The Life and Reign of Edward I.

FOOTNOTES

Robert Benton Seeley

1 Lives of Archbishops, vol. iii., p. 401.

2 Oxford Hist. Society, 1864, p. 322.

3 History of England, vol. i., p. 406.

4 Campbell’s Chancellors, vol. i., p. 159.

5 Parker’s Gothic Architecture, p. 161.

6 ArchÆologia, vol. xxix., p. 174.

7 Parker, p. 253.

8 “Pactum serva.”

9 Mackintosh.

10 Henry I. at Selby, Richard I. at Oxford, and Henry III. at Winchester.

11 Florence of Worcester, A.D. 1239.

12 Macaulay.

13 Devon’s Issues of the Exchequer, p. 18.

14 Walter Scott’s Hist. of Scotland, vol. i., p. 68.

15 “Annals of Dunstable.”

16 The Chronicle of Mailros describes a messenger coming to Edward from his sister, the queen of Scotland; and tells how earl Simon took care to be present, observing every word and gesture that passed between the two.

17 Hemingford.

18 The extent of this homage became a matter of negociation, and the question was not finally adjusted until some three or four years after.

19 Macaulay.

20 “The first mention of the term, ‘parliament,’” says Blackstone, “is in the preamble to the ‘Statute of Westminster,’ A.D. 1275.”

21 “He issued,” says Rapin, “writs of enquiry to two commissioners in every county, to enquire what his royalties, and the liberties and prerogatives of his crown were; who were his tenants in capito; and how many and what fees they held of him. Also of his tenants in ancient demesne—how they had behaved themselves, and in what condition the lands were. Also of the sheriffs, coroners, and bailiffs, and their clerks—whether they had extorted money, or had wronged any one, or had taken bribes. This first step,” says Rapin, “produced a wonderful effect upon the people.”

22 “But Edward never faltered in his purpose, and the inquiry went on, at intervals, through a period of more than twenty years.”—Pearson’s Hist. Eng., vol. ii., p. 298.

23 This appears to us now a punishment of terrible severity. Yet we ourselves, in the days of George III., were in the habit of hanging men in great numbers for fabricating imitative bank-notes. All our modern civilization, at the beginning of the present century, had not carried us beyond the usages of Edward’s day.

24 “Seldom,” says Mr. Pearson, “has a shameful and violent death been better merited than by a double-dyed traitor like David, false by turns to his country and his king; nor could justice be better honoured than by making the last penalty of rebellion fall upon the guilty prince, rather than on his followers.”—“History of England,” vol. ii., p. 330.

25 Tytler’s History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 431.

26 Pearson’s Hist, of England, vol. ii., p. 336.

27 Hoare’s edit. of Giraldus Cambrensis.

28 Parry’s History of Parliaments, p. 54.

29 This custom still exists, after the lapse of more than five hundred years, in some of the midland counties of England.

30 “ArchÆologia,” vol. xxix., p. 169.

31 Ibid., p. 174.

32 “ArchÆologia,” vol. xxix., p. 174.

33 Sir J. Mackintosh.

34 Pearson’s Hist. of England, vol. ii., p. 292.

35 Blaauw on “the Barons’ war,” p. 34.

36 The “Chronicle of Lanercost” gives us this anecdote of the manners of that day: “Richard de Clare, earl of Gloucester, paid a visit to Robert GrosstÊte, bishop of Lincoln, who received him with great honour, and desired his seneschal to provide a fitting dinner. At table the earl was seated at his host’s right hand, and it was a day when meat was not permitted by the Church. It was customary to eat choice sea wolves [the dog-fish, still eaten in parts of Normandy], and the servant placed a very fine fish before the bishop, and a smaller one before the earl. The bishop was angry, and said, ‘Take away this fish, or else bring the earl one equally fine.’ The servant said that there was no other so large. ‘Then,’ said the bishop, ‘take away this first and give it to the poor, and bring me one like the earl’s.’”—“Chronicle of Lanercost,” p. 44.

37 “Chronicle of Lanercost,” A.D. 1291.

38 See Appendix.

39 Castra Regia. Roxburgh Club.

40 “Castra Regia,” Roxburgh Club.

41 Tytler’s History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 61.

42 Had Edward shown any forwardness in interfering in the affairs of Scotland, we may be certain that such interference would have been noticed with censure by all the Scotch historians. Yet, for merely abstaining from such interference, he is thus criticized by one of the fairest of the whole, Mr. Tytler:—“Edward contented himself with observing the turn which matters should take in Scotland, certain that his power and influence would in the end induce the different parties to appeal to him; and confident that the longer time he gave to these factions to quarrel among themselves and embroil the country, the more advantageously would this interference take place.” This criticism is a striking instance of the spirit in which every step taken by Edward is regarded by Scottish writers. He cannot even abstain from interference, without being censured for so abstaining! And yet the whole of this censure rests upon the merest conjecture.

43 Rymer’s Foedera, vol. ii., p. 741.

44 Henry’s History, book iv., c. i.

45 Tytler’s Scotland, vol. i., p. 84.

46 Sir James Mackintosh, accepting Hume’s story without examination, talks of “the circumvention of the estates of Scotland, at Norham, in 1291.” But in the records of the period there is not the slightest trace of any “circumvention.” Edward met the estates of Scotland at their own request. Army he had none, at that time, with him. He met them on equal terms, for public conference. He told them frankly, and at once, in what capacity he came—i.e., as superior lord. They demurred. He then gave them time to deliberate, and appointed a second meeting in the following month. To speak of these proceedings as a “circumvention” is a mere abuse of language.

47 Robertson’s Scotland under her Early Kings, vol. i., p. 373.

48 Palgrave’s Documents, vol i., p. 25.

49 Mr. Tytler, in his account of these transactions at Norham, introduces two quotations, which convey a false idea of their character. From Fordun, he cites these words: “Now,” said Edward to the most confidential of his ministers, “the time is at last arrived when Scotland and its petty kings shall be reduced under my power.” But Fordun wrote in Scotland just one hundred years after, and pretends to give a confidential communication of Edward to one of his ministers, made half a century before he, Fordun, was born.

But (2) the “Annals of Waverley,” says Mr. Tytler, tell us, in 1291, that “the king of England, having assembled his privy council and chief nobility, told them that he had it in his mind to bring under his dominion the king and the realm of Scotland, in the same manner that he had subdued the kingdom of Wales.”

This would be something like evidence, though of a loose kind, if Mr. Tytler had quoted it fairly. But he has given only so much as suited his purpose. The passage in the “Annals of Waverley” runs thus:—

“The king of England, having assembled his privy council and chief nobility, told them that he had it in his mind to bring under his dominion the king and the realm of Scotland, in the same manner that he had subdued the kingdom of Wales. He therefore moved his army into those parts, where in a short time he gained possession of the said kingdom of Scotland.”

Thus we see that this passage is only one instance out of hundreds which might be adduced, showing that the old chroniclers often put down under the date of one year facts which properly belong to another. There was, in 1291, no “king” in Scotland to be subdued. Neither did Edward move an army into Scotland, or gain possession of Scotland, until 1296. It is probable enough, that shortly before this, he stated to his council such views as are described in the “Annals.” But then, this all happened, if at all, in 1296, after Baliol had broken faith with him, not in 1291, when the conferences as to the succession were still going on.

50 Pearson’s Hist., vol. ii., 292.

51 Tytler’s History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 88.

52 Wyntoun and Fordun, the earliest Scottish historians, writing at the end of the fourteenth and beginning of the fifteenth centuries, bring in a fiction at this part of the story, telling us that Edward, during the arbitration, offered to give the crown to Bruce, if he would agree to hold it of him as feudal lord. But the fact is, as sir F. Palgrave has shown, that Bruce had already accepted the king as his feudal lord long before this meeting at Norham.

genealogy 1

MALCOLM CANMORE, king of Scotland. A.D. 1056–1093.
Married Margaret, sister of Edgar Atheling.
"
+--------+-------+---+-------+------------------+
" " " " "
Duncan. Edgar. Alex.I. David I. Matilda—marr. Henry I.
" +-----+
" "
Henry E. of Huntingdon. Empress Matilda.
" "
+----------+---------+----+------------ "
" " " "
Malcolm IV. William DavidE.ofHuntingdon. "
theLion. " Henry II.
" +--+----------------+ "
" " " +--------+
Alex.II. Margaret. Isabel. "
" " " Rich.I. John.
AlexIII. Devorgoil. " "
" " " "
Margaret, " " "
Q.Norway. " Robt.Bruce. Henry III.
" ----------+---------- " "
" Margaret. JOHNBALIOL, " "
Margaret, " " " "
MaidofNorway, " " Rob. Bruce, EDWARDI.
died1290. " " E.ofCarrick.
" " "
John Edward ROBERTI.
Comyn. Baliol. ofScotland.

Macpherson, the editor of Andrew Wyntoun, says, in one of his notes to that author, “It is very surprising that Edward did not claim the crown of Scotland for himself, as heir of Malcolm Canmore, whose grand-daughter Maud was his great-great-grandmother. His great-grandson, Henry IV., got the crown of England without having so good an hereditary title.”

The difference between Edward I. and Henry IV. was, that Edward was a thoroughly just man, and knew that his title was wholly inferior to that of Baliol, or Comyn, or Bruce. Hence, while he never overlooked it, he never advanced it. His unquestionable claim, in 1296, lay in the one fact, that Baliol, Bruce, Comyn, and every lord in Scotland, first admitted him as lord paramount, and then made war against him, the undoubted penalty of which was, forfeiture.

54 Tytler’s History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 96.

55 Tytler’s History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 100.

56 De Luc or De Luke was a Florentine merchant or banker, and collector of the Customs.

57 Rymer’s Foedera, vol. ii., p. 597. This, probably, is one of the earliest instances we have of an English king’s cheque upon his banker.

58 Turner’s History of England, vol. v., p. 75.

59 History of England, vol. ii., p. 395.

60 Hume adds, very strangely, “Edward had thus fallen into a like snare with that which he himself had spread for the Scots.” What “like snare”? Scotland had been placed in his hands on his promise to restore it, which promise he kept. Gascony was placed in the hands of Philip on a similar promise; but that promise was broken. Instead of likeness here is contrast.

61 Walter Hemingford.

62 Matthew of Westminster.

63 Turner’s History of England, vol. v., p. 75.

64 Lingard’s Hist., vol. ii., p. 540.

65 Tytler’s History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 108.

66 Rymer, vol. ii., p. 590.

67 Turner’s History of England, vol. i., p. 76.

68 Tytler’s History of England, vol. i., p. 110.

69 Nor can we, in this instance, attempt to divide the credit between the king and his able chancellor. Robert Burnel had been taken from his side, by death, in October, 1292.

70 Macaulay, vol. i., p. 17.

71 Wyntoun, the Scottish chronicler, says—

“Of these they saved never a man,

For prisoners in such awhile,

To kepe is dowte and grete perille.”

72 Peter Langtoft writes—

“What then did Sir Edward? Peer he had none like;

Upon his steed Bayard first he won the dike.”

73 Both Tytler and sir W. Scott condescend to borrow an exaggerated statement, that 17,000 persons fell in this storming of Berwick; but the complaint of the regents of Scotland, made a year or two after, states the number at “nearly 8000.” Allowing for some exaggeration, and remembering that some of the dead must have been English, we may believe that the Scotch lost some 5000 or 6000 men—a number not at all remarkable.

74 Tytler, vol. i., p. 116.

75 Tytler, vol. i., p. 121. But sir Walter Scott says: “Most of the noble and ancient families of Scotland are reduced to the necessity of tracing their ancestors’ names in the fifty-six sheets of parchment, which constitute the degrading roll of submission to Edward I.”

76 Mackintosh, Hume, etc.

77 Pearson’s History, vol. ii., p. 310.

78 Among the writs of that time we find many addressed to the sheriffs of counties, wherein the king “requests you to advise and take order how you can assist him with one thousand quarters of wheat, for which he will pay you punctually at Midsummer next.”

79 Hemingford says, “Exiratus Rex prorupit in hÆc verba, ut dicitur, ‘Per deum, comes, aut ibis aut pendebis.’ Et ille, ‘Per idem juramentum, O Rex, nec ibo nec pendebo.’”—See Appendix.

80 Matthew of Westminster.

81 Pearson’s History of England, vol. ii., p. 399.

82 That the name was, in his own day, William Walays, is a fact concerning which there is no room for doubt. The Scalachronica (recently printed by the Maitland Club of Glasgow), was written by one who personally knew the Insurgent leader, and he always writes the name Walays. Hemingford and Langtoft, two of the best English historians of that day, always write it Walays. In the “Wallace Documents,” printed by the Maitland Club, a Charter is given, granted by the Insurgent leader himself, and there the name stands Walays. A century later, Andrew Wyntoun, one of the earliest and best of the Scottish historians, writing about A.D. 1420, always speaks of Walays. Other writers, following the sound only, write of Walais, or Waleis. But when many other names suffered change—Botteville into Botfield, and De Moleyns into Mullins—Walays also was corrupted into “Wallace.” So entirely has this corruption rooted itself in our English literature, that we shall feel compelled to yield to it, and shall use, in the following pages, the customary name of “Wallace.”

83 Lewis on “Roman History,” p. 16.

84 Hemingford, Trivet, Matthew of Westminster, Wykes, Rishanger, Langtoft, Knighton, the Chronicles of Lanercost, Rochester, St. Alban’s, Abingdon, etc.

85 Tytler’s History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 134.

86 History of Scotland, vol. i., pp. 126, 127.

87 Tytler’s Scottish Worthies, pp. 172, 184.

88 Tytler’s Scottish Worthies, p. 186.

89 “Wallace Documents,” p. 30.

90 Chalmers’ Caledonia, vol. i., p. 659.

91 Macfarlane’s History of England, vol. iv., p. 54.

92 History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 72.

93 Hist. of Scotland, vol. i., p. 142.

94 A recent writer, Mr. Pearson, expresses a doubt whether these acts of unusual cruelty are sufficiently established by evidence. This incredulity is hardly reasonable. Several English writers who lived at the time assert the facts; all Scottish historians, Fordun, Wyntoun, Boece, and Blind Harry, confirm the statement,—some in general, others in specific terms; and the charges deliberately read to the prisoner in Westminster Hall, with the sentence passed, surely may be regarded as leaving no room for doubt.

95 Tytler, Hist. Scotl., vol. i., p. 143.

96 Ibid, p. 146.

97 Selkirkshire, at the present, has about 9,800 people in the whole county. In 1298 it probably had not 2,000.

98 Cronykyl, viii. 13.

99 Tytler, vol. i., p. 142–147.

100 Tytler, vol. i., p. 163.

101 Hume, chap. xiii.

102 All the claimants at the great arbitration of 1292 derived their title from David, earl of Huntingdon, the grandson of David I. His descendants were these—

genealogy 2

David, earl of Huntingdon.
"
+---------------+-------------+
Margaret. Isabel.
" "
Devoirgoil. "
" Robert Bruce.
" "
--------+----------- "
Margaret. John Baliol, "
" king, Robert Bruce,
" 1292 earl of Carrick.
John Comyn. "
Robert Bruce,
afterwards king of Scotland.

103 Professor Stubbs’s Select Charters, p. 35.

104 Hallam, vol. iii., 3.

105 “Malitiam, fraudem, proditionem, et dolum,” Brady, App., N. 37.

106 Tytler’s History of Scotland, vol. i., pp. 121, 122.

107 Samuel Stanham, a merchant and grocer in Lincoln, was one of the representatives of that city in this parliament of 1301.

108 The city of London, about this time, allowed its four representatives for their joint expenses, out of the city cash, twenty shillings per diem; which would be equal to fifteen pounds daily, at the present time.

109 Rymer’s Foedera, vol. ii., p. 927.

110 Matthew of Westminster.

111 And not only so; but we find writs of the date of May, 1300, appointing three justices in Leicestershire, and the like in other counties, “to hear and determine, in a summary manner, all complaints of transgressions against the charters.”

112 See Appendix.

113 “History of Lichfield Cathedral,” p. 57.

114 Thus Mr. Tytler tells us of Brace’s conduct in 1297;—that “Bruce went to Carlisle with a numerous attendance of his friends, and was compelled to make oath on the consecrated host, that he would continue faithful to Edward. To give a proof of his fidelity, he ravaged the estates of Sir W. Douglas, then with Wallace, seized his wife and children, and carried them to Annandale. Having thus defeated suspicion, and saved his lands, he privately assembled his father’s retainers, talked lightly of an extorted oath, from which the pope would absolve him, and urged them to follow him against the English.” (Vol. i., p. 129.)

115 In these remarkable words, occurring in a statute of the realm, and dictated, we cannot doubt, by Edward’s own lips, we seem to have a glimpse of his earnest and sincere character. Believing, as all men in his day believed, that there was a Pontiff at Rome who had full power “to bind and to loose,” he had applied to that authority, and had been loosed, so he was assured, from an engagement which was mischievous in itself, and which had been improperly extorted from him. Yet, with this dispensation in his possession, what follows? He himself tells us: “sleepless nights.” What occasioned them? Evidently that first principle of all his conduct of which Mr. Pearson takes notice: “He never broke his word.” No papal bull, no external decision of any kind, could thoroughly reconcile him to an infraction of the Scriptural rule: “He sweareth to his neighbour, and disappointeth him not, though it were to his own hurt.”

116 Caxton’s Chronicle, Matthew of Westminster, Fabyan, Holinshed.

117 The Scottish historians, who wrote a century after, claim the victory in all three engagements; but Hemingford and Trivet, who wrote at the time, distinctly declare that Neville repulsed the Scotch, and recovered many of the prisoners. Hume and Tytler, as Scotchmen, give credit to their own chroniclers; and yet they are uncandid enough to profess to take their accounts from Hemingford and Trivet. But these latter writers, who are the only contemporary witnesses, plainly assert that the advantage, in the third engagement, rested with the English.

118 Tytler’s History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 186.

119 Hailes’ Annals, vol. i., p. 304.

120 Tytler, vol. i., p. 191.

121 ArchÆological Journal, No. 27.

122 Tytler’s History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 191.

123 Tytler, vol. i., p. 192.

124 Tytler, vol. i., p. 196.

125 Matthew of Westminster, 1304.

126 Tytler, vol. i., p. 197.

127 Matthew of Westminster, 1304.

128 Langtoft.

129 “Endroit de Will. de Walleys, le Roi entent, qu il soit receu a sa volute ’t a son ordainement.” (Palgrave.)

130 Rymer’s “Placita,” p. 370.

131 Langtoft says,—

“Sir John of Menetest followed William so nigh,

He toke him when he feared least, one night his leman by.”

132 History of England, vol. v., p. 97.

133 History of England, vol. ii., p. 428.

134 History of England, vol. ii., p. 424.

135 “They spared none, but slew all down.”—Wyntoun.

136 Blind Harry.

137 Encyclo. Britan.

138 Sir Walter Scott.

139 Many of our popular histories of England, disregarding this distinction, fall into a variety of errors. Thus Oliver Goldsmith, in his larger history, says, that in 1306, the competitor, “being old and infirm, was obliged to give up the ambition of being the deliverer of his people to his son.” The fact being that the competitor had died eleven years before, and his son two years before the time of which Goldsmith was speaking. In his abridged history, which for many years was the lesson-book in all our great schools, the statement was thus altered:—“Bruce, who had been one of the competitors for the crown, but was long kept a prisoner in London, escaping from his guards, resolved to strike for his country’s freedom.” The fact being, that neither of the Bruces had ever been “a prisoner in London,” and that the competitor, here spoken of, had died in 1295—eleven years before the period at which we have now arrived. Even Sir Walter Scott falls into a like inaccuracy, saying, “Bruce, the competitor, after Dunbar, 1296, hinted to Edward his hope of being preferred to the kingdom.” Whereas, “the competitor” had died a year or two previous.

140 Tytler’s History of Scotland, vol i., p. 204.

141 Fordun, p. 981. He also sat, as an English baron, in the parliament of Lincoln. (See p. 220.)

142 Fordun, p. 778. Wyntoun, vol. ii., p. 498.

143 “The countess herself, riding up, and with gentle violence taking hold of his horse’s reins, Bruce suffered himself to be led away in a kind of triumph to Turnberry.”—Tytler’s Scottish Worthies, p. 292.

144 See p. 124. This sum would be equal to £600 in the present day.

145 “Scala Chronica,” Leland, vol. i., p. 540.

146 “The vision of a crown could not but haunt him.”—Burton’s History of Scotland, vol. ii., p. 286.

147 Tytler’s History, vol. i., pp. 129, 206.

148 Tytler’s History, vol. i., p. 209.

149 Halliwell’s Royal Letters, vol. i., p. 22.

150 Chalmers’ Caledonia, vol. i., p. 671.

151 Chambers, in his “Lives of Eminent Scotsmen,” says: “John Comyn was the son of Margery, the sister of Baliol, and, setting Baliol aside, was the heir of the pretensions of their common ancestor.”

152 Tytler, vol. i., p. 213.

153 Macpherson’s Chronykyl of Andrew Wyntoun, vol. ii., p. 501.

154 Barbour, i., 590; Wyntoun, viii., 18.

155 Barbour i., 647.

156 Lingard, vol. ii., p. 615.

157 Sharon Turner says, “On every supposition, it was still the destruction of a competitor by the person who was to be most benefited by the crime; and from this suspicious atrocity the memory of Bruce cannot be vindicated.”

158 Palgrave’s Documents, p. cxxxix.

159 Pearson’s History, vol. i., p. 351.

160 “Bruce was so beaten by ill-fortune, that he was left alone to take passage to the Isles with two mariners in a boat, who asked him ‘if he had any tidings of Robert Bruce?’”—Scala Chronica, App. p. 287.

161 Tytler’s Hist., vol. i., p. 222.

162 Matthew of Westminster.

163 Palgrave’s Documents, p. clxxxix.

164 Tytler, vol. i., p. 235.

165 See Appendix.

166 Matthew of Westminster, 1307.

167 This was evidently the date of the erection of the tomb. The king had died in July, 1307, and had been buried in Westminster in October. The tomb was naturally completed in the following year.

168 Sir Walter Scott’s History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 87. Sir Walter forgot here that, before six months had passed, Bruce sent messengers to the young prince to ask if his submission would be accepted.

169 Wallace Documents, Maitland Club, Glasgow, 1841, p. 48.

170 History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 68.

171 Robert III. died of a broken heart; James I. was murdered; James II. accidentally killed; James III. murdered; James IV. died on Flodden-field; James V. of a broken heart. Then followed Mary, who died on the scaffold, James’s troubled reign, Charles’s bloody death, and, finally, the expulsion of the family.

172 Rossetti’s translation.

173 Rapin’s History, vol. i., p. 385.

174 Thus, in the most popular of our school histories, Mrs. Markham’s, the scholar is told of Edward’s “violent acts,” of his fatal thirst of conquest, of his “mad ferocity,” of his “injustice and violence,” of the “infinite misery” he inflicted on “many thousands” of people.

175 “The Greatest of the Plantagenets.”

176 The professor had suggested some apology for Wallace’s violence and cruelty.

177 “Proceedings of Oxford Historical Society, Trinity term, 1864.”

178 Prof. Stubbs’ Select Charters, 1870, p. 35, 51.

179 Yonge’s History of England, p. 113.

180 Creasy’s History of England, p. 485.

181 Historical Essays, by E. A. Freeman, D.C.L., late Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford, 1871.

182 During the last thirty years a dozen Histories of England have been published in London, all of which servilely followed Hume, describing Edward as “unscrupulous,” “perfidious,” and “unprincipled.” But in the course of the last seven years, all the writers whom we have just quoted have re-examined the subject, and they all unite in declaring the king to have been honest, just, truthful, and disinterested.

183 All the best biographers of Alfred are obliged to use, at every turn, the phrases, “It is said,” and “Tradition reports.” Thus, Mr. Pearson writes: “Probably nothing has been attributed to him without some real fact underlying the mythical narrative, but it is not always easy to disentangle the one from the other” (p. 173). Mr. Wright thus speaks: “It is probable that the king, during the period he remained at Athelney, was actively engaged in watching the movements of the Danes. Another legend represents him,” etc. (p. 388). And Mr. Hughes, the latest biographer of the great king, says of one fact, “This is related by Asser to have happened,” “which is clearly impossible.” In another place, “Any attempt to remove the miraculous element would take all life out of the story.” A third story is described as “a sad tangle, which no man can unravel.”

184 Merivale, vol. i., 119, 490.

185 Robertson’s Church History, vol. ii., p. 136.

186 Gleig.

187 Emerson.

Simmons and Botten, Printers, 4A, Shoe Lane, E.C.

Transcriber’s Notes:

The original punctuation, spelling and hyphenation has been retained, except for a small number of apparent printer’s errors.

The original accentuation has been retained except for:
Crecy changed to CrÉcy
and
Grosstete changed to GrosstÊte
for consistency with other occurrences.

There are some instances of Norman French, for example in Footnote 129; these have been left as printed.

Clyx.com