On this Day in History ... 16th July

Calendar Inquitisitions Port Mortem Volume 8 Edward III 185. 185. Giles De Badelesmere (deceased), Knight.

Writ to Henry Darcy, mayor of the city of London, and king's escheator there, 16 July [1338], 12 Edward III.

London.

Inq. Friday before St. Bartholomew, 12 Edward III.

Alegate. A tenement, 17 shops, and a garden adjacent, within Alegate, worth when let 9l.; out of which there are paid yearly to the lords of that fee for quit rent, 56s. 4d., and for repairs, 40s.

Lymstret lane. A tenement and a garden, worth 40s., out of which are paid yearly for repair of houses and walls and for enclosing of the said tenement and garden, 20s.

All held of the king in chief, as the whole of the city of London is.

Margery (age 30) the wife of Sir William de Ros (age 53), Maud (age 30) the wife of the earl of Oxford (age 26), Elizabeth (age 25) the wife of the earl of Northampton (age 28), and Margery (age 23) (sic) the wife of Sir John Tipetoft (age 24), are his sisters and co-heirs, and of full age.

John Tiptoft 2nd Baron Tibetot.

Continues.

Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough. The law of nature, prior to all else and teaching all living creatures alike, has granted the right of self-defence against violent wrongs, establishing as a universal legal principle that whatever a person does to ward off force and injury, he does lawfully for his own protection. Now, when for some time past the dangers of war, fierce in spirit, and the injurious risks of losses have been stirred up against us and inflicted upon us, things which are well known to the whole world and, through our frequent notification, have also been sufficiently made known to your blessedness at the apostolic see, having, as God knows, a peace-loving heart, we have, in order to avoid and put an end to those troubles, voluntarily offered to our assailant, reverently and humbly, ways of peace, perhaps too graciously, and not without great prejudice to our own rights. Thus, setting aside the further pursuit of any of our legal claims at that time of just grief, when, on account of the aroused rage of the Sultan of Babylon, and of other enemies of the Cross, and of the crusade sworn and solemnly proclaimed against them in overseas parts, Christians were perishing and still perish, and the injuries to the Crucified grow monstrously, we might, as we ought and as we most eagerly desire, devote ourselves to the cause of Christ, which is being neglected, indeed rather brought into grave neglect, to the great discredit and notorious dishonour of every king who professes Christ, and most of all of one who most deserves otherwise. Yet we do not know by what sin it comes about that, from the offers of peace humbly made, out of which there ought to have arisen love of peace, there has grown, in him who persecutes us solely by his own will, a swelling of greater wrath and greater hardness of heart. And yet, God and our conscience being witness for us, nothing done or attempted by us against him provokes him thus against us; indeed, the eyes of the world, our public witnesses, see that our aforesaid persecutor, styling himself king of France, wounds and diminishes us and our rights with many and grievous injuries. He is, in truth, the invader and unlawful occupier of the very kingdom of France, which is known to pertain to us by every legitimate hereditary right. That kingdom, which, had he wished to claim it lawfully, he ought, with us summoned or defended, to have sought according to the due order of law, he did not hesitate to seize, although we were a man, and a person whose interest in it was notoriously certain, and although our right in that kingdom was as notorious as it was founded on the common law. For it is presupposed, as the clear evidence of a notorious fact presupposes, that Philip, of celebrated memory, once king of France, the father of Charles, king of France of blessed memory, lately deceased, and of our serene lady Isabella, queen of England, our mother, was our grandfather; and since, at the time of Charles's death, there was no male descendant surviving from the same Philip more closely related to him than we were, and since, by the law long preserved in that kingdom, a female person is incapable of the said kingdom, that law, having regard to the favour of the right to the aforesaid throne, so that the kingdom might not fall under the weak governance of a woman, and for that reason excluding the person of a woman, does not exclude the person of a male descending through a woman so excluded, lest there be made an endless and always hateful prolongation of hostilities, from person to person, sex to sex, cause to cause, hatred to favour; and lest, against the common traditions of the law, the female sex, where it is most a matter of hostility, should disinherit the male. Moreover, by the aforesaid law, the weakness of the female sex is excluded from the kingdom, so that the kingdom may be more safely provided for, and the nearer male is to be admitted, especially in the case where the right in question does not arise primarily from the mother so excluded, but is propagated in the grandson, deriving originally from the grandfather. Otherwise, there would follow another absurdity of injustice, through the odious prolongation mentioned above, namely, that the closer collateral relative would be excluded so that the more remote might be called, whereas by the law of nations itself and by natural law, brothers and sisters and their children, in mutual succession, are preferred to other collaterals of a different line. And thus, from the said law, arising for the benefit of the kingdom and from the hostility toward a woman's incapacity to rule, there would arise, by injury to males through the female line, an occasion contrary to both the law and to the descendants. Nor should the intention of the said law be considered so unjust as to condemn both mother and son alike by contradictory reasoning. Rather, on the contrary, by the judgment of that same law, whereby the mother is expelled from the succession, the succession is then deferred to the son who enters into the degree of his mother, by likeness to the son who enters in the place of a failing parent, so that he may be admitted to the succession even with uncles; and thus, rightly, the sorrowful mother, stripped, by the aforesaid severity, of the royal inheritance, may be consoled by the substitution thus made for her, rejoicing in her son, nor should affliction be heaped upon affliction, which holy consideration of the law abhors. For we see this also where the burden of affliction has not been directly imposed by the law, but arises by chance in the law, namely, that the customary law granting the goods of shipwrecked persons to another is condemned; and by this reasoning, what is corrected in express statute to avoid the addition of affliction is, with much greater force, forbidden in the case of an unexpressed rule. Let the law, therefore, of the kingdom of France be more than fully satisfied, that it has cut off the royal roots from the mother, not by her own fault, but by the act of nature which made her a woman, and that the mother, expressly by that law, suffers, as it were, a kind of shipwreck through her own disinheritance, without its being the case that, by the silent consequence of the aforesaid law, and contrary to all right, she should again suffer shipwreck together with her disinherited son, and that punishment should be found to be increased without fault, when, even where there is fault, it ought to be softened. Otherwise, if it were understood that the son is to be excluded from the kingdom because the mother is not admitted to the kingdom by law, then the kingdom of the Jews would not have legitimately come to Jesus, against the foundation of the faith, who, though born by the mystery of God and not by union with a man, from the female royal line of David in the Virgin Mary, not admitted nor even admissible to such a kingdom, yet by the certain truth of the faith was the true and lawful king of the Jews. Far be it that the royal succession of Jesus, son of David, should be regarded as a breaking or loosening of legal observance or bond, since He declares that He came not to destroy the law but to fulfil it. This most excellent example of lawful succession reasonably imposes silence on the loquacity of the law contrary to our right in the aforesaid kingdom of France, lest in respect of the legitimate degree and order of succession we be surpassed in the framing or interpretation of law by those whom in this matter the identity of reason makes our equals. Moreover, not only was our due summons and our right of defence omitted, where so great a prejudice to us was in question, but also our procurators, who went into France so that they might lawfully appear for us and for our right, were not only not admitted to plead in court, but were driven away under threat of a horrible death. And thus the aforesaid title of ours is in no way excused by the act of the twelve peers of France, who, as regards us, being at that time of tender years and under age, by abandoning the role of judges, thereby took upon themselves the role of robbers; whose process, carried out to our prejudice, was made invalid in law by our minority, which, even in the case of one of full age, would not have been valid when the defence, which belongs to every man by the law of nature and cannot be taken away by prince or by law, was taken away in such a manner. It is also commonly known everywhere how, in our duchy of Aquitaine, he has always attacked and assaulted our rights, invading and laying waste to our lands, which he seized when he could, adding them to our other lands which he occupied, and, claiming a right for himself at will, with the fear of God set aside, holding them for himself. The Scots also, who by the rights of former times were subject to our crown, but who, through the mad injustice of rebellion, stubbornly kicking against their natural lord, were guilty of the crime of lèse-majesté against our predecessors and ourselves, he, in order that he might omit no injury against us, joined to himself by a treaty, thereby in so great a crime of injury to us supporting those whom, by blood and by nature, he ought rather to have aided. And when all these things did not fulfil the vow of injury he had made, gathering from everywhere whatever forces he could, he has amassed them so that the torrent of his wrath might swallow us up, intent on removing us from the world, although we had given no attention to that, perhaps measuring our intent against him by his own deed against us, which he could not have gathered or measured from any judgment on any act of ours not yet committed. Moreover, begrudging the gift of divine grace bestowed upon us, he has seemed to regard as an injury to himself that we should live upon the earth in our kingdom of England, if not, so far as the Lord granted, prosperously, at least in all things peacefully as far as he was concerned, and that the people who serve us, or rather whom we serve, should in our times, by the gift of God, have been glorious. These things, however, did not at once, when heard or known, move us; rather, we passed them over in silence, sparing no one in burden or in honour, so that his persecution and injury against us might cease, and that our time with him might be one of peace, until we saw the sword drawn close to us, prepared for the slaughter and destruction of ourselves and our people. But is there anyone who would believe that the spirit of a prince of such great power, known to us, and, as stated above, already in possession of what he had taken from us, should be disregarded, when he, armed with the strength of his own will and surrounded on every side by power summoned to his aid, has abandoned the sworn cause of Christ solely so that he might more freely persecute us at his own pleasure? What then, for the sake of his own right and his own security, was not lawful for a king who already saw the danger to his position and his people? Let him who knows say what is not lawful for a man striving to avoid injuries and losses, especially in those matters which clearly set the axe to the root of life and state. Could the fear be called light or vain, which, if it could shake the hearts of illustrious and valiant men united to us, should far more strongly have struck terror into us, upon whom alone the conceived machinations of these dangers were aimed? Therefore, by the dictate of natural law, as defenders not voluntary but necessary both of ourselves and of our rights, and attending to timely precautions, following the proven precepts of the military art of illustrious men of old, that the dangers plotted by great power are more perilous the longer they are awaited, we went out to meet, with greater prudence, those very fires lately rushing toward the setting of our life and safety, so that they might not perhaps proceed to our harm, but be stifled at their source. We did this relying on the counsel and aid offered to us by those whom blood and marriage bound to us, and who, together with us, were concerned to meet the dangers of our destruction, and to guard against them with counsel and help, placing in the hand of God that cause of ours, justified as far as we could, which once we wished to place in the hands of your apostolic see or of other good and impartial men, so that He, looking down from on high upon what is right, might deliver a just sentence and execute it in the power of His sword. Nor, we believe, good father, will any upright arbiter or just judge so interpret or twist our deed as to think that what we did, for the protection and securing of our rights in so great a danger, for our own defence, was an injury or offence to another, one which we neither intended, nor did, nor will do. Rather, we believe, and are certain, that the intention of our action will be considered, and that what is done, where it is done, and for what reason it is done, will be weighed with due consideration, and will be measured in the scales of a just judge. And, as the sanction of law teaches, it is not the deed that should be judged from the word, but the word from the deed. Indeed, it would not be a worthy presumption of law, nor a benign or civil interpretation such as legal judgment always dictates, if anyone should say that the known exercise of our right, and the necessity of our defence, is the loss of another's right through an unlawful offence. Let, therefore, we pray, all conjecture about our certain actions cease, and let it only claim a place in matters that are uncertain. For perhaps our accuser, a malicious interpreter of our conduct, will say that we have received a man against whom, it is reported, the Church has proceeded, or one who is not obedient to the vicar of the Church. He will not say that we act in the place of a brother and kinsman, and that we do not claim for ourselves the title of right in this matter, but only take to ourselves the use of his power, so that, supported by a necessary protection, we may, where we now are, defend ourselves from the dangers heaped up for our ruin, and strive for the just attainment of our rights. He will not say that we intend to defend ourselves and to contend for our own right, not to attack the Church or to favour its attackers, indeed, for its honour we would surely contend, without regard for any danger, as befits the Catholic excellence of kings. For, as all law holds, the intention and the final cause or principal reason of any action is above all to be attended to, and from the knowledge of the will and purpose arises a distinct and certain understanding of the accused deed; and only the actual deeds of men, not verbal constructions, should be weighed. He will not say that we have made of this matter a shield against one who aimed the blow of death at our head; nor that we have acted after the example of a wise physician, who causes a death-bearing matter, rushing toward those parts of the body where life resides, to turn aside to the limbs in which the matter cannot be feared, though it was prepared for the destruction of what was nearest. Thus speaks, holy father, thus speaks the man who, in his snares, sought to find us unguarded and entirely unprepared. But without doubt it was more prudent for us, according to the military theory which teaches that the peril of war is more avoided by pursuing it away from the border of one's land, to engage with our notorious enemy for our right, allied with the lands of powerful men, rather than in our own person alone. Let not, therefore, in the heart of your mercy and holiness, the hostile or distorted reports of detractors find a place, concerning a son who, in the hereditary right of his ancestors, has always remained, and will remain, steadfast in the grace and obedience of your predecessors, of yourself, and of the apostolic see. Indeed, if any suggestion of this kind about the son should perhaps strike the ears of your blessedness, let no credence be given to it by your holy dignity until the son himself, who is concerned, has been heard, he who trusts, and ceaselessly intends, before the judgment of your holiness, which presides over every creature, that to deny heresy is to prove, to declare, or to make any cause of one's own to be just. Finally, we say, adding this for greater clarity of our intention and devotion, that if there be anyone joined to us by the bond of nature, and united with us in our defence, who does not walk, as he ought, in the way of obedience to your apostolic see, we intend to give, as we trust we can very usefully give, our unwearied effort, that, leaving aside every deviation, he may return to the way of obedience and make all his path straight. One thing again, which we have heard from many, we respectfully request leave not to pass over in silence, something said before, but the more attentively it is considered, the more sharply it pierces our mind, namely, that the hands of our adversary, now as before, are notoriously armed solely for our destruction, and that, while waging war, he is armed against no one, nor is anyone armed against him, except ourselves, from the patrimony of Christ. This, certainly, neither the kings of England, our illustrious predecessors, champions of Christ, athletes of the faith, most loving zealots of Holy Mother Roman Church, and most devoted observers of her commands, nor we ourselves, have, as far as we know or believe, deserved. And although, because of this, it is said by many, though not by us, that aid given against us has been, as far as we are concerned, not the act of a father or mother, but of a stepmother, nevertheless we steadfastly affirm that we are, and will remain, the devoted and humble son, not the stepson, of your holiness and your see. From this, not without reason, we hope that our humility, made greater and firmer by that injury which it did not deserve, should find a more abundant increase of your fatherly charity and grace, so that what the previous harshness of wounding inflicted upon us without fault, the following gentleness of anointing may erase and make good. We therefore lay open to your pre-eminence of holy height this account of our justice and of the injury so multiplied against us, so that your supreme and sacred measure of good and just, whose office from God it is to give the keys, to open and close to those on earth the gates of heaven, should, as the fullness of your power and the excellence of your tribunal require, favour our right so far as reason allows; being always ready, not only to be humbly instructed by your holy judgment, which presides over all, but also by any other who may know the truth of the contrary. And we, who freely submit to reason, will embrace any truth thus given us, with full and humble gratitude. And because you, reverend fathers, have been called by worthy merit into the share of the care and counsel of the said lord supreme pontiff, and sit beside him to give to the people of Christ the knowledge of salvation, we wish these things to be known to you, so that, when you have learned the justice of our cause, you may give to the truth what you owe to it. For this we stir your provident circumspection with our earnest prayers, you who are accustomed to weigh the rights of each without respect of persons in an equal balance. And if perhaps in our conduct anything should appear that requires the safeguard of wiser counsel, we wish to be healthfully instructed by you in this matter, ready to yield to reason in all our undertakings. Given at Antwerp on the sixteenth day of July, in the year of our Lord 1339.

Jus naturæ prævium, pariter animalia cuncta docens, contra violentas injurias licentiam defensionis indulsit, statuens universaliter jure factum, quod quisque, vim injuriamque propulsans, suam fecerit ad cautelam. Sane, cum dudum animosa guerrarum pericula, injuriosa damnorum discrimina nobis mota fuerunt et illata, quæ toti mundo notoria, et nostra etiam intimatione frequenti apostolicæ sedi facta, satis pro constanti supponitur beatitudini vestræ nota; nos, cor habentes pacificum, novit Deus, pro vitandis illis, et pacificis subducendis, obtulimus nos voluntarie persequenti reverenter et humiliter forte nimis amabiles vias pacis, non sine nostrorum magno jurium interesse, ut, neglecta prosecutione alia cujuslibet juris nostri, tempore illo justi doloris, quo propter accensam furoris Soldani Babiloniæ rabiem, et crucis hostium aliorum ex causa jurati contra eos passagii, et solemniter publicati in partibus transmarinis, peribant, et pereunt Christiani, et crescunt immaniter injuriæ crucifixi, possemus sicut debemus, et propensius anhelamus, intendere causæ Christi, quæ negligitur immo verius imponitur in magnam cujuslibet christicolæ regis, maxime demerentis, infamiam et ignominiæ magnæ notam. Sed nescimus veniat quo peccato, quod de pacificis oblatis humiliter, ex quibus surgere debuit pacis amor, in eo, qui nos sola voluntate persequitur, majoris iracundiæ majorisque duritiæ crevit tumor. Contra nos tamen illum non provocat, Deo et conscientia nostra teste nobis, aliquod factum nostrum vel attemptatum per nos aliud contra eum; immo vident oculi mundi, publici testes nostri, præfatus persecutor noster, Franciæ regem se nominans, damnosis injuriis quot et quantis nos et nostra jura vulnerat et defalcat, Ipsius quidem regni Franciæ, quod ad nos omni successorio jure legitimo pertinere cognoscitur, est invasor et illicitus occupator; regnum ipsum, quod debuit nobis vocatis vel defensis legitime debito juris ordine petere, non veritus occupare, cum vir essemus et quod persona essemus cujus principaliter interesset notorie certum esset, et in regno ipsum jus nostrum foret tam notorium quam communi jure fundatum; supposito, sicut evidentia facti notorii præsupponit, quod celebris recordationis Philippus olim rex Franciæ pater claræ memoriæ Caroli regis Franciæ immediate defuncti, et serenissimæ dominæ Isabellæ reginæ Angliæ matris nostræ, fuerit avus noster, cum eidem Carolo, tempore mortis suæ, ex descendentibus secum ab eodem Philippo masculus superstes proximior fuerit nullus nobis, et persona feminea dicti regni, per jus in eodem regno setting forth servatum antiquitus, sit non capax, quod nos the throne of jus regni præfati favorem in viam causæ finalis attendens, ne regnum ipsum sub feminea fragili gubernatione labatur, et propter hoc personam mulieris excludens, non excludit personam masculi per sic exclusam feminam descendentis, ne fiat juribus semper odibilis prorogatio odiorum, personæ videlicet ad personam, sexus ad sexum, causæ ad causam, odii ad favorem, neve, contra legum traditiones communes, femineum genus, ubi maxime de odio agitur, concipiat masculum. Ad hæc etiam per jus memoratum a regno fragilitas muliebris excluditur, ut regno salubrius consulatur, et proximior masculus admittendus, alias admittatur potissime ad jus illud quod primordialiter a matre sic exclusa non oritur, sed in nepotem propagatum ab avo originaliter derivatur. Alioquin sequeretur et alia iniquitatis absurditas per prorogationem odibilem supradictam, quod excluderetur collateralis conjunctior ut remotior vocaretur, cum tamen, ipso jure gentium naturali, fratres et sorores eorumque filii in successione mutua collateralibus aliis alterius lineæ præferantur. Et unde dictum jus pro regni favore ac odiis femineæ inhabilitatis ad regendum exoritur tam juris quam descendentium, per femineam masculorum injuriam occasio nasceretur. Nec est putanda memorati juris intentio sic iniqua ut matrem et filium ratione contraria similiter damnet. Immo e contra juris ejusdem judicio quo mater a successione expellitur, filio gradum matris ingresso successio tunc differtur, similitudine filii, qui parentis deficientis ingreditur, ut ad successionem cum patruis etiam admittatur, ut sic merito tristis mater, præfato rigore regia hæreditate nudata, substitutione taliter sibi facta, de filio gaudeat consolata, nec afflictioni afflictionem accumulet, quod sancta consideratio legis abhorret, sicut videmus etiam ubi onus afflictionis præamabile non intulit lex, sed casus in lege, scilicet quod consuetudinariam legem damnat, bona concedentem alii naufragorum, qua ratione quod in expresso legali pro vitanda afflictionis adjectione corrigitur, multo fortius in tacito prohibetur. Legi ergo regni Francia sufficiat plusquam plene, matri, non suo vitio, sed naturæ facto, quæ feminam fecit illam, radices regias succidisse, quodque mater expresse per legem ipsam exhæredationis propriæ, quasi quoddam naufragium patiatur, absque eo quod ex legis præfatæ consequenti tacito, omni jure contrario, cum filio exhæredato iterum naufragetur, et sine culpa pœna inveniatur augeri, cum, ubi etiam culpa est, debeat emolliri. Aliter etiamsi pro eo quod mater ex jure non admittetur ad regnum, repelli jure filius intelligeretur a regno. Judæorum regnum contra fidei fundamentum non pervenisset legitime ad Jesum, qui tamen natus Dei misterio, non virili consortio, ex feminea regali prole Davitica Maria virgine, ad regnum hujusmodi non admissa nec etiam admittenda, per certam fidei veritatem, rex verus et legitimus extitit Judæorum. Absit etiam quod Jesu filii David regalis successio, legalis observantiæ sive nodi fuerit fractura sive solutio, cum dicit legem non venerit solvere sed adimplere. Hoc autem excellentissimum legitimæ successionis exemplum rationabiliter imponit silentium loquacitati contrarii juri nostro in regno Franciæ memorato, ne quoad legitimum gradum et ordinem succedendi superemur in constitutione vel interpretatione juris, quos quoad hoc parificat identitas rationis. Nedum autem debita nostri vocatio nostraque defensio, ubi de tanto nostro agebatur præjudicio, est omissa, sed etiam nostri procuratores qui in Franciam ierant, ut pro nobis et nostro jure legitime comparerent, non solum fuerunt in judicio non admissi sed mortis horribilis comminatione repulsi. Et sic nostrum memoratum titulum, factum duodecim parium Franciæ non excusat, qui quoad nos, quibus ætatis tenellæ minoritas tunc favebat, relictis partibus judicum, ex hoc functi partibus sunt prædonum; quorum processum, factum in nostrum præjudicium, ipso jure nostra fecit invalidum minor ætas; qui quoad majorem efficax non fuisset, taliter defensione sublata, quæ competit homini ex jure naturæ, quod tolli nequit a principe nec a jure. Notum etiam communiter est ubique, qualiter in Aquitaniæ nostro ducatu semper invaserit et colliserit jura nostra, terras nostras invadens et dissipans quas capere potuit, aliis nostris terris quas occupavit adjungens, et, jus sibi dicens ad libitum Dei timore postposito, sibi tenens. Scoti etiam, quos nostræ coronæ subjecerant jura temporum antiquorum, sed iniqua rebellionis dementia contra naturalem dominum calcitrantes contumaciter in nostros prædecessores et nos, læsæ majestatis criminis rei erant, ut contra nos nihil injuriæ omitteret, ad nostras injurias fœdere adjunxit, in tanto crimine nostræ injuriæ fovens eos, qui sanguinis et naturæ debuit potius nos juvare. Cumque præmissa omnia non implerent de injuriis votum suum, collectis undique viribus quicquid potuit, ut nos iræ suæ torrens absorbeat aggregavit, tollere nos de mundo sollicitus, ad illud non intentos, forsitan ex intento facto suo contra nos, nostrum contra se metitus intentum, quod colligere vel metiri nequivit per alicujus actus nostri judicium nondum actum. Donum insuper nobis impensum divini muneris ægre ferens, extimare visus est suam injuriam in Angliæ regno nostro nos vivere super terram etsi quantum dabat Dominus prospere, saltem per omnia pacifice quoad eum, quodque serviens nobis populus, vel verius cui servimus, nostris temporibus Dei dono fuerit gloriosus. Hæc autem non statim audita vel cognita nos moverunt, sed illa sub dissimulatione transivimus, nulli parcentes oneri vel honori, ut contra nos persecutio sua injuriaque quiesceret, nostrumque cum eo pacificum tempus esset, donec propinquum nobis vidimus gladium nostræ ac nostrorum neci et exterminio præparatum. Sed nunquid aliquis est qui credat quod animus nobis cognitus principis tantæ potentiæ, et sic, ut præmittitur, occupatæ nobis, fuerit negligendus, qui suæ viribus voluntatis armatus, potentia undique vocata vallatus, solum ut possit liberius pro sua voluntate nos persequi, juratam deserit causam Christi. Quid ergo pro suo jure suaque securitate non licuit regi, sui status suique populi periculum jam videnti, dicat qui noverit, quid non liceat homini de vitandis injuriis damnisque certanti, in illis præsertim quæ ad vitæ statusque radices securim ponere probabant. Levis ne timor dici poterit aut vanus, qui pro nobis si potuit conjunctorum nobis illustrium fortiumque constantia corda concutere, multo fortius debuit etiam nos terrere, quos solos periculorum concepta molimina concernebant? Propter hoc igitur jure naturæ dictante, facti tam nostri quam nostrorum jurium, non voluntarii sed necessarii defensores, ac opportunis cautionibus attendentes, juxta rei militaris documenta probata illustrium antiquorum, quod potentiæ magnæ pericula conspirata periculosius exspectantur, in laribus illis nuper currentibus ad nostræ lucis et salutis occasum consultius venimus in occursum, ne contra nos forte discriminose procederent, sed sui ortus præfocarentur loca, eorum freti consilio et auxilio nobis oblato, quos nobis consanguinitas et affinitas conjungebat, et ad quos simul spectabant nobiscum periculis nostræ destructionis occurrere, illaque consiliis et auxiliis præcavere; ponentes in manu Dei, quam in manibus apostolicæ sedis vestræ vel aliorum bonorum virorum communium ponere quondam voluimus justificatam, quantum potuimus, causam nostram, ut Ipse, rectum ex alto prospiciens, sententiam justam ferat, et in sui gladii viribus exequatur. Nec, credimus, alme pater, quod arbiter quivis rectus, vel etiam judex justus, sic interpretetur aut torqueat nostrum factum, ut quod pro nostrorum tuitione et assecutione jurium, in tanto discrimine nostram fecimus ad defensam, alterius, quam non intendimus, non agimus, nec agemus, putet injuriam vel offensam. Immo credimus, et certi sumus, quod facti nostri intentio attendetur, et quid, ubi, ac propter quid fiat, debita consideratione librabitur, et justi statere judicis appendetur, et sicut sanctio legis docet, non factum ex dicto, sed dictum pensetur ex facto, non esset equidem juris præsumptio nobilis, quod supponit factum ab homine fieri suo jure non benigna interpretatio vel civilis, qualem semper fieri dictat censura legalis, si nostri juris usum notorium, nostræque defensionis compendium, dispendium offensionis illicite quis diceret alienæ. Cesset igitur, quæsumus, omnis conjectura in actibus nostris certisque, locum duntaxat sibi vindicat in non certis. Denique dicet forsitan accusator, calumniosus nostræ actionis interpres, quia suscepimus hominem contra quem processisse fertur ecclesia vel non parentem ecclesiæ vicario; non dicet quod fratris et affinis vicibus fungimur, non ad juris habendum titulum necessarium nobis potentiæ solum usum asciscimus ut necessario fulti præsidio, ubi nunc sumus, nos a congestis in nostram ruinam periculis defendamus, et pro nostrorum justa jurium assecutione certemus. Non dicet, quod intendimus nos defendere, pro nostro jure certare, non ecclesiam impugnare, vel ejus impugnationi favere, pro cujus utique certaremus honore, nullius habita respectione periculi, sicut catholicam excellentiam regum decet, cum tamen ut omnis juris censet intentio, ac cujuslibet actionis finalis causa vel ratio principaliter attendenda, et ex notitia voluntatis atque propositi, surgat distincta certaque cognitio operis accusati, solumque de gestis hominum realis actio, non verbalis conceptio, ponderetur. Non dicet quod facimus de materia ista scutum contra eum, qui nostro prominebat capiti mortis ictum; quodque fecerimus medici sapientis exemplo, qui materiam morte plenam, currentem ad partes corporis ubi vita se recipit, divertere facit ad membra, in quibus materia nequit fore suspecta, quæ ad proximum fuerat interitum præparata. Sic loquitur, sancte pater, sic loquitur propter vehementiam, qui in suis insidiis nos invenire quærebat incautos et penitus imparatos. Sed proculdubio cautius fuit nobis, juxta militarem theoricam edocentem, quod mota guerræ periculum plus evitat qui eam a terræ suæ limite prosequestrat, contra notorium hostem nostrum pro jure nostro nos congredi, et terris potentum potentibus sociatos, quam in propria persona nostra solos. Non igitur apud vestræ viscera misericordiæ et sanctitatis locum inveniant detrahentium informatio æmula vel sinistra facta, de filio qui suorum hæreditario jure majorum, in vestrorum prædecessorum, vestra, et apostolicæ sedis gratia et obedientia semper inconcusse perstitit et persistet. Immo, si quævis de filio taliter facta suggestio pulsaverit vestræ beatitudinis forsitan aures, non prius a vestra dignatione sancta credulitas illi detur, quam auditus sit filius qui tangetur, qui confidit, et indesinenter intendit, ante sanctitatis vestræ judicium omni præsidens creaturæ, quod negare hæresin est probare, justam dicere, vel justam facere quamlibet causam suam. Illud demum dicimus, ad nostræ intentionis majorisque devotionis evidentiam subjungentes, quod si sit aliquis de nobis fœdere naturæ conjunctus, nobisque ad nostram defensionem adjunctus, qui per viam obedientiæ apostolicæ sedis vestræ non ambulet, sicut debet, dare intendimus, quam non parum utiliter dare posse confidimus operam indefensam, ut omni dimisso devio ad viam obedientiæ redeat, omnemque faciat semitam suam rectam. Unum rursus, quod a multis audivimus, petita cum reverentia, non tacemus, quod alias ditum, quanto consideratur attentius, acutius mentem nostram, videlicet quod sarii nostri manus, notorie nunc ut prius, ad nostrum tantum laborantis exitium, cum guerram faceret nemo sibi nec ipse alii nisi nobis de Christi patrimonio sit armatus. Quod certe reges Angliæ nostros prædecessores illustres Christi pugiles, fidei athletas, sanctæ Romanæ matris ecclesiæ amantissimos zelatores, ejusque mandatorum devotissimos servatores, vel nos etiam nec scimus nec credimus meruisse. Et licet propter hoc dicatur a pluribus, non a nobis, quod contra nos facta subventio, quoad nos, actus patris vel matris non extiterit sed novercæ; nihilominus tamen constanter asserimus quod sumus, et perseveranter erimus, vestræ sanctitatis vestræque sedis, devotus et humilis filius, non privignus. Ex quo non sine ratione speramus quod nostra humilitas facta major et firmior per illud quod non meruit nocumentum, vestræ paternæ caritatis et gratiæ invenire debeat exuberantius incrementum, ut quod nobis insontibus intulit, quæ præcessit asperitas punctionis, sequens deleat et compenset vestræ lenitas unctionis. Hunc autem nostræ justitiæ et contra nos injuriæ sic multiplicatæ processum præeminentiæ vestræ sancti culminis intimamus, ut vestra summa sanctaque mensura boni et æqui, cujus a Deo sibi competit dare claves, aperire et claudere in terra positis portas cœli, prout exigit plenitudo suæ potestatis et præcellentia sui fori, quantum fuerit rationis, favere debeat nostro juri, parati semper, nedum a vestro sancto cunctis præsidente judicio, immo et a quolibet alio de veritate contrarii, si quis eam noverit, humiliter informari. Et qui sponte rationi subjicimur, aliam datam nobis intelligi veritatem cum plena et humili gratitudine complectemur. Quia vero vos, patres conscripti, estis in partem sollicitudinis et consilii dicti domini summi pontificis condignis meritis evocati, sibique lateraliter ad dandam plebi Christi salutis scientiam assidetis, ista vestræ patere cupimus notitiæ, ut, cognita causæ nostræ justitia, veritati possitis impendere, quod debetis. Ad quod circumspectionem vestram providam, quæ solet sine personarum acceptione jura singulorum æquo libramine ponderare, votivis precibus excitamus. Et si forsan in facto nostro quicquam appareat, cautelam exposcentes consilii sanioris, a vobis super hoc cupimus salubriter informari, parati in agendis nostris singulis cedere rationi. Datum apud Antewerpe XVI die Julii, anno Domini MCCCXXXIX.

Foxe's Book of Martyrs. [16th July 1546] The sermon being finished, the martyrs [Anne Askew (age 25)], standing there tied at three several stakes ready to their martyrdom, began their prayers. The multitude and concourse of the people was exceeding; the place where they stood being railed about to keep out the press. Upon the bench under St. Bartholomew's church sat Wriothesley (age 40), chancellor of England; the old duke of Norfolk, the old earl of Bedford (age 61), the lord mayor, with divers others. Before the fire should be set unto them, one of the bench, hearing that they had gunpowder about them, and being alarmed lest the faggots, by strength of the gunpowder, would come flying about their ears, began to be afraid: but the earl of Bedford, declaring unto him how the gunpowder was not laid under the faggots, but only about their bodies, to rid them out of their pain, which having vent, there was no danger to them of the faggots, so diminished that fear.

Then Wriothesley, lord chancellor, sent to Anne Askew letters, offering to her the king's pardon if she would recant; who, refusing once to look upon them, made this answer again, that she came not thither to deny her Lord and Master. Then were the letters likewise offered unto the others, who, in like manner, following the constancy of the woman, denied not only to receive them, but also to look upon them. Whereupon the lord mayor, commanding fire to be put unto them, cried with a loud voice, Fiat justitia.

And thus the good Anne Askew, with these blessed martyrs, being troubled se many manner of ways, and having passed through so many torments, having now ended the long course of her agonies, being compassed in with flames of fire, as a blessed sacrifice unto God, she slept in the Lord A.D. 1546, leaving behind her a singular example of Christian constancy for all men to follow.

John Evelyn's Diary. 15th July 1669. Having two days before had notice that the University intended me the honor of Doctorship, I was this morning attended by the beadles belonging to the Law, who conducted me to the Theater, where I found the Duke of Ormond (age 58) (now Chancellor of the University) with the Earl of Chesterfield (age 35) and Mr. Spencer (age 40) (brother to the late Earl of Sunderland). Thence, we marched to the Convocation House, a convocation having been called on purpose; here, being all of us robed in the porch, in scarlet with caps and hoods, we were led in by the Professor of Laws, and presented respectively by name, with a short eulogy, to the Vice-Chancellor, who sat in the chair, with all the Doctors and Heads of Houses and masters about the room, which was exceedingly full. Then, began the Public Orator his speech, directed chiefly to the Duke of Ormond, the Chancellor; but in which I had my compliment, in course. This ended, we were called up, and created Doctors according to the form, and seated by the Vice-Chancellor among the Doctors, on his right hand; then, the Vice-Chancellor made a short speech, and so, saluting our brother Doctors, the pageantry concluded, and the convocation was dissolved. So formal a creation of honorary Doctors had seldom been seen, that a convocation should be called on purpose, and speeches made by the Orator; but they could do no less, their Chancellor being to receive, or rather do them, this honor. I should have been made Doctor with the rest at the public Act, but their expectation of their Chancellor made them defer it. I was then led with my brother Doctors to an extraordinary entertainment at Doctor Mewes's, head of St John's College, Oxford University, and, after abundance of feasting and compliments, having visited the Vice-Chancellor and other Doctors, and given them thanks for the honor done me, I went toward home the 16th, and got as far as Windsor, Berkshire [Map], and so to my house the next day.

Greville Memoirs. 16th July 1830. The King's good-nature, simplicity, and affability to all about him are certainly very striking, and in his elevation he does not forget any of his old friends and companions. He was in no hurry to take upon himself the dignity of King, nor to throw off the habits and manners of a country gentleman. When Lord Chesterfield went to Bushy to kiss his hand, and be presented to the Queen, he found Sir John and Lady Gore there lunching, and when they went away the King called for their carriage, handed Lady Gore into it, and stood at the door to see them off. When Lord Howe came over from Twickenham to see him, he said the Queen was going out driving, and should 'drop him' at his own house. The Queen, they say, is by no means delighted at her elevation. She likes quiet and retirement and Bushy (of which the King has made her Ranger), and does not want to be a Queen. However, 'L'appétit viendra en mangeant.' He says he does not want luxury and magnificence, has slept in a cot, and he has dismissed the King's cooks, 'renversé la marmite.' He keeps the stud (which is to be diminished) because he thinks he ought to support the turf. He has made Mount Charles (age 63) a Lord of the Bedchamber, and given the Robes to Sir C. Pole, an admiral. Altogether he seems a kind-hearted, well-meaning, not stupid, burlesque, bustling old fellow, and if he doesn't go mad may make a very decent King, but he exhibits oddities. He would not have his servants in mourning—that is, not those of his own family and household—but he sent the Duke of Sussex to Mrs. Fitzherbert to desire she would put hers in mourning, and consequently so they are. The King and she have always been friends, as she has, in fact, been with all the Royal Family, but it was very strange. Yesterday morning he sent for the officer on guard, and ordered him to take all the muffles off the drums, the scarfs off the regimentals, and so to appear on parade, where he went himself. The colonel would have put the officer under arrest for doing this without his orders, but the King said he was commanding officer of his own guard, and forbade him. All odd, and people are frightened, but his wits will at least last till the new Parliament meets. I sent him a very respectful request through Taylor that he would pay £300, all that remained due of the Duke of York's debts at Newmarket, which he assented to directly, as soon as the Privy Purse should be settled—very good-natured. In the meantime it is said that the bastards are dissatisfied that more is not done for them, but he cannot do much for them at once, and he must have time. He has done all he can; he has made Errol Master of the Horse, Sidney a Guelph and Equerry, George Fitzclarence the same and Adjutant-General, and doubtless they will all have their turn. Of course the stories told about the rapacity of the Conynghams have been innumerable. The King's will excited much astonishment, but as yet nothing is for certain known about the money, or what became of it, or what he gave away, and to whom, in his lifetime.