CHAPTER IV. LAST YEARS OF LANGTON'S WORK, 1217—1228. THE suspension of Langton from his work in England' was received by John with eager delight, and with a sort of savage humour he called on the monastery of St. Alban's, which he had treated most brutally and tyrannically, to confirm Innocent's sentence. On the barons the blow must have fallen with terrible severity. William d'Albini, the ablest military leader, was now a prisoner; Ægid, Bishop of Hereford, one of their staunchest supporters, had gone over to John's side; Eustace of Ely was dead; 5 and now he on whom they chiefly relied for obtaining justice, either at Rome or in England, was thrust aside from his 4 1 Roger of Wendover, vol. iii. p. 347. 2 M. Paris, Vitæ Abbatum S. Albani. • Roger of Wendover, p. 347. Contin. Roger of Hoveden, p. 178. 4 Ibid. p. 173. Roger of Wendover, p. 348. 2 work when most needed. The torpor which had seized them during the siege of Rochester seems to have grown on them to a shameful extent; and while John marched northward with the Earl of Albemarle and some of that band of Flemings' who neither feared God nor regarded man'; and the Earl of Salisbury and Savair de Mauléon, attended by two of the wildest of their party, Falkes de Bréauté and Walter Buck,' marched against London and laid waste the country round; the barons remained idly in the city, repeating, with ill-timed piety, 'The Lord gave, and the Lord taketh away.'3 But the misery of the country would have created the compassion of far harder men. Roger of Wendover describes the scene in a strain of his highest eloquence. 'For over the whole face of the land there worked together those limbs of the devil who had been gathered for this purpose from the remote parts of the earth, to destroy all things from the face of the earth, from men down to cattle.1 'Nay, priests, while standing at the very altar, brandishing the sign of the Lord's cross in their 1 Roger of Wendover, p. 349. Ibid. p. 351. 2 Ibid. hands, glittering in their sacred vestments, were seized, tortured, spoiled, and wounded; nor did there remain bishop, priest, or Levite who could pour in oil and wine on the wounds which had been inflicted.' This state of things at last stirred the barons to a resolution which brought strange consequences to England. How far we have a right to blame their act, it is very difficult to say. A king supported by Flemish and Poitevin mercenaries had little claim to be considered a national sovereign; and it was necessary to choose a prince who could rally sufficient support to the cause of freedom to give some hope of resistance to John. The mere name of rebellion and insurrection against a sovereign frightened many from the barons' cause who would come over to them when they were supported by some one who could put forward a claim to the throne; and one hardly sees to whom they could have appealed with more excuse than to Prince 1 Thus I cannot but sympathize with Mr. Pearson's remark (p. 102):-' Disgraceful as it might seem to seek the aid of foreigners and of Frenchmen, it was really resorting to the same desperate expedient which the King had tried from the first, and England under a foreign prince would have better guarantees for liberty than England under a foreign army.' Louis. Young Henry was in the hands of John's friends; the Earl of Salisbury would in all probability have refused the nomination of the barons ; and Louis was married to a niece of John. Therefore, while I fully admit that the invitation of Louis to England was a grave error, and an error caused in the first instance by a want of courage and decision on the part of the barons, I think that, taking into account the feelings of the time, we have little more right to speak severely of the Englishmen who invited Louis to England in 1216 than of those who invited William of Orange in 1868. Both acts, tried by the highest rules of patriotism, were wrong; and it is mainly the illsuccess of the earlier act which has made us condemn it most strongly. Louis himself does not seem to have hesitated in his determination, but Philip hesitated between his desire for conquest and his wish to maintain his hardly-won reputation for orthodoxy and devotion to the Church. Innocent had acted with his usual vigour, and despatched Gualo, his legate, to France1 to forbid the invasion of the patrimony of St. Peter. Philip's answer was an appeal to the rights at once of kings and nobles. Richard, he said,' had declared John guilty of treason to him in his lifetime; therefore, John, not being lawfully King, could not dispose of the kingdom; and, secondly, even a lawful king could not dispose of his land without the consent of his barons. The French barons eagerly applauded this sen 2 timent; but Philip was too cautious to sanction the expedition directly, even if supported by such authority, and he urged Louis not to offend the Pope.3 Louis therefore proceeded to argue the case before the Legate, dwelling chiefly on the deposition of John by the barons of France after the murder of Arthur. At last, however, finding the Legate inaccessible to his arguments, he declared he would be judged only by his peers, and he set sail for England. The effect of his arrival was speedily felt. The Earl of Salisbury, who had been unwilling to join a mere insurrection, was ready to support the title of Louis against that of John; and he brought to Louis' side the son of the Earl of Pembroke and the Earl of Warenne.5 Stranger still, many of the 1 Roger of Wendover, p. 384. 9 Ibid. 5 Ibid. p. 369. 2 Ibid. |