Chapter V: Front Matter (5)

"Stephen, as a king, was an admitted failure. I cannot,
however, but view with suspicion the causes assigned to his
failure by often unfriendly chroniclers. That their criticisms
had some foundation it would not be possible to deny. But in
the first place, had he enjoyed better fortune, we should have
heard less of his incapacity, and in the second, these writers,
not enjoying the same stand-point as ourselves, were, I think,
somewhat inclined to mistake effects for causes. ... His
weakness throughout his reign ... was due to two causes, each
supplementing the other.
{798}
These were--(1) the essentially unsatisfactory character of
his position, as resting, virtually, on a compact that he
should be king so long only as he gave satisfaction to those
who had placed him on the throne; (2) the existence of a rival
claim, hanging over him from the first, like the sword of
Damocles, and affording a lever by which the malcontents could
compel him to adhere to the original understanding, or even to
submit to further demands. ... The position of his opponents
throughout his reign would seem to have rested on two
assumptions. The first, that a breach, on his part, of the
'contract' justified ipso facto revolt on theirs; the second,
that their allegiance to the king was a purely feudal
relation, and, as such, could be thrown off at any moment by
performing the famous diffidatio. This essential feature of
continental feudalism had been rigidly excluded by the
Conqueror. He had taken advantage, as is well known, of his
position as an English king, to extort an allegiance from his
Norman followers more absolute than he could have claimed as
their feudal lord. It was to Stephen's peculiar position that
was due the introduction for a time of this pernicious
principle into England. ... Passing now to the other point,
the existence of a rival claim, we approach a subject of great
interest, the theory of the succession to the English Crown at
what may be termed the crisis of transition from the principle
of election (within the royal house) to that of hereditary
right according to feudal rules. For the right view on this
subject, we turn, as ever, to Dr. Stubbs, who, with his usual
sound judgment, writes thus of the Norman period:--'The crown
then continued to be elective. ... But whilst the elective
principle was maintained in its fulness where it was necessary
or possible to maintain it, it is quite certain that the right
of inheritance, and inheritance as primogeniture, was
recognized as coordinate. ... The measures taken by Henry I.
for securing the crown to his own children, whilst they prove
the acceptance of the hereditary principle, prove also the
importance of strengthening it by the recognition of the
elective theory.' Mr. Freeman, though writing with a strong
bias in favour of the elective theory, is fully justified in
his main argument, namely, that Stephen 'was no usurper in the
sense in which the word is vulgarly used.' He urges,
apparently with perfect truth, that Stephen's offence, in the
eyes of his contemporaries, lay in his breaking his solemn
oath, and not in his supplanting a rightful heir. And he aptly
suggests that the wretchedness of his reign may have hastened
the growth of that new belief in the divine right of the heir
to the throne, which first appears under Henry II., and in the
pages of William of Newburgh. So far as Stephen is concerned the
case is clear enough. But we have also to consider the
Empress. On what did she base her claim? I think that, as
implied in Dr. Stubbs' words, she based it on a double, not a
single, ground. She claimed the kingdom as King Henry's
daughter ('regis Henrici filia '), but she claimed it further
because the succession had been assured to her by oath ('sibi
juratum') as such. It is important to observe that the oath in
question can in no way be regarded in the light of an
election. ... The Empress and her partisans must have largely,
to say the least, based their claim on her right to the throne
as her father's heir, and ... she and they appealed to the
oath as the admission and recognition of that right, rather
than as partaking in any way whatever of the character of a
free election. ... The sex of the Empress was the drawback to
her claim. Had her brother lived, there can be little question
that he would, as a matter of course, have succeeded his
father at his death. Or again, had Henry II. been old enough
to succeed his grandfather, he would, we may be sure, have
done so. ... Broadly speaking, to sum up the evidence here
collected, it tends to the belief that the obsolescence of the
right of election to the English crown presents considerable
analogy to that of canonical election in the case of English
bishoprics. In both cases a free election degenerated into a
mere assent to a choice already made. We see the process of
change already in full operation when Henry I. endeavours to
extort beforehand from the magnates their assent to his
daughter's succession, and when they subsequently complain of
this attempt to dictate to them on the subject. We catch sight
of it again when his daughter bases her claim to the crown,
not on any free election, but on her rights as her father's
heir, confirmed by the above assent. We see it, lastly, when
Stephen, though owing his crown to election, claims to rule by
Divine right ('Dei gratia'), and attempts to reduce that
election to nothing more than a national 'assent' to his
succession. Obviously, the whole question turned on whether
the election was to be held first, or was to be a mere
ratification of a choice already made. ... In comparing
Stephen with his successor the difference between their
circumstances has been insufficiently allowed for. At
Stephen's accession, thirty years of legal and financial
oppression had rendered unpopular the power of the Crown, and
had led to an impatience of official restraint which opened
the path to a feudal reaction: at the accession of Henry, on
the contrary, the evils of an enfeebled administration and of
feudalism run mad had made all men eager for the advent of a
strong king, and had prepared them to welcome the introduction
of his centralizing administrative reforms. He anticipated the
position of the house of Tudor at the close of the Wars of the
Roses, and combined with it the advantages which Charles II.
derived from the Puritan tyranny. Again, Stephen was hampered
from the first by his weak position as a king on sufferance,
whereas Henry came to his work unhampered by compact or
concession. Lastly, Stephen was confronted throughout by a
rival claimant, who formed a splendid rallying-point for all
the discontent in his realm: but Henry reigned for as long as
Stephen without a rival to trouble him; and when he found at
length a rival in his own son, a claim far weaker than that
which had threatened his predecessor seemed likely for a time
to break his power as effectually as the followers of the
Empress had broken that of Stephen. He may only, indeed, have
owed his escape to that efficient administration which years
of strength and safety had given him the time to construct. It
in no way follows from these considerations that Henry was not
superior to Stephen; but it does, surely, suggest itself that
Stephen's disadvantages were great, and that had he enjoyed
better fortune, we might have heard less of his defects."

_J. H. Round,
Geoffrey de Mandeville,
chapter. 1._

ALSO IN:
_Mrs. J. R. Green,
Henry the Second,
chapter 1._

See, also,
STANDARD, BATTLE OF THE (A. D. 1137).

{799}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189.
Henry II., the first of the Angevin kings (Plantagenets)
and his empire.

Henry II., who came to the English throne on Stephen's death,
was already, by the death of his father, Geoffrey, Count of
Anjou, the head of the great house of Anjou, in France. From
his father he inherited Anjou, Touraine and Maine; through his
mother, Matilda, daughter of Henry I., he received the dukedom
of Normandy as well as the kingdom of England; by marriage
with Eleanor, of Aquitaine, or Guienne, he added to his empire
the princely domain which included Gascony, Poitou, Saintonge,
Perigord, Limousin, Angoumois, with claims of suzerainty over
Auvergne and Toulouse. "Henry found himself at twenty-one
ruler of dominions such as no king before him had ever dreamed
of uniting. He was master of both sides of the English
Channel, and by his alliance with his uncle, the Count of
Flanders, he had command of the French coast from the Scheldt
to the Pyrenees, while his claims on Toulouse would carry him
to the shores of the Mediterranean. His subjects told with
pride how 'his empire reached from the Arctic Ocean to the
Pyrenees'; there was no monarch save the Emperor himself who
ruled over such vast domains. ... His aim [a few years Inter]
seems to have been to rival in some sort the Empire of the
West, and to reign as an over-king, with sub-kings of his
various provinces, and England as one of them, around him. He
was connected with all the great ruling houses. ... England
was forced out of her old isolation; her interest in the world
without was suddenly awakened. English scholars thronged the
foreign universities; English chroniclers questioned
travellers, scholars, ambassadors, as to what was passing
abroad.' The influence of English learning and English
statecraft made itself felt all over Europe. Never, perhaps,
in all the history of England was there a time when Englishmen
played so great a part abroad." The king who gathered this
wide, incongruous empire under his sceptre, by mere
circumstances of birth and marriage, proved strangely equal,
in many respects, to its greatness. "He was a foreign king who
never spoke the English tongue, who lived and moved for the
most part in a foreign camp, surrounded with a motley host of
Brabançons and hirelings. ... It was under the rule of a
foreigner such as this, however, 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 acknowledgement 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. ... 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 over all 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. The impress
which the personality of Henry II. left upon his time meets us
wherever we turn."

_Mrs. J. R. Green,
Henry the Second,
chapters 1-2._

Henry II. and his two sons, Richard I. (Cœur de Lion), and
John, are distinguished, sometimes, as the Angevin kings, or
kings of the House of Anjou, and sometimes as the
Plantagenets, the latter name being derived from a boyish
habit ascribed to Henry's father, Count Geoffrey, of "adorning
his cap with a sprig of 'plantagenista,' the broom which in
early summer makes the open country of Anjou and Maine a blaze
of living gold." Richard retained and ruled the great realm of
his father; but John lost most of his foreign inheritance,
including Normandy, and became the unwilling benefactor of
England by stripping her kings of alien interests and alien
powers and bending their necks to Magna Charta.

_K. Norgate,
England under the Angevin Kings._

ALSO IN:
_W. Stubbs,
The Early Plantagenets._

See, also,
AQUITAINE (GUIENNE): A. D. 1137-1152;
IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
Conflict of King and Church.
The Constitutions of Clarendon.
Murder of Archbishop Becket.

"Archbishop Theobald was at first the King's chief favourite
and adviser, but his health and his influence declining,
Becket [the Archdeacon of Canterbury] was found apt for
business as well as amusement, and gradually became intrusted
with the exercise of all the powers of the crown. ... The
exact time of his appointment as Chancellor has not been
ascertained, the records of the transfer of the Great Seal not
beginning till a subsequent reign, and old biographers being
always quite careless about dates. But he certainly had this
dignity soon after Henry's accession. ... Becket continued
Chancellor till the year 1162, without any abatement in his
favour with the King, or in the power which he possessed, or
in the energy he displayed, or in the splendour of his career.
... In April, 1161, Archbishop Theobald died. Henry declared
that Becket should succeed,--no doubt counting upon his
co-operation in carrying on the policy hitherto pursued in
checking the encroachments of the clergy and of the see of
Rome. ... The same opinion of Becket's probable conduct was
generally entertained, and a cry was raised that 'the Church
was in danger.' The English bishops sent a representation to
Henry against the appointment, and the electors long refused
to obey his mandate, saying that 'it was indecent that a man
who was rather a soldier than a priest, and who had devoted
himself to hunting and falconry instead of the study of the
Holy Scriptures, should be placed in the chair of St.
Augustine.' ... The universal expectation was, that Becket
would now attempt the part so successfully played by Cardinal
Wolsey in a succeeding age; that, Chancellor and Archbishop,
he would continue the minister and personal friend of the
King; that he would study to support and extend all the
prerogatives of the Crown, which he himself was to exercise;
and that in the palaces of which he was now master he would
live with increased magnificence and luxury. ... Never was
there so wonderful a transformation. Whether from a
predetermined purpose, or from a sudden change of inclination,
he immediately became in every respect an altered man.
{800}
Instead of the stately and fastidious courtier, was seen the
humble and squalid penitent. Next [to] his skin he wore
hair-cloth, populous with vermin; he lived upon roots, and his
drink was water, rendered nauseous by an infusion of fennel.
By way of further penance and mortification, he frequently
inflicted stripes on his naked back. ... He sent the Great
Seal to Henry, in Normandy, with this short message, 'I desire
that you will provide yourself with another Chancellor, as I
find myself hardly sufficient for the duties of one office,
and much less of two.' The fond patron, who had been so eager
for his elevation, was now grievously disappointed and
alarmed. ... He at once saw that he had been deceived in his
choice. ... The grand struggle which the Church was then
making was, that all churchmen should be entirely exempted
from the jurisdiction of the secular courts, whatever crime
they might have committed. ... Henry, thinking that he had a
favourable opportunity for bringing the dispute to a crisis,
summoned an assembly of all the prelates at Westminster, and
himself put to them this plain question: 'Whether they were
willing to submit to the ancient laws and customs of the
kingdom?' Their reply, framed by Becket, was: 'We are willing,
saving our own order.' ... The King, seeing what was
comprehended in the reservation, retired with evident marks of
displeasure, deprived Becket of the government of Eye and
Berkhamstead, and all the appointments which he held at the
pleasure of the Crown, and uttered threats as to seizing the
temporalities of all the bishops, since they would not
acknowledge their allegiance to him as the head of the state.
The legate of Pope Alexander, dreading a breach with so
powerful a prince at so unseasonable a juncture, advised
Becket to submit for the moment; and he with his brethren,
retracting the saving clause, absolutely promised 'to observe
the laws and customs of the kingdom.' To avoid all future
dispute, Henry resolved to follow up his victory by having
these laws and customs, as far as the Church was concerned,
reduced into a code, to be sanctioned by the legislature, and
to be specifically acknowledged by all the bishops. This was
the origin of the famous 'Constitutions of Clarendon.'''
Becket left the kingdom (1164). Several years later he made
peace with Henry and returned to Canterbury; but soon he again
displeased the King, who cried in a rage, 'Who will rid me of
this turbulent priest?' Four knights who were present
immediately went to Canterbury, where they slew the Archbishop
in the cathedral (December 29, 1170). "The government tried to
justify or palliate the murder. The Archbishop of York likened
Thomas à Becket to Pharaoh, who died by the Divine vengeance,
as a punishment for his hardness of heart; and a proclamation
was issued, forbidding anyone to speak of Thomas of Canterbury
as a martyr: but the feelings of men were too strong to be
checked by authority; pieces of linen which had been dipped in
his blood were preserved as relics; from the time of his death
it was believed that miracles were worked at his tomb; thither
flocked hundreds of thousands, in spite of the most violent
threats of punishment; at the end of two years he was
canonised at Rome; and, till the breaking out of the
Reformation, St. Thomas of Canterbury, for pilgrimages and
prayers, was the most distinguished Saint in England."

_Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Lord Chancellors,
chapter 3._

"What did Henry II. propose to do with a clerk who was accused
of a crime? ... Without doing much violence to the text, it is
possible to put two different interpretations upon that famous
clause in the Constitutions of Clarendon which deals with
criminous clerks. ... According to what seems to be the
commonest opinion, we might comment upon this clause in some
such words as these:--Offences of which a clerk may be accused
are of two kinds. They are temporal or they are
ecclesiastical. Under the former head fall murder, robbery,
larceny, rape, and the like; under the latter, incontinence,
heresy, disobedience to superiors, breach of rules relating to
the conduct of divine service, and so forth. If charged with
an offence of the temporal kind, the clerk must stand his
trial in the king's court; his trial, his sentence, will be
like that of a layman. For an ecclesiastical offence, on the
other hand, he will be tried in the court Christian. The king
reserves to his court the right to decide what offences are
temporal, what ecclesiastical; also he asserts the right to
send delegates to supervise the proceedings of the spiritual
tribunals. ... Let us attempt a rival commentary. The author
of this clause is not thinking of two different classes of
offences. The purely ecclesiastical offences are not in
debate. No one doubts that for these a man will be tried in
and punished by the spiritual court. He is thinking of the
grave crimes, of murder and the like. Now every such crime is
a breach of temporal law, and it is also a breach of canon
law. The clerk who commits murder breaks the king's peace, but
he also infringes the divine law, and--no canonist will doubt
this--ought to be degraded. Very well. A clerk is accused of
such a crime. He is summoned before the king's court, and he
is to answer there--let us mark this word respondere--for what
he ought to answer for there. What ought he to answer for
there? The breach of the king's peace and the felony. When he
has answered, ... then, without any trial, he is to be sent to
the ecclesiastical court. In that court he will have to answer
as an ordained clerk accused of homicide, and in that court
there will be a trial (res ibi tractabitur). If the spiritual
court convicts him it will degrade him, and thenceforth the
church must no longer protect him. He will be brought back
into the king's court, ... and having been brought back, no
longer a clerk but a mere layman, he will be sentenced
(probably without any further trial) to the layman's
punishment, death or mutilation. The scheme is this:
accusation and plea in the temporal court; trial, conviction,
degradation, in the ecclesiastical court; sentence in the
temporal court to the layman's punishment. This I believe to
be the meaning of the clause."

_F. W. Maitland,
Henry II. and the Criminous Clerks
(English Historical Review, April, 1892),
pages 224-226._

The Assize of Clarendon, sometimes confused with the
Constitutions of Clarendon, was an important decree approved
two years later. It laid down the principles on which the
administration of justice was to be carried out, in twenty-two
articles drawn up for the use of the judges.

_Mrs. J. R Green,
Henry the Second,
chapters 5-6._

{801}

"It may not be without instruction to remember that the
Constitutions of Clarendon, which Becket spent his life in
opposing, and of which his death procured the suspension, are
now incorporated in the English law, and are regarded, without
a dissentient voice, as among the wisest and most necessary of
English institutions; that the especial point for which he
surrendered his life was not the independence of the clergy
from the encroachments of the Crown, but the personal and now
forgotten question of the superiority of the see of Canterbury
to the see of York."

_A. P. Stanley,
Historical Memorials of Canterbury,
page 124._

ALSO IN:
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 12, sections 139-141._

_W. Stubbs,
Select Charters,
part 4._

_J. C. Robertson,
Becket._

_J. A. Giles,
Life and Letters of Thomas à Becket._

_R. H. Froude,
History of the Contest between Archbishop
Thomas à Becket and Henry II.
(Remains, part 2, volume 2)._

_J. A. Froude,
Life and Times of Thomas Becket._

_C. H. Pearson,
History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
volume 1, chapter 29._

See, also,
BENEFIT OF CLERGY,
and JURY, TRIAL BY.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1189.
Accession of King Richard I. (called Cœur de Lion).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1189-1199.
Reign of Richard Cœur de Lion.
His Crusade and campaigns in France.

"The Third Crusade [see CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192], undertaken
for the deliverance of Palestine from the disasters brought
upon the Crusaders' Kingdom by Saladin, was the first to be
popular in England. ... Richard joined the Crusade in the very
first year of his reign, and every portion of his subsequent
career was concerned with its consequences. Neither in the
time of William Rufus nor of Stephen had the First or Second
Crusades found England sufficiently settled for such
expeditions. ... But the patronage of the Crusades was a
hereditary distinction in the Angevin family now reigning in
England: they had founded the kingdom of Palestine; Henry II.
himself had often prepared to set out; and Richard was
confidently expected by the great body of his subjects to
redeem the family pledge. ... Wholly inferior in statesmanlike
qualities to his father as he was, the generosity,
munificence, and easy confidence of his character made him an
almost perfect representative of the chivalry of that age. He
was scarcely at all in England, but his fine exploits both by
land and sea have made him deservedly a favourite. The
depreciation of him which is to be found in certain modern
books must in all fairness be considered a little mawkish. A
King who leaves behind him such an example of apparently
reckless, but really prudent valour, of patience under jealous
ill-treatment, and perseverance in the face of extreme
difficulties, shining out as the head of the manhood of his
day, far above the common race of kings and emperors,--such a
man leaves a heritage of example as well as glory, and incites
posterity to noble deeds. His great moral fault was his
conduct to Henry, and for this he was sufficiently punished;
but his parents must each bear their share of the blame. ...
The interest of English affairs during Richard's absence
languishes under the excitement which attends his almost
continuous campaigns. ... Both on the Crusade and in France
Richard was fighting the battle of the House which the English
had very deliberately placed upon its throne; and if the war
was kept off its shores, if the troubles of Stephen's reign
were not allowed to recur, the country had no right to
complain of a taxation or a royal ransom which times of peace
enabled it, after all, to bear tolerably well. ... The great
maritime position of the Plantagenets made these sovereigns
take to the sea."

_M. Burrows,
Commentaries on the History of England,
book 1, chapter 18._

Richard "was a bad king; his great exploits, his military
skill, his splendour and extravagance, his poetical tastes,
his adventurous spirit, do not serve to cloak his entire want
of sympathy, or even consideration for his people. He was no
Englishman. ... His ambition was that of a mere warrior."

_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
section. 150 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN:
_K. Norgate,
England under the Angevin Kings,
volume 2, chapter 7-8._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1199.
Accession of King John.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1205.
The loss of Normandy and its effects.

In 1202 Philip Augustus, king of France, summoned John of
England, as Duke of Normandy (therefore the feudal vassal of
the French crown) to appear for trial on certain grave charges
before the august court of the Peers of France. John refused
to obey the summons; his French fiefs were declared forfeited,
and the armies of the French king took possession of them (see
FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224). This proved to be a lasting
separation of Normandy from England,--except as it was
recovered momentarily long afterwards in the conquests of
Henry V. "The Norman barons had had no choice but between John
and Philip. For the first time since the Conquest there was no
competitor, son, brother, or more distant kinsman, for their
allegiance. John could neither rule nor defend them. Bishops
and barons alike welcomed or speedily accepted their new lord.
The families that had estates on both sides of the Channel
divided into two branches, each of which made terms for
itself; or having balanced their interests in the two
kingdoms, threw in their lot with one or other, and renounced
what they could not save. Almost immediately Normandy settles
down into a quiet province of France. ... For England the
result of the separation was more important still. Even within
the reign of John it became clear that the release of the
barons from their connexion with the continent was all that
was wanted to make them Englishmen. With the last vestiges of
the Norman inheritances vanished the last idea of making
England a feudal kingdom. The Great Charter was won by men who
were maintaining, not the cause of a class, as had been the
case in every civil war since 1070, but the cause of a nation.
From the year 1203 the king stood before the English people
face to face."

_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 12, section 152._

See FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1205-1213.
King John's quarrel with the Pope and the Church.

On the death, in 1205, of Archbishop Hubert, of Canterbury,
who had long been chief minister of the crown, a complicated
quarrel over the appointment to the vacant see arose between
the monks of the cathedral, the suffragan bishops of the
province, King John, and the powerful Pope Innocent III. Pope
Innocent put forward as his candidate the afterwards famous
Stephen Langton, secured his election in a somewhat irregular
way (A. D. 1207), and consecrated him with his own hands. King
John, bent on filling the primacy with a creature of his own,
resisted the papal action with more fury than discretion, and
proceeded to open war with the whole Church.
{802}
"The monks of Canterbury were driven from their monastery, and
when, in the following year, an interdict which the Pope had
intrusted to the Bishops of London, Ely and Worcester, was
published, his hostility to the Church became so extreme that
almost all the bishops fled; the Bishops of Winchester,
Durham, and Norwich, two of whom belonged to the ministerial
body, being the only prelates left in England. The interdict
was of the severest form; all services of the Church, with the
exception of baptism and extreme unction, being forbidden,
while the burial of the dead was allowed only in unconsecrated
ground; its effect was however, weakened by the conduct of
some of the monastic orders, who claimed exemption from its
operation, and continued their services. The king's anger knew
no bounds. The clergy were put beyond the protection of the
law; orders were issued to drive them from their benefices,
and lawless acts committed at their expense met with no
punishment. ... Though acting thus violently, John showed the
weakness of his character by continued communication with the
Pope, and occasional fitful acts of favour to the Church; so
much so, that, in the following year, Langton prepared to come
over to England, and, upon the continued obstinacy of the
king, Innocent, feeling sure of his final victory, did not
shrink from issuing his threatened excommunication. John had
hoped to be able to exclude the knowledge of this step from
the island ... ; but the rumour of it soon got abroad, and its
effect was great. ... In a state of nervous excitement, and
mistrusting his nobles, the king himself perpetually moved to
and fro in his kingdom, seldom staying more than a few days in
one place. None the less did he continue his old line of policy.
... In 1211 a league of excommunicated leaders was formed,
including all the princes of the North of Europe; Ferrand of
Flanders, the Duke of Brabant, John, and Otho [John's Guelphic
Saxon nephew, who was one of two contestants for the imperial
crown in Germany], were all members of it, and it was chiefly
organized by the activity of Reinald of Dammartin, Count of
Boulogne. The chief enemy of these confederates was Philip of
France; and John thought he saw in this league the means of
revenge against his old enemy. To complete the line of
demarcation between the two parties, Innocent, who was greatly
moved by the description of the disorders and persecutions in
England, declared John's crown forfeited, and intrusted the
carrying out of the sentence to Philip. In 1213 armies were
collected on both sides. Philip was already on the Channel,
and John had assembled a large army on Barhamdown, not far
from Canterbury." But, at the last moment, when the French
king was on the eve of embarking his forces for the invasion
of England, John submitted himself abjectly to Pandulf, the
legate of the Pope. He not only surrendered to all that he had
contended against, but went further, to the most shameful
extreme. "On the 15th of May, at Dover, he formally resigned
the crowns of England and Ireland into the hands of Pandulf,
and received them again as the Pope's feudatory."

_J. F. Bright,
History of England (3d edition),
volume 1, pages 130-134._

ALSO IN:
_C. H. Pearson,
History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
volume 2, chapter 2._

_E. F. Henderson,
Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,