salvis in omnibus libertatibus civitatis Londoniarum. Concedimus etiam eis quod non placitent nisi infra burgum suum de rebus vel tenuris pertinentibus ad villam suam, praeterquam de placitis ad coronam nostram pertinentibus, et placitis de terris forinsecis. Volumus etiam quod habeant omnes alias libertates et liberas consuetudines quas habuerunt burgenses nostri de castello de Lancaveton tempore regis Henrici patris nostri, ita quod nullus burgensium praedictorum, nisi residens fuerit in praedicta villa de Helleston, has habebit libertates. Hiis testibus, W. com. Sarr., W. Briwerre; Rob. de Turnham; Rob. de Tresgoz; Sim. de Pateshulle; Rad. de Stokes; Eustac. de Facumberge. Datum per manum S. Wellensis archidiaconi apud Craneburne, XV. die Aprilis, anno regni nostri secundo.(Charter Rolls, p. 93.)

(9) A.D. 1201. Litterae Patentes burgensium de Helleston.

JOHANNES, Dei gratia, etc. Sciatis nos concessisse et praesenti scripto nostro confirmasse burgensibus nostris de Helleston, villam de Helleston cum pertinentiis, ad firmam, per antiquam firmam et debitam, et de cremento quatuor libras; habendam et tenendam quamdiu nobis bene et fideliter servierint et firmam suam bene reddiderint, reddendo firmam suam per manum suam ad duo scaccaria nostra, scilicet medietatem ad Pascha, et alteram medietatem ad festum Sancti Michaelis. Et sciendum quod crementum tale erit quale est firma. T. Simone de Pateshulle, apud Dorcestre; XVIII. die Aprilis. -(Charter Rolls, p. 93.)

(10) A.D. 1215.

JOHANNES, Dei gratia, rex Angliae, etc. Sciatis nos concessisse et praesenti carta nostra confirmasse baronibus nostris de civitate nostra Londoniarum, quod eligant sibi majorem de seipsis singulis annis, qui nobis fidelis sit, discretus et idoneus ad regimen civitatis, ita quod cum electus fuerit, nobis vel justitiario nostro, si praesentes non fuerimus, praesentetur et nobis juret fidelitatem; et quod liceat eis ipsum in fine anni amovere et alium substituere si voluerint, vel eundem retinere, ita tamen quod nobis ostendatur vel justitiario nostro, si praesentes non fuerimus. Concessimus etiam eisdem baronibus nostris et carta nostra confirmavimus, quod habeant bene et in pace, libere, quiete, et integre, omnes libertates suas quibus hactenus usi sunt, tam in civitate Londoniarum quam extra; et tam in aquis quam in terris, et omnibus aliis locis, salva nobis chamber

lengeria nostra. Quare volumus et firmiter praecipimus quod praedicti barones nostri civitatis nostrae Londoniarum eligant sibi majorem singulis annis de seipsis praedicto modo, et quod habeant omnes praedictas libertates bene et in pace, integre et plenarie, cum omnibus ad hujusmodi libertates pertinentibus, sicut praedictum est. Testibus dominis P. Winton, W. Wygorn., W. Coventr. episcopis, Willelmo Brigwerre, Petro filio Herberti, Galfrido de Lucy, et Johanne Filio Hugonis. Datum per manus magistri Ricardi de Mariscis cancellarii nostri, apud Novum Templum Londoniis, IX. die Maii, anno regni nostri sexto decimo.-(Charter Rolls, p. 207.)

PART VI.

SELECT CHARTERS AND EXCERPTS; Henry III.

A.D. 1216-1272.

Archbishops of Canterbury. Stephen Langton, 1216-1228; Richard le Grand, 1229-1231; Edmund Rich, 1234-1240; Boniface of Savoy, 1245-1270.

Chief Justices. Hubert de Burgh, 1216-1232; Stephen Segrave, 12321234; Hugh Bigot, 1258-1260; Hugh le Despencer, 1260; Philip Basset, 1261.

Chancellors. Richard de Marisco, 1216-1226; Ralph Neville, 1226-1244; Walter de Merton, 1261; Nicolas de Ely, 1263; Thomas Cantilupe, 1265; Walter Giffard, 1265; Godfrey Giffard, 1267; Richard Middleton, 1269-1272.

THE thirteenth century was a period unparalleled in medieval history for brilliancy and fertility. It abounded with great men -kings, statesmen, and scholars. Coming between the hardheaded and hard-handed industry of the twelfth, and the cruel, frivolous, unreal splendour of the fourteenth, it unites all that is noble in the former, all that is romantic in the latter. A period more productive of ideas in every department of culture the world has never seen. But it was in some respects a precocious age. Many of the ideas which it produced luxuriantly, and for which its heroes risked all, were premature. Hence it is a period of great failures answering to too great designs. The long reign of Henry III extends over more than half of this wonderful age and the history of England has very much in common with the general character of the time. Henry himself was anything but a great man. Although free from some of the most glaring faults of his family, he was vain and mean, foolish and false. Yet the brilliancy of the time shed some little

glory upon him. He filled in Europe a position created for him perhaps by the labours of his grandfather and uncle, brought into prominence by the failure and fall of Frederick II, and made influential by his close connexion with the other sovereigns of Christendom; but out of all proportion to his ability. He was magnificent, liberal, a patron of art, and a benefactor of foreigners. His reputation for wealth laid him open to the extortions of all the needy in Europe; his patronage of them left him poor; and his poverty brought out his meanness and deceit at home. He seems, like his father, to have had a facility for incurring deadly personal enmity. He had not the energy, impulsiveness, and general cleverness of John, and was quite as unready. In an age of great ministers such a monarch would have been even more insignificant in his own country than Henry actually was. But after he took the administration into his own hands he had no great minister; all the able statesmanship was on the side of the opposition. The difficulties of the kingdom and the hardships of the people did not retard their growth. In the great variety of expedients used to promote the purposes of government, in the raising of revenue, the levying of forces, the amendment of laws, and the execution of political designs, there is distinctly traceable a development of the national life on its ancient basis; a constant tendency to get rid of feudal forms and feudal principles. The early years of the reign, in which the penalty for John's misrule was still being paid, were to a certain extent marked by reaction: feudal habits were resuscitated during the anarchy, and had to be met by old measures. The premature development of constitutional principles in the later years should be compared with this. Between the two, the reign singularly epitomises both earlier and later history. In 1225 we are among the 'adulterine' castles and foreign mercenaries of Stephen's reign; in 1258 we are deep in the reforming projects which were still premature under Edward II and Richard II. The constitutional history of the time is a study of considerable labour, owing partly to this diversity of characteristics, and partly to the abundant supply of evidences

which themselves share the experimental character of the politics of the day.

The natural division of the reign is into three epochs: the first containing the sixteen years during which the government was in the hands of William Marshall and Hubert de Burgh; the second, from 1232 to 1252, during which Henry acted either under the influence of Peter des Roches, or as his own minister on the same principles; and the third, from 1252 to 1272, during which the struggle with the barons lasted, and the power of the king was, sometimes with and sometimes without his apparent acquiescence, controlled by compulsory advisers.

I. William Marshall lived long enough to finish the struggle with the French he died in 1219. The tutelage of the papal legates continued until 1221, when Archbishop Langton obtained the recall of Pandulf and a promise that no new legate should be sent during his life. The foreign influences were thus got rid of. But the dangerous friends remained; William of Aumâle, who represented the old feudal party, was brought to submission in 1221; and Falkes de Breauté, who represented the foreign mercenaries, in 1224. The field was open to Hubert de Burgh and Peter des Roches, who, until the country was at peace, worked fairly together. The poverty of the crown, and the exhaustion of its resources by the measures taken to secure the country and to recover the French inheritance, necessitated heavy taxation and constant renewals of the charters; and the circumstances were such as to provoke strong opposition and dislike of both the ministers. In 1227 Henry dismissed Peter des Roches, repudiated the charters of the forests, and put himself into the hands of Hubert, who for the next five years governed well, though not with brilliant success. His principles were those of a strong administrator; the charters were scarcely regarded as binding, but some respect was shown to the spirit of them: notwithstanding the omission of the 12th and 14th articles of John's charter, the taxes were asked as a matter of course; but all objections to a grant were systematically ignored. The great leader of the opposition at this period was the Earl of Chester, Ranulf, a