip, did homage to him for Normandy and the rest of Richard's continental dominions, and it was said for England also, and swore to marry Adela, though his wife Avice was living, and to give up Gisors and the Norman Vexin in exchange for part of Flanders, Philip promising to help him to gain his brother's lands. On returning to England he gathered a force of foreign mercenaries, and took possession of Wallingford and Windsor, met the justices in London, and demanded that they should swear fealty to him, declaring that Richard was dead. They were incredulous and refused, and he went off in a rage to fortify his castles and make raids on the king's lands, expecting a force of French and Flemish to come over to help him. The justices retaliated, and called the people of the coast to arms, so that the foreigners were unable to land. John lost ground rapidly; the castles of Windsor, Wallingford, and the Peak were reduced, Archbishop Geoffrey and Bishop Hugh of Durham besieged Tickhill, and by May John was prepared to submit. A doubt as to the king's return caused the justices to be unwilling to push him too far, and they made a truce with him until 1 Nov. In July he heard that the emperor had agreed to liberate Richard on the fulfilment of certain conditions, Philip sending to bid him 'beware, for the devil was unloosed' (Hoveden, iii. 216).

John dared not abide his brother's return. He at once joined Philip in Normandy, and went with him into France. An offer of peace, sent by Richard to Philip, included terms of reconciliation with John, and when the king allowed him to have all the castles and lands which he had bestowed on him John returned to Normandy and swore fealty to Richard's representatives. The constables of the Norman castles, however, refused to deliver them to him, and he went off again in wrath to Philip, who gave him the castles of Driencourt and Arques. When the date of Richard's return drew near John joined Philip in sending an embassy to the emperor in January 1194, offering him a large sum to prolong the king's captivity until Michaelmas. The emperor showed the king John's letter when he met him at Mentz on 2 Feb. Meanwhile, despairing of the success of his offer, John sent a messenger to England to order that his castles should be put in a state of defence against the king. His messenger incautiously boasted at the table to Hubert, archbishop of Canterbury, the new chief justiciar, about his master's influence with the French king and other matters. On hearing of this the mayor of London had him arrested. The council thereupon decreed that John should be deprived of all his English lands. The archbishop and bishops excommunicated him at Westminster; the bishop of Durham again laid siege to Tickhill; David, earl of Huntingdon, and the Earl of Chester besieged Nottingham; the justiciar took Marlborough, and received the surrender of the castle of Lancaster and of St. Michael's Mount in Cornwall, which one of John's party held for him after having turned out the monks. On Richard's landing on 13 March Tickhill surrendered. The king at once marched to Nottingham, and its surrender on the 28th completed the reduction of John's English possessions. On 31 March Richard demanded judgment against John, and it was decreed that if he did not answer the summons of the court within forty days his English fiefs should be forfeited, and he should be incapable of succeeding to the throne. In May he met the king in Normandy, and through the mediation of the queen-mother the brothers were reconciled, though Richard did not for a while give him back any of his lands, but kept him in a position of dependence. John saw that it had become his interest to support his brother against Philip; he prepared to defend Rouen against the French, and surprised the garrison of Evreux, cut off the heads of three hundred men, and stuck them on stakes round the walls, but did not take the castle, and displeased the king by his cruelty. In company with the Earls of Huntingdon and Arundel he made an attempt on Vaudreuil, and was put to flight by Philip. In 1195 Richard granted him the county of Mortain, the honour of Eye, and the earldom of Gloucester, keeping the castles in his own hands, and giving him in lieu of his other lands a pension of 8,000l. Angevin. In 1196 he took Gamaches in Ponthieu; on 19 May led a company of Brabantine mercenaries against Beauvais; captured the bishop and many others, and delivered them to Richard. These services seem to have so far atoned for his past unfaithfulness as to cause him to be regarded as his brother's heir (Angevin Kings, ii. 381). At this time he upheld his deputy in Ireland in his quarrel with Archbishop John Comyn. During Philip's invasion of Normandy in the autumn of 1198 John burnt Neufbourg and captured some French knights. Early in 1199 Philip informed Richard that John had again entered into an alliance with him. Richard for the moment believed the story, though his brother swore it was false, and seized the possessions of John, who retired to Brittany, and stayed with his nephew Arthur. Before long the king was convinced that Philip had deceived him, and when he was dying in the beginning of April declared John his successor in England and all his dominions, and made those who were present take an oath of fealty to him.

John was in his twenty-second year at the date of his brother's death. He had been brought up amidst family dissensions and intrigues; his father had pitted him against his brothers, and he had learnt to be ungrateful and unfaithful to him. All the vices of his house appear in his character unredeemed by any greatness. He was mean, false, vindictive, and abominably cruel. At once greedy and extravagant he extorted money from his subjects, and spent it in an ignoble manner. He had a violent temper and a stubborn disposition, but he lacked real firmness of mind, and was at heart a coward. Although not without capacity he was so frivolous and slothful that at the most critical times he would behave like a fool. His levity was constant, and he indulged in jesting at moments which specially demanded decorum and gravity. While he was abjectly superstitious he was habitually profane and irreligious, though he once or twice yielded to religious emotion. He was self-indulgent and scandalously immoral, and no small part of the hatred with which his nobles came to regard him was due to the injuries which his unbridled lust inflicted on them and their families (for John's character see Stubbs, Preface to Walter Of Coventry, vol. ii. pp. xiv-xix).

Immediately after Richard's funeral he went to Chinon, where the treasure of Anjou was kept, and having sworn to carry out the late king's will and to respect the customs ot the lands he should govern received the keys. He sent for Bishop Hugh of Lincoln [q. v.], in whose company he visited the tombs of his father and brother at Fontevraud, and for three days behaved in an exemplary manner. On Easter Sunday, 18 March, which he spent at Beaufort, he relapsed into his usual habits, spoke with such irreverent levity that Hugh refused his offering, sent three times during the bishop's sermon to ask him to stop because he wanted his breakfast, and left the church without communicating (Magna Vita, pp. 287-93). The next Sunday he was invested with the insignia of the duchy at Rouen.

Meanwhile, though the Normans acknowledged John willingly, the lords of Anjou, Maine, and Touraine met together, and declared that according to their customs the son of an elder brother came before a younger brother. John's nephew, Arthur [q. v.], and his mother, Constance, marched with a force of Bretons into Anjou and Maine, were joyfully received, and nearly surprised John at Le Mans, while Philip took Evreux, and, joining them at Le Mans, received Arthur's homage, and soon after accepted him as his ward. In May John made a raid on Le Mans, punished the citizens, and leaving his mother and the mercenary leader, Mercadier, to ravage Anjou set out for England, whither he had previously sent Archbishop Hubert and William Marshall to secure the country for him. On the news of Richard's death much disorder ensued, and a strong party among the baronage acted as though they did not consider John's succession a matter of course. John's envoys received an oath of fealty tohim from his men, earls, barons, citizens, and freeholders, and proceeding to Northampton met the doubtful earls. They, on the envoys' promise that John would do justly by them, also swore to be faithful to him. On the 25th the king landed at Shoreham, and on the 27th was crowned at Westminster by Archbishop Hubert, who made a speech insisting strongly on the right of the nation to elect their king, and declaring that John was chosen. The choice was confirmed by the shouts of the people. When administering the usual oaths, he also adjured John not to take the kingly office unless he was steadfastly minded to keep them, and John answered that by God's help he would do so. John did not usurp the throne; he was chosen by the nation as the fittest of the royal line to reign, and was lawfully crowned and anointed. He did not communicate at his coronation. After appointing Geoffrey FitzPeter chief justiciar and Archbishop Hubert chancellor he went the next day to worship at St. Albans, and thence to Canterbury and St. Edmunds. He visited Northampton on 5 June, expecting that William, king of Scots, would meet him and do homage. Instead of coming William demanded Northumberland and Cumberland, and threatened war. John put these shires under the care of William of Stuteville, and on the 20th sailed for Normandy with a large force, crossing from Shoreham to Dieppe. On 24 June he made a truce with Philip at Rouen until 16 Aug., when the two kings had a conference between Boutavant and Le Goulet. Philip demanded the Vexin for himself, and for Arthur Anjou, Maine, Poitou, and Touraine, complaining that John had entered on his brother's continental fiefs without doing homage. John was in a position to refuse. The Count of Flanders had done homage to him, the French lords of Richard's party had accepted him as their head, and his nephew Otto was acknowledged by the pope as the rightful claimant of the empire. War began, and though Philip gained some successes he quarrelled with William des Roches, the leader of the Breton army, and was consequently forced to evacuate Maine. William des Roches received John at Le Mans, and delivered Arthur and Constance into his care. On the same day, 22 Sept., Arthur was secretly warned that his uncle would imprison him. The Viscount of Thouars was with John, and had been forced by him to give up Chinon; he, Arthur, and Constance escaped from Le Mans together in the night.

A truce was made in October, and before it ended the two kings held another conference near Les Andelys in the middle of January 1200. Philip, who had his own embarrassments (Angevin Kings, ii. 395), agreed to easier terms. John's niece Blanche, daughter of his sister Eleanor and Alfonso IX of Castile, was to marry Philip's son Louis, and John was to give with her the city and county of Evreux, all the castles in Normandy held by Philip at Richard's death, and three thousand marks, and he further promised to give no help to his nephew Otto. He returned to England, sailing from Barfleur, and landing at Portsmouth on 27 Feb. Although he had already received the unusually heavy scutage of two marks he demanded a carucage of 3s. on each ploughland to make up the sum to be paid on Blanche's marriage. He went to York to meet the king of Scots, who failed to attend, and there demanded the carucage from certain Cistercian abbots.

On their answering that they must first receive the directions of a general chapter of their order, he bade his sheriffs annoy them by all means in their power and deny them justice. Archbishop Hubert prevailed on him to withdraw this order, and paid him one thousand marks from them, but John was not appeased. In the end of April he again crossed to Normandy, and on 22 May concluded the treaty with Philip at Le Goulet. He was acknowledged king of England and duke of Normandy, with the right to the homage of Brittany, which he then received from Arthur. Besides the concessions already promised he gave certain places in Berry with his niece to Louis; he renounced the alliance of the Count of Flanders and of Otto, and one thousand marks of the money he had promised was remitted. All difficulties with Philip and Arthur seemed at an end, and the peaceable possession of his continental dominions secured.

The fresh difficulties in which John became involved were of his own making. Anxious to form a grander marriage, and perhaps dissatisfied at having no children by Avice, he had obtained a divorce from her from the bishops of Normandy and Aquitaine, on the ground of consanguinity, probably procuring by fraud a sanction from the pope, who was angered at the step when too late (compare Coggeshall, p. 103, and Diceto, ii. 167). He did not give up her inheritance, for he granted the county of Gloucester to William de Montfort, count of Evreux, husband of Avice's elder sister, Mabel, in exchange for the count's own possessions which had been ceded to the French, keeping the rest apparently in his own hands. Avice afterwards married Geoffrey de Mandeville, son of Geoffrey FitzPeter, earl of Essex, the chief justiciar. John sent ambassadors to the king of Portugal to solicit his daughter in marriage, but changed his mind, and it is said, at the suggestion of Philip, proposed to marry Isabella, daughter of Ademar, count of Angoulême [see Isabella of Angoulême]. First he made a progress through his continental dominions in June and July, and on 30 July arrived at Chinon, where his marriage probably took place. Isabella was, however, contracted to Hugh le Brun, eldest son of Hugh IX, count of La Marche, and her father took her from his custody to marry her to John, who thus made a dangerous enemy. John took his young wife, then about twelve years of age, over to England, and had her crowned with himself at Westminster on 8 Oct. While in London he visited Bishop Hugh of Lincoln, then on his deathbed (Magna Vita, pp. 335, 336). He went to Lincoln on the 21st to meet the king of Scots, who the next day did homage to him. On the 23rd the funeral procession of Bishop Hugh arrived; both the kings went out from the city to meet it, and John acted as one of the bearers (ib. pp. 371, 372). Moved by the bishop's death he promised the Cistercians to build them an abbey; he first granted the manor of Faringdon in Berkshire to the mother-bouse at Citeaux, and afterwards built his abbey at Beaulieu in Hampshire, granting Faringdon to the convent as a cell (Tanner, Notitia, pp. 18, 164; Monasticon, v. 680-2). When he revisited Lincoln in January 1201 he tried unsuccessfully to persuade the chapter to forego their right of election. A quarrel was in progress between him and Archbishop Geoffrey of York [q. v.], and on going to Beverley on the 10th he stayed with one of Geoffrey's excommunicated opponents. The archbishop refused to allow the canons to welcome him, and he commanded that Geoffrey's servants should be imprisoned. After visiting Scarborough with his queen he went through the northern parts of his kingdom, everywhere fining the people on the plea that they had injured his forests. At York on 1-4 March he was reconciled to the archbishop, and on the 25th, Easter-day, he and his queen wore their crowns at Canterbury, his court being largely attended by magnates.

Meanwhile Hugh le Brun, in revenge for the loss of his wife, was stirring up the Poitevin lords against him. In return John ordered the seneschal of Normandy to take Driencourt, then belonging to Ralph Count of Eu, Hugh's brother. War began on the Norman border, and before long Philip went to the help of John's enemies. John ordered his forces to assemble at Portsmouth on 13 May 1201. On this the earls met at Leicester, and declared that they would not cross the sea unless he granted them their rights. He demanded their castles, and showed that he meant to enforce the demand. They yielded, and on their assembling, John, in lieu of their service, took money, with which he could pay an army of mercenaries, tn company with his queen he sailed from Portsmouth with a well trained force. He had an amicable conference with Philip on the isle of Andelys, and on 1 July visited Paris, where Philip entertained him honourably. At Chinon, which he made his headquarters, he summoned the Poitevin lords to appear, sending them an appeal of treason against himself and the late king, and calling on them to do battle with the champions he should select from his followers. They refused, saying that they would be judged by their peers. He then commissioned Robert of Turnham to act against them, declared Moncontour the castle of Geoffrey of Lusignan, Hugh's brother forfeited, and made alliance with his father-in-law, the Count of Angoulême. The Poitevins applied to Philip, and at their request Philip summoned him to appear before his court of French lords and receive the judgment of his peers. On 25 March 1202 John met Philip at Le Goulet, and was requested to give up his continental possessions to Arthur. He refused, but probably about this time agreed to be judged by his peers, and offered Boutavant and Tillières as pledges. When the appointed day came he did not appear, and the French nobles sentenced him to forfeit all his fiefs for disobedience to his suzerain. Philip at once took Boutavant, Tillières, and a line of border fortresses as far north as Eu, John apparently having made no special effort to prepare for the war by strengthening the border. Then Philip marched south, and laid siege to Radepont on the Andella on 8 July. Being forced by John to raise the siege about the 16th, he occupied Aumale and took Gournay, where he gave Arthur his daughter in marriage, invested him with all John's fiefs except Normandy, which he no doubt reserved for himself, and furnished him with men and money (for order of events see Angevin Kings, ii. 404, n. 3). John seems to have done little until, on 30 July, he heard that his mother was besieged by Arthur and the Poitevin lords in Mirebeau. He hastened thither, and arriving on 1 Aug. found the place almost in the hands of the enemy. He surprised and totally routed the besiegers, taking prisoners Arthur, Hugh le Brun and his brother Geoffrey of Lusignan, two hundred French knights, and Arthur's sister, Eleanor of Brittany, He put his prisoners in irons, sent them off in wagons to be kept, some in Norman and some in English prisons. He is said to have starved twenty-two to death in Corfe Castle (Margam Annals, p. 26; Hardy, Pref. to Patent Rolls, p. 34). Arthur he imprisoned at Falaise. Eleanor be imprisoned at Bristol, where she was kept in captivity all the rest of her life. He foolishly allowed himself to he persuaded to release Hugh and his brother. On hearing of Arthur's misfortune Philip, after burning Tours, retired to Paris. John did further damage to Tours, in anger at its having fallen into Philip's hands, and sent a force into Brittany which took Dol, and laid waste Fougères and the country round. He had an interview with Arthur at Falaise, and made him many offers if he would consent to abandon the French alliance, but the young count answered him haughtily. It is said that after John's attempt to blind and mutilate him had been foiled [see under Arthur, Count of Brittany], a report was spread that he had died. The report was believed by the Bretons, and they invaded Anjou and took Angers. In order to appease them the report was contradicted, and the true story became known. Arthur was then removed to Rouen, and though his fate is involved in mystery there can be no reasonable doubt that his uncle slew him there. It is probable that he killed him in a fit of drunken rage, and threw his body into the Seine on 3 April 1203 (Margam Annals, a. 1204). John had been wasting his time in feasting and sloth, usually lying in bed until dinner. It is stated, apparently in error, that on Arthur's death the Breton lords assembled at Vannes, and sent to Philip charging John with his murder, and demanding that he should be summoned to answer for it (Le Baud, Histoire de Bretagne, p. 210, quoting Robert Blondel, who can scarcely be recognised as an authority on the matter), and that on his non-appearance the court of peers of France sentenced him to be deprived of all his fiefs for the murder. Louis and his agents in 1216 asserted this condemnation, and their assertion was believed in England (F?dera, i. 140; Wendover, iii. 373; Matt. Paris, iii. 652, 657; Thorn, col. 2420). On the other hand it is argued with great probability that the story was invented by the French in 1216; there is no earlier authority for it. A letter of Innocent III, written 7 March 1205, proves that the pope, though informed that sentence had been pronounced against John, did not know that it was for the murder of Arthur. It is improbable that the Bretons knew the date of the murder; Philip certainly was not sure whether Arthur was dead or alive some months later (Coggeshall, p. 145). The meeting of the Bretons at Vannes may have taken place on the false news of Arthur's death. John was there condemned to forfeiture in 1202; he killed his nephew subsequently, and it was readily believed in 1216 that he had been condemned to forfeiture and even to death for the murder (the subject has for the first time been worked out by M. Ch. Bémont, see 'La Condemnation de Jean Sans-terre,' Revue Historique, xxxii. 33-74, 290-311).

After giving help to the Bretons and Poitevins, Philip continued his conquests in Normandy, and the Norman lords seeing John's inactivity began to go over to the French side. To all their remonstrances John would only reply, 'Let him go on; whatever he takes I shall retake it in a single day,' and he remained so careless and cheerful that men thought he must be bewitched. In August, however, he laid siege to Alençon, which had been delivered to the French, and both there and at Bressoles was disgracefully put to flight. At last Philip laid siege to Château Gaillard, the fortress which Richard had built to keep the Seine and defend Rouen. A large force gathered by John and sent under the command of William Marshall failed to intercept the French, and John apparently made no effort on behalf of the Château (Hardy, Itinerary, Pref. to Patent Rolls; Angevin Kings, ii. 419). On 6 Dec. he returned to England, and at a council at Oxford on 2 Jan. 1204 obtained from his lords the grant of a seventh of movables, on the plea that their desertion of him had caused the loss of his castles; they had returned home when they found it impossible to rouse him to action. This grant was general, and even the goods of the parish churches were not exempt. He further took two marks and a half on the knight's fee, and this ecclesiastics were bound to pay as well as laymen. Château Gaillard fell on 6 March. John sent an embassy to ask peace of Philip, who replied that he would grant none until Arthur were delivered to him alive, or if he were dead, until his sister Eleanor was sent to him to dispose of in marriage, along with all the continental fiefs. The constables of his castles abroad asked whether they were to expect help from him, and he answered that they must provide for themselves. By 1 July Philip had become master of the whole duchy, John remaining at his ease in England, and declaring that he would recover all his losses by the help of the money that he was extorting from his people (Wendover, iii. 181). The loss of Normandy owing to his pusillanimity disgusted his barons with him. Those of them who, having lands on both sides of the Channel, chose to keep what they had in England, became wholly English in feeling, and their policy was thenceforward solely decided by the course of affairs in England. John's evil rule became specially grievous when he was constantly present. He and his people were brought close together, and the result was that they forced him to yield to their just demands, and finally rejected him altogether.

The fear of losing all that he had in Poitou and Anjou so far roused John that at a council at Northampton in May 1205 he summoned his forces to meet him at Porchester at Whitsuntide. When all was ready he was with difficulty dissuaded from the expedition by Archbishop Hubert and William Marshall; he had allowed the time for action to slip by; it was now too late. He dismissed his army and ships, but embarked with a small following as if about to cross; landing again at Wareham, and pretending that the expedition had come to nought because his lords neglected to follow him. He accordingly made them pay for having been dismissed to their homes. Philip at once gained all Poitou except Rochelle, Thouars, and Niort, and on 23 June Chinon surrendered. Finding in 1206 that Almeric, viscount of Thouars, who had by that time surrendered to Philip, and his brother Guy, the seneschal of Brittany, were disaffected towards the French king, John gathered an army, and, sailing from Portsmouth, landed at Rochelle on 8 July. Many joined him, and on 1 Aug. he took Montauban. Almeric and several Poitevin lords allied themselves with him, and with their help he took Angers, and ravaged in Anjou and the districts of Nantes, Rennes, and La Mée. Philip ravaged the viscounty of Thouars, and John and the viscount evidently did not dare to meet him. John agreed to a truce for two years,concluded on 26 Oct., by which he surrendered his claim to all his former dominions north of the Loire (Rigord, William of Armorica, Chroniques de St.-Denys ap. Recueil, xvii. 60, 81, 393; F?dera, i. 95; Wendover, iii. 187). Before the truce was signed he went off to Rochelle, and on 12 Dec. landed at Portsmouth. On 8 Jan. 1207 he met the bishops and abbots at Westminster, and asked them to make him a grant to be levied on the benefices of the clergy. They refused, and the matter was adjourned. He renewed his request at Oxford on 9 Feb., and on their refusal being repeated obtained from the barons the grant of a thirteenth on the movables of the laity. After prohibiting a council of the clergy he sent out letters to them requesting that they would likewise pay the thirteenth. Archbishop Geoffrey refused to allow his clergy to pay, and went into exile [see Geoffrey, Archbishop of York].

By the death of Hubert, archbishop of Canterbury, on 12 July 1205, John lost a wise counsellor, whose control he had borne with impatience. His death was followed by a course of violent action on the king's part, which led to a breach of the long-standing alliance between the crown and the church. On hearing the news John hurried to Canterbury, disposed of the archbishop's effects as he chose, and obtained a promise from the chapter that they would not proceed to a new election before 30 Nov. The younger monks, however, elected the sub-prior Reginald secretly and without application to the king. The king heard of his election, and was highly displeased; the suffragan bishops appealed to Pope Innocent III because the election had been made without them, and the monks appealed against the bishops. John sent down messengers exhorting the monks to elect John de Grey, bishop of Norwich, one of his special friends, and offering them rewards if they would do so. They yielded, and on the 11th, in the presence of the king, elected and enthroned John de Grey, to whom John at once granted the temporalities, sending some of the monks to obtain the pope's confirmation and the pall. Their application was opposed by the agent of the sub-prior. John sent money to bribe the Roman officials, and, while declaring that the monks might elect whom they would, charged them to elect no one but his nominee. In the autumn the pope heard the case, quashed both the elections, and, a party of the monks being before him, caused them to elect Cardinal Stephen Langton. John was angry, and refused to receive Stephen into favour. On 17 June the pope consecrated Stephen himself. John, on findingthat the monks meant to adhere to Stephen, ordered an armed force to turn them out of their house, seized their property, and committed their church to the care of the monks of St. Augustine's. On 27 Aug. Innocent wrote to the bishops of London, Ely, and Worcester, bidding them try to persuade John, and if they failed lay the kingdom, under an interdict, and on 19 Nov. wrote again commanding the publication of the interdict. In January 1208 John declared that he would give way, and on 19 Feb. had an interview with Simon Langton, the archbishop's brother, at which, according to John's account, Simon said that the king must submit himself wholly to the archbishop. The negotiation failed. The three bishops besought the king to avoid an interdict, but he swore 'by God's teeth,' for that and 'God's feet' were his usual forms of oath, that if any one published the interdict he would send all the prelates, clerks, and monks in England off to the pope, and would seize their goods, and that if he caught a Roman in his kingdom he would tear out his eyes and cut off his nose. On 23 or 24 March 1208 the three bishops published the interdict, and with two other bishops left the kingdom. Then John sent to the pope offering to accept the archbishop, to place the temporalities in the pope's hands, and to restore the monks, provided that he need not receive Stephen into favour. Innocent bade him put the temporalities into the hands of the three bishops, to whom he sent authority to relax the interdict as soon as an agreement was made. Negotiations went on throughout the summer and autumn, and on 12 Jan. 1209 the pope wrote to John declaring him excommunicate unless he yielded within three months. John seized the property of the bishops who had fled; confiscated the revenues of the clergy and monks, and outlawed them, though he threatened to hang any one who did them harm. In order to enforce the fidelity of the barons he demanded hostages. Maud, the wife of William de Braose [q. v.], told his messengers that she would not give her children to a man who had murdered his own nephew. For the present she and her husband escaped. John ordered William of Scotland to give security that he would not receive his enemies or make alliances displeasing to him. William neglected to appear for the purpose, and John marched northwards with a large force, arriving at Norham on 4 Aug. There William made terms, delivered his two daughters, Margaret [see Burgh, Hubert de] and Isabella [see Bigod, Roger, fourth Earl of Norfolk], to him, bound himself to pay 13,000l., and gave hostages from the Scottish lords. On his return John ordered all fences to be destroyed in the forests, and exacted an oath of fealty from all freeholders of twelve years old and upwards, compelling the Welsh to come to Woodstock for the purpose. While there he hanged three clerks of Oxford for the murder of a woman, and this occasioned a large migration of scholars from the university. Communication with Rome was not wholly suspended, and negotiations went on with reference to the archbishop. Some restitutions of lands to the bishops seemed to point to an inclination to yield on the king's side, but when Langton came over on 2 Oct. with a safe-conduct no arrangement was made, and he left the kingdom.

Meanwhile matters went on easily in England; the interdict did not press heavily on such of the laity as were not specially pious, for there was not an entire suspension of the ordinances of religion (see William of Coventry, ii. Preface, xlv, xlvi n.) As John was well supplied with money from the revenues of the church, there was no general taxation, and the country was prosperous (Worcester Annals, p. 397). The sentence of excommunication, though seemingly published in France, was not published in England; the bishops who fled left the duty to those who remained behind. It was known, but still his nobles did not avoid the king's society; indeed he had them in his power by holding hostages from them, and he dealt severely with any one who withdrew from him. Always prone to make favourites of men of low birth and evil character, John, was at this time much under the influence of a certain clerk Alexander the Mason, who was enriched out of the spoils of the church, and who stirred him up to acts of special cruelty. The quarrel between the pope and his nephew Otto IV hardened his heart, and he made no further attempts to be reconciled. He extorted large sums from the clergy and monks, and especially from the Cistercians, whom he turned out of their houses in September, forcing them to ransom themselves by a payment of twenty-seven thousand marks, the only exceptions being his own foundation of Beaulieu and the abbey of Margam in Glamorgan, where he quartered himself and his troops while proceeding to Ireland.

With the threefold object of overthrowing the power of the Lacys, establishing order and the supremacy of the crown, and taking vengeance on William de Braose and his wife, John landed at Waterford from Pembroke in the middle of June 1210. At Dublin he received the homage of many Irish chiefs. In July he took Carrickfergus, seized the lands of the Lacys and banished the Earl of Ulster, built several fortresses, appointed sheriffs and other officers to carry out the English system of law, coined new money, and leaving the government in the hands of John Grey (d. 1214) [q. v.], bishop of Norwich, returned to England towards the end of August, bringing with him Maud de Braose and her son, who had been taken and whom he starved to death [see under Braose, William De]. He arrested all the Jews in England, and made them pay him sixty-six thousand marks, of which ten thousand marks came from the Bristol jewry, and was extorted from the head of the community by knocking out one of his teeth each day until he agreed that the sum should be paid. He spent Christmas at York, the see being in his hands since the departure of Geoffrey. In 1211 he made an expedition into North Wales, entered the Snowdon district, compelled the submission of Llywelyn, and raised fortresses. Returning to England in August he met two papal envoys, Durand and Pandulf, at a council at Northampton, where he consented that the archbishop, bishops, and monks then in exile should return home; but as he refused to restore their possessions the conference was ineffectual, and the envoys threatened that the pope would proceed to yet severer measures. At this council he took a scutage of two marks for the Welsh war. William of Scotland sought his alliance, and sent his son Alexander to John, who knighted him on 4 March 1212. In this year (1212) the pope issued a bull, declaring John excommunicate by name and deposed from the throne, and entrusted its execution to Philip of France, who at once began preparations for an invasion of England. The hatred felt for John by his lords became active. Llywelyn broke the peace made the year before, destroyed his castles, slew his men, and burnt many places. John marched to Nottingham with a large army, and there hanged twenty-eight Welsh youths whom he held as hostages. While he was there, probably in August, a message was brought him from the Scottish king that treason was being plotted against him. A message from Llywelyn's wife, Joan (d. 1237) [q. v.], his natural daughter, warned him of another plot, and he thereupon shut himself in the castle and dismissed his army. At the end of the month he visited York, and thence went to Durham. A hermit of Wakefield named Peter of Pomfret, who appears to have prophesied evil of him before, foretold that by the next Ascension day, 23 May, his reign would be over and his crown have passed to another. John caused him to be brought before him, questioned him, and committed him to prison at Corfe. In order to keep a hold upon his lords he again exacted hostages from those whom he suspected; he found no proof of plots against himself, but outlawed Eustace de Vesci and Robert Fitzwalter and confiscated their lands; he seized the castles of some others, and kept the country quiet by force. He tried to propitiate the people by mitigating theexactions of the forest courts, and guarded himself against future claims by compelling the prelates to seal deeds declaring that his exactions from them had been freely granted. One of his ablest clerks, Geoffrey of Norwich, withdrew from the exchequer, saying that it did not become a beneficed clerk to keep company with an excommunicate. John imprisoned him at Bristol, and caused a heavy leaden cope to be placed upon him, so that he died of misery and want. John strengthened himself against Philip by forming an alliance with Reginald, count of Boulogne, and shortly afterwards with Ferrand, count of Flanders, and during the early part of 1213 made active preparations to repel invasion. By sea he was far stronger than Philip, and an English fleet took several French ships about the mouth of the Seine and burnt Dieppe. All the force of the kingdom was summoned to meet in arms at Dover the week after Easter under penalty of 'culvertage,' a declaration of infamy for cowardice and perpetual slavery. An immense force and large stores having been gathered, he sent detachments to various ports, keeping the remainder encamped on Barham Down, near Canterbury. Meanwhile he was full of uneasiness; his lords' hatred of him had become so strong that, it is said, they sent messages to Philip inviting him to invade the land (Annalsof Worcester, iv. 402; Robert of Auxerre, an. 1213; Genealogy of Counts of Flanders, c. 27). There were rumours of a conspiracy to offer the crown to Simon of Montfort (Ann. of Dunstable, iii. 33; Wendover, iii. 248). The prophecy of Peter troubled him as Ascension day drew near. When, therefore, two knights of the Temple brought him a message from Pandulf urging him to seek reconciliation, he sent them back with an invitation to the envoy to come to England at once. He met Pandulf at Dover on 13 May, and on the 15th the terms of submission were ratified. He swore to be reconciled to the archbishop, and the exiled bishops and monks, and to all others, lay and clerical, concerned in the quarrel, and to make full restitution to them. Moreover he placed England and Ireland under the suzerainty of the pope, promising for himself and his successors to pay one thousand marks yearly tribute to the Roman see, seven hundred marks for England and three hundred for Ireland, and swore to do fealty and liege homage to Innocent and his successors, for he believed that no prince in Christendom would dare to invade a kingdom that was under the protection of the pope (Walter of Coventry, ii. 210). The act of homage was subscribed on the eve of Ascension day, and on the morrow he caused Peter to be drawn from Corfe to Wareham and there hanged along with his son. It was said that the hermit had spoken truth, for that John ceased to reign when he became the pope's vassal. The acknowledgment of the pope's suzerainty, however, was not at the time generally felt to be a disgrace. Meanwhile Philip entered Flanders with an army, and gathered a large fleet at Damme. But an English fleet under the command of the Earl of Salisbury, and in conjunction with the counts of Boulogne and Holland, destroyed and made prizes of so many vessels that Philip ordered the rest to be burnt. The battle seems to have taken place on or immediately before 1 June (Canon of Laon, an. 1213). It seems probable that the French ships were gathered for an invasion of England, but that Pandulf forbade the attempt. Philip (William Of Armorica, sub an.; Wendover, iii. 256) after this check evacuated Flanders, whither John sent a strong force to uphold the cause of the count. John proposed to remove all danger of invasion by carrying the war into France, and proposed to the barons that he should invade Poitou. They refused to go with him on the plea that he was still excommunicate. On 16 July, however, the archbishop and the exiled bishops landed at Dover, and, as the king avoided meeting them, went to him at Winchester, where he repeated his promise of restitution, renewed the oath of his consecration, pledged himself to do justice to all, and observe the laws of Henry I. He fell at their feet, and with many tears implored their mercy. Accordingly they pronounced absolution on the 20th, and conducted him into the church during the service of the mass. A council was summoned to meet at St. Albans in August to assess the damages suffered by the prelates, and an embassy was sent to the pope on divers matters. John renewed his request that the barons would join in an invasion of Poitou. The northern lords answered that they were not bound to go beyond sea, and returned home. John having embarked with his personal following, sailed as far as Jersey and then came back in anger at having been deserted. He marched northwards with the intention of punishing the lords who had left him. At Northampton he was overtaken by Archbishop Stephen, who reminded him of his oath at Winchester to proceed against no one without the judgment of his court. Nevertheless he went on in a fury towards Nottingham, followed by Stephen, who at last prevailed on him to appoint a day for the barons to appear at his court. John went on to York and thence to Durham, and returned to London by the end of September. While he was absent the council met at St. Albans on 4 Aug. 1213. It was attended not only by bishops and magnates, but by representatives from the townships in the king's demesne, each sending the reeve and four men. Besides inquiring into the losses of the prelates it discussed the state of the kingdom, and the promise of the king to observe the laws of Henry I. On the 25th another council was held at St.Paul's, at which the archbishop produced and read Henry's charter, and all the barons swore before him that they would, if need be, fight for the liberties therein contained, and the archbishop promised them his help. On 2 Oct. Geoffrey FitzPeter the justiciar died. John disliked and feared him, both because he restrained him from evil, and because he was widely connected with baronial families. On hearing of his death John declared that he and the late archbishop would meet in hell, and swore by God's feet that he was now for the first time king and lord of England. He gave the justiciarship to Peter des Roches, the Poitevin bishop of Winchester, and the barons were much displeased at the appointment of a foreigner. On the 3rd he delivered the deed surrendering his kingdom to the pope to the legate, Nicolas of Tusculum, before an assembly gathered in St. Paul's. As he failed to meet a council appointed to be held at Reading, the bishops and magnates adjourned to Wallingford, where they found him on 3 Nov. There he promised to make restitution to the bishops, and was reconciled to the northern barons (Annals of Dunstable, iii. 40). Probably, in consequence of this meeting, he sent out a summons on the 7th for a council to meet at Oxford, to which were to come, along with the barons and knights, four discreet men as representatives from each county, to advise with him on the affairs of the kingdom. It is not known whether the council met; the writ marks an important stage in the rise of parliamentary representation (Constitutional History, i. 528; Select Charters, pp. 278, 279). John was, of course, aware of the resolve of the barons to insist on a reform, and was further deeply mortified at being forced by the pope to be reconciled to the archbishop and bishops; he is said to have tried to bribe Innocent to desert their cause. Matthew Paris says that about this time he sent an embassy to the emir of Morocco, offering to place himself and his kingdom under his suzerainty, to pay him tribute, and even to adopt Mahometanism. That an embassy was sent to the emir seems fairly certain, though the particulars of the story are probably embellishments added either by the chronicler or his informant, Robert of London, one of the envoys. John held another council at Reading on 8 Dec., about the losses of the bishops. In obedience to a letter received from the pope some progress was made in filling up the vacant benefices throughout the country. The legate accepted the king's candidates.

The alliances built up by his father and brother gave John a strong position as against France, and he became the centre of continental opposition to Philip. On the east and north-east of France he was in alliance against Philip with his nephew the emperor, Otto IV, with the Counts of Boulogne, Flanders, and Holland, with the Dukes of Limburg, Brabant, and Louvain, and with other lords. He now had a large force acting in Flanders under his natural brother, William de Longespée, earl of Salisbury (1196-1226) [q. v.], in conjunction with his allies. Raymond VI, count of Toulouse, who had been despoiled of his dominions, came to him in England, did homage to him for Toulouse, and like other enemies of Philip received money from him. He determined to invade Poitou while Philip was engaged with the allied armies in Flanders, and on 15 Feb. 1214 landed at Rochelle, which still belonged to him, at the head of a large force. Having gained some trifling successes in the neighbourhood of Rochelle, he was soon joined by several Poitevins, and in May 1214 attacked the possessions of Geoffrey de Lusignan. The Lusignans, Hugh le Brun, count of La Marche, the Count of Eu, and Geoffrey, his ancient enemies, made a treaty of alliance with him at Partenay, and he promised his daughter Joan in marriage to Hugh's eldest son. Thus reinforced, and having regained part of Poitou, he advanced into Anjou, where he took Beaufort, Ancenis, and on 17 June Angers. On the 19th he formed the siege of Roche-aux-Moins, a strong fortress which commanded the road between Angers and Nantes. It was obstinately defended. The siege is said to have lasted three weeks, though it probably ended on 3 July (comp. William of Armorica with Hardy, Itinerary). Louis, Philip's eldest son, advanced to its relief, and when he was within about a day's march John, finding that the Poitevin lords would not fight, and believing that he was betrayed, broke up his camp, and, leaving his siege train behind him, retreated in disorder across the Loire, and on the 9th again took up his quarters at Rochelle. Louis quickly regained the places in Anjou which John had taken. On the 27th the combined forces of the emperor, the English under Salisbury, the Flemish, the Lorrainers, and the other allies were defeated by Philip at the decisive battle of Bouvines on the river Margne, and the confederacy which threatened France on the north-east was crushed. The defeat reduced John to utter impotence. On the approach of Philip his allies openly deserted him, and made their peace with the French king, who about 14 Sept. granted John a truce for five years. John returned to England on 15 Nov. completely discredited. During his absence the interdict had been removed on 29 June, and the barons had held a meeting at St. Edmunds, at which they swore that, unless the king granted a charter of liberties on the lines of the charter of Henry I, they would resort to arms. They determined to make their demands after Christmas, and meanwhile to prepare for resistance. John, who had spent on the war in Flanders forty thousand marks wrung from the Cistercians, demanded a scutage from the lords who had not helped him in his late expedition. Some agreed, but the northern lords refused to pay, and the matter was deferred. He attempted to break the alliance between the prelates and nobles by granting a charter on 21 Nov. providing for canonical elections, but the device failed.

After holding his Christmas court hurriedly at Worcester, John went to London and lodged at the Temple, where, on 6 Jan. 1215, the barons who had met at St. Edmunds came to him in arms and demanded certain liberties. Alarmed at their steadfast manner he requested that the matter might stand over until after the first Sunday after Easter (26 April), and as he unwillingly consented that the archbishop, the Bishop of Ely, and William Marshall should bind themselves that he should then give them satisfaction, the barons agreed. In order to strengthen himself, he again published the charter to the church, and offered privileges to the barons, caused an oath of fealty and homage to be taken throughout England, on 4 March took the crusaders' cross at London, and sent word to the pope that a revolt was being plotted. Innocent exhorted him to listen to all just demands, and at the same time wrote to the archbishop forbidding plots against the king. In Easter week the northern lords assembled at Stamford, and a general gathering was held at Brackley in Northamptonshire, on the expiration of the truce. John sent to ask their demands, and they sent him a schedule of them, adding that if he did not grant them they would make war upon him. John indignantly refused, declaring that to grant what they asked would make him a slave. They defied him, chose Robert FitzWalter for their captain, with the title of marshal of the army of God and of holy church, threatened some royal castles, and marched to London. John left the city on the 9th and went to Windsor, and on the 24th the barons were welcomed by the London citizens. Risings against the king's officers broke out in Devonshire and Northamptonshire, the barons besieged the Tower, and the northern party seized Lincoln. Meanwhile John went into Wiltshire, and remained there quietly until the middle of May, and at the end of the month moved to Windsor Castle. During this time he sent abroad for mercenaries, and complained to the pope; his party dwindled rapidly, and fearing lest the barons should become masters of his castles he promised to grant their demands. A conference was arranged for 9 June 1215 and put off to the 15th, when John met the barons at Runnymede, between Staines and Windsor. He was attended by Archbishop Stephen and several bishops, by Pandulf and a few lay nobles. The barons presented their articles, and John set his seal to the Great Charter (Magna Carta) which was framed upon them (Select Charters, pp. 281-98). In the charter the liberties of all classes alike were carefully guarded. His tyranny had set the men of every class against him. Both the Welsh princes and the Scottish king were believed to be on the baronial side; they had suffered from his oppression, and justice was secured for them. The mercenary leaders on whom he relied were to be deprived of the custody of the royal castles, and the bands of foreign soldiers in his pay were to be dismissed. The execution of the charter was entrusted to twenty-five barons, chosen by the baronage, who swore that if he violated it they would restrain him by force of arms. The charter was virtually a treaty between him and his subjects; he granted it 'on the understanding that he was to retain the allegiance of the nation' (Const. Hist. i. 530). Steps were taken to fulfil the provisions, which were to have immediate effect; John ordering that knights should be elected in each shire to inquire into evil customs, and that the mercenaries at Dover should be released; there was also a restoration of castles on both sides.

Meanwhile John was secretly raging, and his wrath being fanned by the taunts of his mercenary captains, he worked himself into a state of fury, gnashing his teeth, and gnawing straws and bits of stick. He plotted how he might get the better of the barons; he sent to the pope and Philip of France to beg their help, fortified his castles and garrisoned them with mercenaries. On 16 Aug. 1215 he refused to appear at a meeting of prelates and lords held at Brackley to complete the general restitution, declaring that since the peace he had been wronged in various ways, and that it was not safe for him to venture in such a gathering. At Brack 
John I King of England (I10786)
250 LLYWELYN ab IORWERTH, called Llywelyn the Great (d. 1240), prince of North Wales, afterwards prince of Wales, was the son of Iorwerth, the only one of the many sons of Owain Gwynedd [q. v.] who had, from the ecclesiastical point of view, any claim to be called legitimate. About 1176 Iorwerth was expelled from Gwynedd by his half-brother, Davydd ab Owain [see Davydd I], who thus became, in name at least, lord of Gwynedd. But Iorwerth and his other brothers continued to molest their successful rival, whose real dominions seldom extended far beyond the vale of Clwyd. Iorwerth, according to the Welsh genealogists, married Marred, daughter of Madog ab Maredudd, prince of Powys, but there is documentary evidence that the mother of Llywelyn was a member of the border family of Corbet (Eyton, Shropshire, vi. 160; Monasticon, vi.497). Eyton says that it was common for Welsh genealogists to suppress English marriages. In any case Llywelyn seems to have been born or brought up in exile, probably in England. He was only twelve years old when his partisans began to molest Davydd ab Owain. Their success proved, to the satisfaction of Giraldus Cambrensis, that Providence was on the side of the legitimate stock in their struggle against the offspring of an incestuous union. As he grew older Llywelyn formed an alliance against Davydd with his uncle Rhodri, lord of Mona and Snowdon and the full brother of Davydd, and also with his cousins, the two sons of Cynan, another brother of Davydd, who reigned jointly in Meirionydd. In 1194 the combined cousins and uncle won a great triumph, expelling Davydd from all his territory except three castles, and soon driving him out altogether, and forcing him to take refuge in England.

The reign of Llywelyn over Gwynedd begins with the flight of Davydd. His chief rival in the earlier years of his principality was Gwenwynwyn [q. v.], who became by his father Owain's death, in 1197, prince of Powys, and who, 'though near to Llywelyn as to kindred, was a foe to him as to deeds' (Brut y Tywysogion, p. 258). Gwenwynwyn now took possession of Arwystli, the region of the upper Severn round about Llanidloes, and took Llywelyn prisoner in the course of the conflict (ib. p. 251), though he does not seem to have kept him long in confinement. But Llywelyn had other enemies among his old allies and kinsfolk of the house of Gwynedd, though over these also he gradually proved victorious. In 1201 he conquered Lleyn, the promontory of the modern Carnarvonshire, driving out the old ruler, his cousin Maredudd ab Cynan, whom he accused of treachery (ib. p. 257). Next year Maredudd also lost Meirionydd. In September 1202 Llywelyn marched with a great host to be revenged on his old enemy Gwenwynwyn. He succeeded in taking Bala Castle; but some of his followers were lukewarm, and the clergy, regular and secular, combined to negotiate a peace. In 1203 the death of Davydd ab Owain in his English exile still further secured Llywelyn's position.

Llywelyn had now laid the foundations of the great power which he was to exercise for the next forty years. It had already become worth while for the English king to secure his alliance. As long as Richard I lived there was generally open war between Llywelyn and the English. But on 11 July 1201 King John made peace with Llywelyn and his nobles, thus abandoning Davydd and his claims. He now sought to make the connection between the Welsh prince and himself closer by the marriage of Llywelyn to Joan, his illegitimate daughter [see Joan, d. 1237]. Already, in 1205, John had conferred on Llywelyn as part of her marriage portion the castle of Ellesmere, the old gift of Henry II to Davydd ab Owain and his wife (Rot. Chart, i. 147). At Ascensiontide 1206 the marriage was celebrated (Worcester Annals, p. 394).

In 1207 John and Llywelyn combined against Gwenwynwyn. While the king seized Gwenwynwyn at Shrewsbury, Llywelyn took possession of all his territory and castles. Thus master of the whole north by his conquest of Powys, Llywelyn now for the first time extended his power into South Wales. Maelgwn ab Rhys,lord of Ceredigion, sought to prevent his advance over the Dyvi, by razing the castles of Aberystwith and Ystradmeurig. This did not stop Llywelyn's advance. He took possession of Aberystwith, and speedily repaired the ruined castle. He conquered all Ceredigion north of the Aeron, retaining Penwedig in his own hands, and giving the rest to his nephews, the sons of Gruffydd ab Rhys. He already bade fair to become prince of all Wales.

The good understanding between Llywelyn and John did not last long. In 1208 John released Gwenwynwyn and restored him to his territories. He also promised to regard Llywelyn as his son, and pardon him all injuries done to Gwenwynwyn (F?dera, i. 102); but the release of his rival was an act of hostility, and war soon broke out between the prince and the king. In 1209 Gwenwynwyn, with the king's help, drove Llywelyn out of Powys. In the autumn of 1209 Ranulph de Blundevill, earl of Chester [q. v.], joined with Geoffrey FitzPeter the justiciar in leading an army against Gwynedd (Dunstaple Annals, p. 32). The earl rebuilt the old outpost of the English power, the castle of Deganwy, which Llywelyn had previously destroyed. He also built a castle at Holywell. But Llywelyn retaliated by cruel devastations of the earl's lands, while all over Wales his partisans successfully maintained themselves against the adherents of the king and the marchers. In 1209 John prepared a great expedition against Llywelyn, but after holding an interview with him dismissed his forces. In 1210 John passed twice through South Wales on his way to and from Ireland, while the Earl of Chester again fought against Llywelyn in the north (Annales Cambriæ, pp. 66-7; Gervase of Canterbury, ii. 106). But nothing was done that diminished Llywelyn's power.

In 1211 John formed a plan of driving Llywelyn out of his dominions. Most of the lesser Welsh chieftains, who were now much afraid of Llywelyn, were active on his side, with Gwenwynwyn of Powys and the sons of Rhys of South Wales at their head. In the spring a great army assembled at Whitchurch, led by the king in person, and marched to Deganwy. Llywelyn was now so hard pressed that he retreated with all his movable property into the fastnesses of Snowdon, abandoning the plain country to the enemy. But the season was too early for such an undertaking. After enduring severe privations from lack of food, John was forced to retire to England about Whitsuntide (Brut y Tywysogion, p. 269, which erroneously dates the campaign in 1210, but whose general accuracy is borne out by Walter de Coventry, Memoriale, ii. 203). Early in August John again appeared in Gwynedd, building castles to maintain a permanent hold over the country. Among these was a castle at Aberconway. John now marched right through Snowdon (Brut y Tywysogion, p. 209; Annales Cambriæ, pp. 67-8; Flores Historiarum, ii. 140; Matthew Parie, Hist. Major, ii. 532; Worcester Annals, p. 399). He captured Bangor and took the bishop prisoner. At the same time the English took possession of Aberystwith in combination with the sons of Rhys. Llywelyn was now forced by his chieftains to sue for peace. He sent his wife Joan to prevail upon her father to give him honourable terms, and having obtained a safe-conduct himself visited the royal camp. Peace was soon arranged, the terms of which are somewhat differently stated by various chroniclers. Llywelyn made large offerings of cattle to his fatherin-law, and delivered up hostages of high rank as securities for his future good behaviour. He also seems to have ceded to John the four cantreds of Perveddwlad (Brut y Tywysogion, pp. 268-9), that is, the district of the Clwyd. The 'Annals of Worcester,' p. 399, say that he surrendered to John all his lands save Snowdon and Anglesey, and a small district beyond Snowdon, probably Lleyn. This may come to very much the same thing as the statement of the Welsh writer. Northern Ceredigion was also recognised as royal domain.

Peace did not last long. In 1212 Gwenwynwyn and Maelgwn ab Rhys settled their differences with Llywelyn, and formed a confederacy to carry out a sudden attack on the English, or, as they are still called by the native chroniclers, the French (Annales Cambriæ, p. 68). A sudden assault was made on the castles built or restored by John in the previous year. Llywelyn captured Aberconway and all the other new castles in Gwynedd except Deganwy and Rhuddlan. The men of Powys seized Ralph Vipont's castle of Mathraval, and drove its owner into England. This second Welsh rising shook the power of king and marcher alike. John, who had been warned of Llywelyn's treachery by his daughter Joan, hanged eight-and-twenty Welsh hostages at Nottingham (Matt. Paris, Hist. Major, ii. 534), though some hostages still remained alive in his hands. He again prepared to invade North Wales. But he now discovered that his own nobles could not be trusted, and, instead of continuing his course towards Chester, hurried back to London. It was in vain that John sought to set up against Llywelyn, Owain ab Davydd ab Owain. The pretender could not secure possession of the three cantreds of Perveddwlad, now granted to him (Rot. Chartarum, p. 188b). His failure left Llywelyn stronger than ever. In the course of the year Llywelyn won back all his previous losses (Margam Annals, p. 32).

Llywelyn skilfully contrived to defend his national liberties at the same time as he acted in concert with the general opposition to John. He posed as the champion of the Roman church against the excommunicated king. Innocent III accordingly absolved Llywelyn and his allies Gwenwynwyn and Maelgwn ab Rhys from the oaths of fealty which they had taken to the English king, and urged them as an earnest of their repentance to wage active war against him. At the same time their dominions in Wales were relieved from the general interdict into which John's whole kingdom had now been plunged for five years (Brut y Tywysogion, p. 273).

As John's distress increased, Llywelyn's success became more decided. In 1213 he captured the castles of Deganwy and Rhuddlan, the last barriers to his complete command of Gwynedd. 'All the good men of England and all the princes of Wales,' says the 'Brut y Tywysogion' (p. 281), 'combined together against the king, so that none of them without the others should enter into peace with the king until he had restored to the churches their laws and privileges, and unto the good men of England and Wales their lands and castles, which he had taken from them without either right or law.' John sought in vain to buy off Llywelyn with promises. At his daughter Joan's entreaty he offered to restore the hostages that still remained in his hands (Foedera, i. 126). He also urged, without result, a meeting between Llywelyn and royal commissioners to settle his grievances (ib. i. 127). While the 'Saxons of the North' marched south upon London, Llywelyn and the Cymry invaded England and sat down before Shrewsbury, which surrendered without striking a blow. Giles de Braose, bishop of Hereford, joined the resources of the great house of which he was the head with those of the Welsh prince. On his death his brother and heir, Reginald de Braose, obtained possession of his estates with Llywelyn's help, and thought it no disparagement to marry Llywelyn's daughter (Dunstaple Annals, p. 52). Llywelyn's allies, the confederate barons, had not forgotten his interests. Clauses for the Welsh prince's advantage were inserted in the 'Articles of the Barons' sent to John in May 1215 from Brackley (Stubbs, Select Charters, p. 294). Their substance was embodied in articles 56-8 of Magna Carta signed by John on 15 June (ib. pp. 303-4). By them John promised to make restitution to all Welshmen unlawfully disseised of lands or liberties, and to restore forthwith the hostages that had survived the Nottingham massacre in 1212. Among these was a son of Llywelyn. Thus the Welsh prince took no inconsiderable share in the great struggle for the charter, and reaped no small advantage from it.

The granting of the charter led to no cessation of hostilities in Wales. A great wave of Welsh revolt followed upon Llywelyn's northern successes. The harassed Welsh chieftains of the south saw in his triumph an opportunity for vengeance against their English lords and neighbours. All over the south they rose in arms. During the summer Maelgwn and his nephews took possession of Dyved, winning over all the Welsh to their side. They then called upon Llywelyn to help them. Winter had now set in, but the season was unusually mild, and Llywelyn, marching with a large army to the south, fought a vigorous campaign all through December. On 8 Dec. Llywelyn appeared before Carmarthen, driving out the 'French' garrison 'not by arms but through their own fears.' In five days the castle was in his hands. He now razed it to the ground. The great castles of the south?Llanstephan, St. Clear's, Newcastle-Emlyn, Aberteivi, Cilgerran, Kidwelly--all fell into his possession. He was triumphant from the borders of the Pembrokeshire palatinate to the frontier of the Earl of Gloucester's lordship of Glamorgan. At last he returned to the north, 'happy and joyful with victory.'

Such a career of Welsh conquest had not been known since the Normans first came into Wales. Llywelyn had become the undoubted leader of the whole Welsh people. He was no longer prince merely of Gwynedd, but prince of all Wales not ruled by the Normans. Early in 1216 Maelgwn and the other south Welsh chieftains, once so hostile to Llywelyn, submitted their conflicting claims to his arbitration. All the 'wise men' of Gwynedd gathered round Llywelyn at Aberdovey, where, in a sort of Welsh parliament of magnates, Dyved, Ceredigion, Ystrad Tywi, and Kidwelly were partitioned among a number of rival princelings. Alarmed at Llywelyn's power, the faithless Gwenwynwyn went over in 1216 to King John, 'treating with contempt his oath to the chieftains of England and Wales and violating his homage to Llywelyn' (Brut y Tywysogion, p. 291). Llywelyn vigorously expostulated with his vassal for breaking his faith, and, finding remonstrance fruitless, invaded his dominions. Gwenwynwyn was soon forced to take refuge in Cheshire, but, despite John's help, could never regain his dominions. Henceforth Llywelyn ruled over Upper Powys. The troubles of the end of John's reign and the civil war that ushered in that of Henry III gave Llywelyn abundant opportunities to consolidate his newly won power. When in 1217 his ally Reginald de Braose reconciled himself with the partisans of the young king, the Welsh subjects of the house of Braose rebelled and Llywelyn came to their help and attacked Brecon. Llywelyn forced Reginald to make his submission and then led his army over the mountains to Gower, whence he marched against the 'Flemings of Dyved,' the subjects of William Marshal, earl of Pembroke and regent of England. Llywelyn now blockaded Haverfordwest, but peace was arranged through the Bishop of St. Davids, and Llywelyn withdrew to Gwynedd with twenty of the noblest hostages of Rhos and Pembroke (ib. p. 302). In 1218 Carmarthen and Aberteivi (Cardigan) were put under the custody of Llywelyn (ib. p. 303).

After the withdrawal of Louis of France, the regent Pembroke demanded that Llywelyn should perform the homage due to the young king. In March 1218 Llywelyn and his principal nobles appeared under safe-conducts at Worcester and duly submitted themselves to their overlord (F?dera, i. 150). Llywelyn was ordered to restore the lands of some of the king's servants, and in return was put in possession of his English estates (ib. i. 151). In 1219 there were many councils between Llywelyn and some of the English barons, but Llywelyn's cunning, says the English annalist, always saved him (Flor. Hist. ii. 170). On 4 May 1220 he held another interview with the young king at Shrewsbury, where his son Davydd [see Davydd II] was taken under the protection of his royal uncle (Foedera, i. 159). But there were disputes as to the extent of the royal rights over Melenydd, which Llywelyn was forced to surrender, and no good result sprang from the conference (Royal Letters, i. 113, 122: cf. Eyton, Shropshire, iv. 213). In the summer of the same year a private war of unusual magnitude and importance broke out between Llywelyn and the younger William Marshal, earl of Pembroke since his father's death in 1219. Llywelyn cunningly prepared for this by getting help from the king in order to put down some rebels against the royal authority in the south. In August he suddenly burst into Pembrokeshire, capturing three castles and cruelly devastating the whole province, his pretext being the marshal's refusal to redeem the captives of a former raid. An auxiliary force came over from the marshal's Irish estates and was totally destroyed by Llywelyn. It was believed that the losses of the marshal and his men exceeded the amount of King Richard's ransom (Dunstaple Annals, p. 61; cf. Brut y Tywysogion, p. 307, and Royal Letters, i. 141-3, 145). Unable to defend themselves, the vassals of the earl were forced to make terms with the invader. The king, who indignantly repudiated all participation in Llywelyn's raid, urged in vain upon the prince to make reparation for the injuries that he had inflicted (Foedera, i. 164). He was more successful in urging on Llywelyn to prolong the truce he had made with the Earl of Pembroke (ib. i. 166). Next year Llewelyn was occupied in a quarrel with his eldest son Gruffydd, born of a Welsh mother, who resented the favour shown to his legitimate half-brother Davydd, the grandson of King John. The men of Meirionydd, over which Gruffydd bore sway, grievously insulted Llywelyn, who now marched against them with an army. The intervention of 'the wise on both sides' prevented bloodshed. Gruffydd sulkily submitted to Llywelyn, who took away from him his dominions of Meirionydd and Ardudwy.

In the summer of 1221 Rhys the Hoarse of South Wales fell away from Llywelyn and attached himself to William Marshal. This again brought Llywelyn south of the Dovey. He took possession of Aberystwith and added it to his own domains (Brut y Tywysogion, p. 309), and afterwards fought against Rhys on Carmarthen bridge, where he gained the victory. He now stripped Rhys of Kidwelly, Gower, and his other southern possessions, and forced him to do homage and hand over hostages to him. Llywelyn then proceeded against Pembrokeshire, where this time he effected very little (Royal Letters, i. 176-7). In the autumn the restless prince had a fresh war on his hands. He attacked his old ally and son-in-law, Reginald de Braose, and laid siege to his castle of Builth. A royal army, accompanied by the young king in person, marched to its relief. The Welsh fled on its approach, and Henry marched as far as Montgomery, where he rebuilt or strengthened the castle (Matt. Paris, Hist. Major, iii. 64). In 1223 war raged more fiercely than ever in Pembrokeshire. In Passion week William Marshal came back from Ireland. Many magnates sent him help. He had now won back the castles that Llywelyn had captured, and retaliated by a destructive foray into Llywelyn's territories, where he won a pitched battle, slaying, it was believed, nine thousand men (ib. iii. 76).

The close understanding between Llywelyn and the discontented barons made the Welsh prince's activity the more dangerous. Hugh de Lacy was his active ally; Falkes de Breauté took refuge in his territory. The Earl of Chester was now his well-wisher, So formidable was he that after the failure of an attempt to persuade him to hold an interview with the king at Worcester, where on 19 Sept. Joan went to meet her brother, summonses were issued to the feudal levies to meet for a Welsh expedition at Gloucester (F?dera, i. 170). Llywelyn at the time was again besieging Builth, and had recently destroyed two border castles in North Wales belonging to Fulk Fitzwarine (Dunstaple Annals, p. 82). He was excommunicated by the Archbishop of Canterbury (ib. p. 83), and in October his lands were, by command of Pope Honorius III, put under interdict (Royal Letters, i. 212). As usual he gave way before the king's advance. By the mediation of the Earl of Chester a peace was patched up, on the conditions that Montgomery was to go to the king, the marshal to retain his original territories, and Llywelyn to repair and restore Fitzwarine's castles (Dunstaple Annals, p. 83). Llywelyn and William Marshal both appeared before the king's council at Ludlow, but could not be reconciled (Brut y Tywysogion, p. 315). Yet for the next few years there was comparative tranquillity. There was constant talk about a fresh interview between Llywelyn and Henry, but it was postponed from time to time (Foedera, i. 172, 178). It was not until the summer of 1226 that Henry saw his sister, her fierce husband, and their son Davydd at Shrewsbury (ib. i. 182). In the meantime constant diplomatic disputes had gone on. When reproached for having received the outlawed Falkes de Breauté, Llywelyn proudly answered: 'We do not possess less franchises than the king of Scots, who freely receives English outlaws' (Royal Letters, i. 229). Short truces were from time to time arranged (ib. i. 233-4). William Marshal continued his feuds. When in 1225 he received Eleanor, the king's sister, in marriage, one of the reasons given was the need of rewarding his success in capturing Llywelyn's castles (ib. i. 241). It was not until 1226 that Llywelyn and William made a final peace.
In 1228 Llywelyn again went to war against the English, and besieged Montgomery Castle, then belonging to the justiciar, Hubert de Burgh [q. v.] The king and justiciar marched to relieve the siege, whereupon Llywelyn withdrew. The English marched as far as Kerry, in the modern Montgomeryshire, where they burnt the abbey, on the ground that the Cistercian monks who lived in it were too friendly to the Welsh. In its place Henry and Hubert began to build a castle. Llywelyn, however, assembled his troops afresh on the other side of a forest, and vigorously assaulted the castle builders. William de Braose, son and heir of Reginald, was captured in the fight. At last the English suflered so much from lack of food, and so many of the English lords were secretly in relation with the prince, that the king and justiciar were forced to accept a peace. Llywelyn gave Henry three thousand marks (Matt. Paris, iii. 158; the Dunstaple Annals as printed by Dr. Luard read 'mille vaccas,' p. 110) for his expenses, and allowed Kerry to go to its lawful heir. The unfinished castle, called 'Hubert's Folly,' was a strong witness of the virtual triumph of the Welsh prince, despite the barren renewal of the homage of his chieftains to Henry (Brut y Tywysogion, p. 317). Davydd now went to London with his sister and performed homage.

William de Braose remained a captive in Llywelyn's hands. In 1229 he purchased his freedom with three thousand marks, the promise of his daughter Isabella in marriage to Davydd ab Llywelyn, with Builth as her wedding portion, and an engagement not to fight against Llywelyn for the future (Dunstaple Annals, p. 117). But during his captivity William had won the love of Llywelyn's wife Joan. Partly to be avenged on the adulterer, partly to wreak revenge for old wrongs, Llywelyn's men seized William in his own house at Easter in 1230 (Annals of Margam, p. 38). They brought him to Llywelyn, who on 2 May hanged him openly and in the presence of many witnesses at Crokeen (Matt. Paris, iii. 194; Brut y Tywysogion, p. 319; Royal Letters, i. 366). The details of the story vary considerably, but there seems no substantial reason for setting aside the plain testimony of independent Welsh and English chroniclers (cf., however, Joan, d. 1237; Royal Letters, i. 366-8, is plainly misdated). Builth remained in Llywelyn's hands, and became a source of new disputes (ib. ii. 37), as Henry now granted it to his brother Richard of Cornwall (Tewkesbury Annals, p. 88). In 1231 Llywelyn renewed his ravages on a greater scale. He marched south through Montgomery and Brecon, burning the towns and razing the castles in his path. From Brecon he proceeded southwards into Gwent, the modern Monmouthshire, a region too remote to have hitherto suffered from his ravages. He reduced Caerleon to ashes, but failed to take the castle, and many of his men were drowned in the Usk (Margam Annals, p. 39). He thence marched westwards over the mountains, thus nearly avoiding the Earl of Gloucester's lordship of Glamorgan. He destroyed the castles of Neath and Kidwelly, exacted sixty marks of silver from the monks of Margam, and assaulted in vain the little borough of Kenvig. The English heard with horror how he had burnt down churches full of women, and perpetrated all kinds of atrocities (Matt. Paris, iii. 201-2). On 20 June 1231 the king summoned a council and army at Oxford (ib. iii. 203; Royal Letters, i. 400). Llywelyn was again excommunicated, and his lands placed under an interdict, which was confirmed by the pope (ib. p. 202; Osney Annals, p.72; Worcester Annals, p. 422). Troops were also got ready in Ireland, and all exports from Ireland to Wales forbidden (Royal Letters, i. 402). But no serious injury was done Llywelyn in this campaign. A monk of Cwmhir tempted the English garrison of Montgomery into an ambush. Henry marched to Cwmhir, and exacted a fine of three hundred marks. His chief exploit was to rebuild Maud's Castle with stone. A three years' truce was patched up in December, and the sentence of excommunication suspended {Dumtaple Annals,p. 127). The negotiations for Davydd's marriage with Isabella de Braose were now resumed (Foedera, i. 208). But nothing was concluded, and in 1232 Llywelyn renewed his ravages in the lands of the house of Braose. Richard of Cornwall manfully defended his new possessions, but when Peter des Roches urged upon Henry to make a new expedition, the king pleaded his poverty (Matt. Paris, iii. 219). Llywelyn's successes are therefore easy to understand. When, however, Hubert de Burgh fell, the charges against him included complicity in the death of William de Braose, and stealing from the royal treasury and sending over to Llywelyn a gem that made the wearer invincible. To such shifts were Llywelyn's opponents now reduced.
The revolt of Richard Marshal, earl of Pembroke [q. v.], from Henry III gave Llywelyn a new excuse for his depredations. He actively joined the brother and successor of his old foe in war against the king. His followers and vassals in South Wales had a large share in the exploits of the army with which Richard defeated Henry at Grosmont, near Monmouth, in 1233. At the same time Llywelyn himself was for three months engaged in the siege of the king's castle at Carmarthen (Brut y Tywysogion). But a fleet sailed up the Towy and raised the siege, whereupon Llywelyn went back to his own country. In March 1234 a new truce was arranged (Royal Letters, i. 525), and the death of Earl Richard in Ireland soon brought about a more general cessation of hostilities. In the same year Llywelyn released his first born, Gruffydd, from his six years' confinement.

The active career of Llywelyn was approaching its close. In 1236 fear of him was still strong enough to induce Gilbert Marshal to restore a castle that he had taken from a lesser Welsh chieftain (Brut y Tywysogion, p. 325), and Alexander, king of Scots, trusted to the aid of Llywelyn in his attempt to acquire Northumberland (Matt. Paris, iii. 372). In February 1237 the Princess Joan died at Aber. In the same year Llywelyn made his final submission to Henry, promising to be faithful to him and to serve him in his wars (ib. iii. 385). Llywelyn, already an old man, was now smitten with partial paralysis, and suffered severely from the renewed hostility of his unruly son, Gruffydd. The English feared that Llywelyn's new zeal for their alliance might conceal some new treachery, but Llywelyn was at last sincere in his professions. His great desire was to secure the succession of Davydd, his son by Joan, to the whole of his dominions and power. He realised that the best way of securing this was by interesting King Henry in his nephew's welfare. But he did not neglect to conciliate the goodwill of his own subjects. On 19 Oct. 1238 he gathered together all the princes and barons of Wales at the Cistercian abbey of Strata Florida in Ceredigion (Brut y Tywysogion, p. 327). There they all swore oaths of fealty to Davydd as his successor. As Gruffydd still resisted, he was deprived of all his lands but the cantred of Lleyn. In his new-born zeal for peace Llywelyn deprived one of his chieftains of his lands for murdering his brother. Davydd now became through his father's infirmities practical ruler of Wales, and in 1239 sought to promote his own succession by imprisoning his brother at Criccieth. Llywelyn took upon himself the habit of religion among the Cistercians of Aberconway. There he died on 11 April 1240, and there he was buried. 'I am unworthy,' wrote the Latin annalist of Wales, 'to narrate the mighty deeds of this second Achilles. He dominated his enemies with sword and shield. He kept good peace for the monks, providing food and clothing to those who made themselves poor for Christ's sake. By his wars he enlarged the boundaries of his dominions. He gave good justice to all men, and attracted all men to his service' (Annales Cambriæ;, pp. 82-3). He was certainly the greatest of the native rulers of Wales, and the title of 'Llywelyn the Great' was recognised in the official documents of Edward I (Monasticon, vi. 200). If other Welsh kings were equally warlike, the son of Iorwerth was by far the most politic of them. He even seems to have kept up some sort of a standing force of soldiers (Stephens, Literature of the Kymry, p. 327). While never forgetting his position as champion of the Welsh race, he used with consummate skill the differences and rivalries of the English. He treated as an equal with the Earls of Pembroke and Chester, and even with the king of Scots. Under him the Welsh race, tongue, and traditions began a new lease of life.

Llywelyn was celebrated for his liberality (Giraldus Cambrensis, Opera, iii. 200), especially to churchmen. He granted charters to the house of black canons at Beddgelert (Monasticon, vi. 200). In his old age he founded the convent of Franciscan friars at Llanvaes in Anglesey, where his wife Joan was buried (ib. vi. 1545; Brut y Tywysogion, p. 327). But his chief church work was the establishment of the famous Cistercian abbey of Aberconway. In a charter of confirmation, dated the tenth year of his principality, he marked out very carefully the limits of the large estate with which he endowed the abbey, and indicated the extensive franchises bestowed on the monks. Among the bitter was the curious privilege that the monastery was not answerable for moneys borrowed by the monks unless their borrowing had the consent of the abbot (Monasticon, vi. 671-4). The date generally given for the foundation is 1186, but this is too early for Llywelyn to have had much to do with it. However, in that year the Cistercians of Strata Florida in Ceredigion seem to have sent out a daughter house to Rhedynog Velen in Gwynedd (Brut y Tywysogion, p. 233). This may have been taken under the care and patronage of Llywelyn a few years later. In 1200 the abbey was in full working order(ib.p.255). Another proof of Llywelyn's zeal for the church was his early patronage of Giraldus Cambrensis in his efforts to make himself bishop of St. Davids and shake off the allegiance of the Welsh church to Canterbury (Giraldus, Opera, iii. 197, 200, 209, 244).

Llywelyn was an equally bountiful patron of the native bards, who returned his favour by warmly singing his praises, and whose work in kindling anew the spirit of Welsh nationality was made possible by the victories of their hero. Cynddelw, who died in 1200, celebrated Llywelyn's earlier victories. Llywarch ab Llywelyn, Davydd Benvras, Einiawn ab Gwrgawn, Einiawn ab Gwnlchmai, Einiawn Wan, Gwrgawn, Elidyr Sais, and Llywelyn Vardd addressed odes and other poems to him, or celebrated his virtues after his death (Myvyrian Archaiology of Wales, pp. 175, 189, 210-17, 217-19, 225, 230, 234-5, 240, 247, ed. 1870). Elegies on him were composed by Davydd Benvras and Einiawn Wan (ib. pp. 219, 233).

Llywelyn's family play a considerable part in his history. His success in marrying them to English nobles of the first rank attests both his social and political importance. His eldest son, Gruffydd [see Gruffydd ab Llewelyn, d. 1244], was born of a Welsh concubine. By the same lady Llywelyn had a daughter, who married William de Lacy and played some small part in Irish history (Royal Letters, i. 502). Llywelyn's children by Joan include his son and successor, Davydd [see Davydd II], and probably Helen, who married John the Scot, the last of the old line of the Earls of Chester. Helen was suspected of having poisoned her husband (Matt. Paris, Hist. Major, iii. 394). This was in 1237. Very soon afterwards she married Robert de Quincy, an act which excited her father's indignation (Dunstaple Annals, p. 147). Llywelyn had two other daughters, by what mother does not seem clear. One of these, Gladys, called Ddu or the Dark, married first Reginald de Braose, by whom she had no children; William de Braose, the object of Llywelyn's jealousy, being Reginald's son by another wife. After Reginalds death in 1228, Gladys married Ralph Mortimer, fifth lord of Wigmore, by whom she was the mother of Roger, the sixth lord [see Mortimer, Roger, d. 1282]. Through his marriage the house of Mortimer became after 1283 the legitimate representatives of the old line of Gwynedd. Gladys died in 1251. Margaret, the remaining daughter of Llywelyn, married first John de Braose of Brember, and after his death Walter de Clifford (Eyton, Shropshire, v. 147, 161, 183; Brut y Tywysogion, p. 304). No trust can be placed in the statement in the romance of Fulk Fitzwarine [q. v.] that after Joan's death Llywelyn married Eva Fitzwarine (cf., however, Eyton, viii. 87). The marriage connections of Llywelyn's family with the great houses of the west and with bastard branches of the royal house are among the best indications of his power and importance.

[Brut y Tywysogion (Rolls Ser.), a better Welsh text is given in the new edition of Rhys and J. G. Evans; Annales Cambriæ; Matthew Puris's Historia Major, Annales Monastici, Royal Letters, Flores Historiarum, Walter of Coventry, Giraldus Cambrensis, all in Rolls Ser.; Rymer's F?dera, Record edition; Dugdale's Monasticon, ed. Ellis, Caley, and Bandinel; Eyton's Shropshire; Myvyrian Archaiology; Stephons's Literature of the Kymry.]

T. F. T.
ap Iorwerth, Llywelyn Fawr Prince of Gwynedd (I11086)

      «Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 45» Next»