Page images

institutions, that we can hope to discover and apply the principles which shall secure, so far as such a thing can be secured, the universal happiness of a nation. ‘That the legislator should especially occupy himself with the education of youth, no one can dispute; for when this is not done in states, it is a cause of damage to the polity (form of government). For a state must be adminisHered with reference to its polity; and that which is the peculiar characteristic of each polity is that which preserves and originally constitutes it; as, for instance, the democratical principle in a democracy, and the oligarchal in an oligarchy; and that which is the best principle always con; stitutes the best polity. Further, in every occupation and art a person must receive previous instruction an discipline, in order to the exercising of the occupation or art; consequently also to the enabling him to the exercise of virtue. Now, since the end of every state is one, it is evident that the education must be one, and of necessity the same for all, and that the superintendence of the education must be with the public and not with individuals, as it now is, when each individual superintends his own children singly, and teaches them what he chooses. But when things are matter of public concern, the discipline pertaining to them must also be matter of public concern; and we must not consider any citizen as belonging to himself, but all as belonging to the state; for each is a part of the state, and the superintendence of each part has naturally a reference to the superintendence of the whole. In the matter, of education, as well as in other matters, the Lacedæmonians deserve praise; for they take the greatest pains about the education of their children, and that, too, as a public concern. That then a state ought to legislate on education and make it a public concern, is clear; but what education is, and how education must be conducted, is a subject for consideration.” (Aristotle, Politik, book viii.) EDWARD I., surnamed the Elder, king of the West Saxons, and with some pretensions to be regarded as king of all England, was the eldest son of Alfred the Great, by his queen Alswitha, the daughter of Earl Æthelred. On the ... of his father, 26th October, 901, Edward was recognized by the Witenagemote as his successor; but the throne was contested by his cousin Ethelwald, who was the son of one of the three elder brothers and predecessors of Alfred, but whether of Ethelbald, Ethelbert, or Ethelred, is uncertain. The cause of Ethelwald received from the first the support of the Danes of the north, and by their assistance in 904 he compelled the submission of the people of Essex, and in the following year that of the East Anglians. The contest however was at length terminated, in 306 or 907, by the death of Ethelwald, in a battle fought between his forces and those of Edward. The people of East Anglia returned on this under submission to the king of Wessex, and the Northumbrian Danes concluded a peace with him: but three or four years afterwards we find the Danes breaking this pacification; nor do they appear to have been quieted, or the people of Essex finally brought back to their obedience, till the year 920 or 921. Mercia in the mean time had continued to be governed as a separate state, though subject to the supremacy of Wessex, first by the ealdorman Ethered or Ethelred, to whom it had been entrusted by Alfred, and, after his death in 912, by his widow Ethelfleda, the sister of Edward. The Lady Ethelfleda survived till 920, conducting the affairs of her government with distinguished ability, and all along acting in concert with her brother in his efforts against the Danes and his other enemies. On her death, Edward took the government of Mercia into his own hands. After this, if we may believe the old historians, not only did all the Danes, including even those of Northumbria, make full submission to Edward, but their example was followed by the Welsh and the people of Strathclyde, and the king of the Scots and all his subjects also chose the English monarch as their lord. The military successes however, which must have been achieved to compel the submission of all these neighbouring powers, if such submission actually took place, are not recorded. Some of the laws of Edward the Elder are preserved; but they do not demand any particular notice. He died in 925, and was succeeded by his eldest son Athelstane, born to him by a shepherd's daughter named Egwina, who is stated by some of the old writers to have been his wife, by others only his mistress. He had also another son and * daughter by Egwina. By another lady, to whom he is

allowed to have been married, but whose name is unknown he had two sons and six daughters; and by another wife, Edgiva, he had two sons, Edmund and Edred, both of whom were afterwards kings of England, and two daughters. EDWARD II., king of the Anglo-Saxons, surnamed the Martyr, was the eldest son of Edgar the Peaceable, by his first wife, Elfleda. On the death of Edgar, in 975, the accession of Edward was opposed by a faction headed by his father's widow, Elfrida, who on the pretence that the elder brother was excluded by the circumstance of having been born before his father had been crowned, maintained that the right to the vacant throne lay with her own son Ethelred. To create for herself the appearance of a national party she and her associates proclaimed themselves the }. of the cause of the married clergy in opposition to unstan and the monks; but after a short period of confusion, the latter prevailed in the Witenagemote, and Edward was formally accepted as king by that assembly. Elfrida however seems still to have continued her intrigues; and her unscrupulous ambition at last led her to the perpetration of a deed, which has covered her name with info on y. This was the murder of her step-son by a hired assassin, as he stopped one day while hunting at her residence, Corfe Castle, in Dorsetshire; he was stabbed in the back as he sat on his horse at the gate of the castle drinking a cup of mead. The 18th of March, 978, is the date assigned to the murder of King Edward, who was only in his seventeenth year when he was thus cut off. He was never married, and leaving no children, was succeeded by his half-brother, Ethelred, the only individual then remaining whose birth gave him any pretensions to the throne. It was in the reign of Edward that the national council was held at Calne which is so famous for the catastrophe of the floor giving way, with the exception of the part on which Dunstan and his friends stood. [DUNSTAN.] EDWARD III., king of the Anglo-Saxons, surnamed the Confessor, was the eldest of the two sons of Ethelred II. by his second wife Emma, the daughter of Richard I., duke of Normandy. He was born at Islip, in Oxfordshire, wrobably in the year 1004. In the close of 1013, when the successes of Sweyn, the Dane, drove Ethelred from his throne, and compelled him to retire to the Isle of Wight, he sent over his wife, with Edward and his younger brother Alfred, to Normandy, to the care of their uncle Duke Richard II. Hither Ethelred himself, being assured of a favourable reception, followed his family, about the middle of January, 1014. When, on the death of Sweyn, within three weeks after, Ethelred was recalled by the Witenagemote, he sent back his son Edward along with the pleniotentiaries, whom he despatched previously to setting out himself to complete the arrangements for his restoration. On the death of Ethelred in 1016, Emma and her two sons returned to Normandy. When Canute the Dane obtained the throne in the latter part of the same year by the death of Edmund Ironside, it is affirmed that Duke Richard either fitted out a naval force or threatened to do so, with a view of supporting the claims of his nephew Edward; but this intention, if it ever was entertained, was effectuall diverted before it led to any thing by the proposals whic now proceeded from Canute for the hand of the widowed Emma. Canute and Emma were married in July, 1017. From this time till the death of Canute in 1035, Edward appears to have remained quiet in Normandy. He is said to have spent his time chiefly in the performance of the offices of religion and in hunting, which continued to be his favourite occupations to the end of his days. On Canute's death, and the disputes for the succession between his sons Harold and Hardicanute, Edward was induced to make a momentary demonstration in asser tion of his pretensions: he crossed the channel with a fleet of forty ships, and landed at Southampton; but finding that instead of being supported, he would be vigorously opposed by his mother, who was exerting all her efforts for her son Hardicanute, he gave up the attempt, and returned to Normandy after merely plundering a few villages. In 1037 his younger brother Alfred was tempted by an invitation purporting to come from Emma to proceed to England at the head of another expedition, which terminated in his destruction, brought about apparently by treachery, though there does not seem to be any sufficient ground for the horrid suspicion, which some writers have

been disposed to entertain, that the contriver of the plot was his own mother. When Hardlcanute became undisuted king of all England by the death of Harold in 1040, i. sent for his half-brother Edward, who immediately came to England, where he was allowed a handsome establishment, and appears to have been considered as the heir to the crown in default of issue of the reigning king. Hardicanute died on the 4th of June, 1042, and Edward was immediately recognized as king by the assembled body of the clerical and lay nobility; the former, it is said, having been chiefly o by Livingus, bishop of Worcester, the latter by the powerful Earl Godwin. A menace of opposition to this settlement of the English crown by Magnus, king of Norway, was defeated, after it had put Edward to the expense of fitting out a fleet to maintain his rights, first by the occupation which Magnus found at home in defending himself against another claimant to the Danish throne, Sweyn, the nephew of Canute, and soon after, more effectually, by the death of Magnus. In 1044, Edward, probably in compliance with a promise which he had made to Godwin, married Editha, the only daughter of that earl, having previously informed her, however, that although he would make her his queen, she should not share his bed. This unnatural proceeding, by which Edward gained from his church the honour of canonization and the title of Confessor, and by which, to pass over his treatment of his wife and his violation of his marriage vows, he involved his country in the calamities of a disputed succession, and eventually of a foreign conquest, has been usually attributed to religious motives. The Confessor seems to have been without human affections of any kind. His first act after coming to the throne was to proceed to the residence of his mother at Winchester, and to seize by force not only all her treasures, but even the cattle and corn upon her lands. One account further states that he endeavoured to destroy her by an accusation from which she freed herself by the ordeal; and though this part of the story has been generally rejected by modern writers, its falsehood is by no means clearly established. The circumstance of Emma (who lived for ten years after this) having, as it would appear, retained her dower, which has been urged in disproof of any criminal charge having been brought against her, is rather a confirmation of the truth of the old account, inasmuch as it is not likely her son would have allowed her to remain thus undisturbed after his first treatment of her, unless her triumphant escape from the ordeal had enabled her for the rest of her life to defy his power. The public events that form the history of the reign of the Confessor resolve themselves for the most part into a contest between two great parties or interests which divided the court and the country. The connexion between England and Normandy had commenced forty years before the accession of this king by the marriage of Ethelred; but it became very intimate after the accession of Edward, who had spent in Normandy all his life since his childhood, whose tastes and habits had been formed in that country, and all whose oldest personal friends were necessarily Normans. In fact Edward himself, when he came to the throne, was much more a Norman than an Englishman; and he not unnaturally surrounded himself with persons belonging to the nation whose language and manners and mode of life were those with which he had been so long familiar, rather than with his less polished fellow-countrymen. Many Normans came over to England as soon as he became king, and some of the highest preferments in the kingdom were bestowed upon these foreigners. But while the inclinations of Edward were probably from the first with the Normans, he was to a great extent in the hands of the opposite, or English party, from his connexion with Earl Godwin, its head. Besides the influence which he derived from having his daughter on the throne, this powerful nobleman held in his own hands, and in those of his sons, the government of more than the half of all England. The eldest of these sons, Sweyn, very early in the reign of Edward, had been obliged to fly from the vengeance of the law for the daring crime of violating the person of an abbess; but after some time Edward consented, or found himself obliged, to pardon him, and to restore him to all his estates and honours. It was uot till the year 1051 that the strength of the English and Norman parties was tried in any direct encounter; but that year, on oceasion of a broil which arose out of the visit to England of Edward's brother-in-law, Eustace, count of Boulogne, their long-accumulated enmity broke forth into

a violent collision. The first effect was the banishment of all the Godwin family, and the degradation and imprisonment of the queen. At this crisis William, the young duke of Normandy, afterwards king of England, came over with a powerful fleet, and prepared to render Edward what assistance he might have needed. The following summer however witnessed the complete overthrow of all that had been thus accomplished. Godwin and his son Harold forced their way back to the country at the head of armaments which they had prepared, the former in Flanders, the latter in Ireland; a negotiation was entered into with the king, and the issue was, that the earl and his party were restored to greater power than ever; the queen was re-established in her possessions and her place, and the Normans were all expelled from the kingdom. Earl Godwin only survived this counter-revolution a few months: he died suddenly as he sat at the royal table, on the 15th April, 1053. His son Harold, however, inherited his possessions and his power, and the ascendancy of the family under its new head continued as great as ever during the remainder of the Confessor's reign. In 1055 a dispute arose between Harold and the rival family of Leofric, earl of Leicester, which disturbed the kingdom for nearly two years. Leofric died in 1057; but the feud was continued by his son Alfgar, who called in to his assistance Griffith or Griffin, king of the Welsh. This drew down the vengeance of Harold upon that prince and his subjects; and the issue was, that, after some fighting, Griffin consented to swear fealty to Edward. This event is assigned by the Saxon Chronicle to the year 1056. The war with the Welsh was renewed in 1063; Harold had again the command, and prosecuted hostilities with so much success, that king *... head was cut off by his own subjects, and sent by them to the English king in token of their submission. In 1065 the public tranquillity was for a short time disturbed by an insurrection of the Northumbrians; but this was uelled without bloodshed. Edward died on the 5th of anuary, 1066, and was buried the following day in the new Abbey of Westminster, which had just been finished and consecrated with great pomp about a week before. On the same day Earl Harold was solemnly crowned king of England. [EDGAR ATHELING ; HAROLD II.] England undoubtedly made a considerable advance in civilization during the reign of the Confessor. For this it was indebted partly to the intercourse which Edward's accession opened with Normandy and France, but perhaps in a still greater degree to the freedom which the kingdom j". those foreign invasions and internal wars which had distracted it, with the exception of some short intervals of tranquillity, for the greater part of a century preceding. The only events, as we have seen, which disturbed the public peace during the reign of Edward, were one or two border wars and local insurrections, none of which occasioned any general disquict, or lasted for any considerable time. is period accordingly was long traditionally remembered as the happiest that England had known. It formed in the national imagination the bright spot between the time of the Danish rule on the one hand, and that of the Norman on the other; the age of English freedom and independence which succeeded the deliverance of the country from the one foreign conquest, and preceded its subjection to the other. For many generations after the establishment of the Norman power in the island, the constant demand of the great body of the people to their rulers was for the restoration of the laws and customs of the Confessor. But we have no reason to suppose that this king was the author of any entirely new code of laws, or even that he made any material additions to the laws that had been in force before his time. On coming to the throne he was required by the Witenagemote to promise to observe the laws of King Canute, which seem to have been then universally held to be the fairest and the best the nation had known. Edward took an oath in conformity with this demand at his coronation. No laws attributed to Edward remain in Saxon; but there has been preserved, both in Latin and in Romance, or Romanic French, a body of laws and constitutions which the Conqueror is said to have granted at an assembly of the most distinguished of his English subjects, held about four years after his seizure of the crown, and they are described in the title as the same which his predecessor and cousin, King, Edward, had before observed. The French text, preserved in Ingulphus, has generally been held to be the original; but Sir Francis Palgrave has stated reasons which throw considerable doubt upon this supposition. Both versions are given in the most correct form, and accompanied with a learned and valuable commentary, in the Proofs and Illustrations appended to Sir Francis Palgrave's Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth, pp. lxxxviii-cxl. Edward the Confessor has the credit of being the first of our kings who touched for the king's evil. He was canonized by Pope Alexander III. about a century after his death, and the title of the Confessor was first bestowed upon him in the bull of canonization. It may also be mentioned, that the use of the Great Seal was first introduced in this reign. EDWARD I., king of England, surnamed Long-shanks, from the excessive length of his legs, was the eldest son of King Henry III. by his wife Eleanor, second daughter of Raymond, count of Provence. He was born at Westminster, June 16, 1239. In 1252 he was invested by his father with the duchy of Guienne; but a claim being set up to this territory by Alphonso X, king of Castile, who pretended that it had been made over to his ancestor Alphonso VIII. by his father-in-law, Henry II., it was arranged the following year that the dispute should be settled by the marriage of Prince Edward with Eleanor, the sister of Alphonso, who thereupon resigned whatever right he had to the duchy to his brotherin-law. After this, by letters patent, dated February 14, 1254, we find the lordship of Ireland, and by others dated February 18, in the same year, all the provinces which had been seized from his father, John, by the king of France, granted by Henry III. to his son Prince Edward. (Rymer, I.) Edward early manifested a character very unlike that of his weak and imprudent father. While yet only entering upon manhood, we find him taking part in important affairs of state. Thus the agreement which Henry made in 1236 with Pope Alexander IV. in relation to the kingdom of Sicily, which the pope granted to Henry's second son Edmund, was ratified iyi. Edward in a letter to his Holiness, still preserved. In 1258 he signed, along with his father, the agreement called the Provisions or Statutes of Oxford, by which it was arranged that the government of the country should be o into the hands of twenty-four commissioners, appointed by the barons; and two years after, when Henry violently broke through this engagement, Edward came over from Guienne, where he was resident, and publicly expressed his disapprobation of the king's conduct. For the next two or three years Edward may be regarded as placed in opposition to his father's government. In 1262, however, Henry, in a visit which he paid him in Guienne, succeeded in gaining him over to his side, and from this time the prince became the king's most efficient supporter. In the summer of 1263, the quarrel between Henry and his barons came to a contest of arms, which lasted, with some brief intermissions, for four years. During this period the military operations on the king's side were principally conducted by Prince Edward. i. the beginning he was unfortunate, having been driven first from Bristol and then from Windsor, and having been finally defeated and taken prisoner with his father at the battle of Lewes, fought May 14, 1264. After being detained however about a twelvemonth, he made his escape out of the hands of the earl of Leicester; and on the 4th August, 1265, his forces having encountered those of that nobleman at Evesham, the result was that Leicester was defeated and lost his life, and the king was restored to liberty. From this time Edward and his father carried everything before them till the war was concluded, in July, 1267, by the surrender of the last of the insurgents, who had taken up their position in the Isle of Ely. Soon after this, at a parliament held at Northampton, Prince Edward, together with several noblemen and a great number of knights, pledged themselves to proceed to join the crusaders in the Holy Land. The Prince accordingly, having first, in a visit to Paris, in August, 1269, made his arrangements with St. Louis, set sail from England to join that king in May, the year following. St. Louis died on his way to Palestine; and Edward, having spent the winter in Sicily waiting for him, did not arrive at the scene of action till the end of May, 1271. Here he performed several valorous exploits, which however were attended with no important result. His most memorable adventure was an encounter with a Saracen, who attempted to assassinate him, and whom he slew on the spot, but not before he had received a wound in the arm from a poisoned

dagger, from the effects of which he is said to have been delivered by the princess, his wife, who sucked the poison from the wound. At last, having concluded a ten years' truce with the Saracens, he left Palestine in August, 1272, and set out on his return to England. He was at Messina, on his way home, in January, 1273, when he heard of the death of his father on the 16th of November preceding. He proceeded on his Journey, and landed with his queen in England 25th July, 1274. They were both solemnly crowned at Westminster on the 19th of August following. The reign of Edward I, however, appears to have been reckoned not from the day of his coronation, according to the practice observed in the cases of all the preceding kings since the Conquest, but, according to the modern practice, from the day on which the throne became vacant, or at least from the 20th of November, the day of his father's funeral, immediately after which the clerical and lay nobility who were present in Westminster Abbey on the occasion had sworn fealty to the new king at the high altar of that church. The first military operations of Edward's reign were directed against the Welsh, whose prince Llewellyn, on being summoned to do homage, had contemptuously refused. Llewellyn was forced to sue for peace in November, 1277, after a single campaign; but in 1281 he again rose in arms, and the insurrection was not put down till Llewellyn himself was slain at Llanfair, 11th December, 1282, and his surviving brother Prince David was taken prisoner soon after. The following year the last-mentioned prince was barbarously put to death by drawing, hanging, and quartering, and Wales was finally united to England. The conquest of Wales was followed by the attempt to conquer Scotland. By the death of Alexander III., in 1285, the crown of that country had fallen to his granddaughter Margaret, called the Maiden of Norway, a child only three years old. By the treaty of Brigham, concluded in July, 1290, it was agreed that Margaret should be married to Edward, the eldest surviving son of the English king; but the young queen died in one of the Orkney Islands on her voyage from Norway in September of the same year. Edward made the first open declaration of his designs against the independence of Scotland at a conference held at Norham on the Tweed with the clergy and nobility of that kingdom on the 10th of May, 1291. Ten different competitors for the crown had advanced their claims; but §. were all induced to acknowledge Edward for their lord paramount and to consent to receive judgment from him on the matter in dispute. His decision was finally pronounced in favour of John Balliol, at Berwick, on the 17th of November, 1292; on the next day Balliol swore fealty to him in the castle of Norham. [BALLiol.] He was crowned at Scone under a commission from his liege lord on the 30th of the same month; and on the 26th of December he did homage to Edward for his crown at Newcastle. The subject king, however, was soon made to feel all the humiliation of his position; and the discontent of his countrymen equalling his own, by the summer of 1294 all Scotland was in openinsurrection against the authority of Edward. Meanwhile, Edward had become involved in a war with the French king Philip IV. The first act of the assembled estates of Scotland was to enter into a treaty of alliance with that sovereign. But although he was farther embarrassed at this inconvenient moment by a revolt of the Welsh, Edward's wonderful energy in a few months recovered for him all that he had lost. In the spring of 1296 he laid a great part of Scotland waste with fire and Sword, compelled Balliol to resign the kingdom into his hands, and then made a triumphant progress through the country as far as Elgin in Murray, exacting oaths of fealty from all classes io: he appeared. It was on his return from this progress that Edward, as he passed the cathedral of Scone in the beginning of August, carried away with him the famous stone, now in Westminster Abbey, on which the Scottish kings had been accustomed to be crowned. He now placed the government of Scotland in the hands of officers appointed by himself, and bearing the titles of his ministers. But by the month of May in the following year Scotland was again in flames. The leader of the insurrection now was the celebrated William Wallace. He and his countrymen had been excited to make this new attempt to effect their deliverance from a foreign domination, partly by the severities of their English governors, partly by i. circumstances in which É

[ocr errors]

ward was at this time involved. The expenses of his Scottish and French wars had pressed heavily upon the resources of the kingdom; and when he asked for more money, both clergy and laity refused him any farther grant without a redress of grievances and a confirmation of the several great national charters. After standing out for some time, he was obliged to comply with these terms: Magna Charta and the Charter of Forests were both confirmed, with some additional articles, in a parliament held at Westminster in October of this year. Meanwhile, although he had got disencumbered for the present of the war on the Continent, by the conclusion of a truce with King Philip, the rebellion in Scotland had already gained such a height as to have almost wholly cleared that country of the English authorities. The forces of the government had been completely put to the rout by Wallace at the battle of Stirling, fought on the 11th September, and in a few weeks more not a Scottish fortress remained in Edward's hands. Wallace was now appointed Governor of Scotland, in the name of King John (Balliol). In this state of things Edward, about the middle of March 1298, returned to England from Flanders where he had spent the winter. He immediately prepared to march for Scotland. The great battle of Falkirk followed on the 22nd of July, in which Wallace sustained a complete defeat. But although one consequence of this event was the resignation by Wallace of his office of governor, it was not followed by the general submission of the country. The next five years were spent in a succession of indecisive attempts on the part of the English king to regain possession of Scotland; the military operations being frequently suspended by long truces. At length, having satisfied his barons by repeated renewals of the charters, and having finally relieved himself from all interference on the part of the king of France by a definitive treaty of peace concluded with him at Amiens on the 20th May, 1303, Edward once more set out for Scotland at the head of a force too numerous and too well appointed to be resisted by any strength that exhausted country could now command. The result was again its temporary conquest, and merciless devastation from the Tweed to the Murray Frith. The Castle of Stirling was the last fortress that held out; it did not surrender till the 20th of July in the following year. Edward meanwhile had wintered in Dunfermline; he only returned to England in time to keep his Christmas in £i. Wallace fell into his hands in a few months afterwards, and was hanged, drawn, and quartered as a traitor, at Smithfield in London, on the 23rd August, 1305. But another champion of the Scottish independence was not long in appearing. Robert Bruce, Earl of Carrick, whose grandfather had been the chief competitor for the crown with Balliol, had resided for some years at the English court; but he now, in the beginning of February, 1306, suddenly made his escape to Scotland; and in a few weeks the banner of revolt against the English domination was again unfurled in that country, and the insurgent people gathered around this new leader. Bruce was solemnly crowned at Scone on the 27th March. On receiving this news Edward immediately prepared for a new expedition to Scotland; and sent the Earl of Pembroke forward to encounter Bruce, intending to follow himself as soon as he had completed the necessary arrangements. The army of Bruce was dispersed at Perth on the 19th June by Pembroke, who had thrown himself into that town ; and the king of the Scots became for a time a houseless fugitive. But the great enemy of that unfortunate people had now reached the last stage of his destructive career. Edward got no farther than a few miles beyond Carlisle in his last journey to the north. After spending the winter months at Lanercost, where he was detained by a severe illness, he appears to have arrived in that city in the beginning of March, 1307; here he was again taken ill, but his eagerness to advance continued unabated: having somewhat recovered he again set out, although he was still so weak and suffered so much pain that he could accomplish no more than six miles in four days. On the 6th of July he reached the village of Burgh-upon-Sands, “and next day expired,’ to copy the words of Lord Hailes, ‘in sight of that country which he had devoted to destruction.” On his death-bed he is said to have enjoined his son and successor to prosecute the design which it was not given to himself to finish: according to Froissart, he made him swear that after the breath had departed from the royal body he would cause it to be boiled in a cauldron till the flesh fell off, and that he

[ocr errors]

sogov - o F. D. W. § ~ would preserve the bones to carry with him against the Scots as often as they should rebel. This oath, however, if it was taken, was not kept. The corpse of King Edward was interred in Westminster Abbey on the 28th of October. Edward I, was twice married. By his first wife Eleanor, daughter of Ferdinand III., king of Castile and Leon, he had four sons: John and Henry, who both died in infancy while their father was in the Holy Land; Alphonso, born at Maine in Gascony, 23rd November, 1273, who died at Windsor, 4th August, 1285; and Edward, who succeeded him. He had also by Eleanor nine daughters: Eleanor, born in 1266, married to Henry earl of Bar; Joanna of Acre, born in that town in 1272, married first to Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester and Hereford, and secondly to Sir Ralph Monthermer; Margaret, born 1275, married to John duke of Brabant; Berengera, born in 1276; Alice; Mary, born 22nd April, 1279, who at ten years of age took the veil in the monastery of Ambresbury; Elizabeth, born in 1284, married first, to John earl of Holland and Zealand, secondly, to Humphrey Bohun earl of Hertford and Essex; Beatrice; and Blanch. Queen Eleanor died 28th November, 1291, at Grantham, or, according to another account, at Hardeby, in Lincolnshire: her body was brought to Westminster Abbey to be interred, and crosses were afterwards erected on the several spots where it rested on the way, namely, at Lincoln, Grantham, Stamford, Goddington, Northampton (near which town one exists), Stoney Stratford, Dunstable, St. Albans, Waltham, (where the cross, a j beautiful one, still stands, and has been lately restored,) and Charing, then a village near London, but now the centre of the metropolis, under the name of Charing Cross. Edward's second wife was Margaret, eldest daughter of Philip III., and sister of Philip IV., kings of France. He was married to her on the 10th of September, 1299, she being then in her eighteenth year. By Queen Margaret he had two sons: Thomas, born at Brotherton in Yorkshire, 1st June, 1300, afterwards created earl of Norfolk and earl marshal; and Edmund, born 5th August, 1301, afterwards created earl of Kent; and one daughter, Eleanor, born at Winchester, 6th May, 1306, who died in her childhood. Queen Margaret died in 1317. The rapid narrative that has been given of the acts of his reign sufficiently indicates the main constituents of the character of this king. He had his full share of the ability and the daring of the vigorous line from which he was sprung; a line that (including himself) had now given nine kings to England, and only two of them not men of extraordinary force of character. With all his ambition and stern determination, however, Edward neither loved bloodshed for itself, nor was he a professed or systematic despiser of the rules of right and justice. It is probable that in his persevering contest with the Scots he believed that he was only enforcing the just claims of his crown; and his conduct, therefore, ferocious and vindictive as in many respects it was, may be vindicated from the charge of want of principle, if tried by the current opinions and sentiments of his age. Putting aside considerations of morality, we |. in him an ample endowment of many of the qualities that most conduce to eminence—activity, decision, foresight, inflexibility, perseverance, military skill, personal courage and power of endurance; and, united with boldness in conceiving and executing his designs, great patience and sagacity in preparing and managing his instruments, and bending circumstances to his will. Engaged as he was during the greater part of his reign in war, he was not advantageously placed for the full application of his talents to the business of civil government; but his reign is notwithstanding one of the most remarkable in our history, for the progress which was made in it towards the settlement of the laws and the constitution. On this account Edward I has often been styled (though, as is obvious to any one who knows what Justinian's legislation was, not with any propriety) the English Justinian; and Sir Matthew Hale (Hist. of the Common Law of England, chap. 7) has remarked that more was done in the first thirteen years of his reign to settle and establish the distributive justice of the kingdom than in all the next four centuries. Blackstone has enumerated under fifteen heads the principal alterations and improvements which the law underwent in the reign of Edward I. : we can only here notice the confirmation and final establishment of the two great charters; the definition and limitation of the bounds of ecclesiastical jurisdiction ; the ascertainment and distribution of the

powers and functions both of the supreme and the inferior courts; the abolition of the practice of issuing royal mandates in private causes; the establishment of a repository for the public records of the kingdom, ‘few of which,’ as Blackstone remarks, “are antienter than the reign of his father, and those were by him collected ;’ the improvement of the law and process for the recovery of debts by the Statutes Merchant and Elegit [Elegit]; and the check imposed on the encroachments of the church by the passing of several statutes of mortmain. The object of the statute De Donis was to render lands which were the subject of this particular form of grant inalienable, and so far to put restraints upon the disposal of landed property, which however were soon evaded. [CoNdition ; Estate.] ‘Upon the whole, we may observe,” concludes Blackstone after Hale, “ that the very scheme and model of the administration of common justice between party and party was entirely settled by this king. The forms of writs by which actions are commenced, it is added, were perfected in this reign. While the English laws were fully extended to Ireland and Wales, it was under Edward I., also, that the foundations of the constitution of the kingdom may be considered to have been laid by the new form and the new powers which were then assumed by the parliament. The earliest writs that have been preserved for summoning knights, citizens, and burgesses to parliament, are, as is well known, those that were issued by Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester, the leader of the barons, in 1264, in the name of king Henry III., who was then a prisoner in his hands. Whether this representation of the commons was then first introduced or not, it was in the course of the succeeding reign that it first became regular and influential. The division of the legislature into two houses, in other words the institution of our present House of Commons, appears to be clearly traceable to the time of Edward I. It was in his time also that the practice began fairly to take root of the king refraining from arbitrary exactions and coming to parliament for supplies, and that the earliest effective examples were afforded of the grant of supplies by that assembly being made dependent upon the redress of grievances. Edward I., with all his military habits and genius, had at length the good sense to perceive that the time was come for abandoming the attempt to overn by the prerogative alone, which had been clung to É. all his predecessors from the conquest: in his disputes with the barons he never allowed matters to come to a contest of force, as his father and grandfather had done; and in the latter part of his reign, although more than once compelled to stop short in his most favourite designs by the refusal of the national representatives to furnish him with the necessary means, he seems to have kept to the system of never resorting to any other weapons than policy and management to overcome the opposition with which he was thus thwarted. It was in the last year but one of this reign that the royal assent was given to the famous enactment commonly called the ‘Statute de Tallagio non Concedendo,” by which the right of taxation was first distinctly affirmed to reside in the parliament: “no tallage or aid,’ the first chapter runs (in the old English translation), “shall be levied by us or our heirs in our realm, without the good will and assent of Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, Knights, Burgesses, and other Freemen of the land.' . The same rinciple had been conceded ten years before (by the 25th }. I., c. 6), but not in such explicit terms. The trade and foreign commerce of England appear to have advanced considerably during the reign of Edward I.; but rather owing to the natural progress of the civilization of this country and of Europe, than from any enlightened attention which the king showed to these interests. He seems to have been principally solicitous to turn the increasing intercourse of the country with foreign parts to his own particular profit by the increase of the customs. A few of his laws, however, were beneficial to the trading community, and were made with this express object, especially the act for the better recovery of debts, commonly called the Statute of Merchants, passed at Acton-Burnell in 1283; and the extension of the same by a subsequent act; and the Elegit above mentioned. On the other hand, he lowered, though slightly, the real value of the coin, thereby setting the first example of a most pernicious process, which was afterwards carried much farther. He also cruelly pillaged and oppressed the Jews; and finally, in 1290, expelled the entire, body of that people from England, and seized all their houses and tenements. Before this (in 1275) a law

had been passed prohibiting the Jews from taking interest for money on pain of death. The most distinguished names in literature and science that belong to the reign of Edward I. are Duns Scotus, his disciple William Occam, and the illustrious Roger Bacon. Among the historical writers or chroniclers who flourished at this time, may be mentioned Thomas Wikes, Nicolas Trivet, Walter de Hemmingford, and, according to one account, Matthew of Westminster, though he is placed by some considerably later. The law writers of this reign are the author of the work entitled Fleta, Britton (if that be not a corruption of Bracton), Hengham, and Gilbert de Thornton, chief justice of the King's Bench, the author of an abridgment of Bracton, which has not been printed. EDWARD II., the eldest surviving son of Edward I, was born at Caernarvon 25th April, 1284, and became the heir apparent to the crown by the death of his elder brother, Alphonso, a few months after. In 1289 he was affianced to the young queen of Scotland, who died the following year. On the 1st of August, 1297, his father, before setting out for Flanders, assembled a great council at London, and made the nobility swear fealty to the prince, whom he then appointed regent of the kingdom during his absence. The parliament in which the first statute De Tallagio non concedendo received the royal assent was held at Westminster by prince Edward a few months after his father's departure. In the summer of 1300 we find him accompanying his father in a military expedition to Scotland, and he is particularly mentioned as leading one of the divisions of the army, called the Shining Battalion, in an encounter with the Scottish forces on the banks of the river Irvine. As he grew towards manhood, however, he appears to have begun to form those vicious associations which were the chief source of the calamities of his life. It is recorded by Stow and Fabyan that in October of this same year the notorious Piers Gaveston was banished by the king from about the person of prince Edward, who, through his persuasion, .." been guilty of several outrages against the bishop of Lichfield, and the prince himself was ordered to prison for stealing the bishop's deer. Gaveston was the son of a knight of Gascony, and is admitted to have been distinguished by his wit and accomplishments as well as by his personal advantages, but he is affirmed to have, as the prince's minion, carried himself to men of all ranks with unbearable insolence. In 1301 Edward was created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester. He was again in Scotland with his father in the expedition in the summer of 1303: while the king proceeded along the east coast, the prince marched westward, and the latter afterwards wintered in Perth, while his father remained in Dunfermline. When Edward was preparing for his last Scottish expedition after the insurrection under Robert Bruce, he knighted his eldest son at Westminster on the morrow of Whitsuntide, 1306; after which the prince bestowed the same honour on three hundred gentlemen, his intended companions in arms. He was at the same time invested by his father with the duchy of Guienne. The royal banquet that was given on this occasion is celebrated for what is called the Vow of the Swans, an oath taken by the king to God and to two swans, which were brought in and set upon the table, that he would take vengeance on Robert Bruce and punish the treachery of the Scots. . The prince also vowed that he would not remain two nights in the same place until he reached Scotland. He set out accordingly before his father, and as soon as he had crossed the borders he began to signalize his march by such unsparing devastation that even the old king is said to have reproved him for his cruelty. While king Edward was at Lanercost in February, 1307, he found it necessary, with the consent of the parliament there assembled, to issue an order banishing Gaveston for ever from the kingdom, as a corrupter of the prince. It is doubtful, notwithstanding the story told by Froissart [Edward I.] if the prince of Wales was with his father when he died on the 7th of July following; but he was at any rate at no great distance, and he was immediately recognized as king. His reign appears to have been reckoned from the day following. The new king obeyed his father's injunctions to prosecute the war with Scotland, by proceeding on his march into that country as far as Cumnock, in Ayrshire. But here he turned round without having done anything, and made his way back to England. Meanwhile his whole mind seems to have been occupied only with one object

« EelmineJätka »