in the city aforesaid; and that certain others, still wearing the garb aforesaid, but deserting their due obedience, are dwelling in the same city without the close of the same Friars, and do not fear to take part in various matters that are not beseeming to them to the peril of their souls, the scandal of the said Order, and the injury of ecclesiastical propriety—we, for the especial affection which for the same Order we do entertain, and have long entertained, wishing to restrain the malevolence of such insolent persons, and to provide for the repose and honour of the Friars of the said Order, so far as in good manner we may, do command you, that all vagabond Friars of the said Order found within the city aforesaid, so often as and when in future you shall be requested by the Prior of the same Order in the city aforesaid, or other the Friars by him thereunto deputed, you will cause to be arrested without delay, and to the house of the same Friars securely to be conducted, unto the brethren of the same house there to be delivered, by them, according to the discipline of their Order, to be chastised. And forasmuch as we have understood that the apostates aforesaid, contriving to the utmost of their power how to palliate the heinousness of their errors, and by false suggestions to vilify the Order aforesaid, have published defamatory writings, and have caused the same in public places within the city aforesaid to be read and recited, and have left copies of the same in those places fixed upon the walls, that so they might the more widely defame the same Order, and withhold the devotion of the faithful from the same; and still from day to day do not desist to do the like, and even worse, against the same Order; as, also, that many men are assisting the same apostates in the premises giving them aid and favour therein—we do command you, strongly enjoining, that on our behalf you will cause in the city aforesaid strict prohibition to be made that any person shall, on pain of heavy forfeiture to us, write any such manner of writings containing defamation of the said Order, or publish the same, or give aid to those writing or publishing the same, either secretly or openly; or shall presume to inflict loss, injury, or grievance upon the Friars of the said Order whom we have taken under our own especial protection and defence. And if you shall find any persons transgressors of such our prohibition, you are to cause them in such manner to be punished, that through their example others may be duly restrained from the commission of such offences. Witness myself at York this 18th day of September in the 8th year of our reign.
CHARGES AGAINST THE DESPENSERS (1319).
Source.—Holinshed's Chronicle, iii. 327.
Articles wherewith the barons charged the Despensers:
1. Amongst other things it was alleged; first that Hugh Spenser the son, being on a time angry and displeased with the King, sought to ally and confederate himself with the lord Gifford of Brimsfield, and the lord Richard Gray, to have constrained and forced the King by strong hand to have followed his will and pleasure.
2. Secondly, it was alleged, that the said Spensers as well the father as the son, had caused the King to ride into Gloucestershire, to oppress and destroy the good people of his land, contrary to the form of the great charter.
3. Thirdly, that where the Earl of Hereford and the lord Mortimer of Wigmore, had gone against one Llewelyn Bren, who had raised a rebellion against the King in Glamorganshire, while the lands of the Earl of Gloucester were in the King's hands, the same Llewelyn yielded himselfe to the said earl, and to the Lord Mortimer, who brought him to the King, upon promise that he should have the King's pardon, and so the King received him. But after that the said Earl and lord Mortimer were out of the land, the Spensers taking to them royal power, took the said Llewelyn and led him into Cardiff, where after that the said Hugh Spenser the son had his purparty[4] of the said Earl of Gloucester's lands, he caused the said Llewelyn to be drawn, headed and quartered, to the discredit of the King, and of the said Earl of Hereford and Lord Mortimer, yea and contrary to the laws and dignity of the imperial crown.
4. Fourthly, the said Spensers counselled the King to forejudge Sir Hugh Audley, son to the lord Hugh Audley, and to take into his hands his castles and possessions. They compassed also to have attainted the lord Roger D'Amorie, that thereby they might have enjoyed the whole earldom of Gloucester.
FOOTNOTES:
[4] = Share, part.
POPULAR FEELING ABOUT THE EARL OF LANCASTER'S DEATH (1322).
Source.—Henry Knighton's Chronicle (Rolls Series), 426–427.
The Earl therefore having died for the sake of Justice, Church, and State, as it seemed to the people, crowds hurried from all parts with gifts of offerings in order to show honour and reverence to the body of the Earl according to his desert, and they ceased not until the King, aroused by the Despensers, sent armed men to prevent them from entering into the church, and ordered, under pain of imprisonment, that no one should go into the church to offer honour or reverence to the body. And when the people saw that they were prevented from entering the church by the royal power, they turned the seat of their devotion to the place where the Earl had died, and were rushing thither in greater numbers (for which cause the more intense severity of the King was directed against the pilgrims), until the soil of all the field was moved away, and a church was built there with chaplains serving God and by no means poorly endowed. … It is to be remarked that all those who consented to the death of the Earl afterwards finished by a shameful death. First of all the King himself; his two brothers, namely Thomas Earl Marshall and Edmund Earl of Kent, both of whom had been raised and promoted at the instance of the said Earl of Lancaster; the Earl Warrenne; the Earl of Arundell; Lord Hugh Despenser the father, and Lord Hugh the son; the Earl of Richmond; the Earl of Pembroke; Lord Aylmer de Valence; but among them there was not one who ended life honourably, neither them nor any of their adherents.
THE REVOCATION OF THE ORDINANCES (1322).
Source.—Statutes at Large (ed. 1762), i. 372.
Since our lord the King Edward, son of King Edward, the 16th day of March in the third year of his reign, to the honour of God and for the good of himself and his realm granted to the prelates, earls and barons of his realm that they should choose certain persons from among the prelates, earls and barons and other loyal men whom it should seem meet to call to them, in order to ordain and establish the estate of the household of our lord the King and of his realm according to right and reason and in such manner that their ordinances should be made to the honour of God and to the honour and benefit of holy church and to the honour of the said King and his benefit and to the benefit of his people according to right and reason and the oath which our said lord the King made at his Coronation, and the Archbishop of Canterbury Primate of all England and the prelates, earls and barons chosen for that purpose made such ordinances which began: "Edward by the grace of God, etc." … which ordinances our said lord the King caused to be rehearsed and examined at his Parliament at York, three weeks from Easter in the 15th year of his reign, by the prelates, earls and barons among whom were most of the said ordainers who were then alive, and by the commons of the realm summoned thither by his command. And because it was found by this examination in the said Parliament, that by those things which had been ordained, the true power of our said lord the King was restrained in many ways contrary to the due embellishment of his true lordship and injurious to the estate of the crown; and moreover that in times
