« ZurückWeiter »
declared him Guilty of perjury, and that for the future they were not to obey a perjured Archbishop. And therefore put themselves, and what was theirs, under the Pope's protection, and appealed to his presence, and appointed him a day to answer these matters.
carrying the Cross himself erected, expecting | the king's coming: The Bishops dissuaded this, as an undecent posture, and would not that he should have proceded after this manner. The king took notice of it, and by Out-Crie or Proclamation made by an Herald, called together all the Bishops and great men, to whom he made a great and grievous complaint, that the Archbishop had in reproach of himself, and the kingdom or government, so entered the Court as a notable Traitor, and so insolently, as no Christian prince had ever seen or heard of the like behaviour. All were of the king's opinion, declaring him always a vain and proud man, and that such ignominy not only reflected upon the king and kingdom, but upon themselves also, and said it had worthily happened to him, who had made such a man the second person in the kingdom; to whom all were subject and none his equal. Therefore they all declared him a manifest Traitor, and to be punished accordingly, who had not according to his Oath observed terrene honor toward his prince, from whom he had received so many and so great advantages, but rather in this fact, had impressed upon the king and kingdom, a perpetual mark of Treason, sed potius in hoc facto, & Regi & Regno perpetuam proditionis Maculam impressisset, (they are the Author's words) and therefore he ought to be punished as the king's perjured man, and Traitor, and this was the voice of them all, & propterea in eum tanquam in Regis perjurum, & proditorem animadvertendum, & super hoc clamor omnium invalescebat.
"The king and chief men, (without the Bishops) sitting in Judgment, Rege cum principibus (pontificibus substractis) sedente pro Tribunali, it was most certainly believed, the Archbishop would have been imprisoned, or somewhat worse bave been done to him; for the king and all the great men that were present, judged him perjured and a traitor. And the Earls and Barons and much company went. from the king to the Archbishop, of whom the chiefest person, Robert earl of Leicester, told him, he was to come and answer what was objected against him, as he had promised to do the day before, or he must bear his Sentence; he rising up said, 'Sentence! yea son Earl, hear you, when the Church of Canterbury was given to me, I asked what manner of person that would make me, and it was answered free and exempt from the King's Court. Et responsum est, liberum & quictum ab omni nexu Curiali me redderet. Free therefore and absolute as I am, I will not, nor am I bound to answer to those things from which I am exempt.' And then added, My son Earl, observe, by how much the soul is more worthy than the body, by so much the more I am to obey God than a terrene prince. But neither law nor reason, permits that children or sons should condenin or judge their fathers, and therefore I decline the sentence of the king, yourself, and others, as being to be judged under God alone, by the Pope.' Unde Regis et tuum et aliorum Judicium declino, sub Deo solo a Domino Papa judicandus. To whose presence I do, before you all, appeal, putting both the dignity and order of the Church of Canterbury, and my own, with all things belonging unto them, under God's protection and his. Nevertheless you my Brethren and fellow-Bishops, because you obey man rather than God, I call you to the Audience and Judgment of the Pope; and as from the enemies of the Catholic Church, by authority of the Apostolic See, I retire from hence.--And so made his Escape, as hath been before related."
"The Bishops, by leave from the king, consulted apart, for they were either to incur his indignation, or with the great men, in a Criminal Cause, to condemn their Archbishop, which for the manifest violation of holy Sanctions or Canons, they dare not do. At length the matter was thus patch'd up by common council or contrivance of the Bishops; That they would appeal the Archbishop of perjury in the court of Rome, and bound themselves to the king in the word of truth, That they would use their utmost endeavour to depose him. Having thus obliged themselves to the king, they all went from him to the Archbishop, and Hilary bishop of Chichester, in the name, of the rest, told him, That he had been their Archbishop, and then they were bound to obey him. But because he had sworn fealty to the king, and did endeavour to destroy his laws and customs, especially such as belonged to his terrene dignity and honor, therefore they
The severe and lasting evils to the King, the Archbishop, and the English nation, which followed these transactions, are circumstantially related in lord Lyttleton's History of the Reign of Henry 2.
2. Articles of Accusation against HUBERT DE BURGH, with the Answers of Master Laurence, clerk, of St. Albans, on behalf of Hubert de Burgh, earl of Kent, against whom our Lord the King had advanced certain very heavy Charges. 23 Hen. III. A. D. 1239. [Matth. Paris's Hist. 516, and Additamenta, 151. 1 Brady, Appendix, No. 152.]
[Here seems to be some omission.] As to this, the Earl answers, that he appeared on each of the days assigned to him by his lord the king, and in no respect sought delay; but always observed the day appointed unto him by the will of our lord the king. Whereby it appears to him, all the days assigned to him for appearance, after his being at Kenentone, should be taken as to his case to be as one day. And he is still ready to submit to the judgment of his peers, that neither he, nor any one on his behalf, ever interfered concerning the said marriage, after the oath which he made at Gloster, that he would not interfere in the same; nor doth he know, nor hath he ever known, any thing about the said marriage, other than by the mere information of the Countess, his wife, who informed him, that the said marriage was contracted at St. Edmund's, while the earl was at Mertone. And if this shall not be sufficient he will make further answer; and he is ready to do berein whatever his peers shall think fit.
1. The first Article is, “That his lord the king requires of him, An account of all the revenue of the kingdom, for the 14 years next following the death of king John, his father, from which time he took upon him the keeping
WHEREAS, a day had been assigned to Hubert de Burgh, earl of Kent, on the eighth day after the day of St. John the Baptist, in the 23rd year of his majesty's reign, to answer to our lord the king, what amends he should make to him for not having delivered him the money received for the marriage of Richard de Clare, on the day by the said lord the king to him given, according to the Agreement between them made, or according to the judg-profits of the realm; to wit, the treasurer ment of his peers. And that our lord the king and chamberlains, wherefore, after the death had required of him, that he should pay to him of Eustace de Faucumberg, bishop of London, and treasurer, it was required, that his the said amends; and he had not done the same. Account should be answered to, and it was The underwritten trespasses, together with Afterwards, an account of the those aforesaid, were, on the behalf of our lord answered to. whole profits of the realm was required from the king, laid before him that he might make the bishop of Carlisle, as being receiver-geneAnswer thereunto. To which the said earl made answer, That, as to these matters, no day ral, and he accordingly sat down and gave the had been given to him. And farthermore he said Account.-Afterwards, an Account was added that, on any reasonable day to be fixed, required from Peter de Rivallis; but from he would give satisfaction to his lord the king, the Justiciar an Account should never be reor would abide by the judgment of his peers quired, because he is not the receiver of the concerning the premises. And he prayed that profits of the realm. Whereby it appears, that he who receives nothing, is in nothing held the lord the king would set forth before him, in answerable. And he says, that the lord king writing, the several Articles to which he is reJohn committed to him the office of Justiciar quired to make Answer. at Runnengemede, in presence of the lord Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, earl of Warren, earl de Ferrars, and other great men of the nation; and he continued Justiciar throughout the whole time of king John. But it happened, that the castle of Dover, at the time of the invasion of king Louis, was esteemed to be untenable. Into this castle he entered, when few were found who were willing so to do, unless he would place his own person there; and, during the continuance of that war, he was unable to leave that castle, or to execute the office of Justiciar.-But, king John dying in time of war, Marshall was appointed governor of the king, and of the kingdom, by the advice of Gwalla, then legate, and of the great men of the kingdom, who, at that time, were with our lord the king. And after the return of peace, the said Marshall remained governor of the king and kingdom, and the said Hubert Justiciar, without any opposition. And after the death of Marshall, by the advice of Gwalla, then legate, of Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, of the bishops and great men of the land, he continued Justiciar without any opposition; and our lord the Pope always wrote to him as Justiciar, and so he was always esteemed by the church, and by the kingdom, as Justiciar con
and management of the same, without any authority from his father the lord John the king, and without the assent of the lord Gwalla, then legate, who, by the common consent and provision of the whole realm, after the death of the Marshall, was first counsellor and chief administrator of the whole realm of England."-To this he made Answer, That certain persons were deputed to answer concerning the
stituted by John the lord the king. And so it plainly appears, that he did not take the office of Justiciar but by the commission of his lord king John, and the assent of lord Gwalla; and if this be not sufficient, he will make farther Answer; and upon this he is ready to do what his peers shall adjudge; and moreover, if he ought to make Answer, he has the charter of our lord the king, absolving him from the premises, which he proffers, and which was made in the 15th year of the reign of king Henry.
2. "Concerning the collection of a whole Fifteenth, which, according to the great council of the whole kingdom, ought to have been kept and held in deposit, and so that no part of it should have been taken until the arrival at age of our lord the king, unless under the inspection of six bishops and six earls specially appointed for the purpose; nor so but for the defence of the kingdom; the amount of which was about 89,000 marks of silver."-Answer. The lords bishops of Salisbury and Bath received the said money by direction of the great council of the kingdom, and gave in their account concerning the same, and were discharged therefrom by the letters of our lord the king. By which it doth not appear that he ought to answer at all as to this matter, since other persons have been acquitted for the same, as appears by the rolls of the exchequer and by the letters patent of our lord the king, which are in the treasury; and therefore, as he has received no part of the said money, he is not bound to answer concerning the same; and if this, &c. and upon, &c. and moreover, he has the charter of our lord the king, which &c.
3. "Concerning the territory in Poitou, of which king John died seised, and of which our lord the king, that now is, had seisin, when the said earl took upon him the custody of the realm; to wit, the territory of Rochelle, Niort, and St. John, who, when he ought, for the rescue of those territories, to have sent treasure and corn, sent barrels filled with stones and sand, so that when the barons and great men of our lord the king, and the burgesses, perceived that default, they abandoned the homage and service of our lord the king, and turned themselves to the enemies of our lord the king, by means whereof our lord the king lost Poitou."-Answer. He never sent such barrels as are spoken of, and this he will maintain in any manner that his peers shall adjudge; but by the advice of the great men of England there were sent to the defence of Rochelle upwards of one hundred knights, and very many attendants, who were there with our lord the king, until the citizens and people of that land revolted from the homage of our lord the king, so that Rochelle was not lost by his negligence, or the negligence of the soldiers there being, because, against their will, the citizens delivered up the territory to the king of the French. And this manifestly appears, because, though the knights of our lord the king were in the town, the citizens removed them from their
council, and made peace, without the soldiers, upon condition that the soldiers should be at liberty to retire with safety to their persons and with their harness. Moreover, Rochelle was lost through the excesses of Falco, (Falcasius de Breaut,) which Falco and his people rose against our lord the king while Rochelle was besieged; which Falco also, by his brother William, caused Henry of Braybroc, Justiciar in eyre of our lord the king, to be seized; on account of whose seizure and other unjust doings of the said Falco, it became necessary that the king and nobles should besiege the castle of Bedford (according to Brady, Bereford) by the advice of the archbishops, bishops, and nobles of the land, which bishops also there excommunicated Falco, whereby the guilt of the said Falco manifestly appears; otherwise they would not have excommunicated him. And if Falco had escaped with impunity, and the castle had not been taken, the kingdom would have been more disturbed than it was; and if, &c. and upon, &c.
4. "That while our lord the king was under age, and it was necessary to succour Poitou, and the king's army should have gone to Poitou, the earl caused the castle of Bedford to be besieged, where our lord the king and his great men of England expended a very large quantity of money before it was taken. And when it was taken, he caused it to be pulled down and given to William de Beauchamp, from whom our lord king John had taken that castle in war, and whereof the said king John was seised when he died."-Answer. The said castle was not besieged by him only, but by the direction of the great council of the kingdom, and by reason of the misconduct of Falco and his adherents, because he caused Henry de Braybroc, the Justiciar of our lord the king, to be seized by William de Breaute, his brother. By reason whereof our lord the king sent his letters often and again to the said Falco for the release of his Justiciar, and his brother would not do any thing in obedience to these letters. The king also sent his letters to William de Breaute, who answered, that be would not restore the said Henry without his brother, and that his brother would well avow what he did. Wherefore the lord the king, having holden a council with his great men, proceeded as far as Bedford, and sent Peter Fitz-Herbert, and Alan Basset, to those who were in the castle, desiring that they would deliver Henry de Braybroc, his Justiciar, whom they kept imprisoned, and that they would come to make amends for the offence in the caption of the said Justiciar of the lord the king; and they answered, that they would do nothing for the lord the king, and that they would detain the said Henry, and would seize more if they could; wherefore, by the advice of the great men of England, the castle was besieged, taken, and destroyed. And, being destroyed, the site of the castle was given to William de Beauchamp by the advice of the great men of England for this reason, that in the treaty of peace, made be
tween the lord the king and the lord Louis and barons, it was agreed, that each should hold the same possessions which he had at the beginning of the war; and the lord Gwalla the legate, the archbishop and bishops, excommunicated all who should violate that treaty of peace; and because the said William had always claimed from the said Falco the said castle as his right, but could not obtain the same, until it was taken by the lord the king; the same lord the king, on account of the treaty of peace which had been made, and through fear of the sentence which had been pronounced, restored to him the scite of the castle to be held in the same manner as his ancestors had held it, as appears in the Rolls of the lord the king; and the said William gave of his property to the lord the king, that he might have such seisin; and if this, &c. and upon this, &c.
5. "That he had sent messengers to Rome, and before the lord the king was of full age, had obtained that he should be of full age, as if this had been for the advantage of the lord the king, and by authority of this bis age, had caused to be granted, by charter to himself, lands which had been of Henry de Essex, and many other lands, dignities, and franchises, of which, by his own authority, he took possession after the death of king John, and of which the said king John died seised, as he also caused to be given and confirmed to religious persons, ecclesiastics and others, many lands and franchises and other things, to the lessening and great detriment of the dignity of the lord the king and his crown."-Answer. He did not send messengers to Rome, but the bishop of Winchester sent to Rome William de St. Albans for the said business, more to the damage of the said Hubert than to his advantage, that he and others might render up their charges, and so it was done at Northampton. Afterwards, by the common advice of the archbishops and bishops, it was provided, that the king should have a seal, and that writs should run in his name, that so he might be of more awe and greater authority in the kingdom. Afterwards, licence of his age was obtained at the suggestion of the archbishops, bishops, earls, and barons, from pope Honorius, for they suggested to the pope, that his prudence and discretion supplied his age, as is contained in the permission of pope Honorius, which begins thus: "Although, to this time, the youth of our most dear son in Christ, Henry, the illustrious king of England, is computed by his years, yet, because, as we have heard and rejoice at, he has acquired a manly mind, and because his prudence exceeds his age, so that he seems to make up in the virtue of discretion what he wants in number of years; from this time he is not to be forbidden to make useful dispositions concerning his kingdom, and the affairs of his kingdom; and, therefore, we command by this apostolic writing, as with our venerable brother, the bishop of Winchester, and the noble persons, the Justiciar of England and William
de Bruwera, we give in command by our letters, that henceforward they commit to him the full and quiet government of his kingdom;" and to the earl of Chester he wrote in this manner: "By this apostolic writing we order and command, that now you commit to him the government of his kingdom, and, without any difficulty, resign to him, and procure to be resigned by others, the lands and castles which you hold in the name of guardianship." In the same words he wrote to the bishop of Winchester: but to the chancellor he wrote thus: "By this apostolic writing we command, for as much as you have the seal of the said king, and the custody thereof, that from henceforward you will use the same according to his good pleasure, and with respect to it, only follow and obey him; and for the future cause no letters to be sealed with the royal seal, but according to his will." As to the land of Henry de Essex, he says, that the lord the king of his grace, when he was of full age, and after the chancellor, by the direction of the lord the Pope, obeyed him, only gave him, by charter, that land, and also restored him the land as his right after he came to his peace; and if this, &c. and upon this, &c.
6. "That whereas the lord William, king of Scotland, formerly delivered to the lord king John his two daughters, the elder (a) of whom was to be married to the lord the king, or to carl Richard, if the lord the king should die; and for which marriage the same king Williami released king John all his right which he had in the lands of Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Northumberland; and besides, gave to him 15,000 marks in silver; he, before the lord the king was of such age as to be able to determine whether he would take her to wife or not, married her; so that, when the lord the king came of age, he was obliged to give the king of Scotland who now is, 800 oxgangs of land for the release of the lands aforesaid, because the first agreement had not been observed, and thus, notwithstanding he had before married the countess of Gloster, who had formerly been betrothed to the lord king John while he was earl, and whom king John had committed to his custody, and whose marriage he had formerly sold to G. de Mandeville tor 20,000 marks, whereby each of them was connected in a certain degree of consanguinity.'-Answer. He never knew of the agreement entered into by the two kings; to wit, about the marriage to be had with the lord the king, or
(a) Matthew Paris says, that at the time of Hubert's former disgrace, in 1232, the king had accused him, among other things, of debauching the daughter of the king of Scots, (whom king John had delivered into his custody with the design of marrying her,) and of traiterously cohabiting with her and having children by her in fornication, and of marry ing her in the hope of succeeding to the kingdom of Scotland if he should survive her bra ther.
earl Richard; but that she ought to be disposed of in marriage by the lord the king, with the advice of his great men; and that she was disposed of in marriage by their advice, appears as well by the letters of the lord Pandulph, then legate of England, as by the letters of the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops, earls, and barons. Nor could the agreement, if it were made, binder this, because, when she was married, the king was of such age that he could have contracted marriage with her or with another if he would. About the consanguinity between the countess of Gloster, and the daughter of the king of Scotland, he knows nothing. About the 800 oxgangs of land, offered to the king of Scotland, nothing was done by the earl of Kent as to the countess of Gloster; he says, that she was not in the custody of Hubert, but was mistress of herself, and had a right to marry herself to whom she would, after the death of G. de Mandeville, since the lord king John had before sold the marriage of the said countess to the said G. and if this, &c. and upon this, &c.
7. "Whereas the lord the pope commanded that, on account of the said relationship, a divorce should be made between him and the countess, his wife, whom he now hath; he caused all the corn in the ear, belonging to the Romans, to be threshed out by those who were called Lewytheil. In consequence whereof, a general sentence of excommunication was passed against all those offenders, and those who favoured them; and this he did while he was Justiciar and bound to keep the peace, and so that by these means the peace continues disturbed to this time."-Answer. He knows nothing of it, because the thing was not done by him, which plainly appears, because the lord the pope caused an inquisition to be made into this matter by the bishop of Winchester and the abbot of St. Edmund's. And the inquisition made was transmitted to the pope, by which inquisition it plainly appeared that he was not in fault, because, if he had been, the pope would have punished him, which he did not; and if, &c. and upon this, &c.
8. "Whereas he had placed himself in the prison of the lord the king, and by the agreement made between them, he was to be taken to be an outlaw, if he should ever escape from that prison without the licence of the lord the king. He did escape from that prison; and whereas, by that agreement, and by the suit of those from whose custody he had escaped, he was become an outlaw; and afterwards the lord the king had received him into his favour, he would not accept any writ of the lord the king for the remission of that outlawry. And when he was afterwards received into the favour of the lord the king, with the condition, that the grants which the lord the king had before made of the lands, which, by the aforesaid agreement, should stand good; he nevertheless afterwards, contrary to that agreement, impleaded John de Gray, Masty, Besily, Anketill, Malure, Robert Passelewe, Alan Urry,
and many others, and recovered against them, by reason whereof the lord the king exchanged with some of them, parts of his own demesne to his great damage; wherefore it appears to the lord the king, that he is not obliged to observe his agreement with the said earl, who, in no respect, has observed the same on his part.” -Answer. He made no such agreement; and he says, that, when he was in the custody of four earls of England, who had it in command that no danger should happen to his person, those keepers who were bound to defend hin from harm were afterwards removed, and he knows not by whom, so that he was reasonably in fear for himself, and particularly since the bishop of Winchester was the counsellor of the lord the king, who had threatened him, as England knows, and the castle of Devizes was in the custody of Peter de Rivall. As therefore the guard which, by agreement, should have protected him while he was so in custody, was removed from him, it was no wonder if he fled to the church; and this he would on no account have done, if the agreement had been kept with him in his safe custody. As to what is said of the outlawry, he says, that he did not make such an agreement, and that such an agreement ought not to be held of any force, because no good and true man can be outlawed by agreement, for outlawry is a punishment of an evil-doer, and not of a well-doer, and follows from the misconduct of one who will not stand to the right; but he was not such, for he always desired and offered to stand to the judgment of his peers. Afterwards, when he returned to the peace of the lord the king, all the premises were pardoned him, and the outlawry was adjudged and proclaimed null by all the earls of England by the letters of the lord the king, and that judgment was made at Gloster, by the mouth of the lord W. de Radleghe, before the archbishops, the bishops, earls, and barons. To what is said of his refusing to accept a writ for reversal of the outlawry, he answers, that he did this that it might not seem that he confessed himself to have been outlawed justly as a malefactor, And he says, that he impleaded no one contrarily to agreement, because he had made no agreement with the lord the king, except about the office of Justiciar of England, and about the castle of Dover, which he held, by charter, for his life; and this well appears, because he recovered against those whom he impleaded by the will of the lord the king, and in his court, and by the judgment of his court: wherefore he is not to blame as to this. And if, &c. and upon this, &c.
8. "That he spake base (b) and scandalous
(b) According to M. Paris, it was alledged against Hubert, that, in order to prevent the marriage of the king with some great lady, probably the daughter of the duke of Austria, he had said, that the king squinted, and was foolish and worthless, had a leprous appearance, was deceitful and perjured, weak, ex