the real state of affairs in England and completely ignorant of John's true character. By his mock humility in resigning his crown into the pope's hands, when he had come to the last extremity, and by his promise of a yearly tribute to the coffers of St. Peter, the English king had secured the ear of the pope and the important influence of his legate in England, even as against Cardinal Langton and the English bishops. What was to be done? As we ponder over the documents to-day, even in the light of subsequent events, the situation appears difficult enough. What must it have been for true churchmen and loyal patriots like Langton and his suffragans, who knew their king only too well, and who felt that his astute diplomacy had completely hoodwinked Nicholas the legate, the able Pandulph, and through them the great pontiff who ruled the Church?

In the ever memorable year 1215 Easter fell on 19th April, and in that week the barons met at Stamford.1 In the matters at issue between them and the king there was no room for discussion. The barons were determined to force their sovereign once for all to keep the solemn promises he had so frequently made to confirm the Charter of King Henry II. "They were all leagued together and bound by oath," writes the chronicler," and they had Stephen (Langton), archbishop of Canterbury, as their main support."" King John sent for the archbishop and deputed him and the earl of Pembroke to find out from the barons what their exact demands were. These were drawn up and a paper written containing the headings of what they asked, which were mainly taken from the old laws of Edward the Confessor and the Charter of Henry. The king refused to consider what he held to be monstrous restrictions on his

1 Roger de Wendover, Flores Historiarum (Rolls ed.), ii. 114.

2 Ibid., 115, capitalem consentaneum.

regal rights: and both sides prepared for the final stage of the struggle, which ended with John's capitulation at Runnymede a few weeks later and the royal assent to Magna Charta.' It is important to note that throughout the negociations, the bishops with Langton at their head and some few of the nobles, although determined to force King John to grant the long promised liberties to his subjects, were able to maintain throughout friendly relations with him. They were, what Roger de Wendover calls, quasi-partisans of the king (quasi ex parte Regis) and they were thus able in the end to bring him to reason.

Meantime John was very busy in Rome. Events had moved somewhat more rapidly than was anticipated, or the Roman authorities were too slow in acting, and in the issue the king was for the moment left unprotected by his suzerain, and was forced, as we have seen, to make what terms he could with his long-suffering subjects. But so far as the pope was concerned matters were not allowed to rest where the king's capitulation had left them. In the previous February of the year 1215, "induced," writes the chronicler, "rather by fear than love," John had taken the cross. His cunning had detected in the privileges accorded by the Church to the person of a Crusader additional security for postponing the evil day. He hoped that his crusading design would be another motive to induce the pope to interpose his supreme authority to save him from the hard necessity of keeping faith with his subjects.

As time went on, and the collapse of John's resistance seemed inevitable, he wrote a piteous letter of appeal to the

1 Copies of the Great Charter were ordered to be deposited in the cathedral churches and monasteries of the realm, but it was not enrolled on the Patent or Charter Rolls. This Dr. Reinhold Pauli regards as an evident proof of the king's intention that it should never become a law of the realm."

2 Matth. Paris, ii. 585.

pope. This was on 29th May, less than three weeks before the sealing of the Great Charter at Runnymede. It could not have reached Rome before that event, but it is most instructive as to the king's real sentiments at the time. After thanking the pope for the letters he had written to him, and in his behalf to the bishops and barons, he says that the papal admonitions had fallen on deaf ears. He complains, too, that the archbishop and his suffragans had omitted to execute the pope's commands to put a stop to the discontent by a few timely excommunications. "For our part," he continues," we declare to our people that our kingdom is part of the patrimony of St. Peter, and that we hold it of St. Peter, from the Roman Church and you."

Over and above this, "we tell everyone that we are one of the cruce signati, and claim the benefit and privilege of crusaders, namely: that we be not disturbed in our possessions, so as not to be forced to consume in defending them what we have proposed to expend on an expedition to the Holy Land. For this reason we have appealed through William Marshall, earl of Pembroke, and Earl Warren against the disturbers of the peace of our kingdom. But even because we are a Crusader we have desired to act with all humility and gentleness, and, without prejudice to our appeal, we have offered the barons to abolish all bad customs, by whomsoever introduced in our times, and also to eradicate all such evil practices as had come into existence in the reign of our brother Richard. With regard to the customs introduced in the days of our father, we have further promised that we, with the advice of our faithful counsellors, will amend any that can be shown to be injurious. But the barons are not content with these promises nor with others, and have refused them all."

King John then passes on to say that he had requested

the archbishop of Canterbury to compel the obedience of his barons, according to the tenor of the pope's letters by the spiritual weapon of excommunication, but that Cardinal Langton had demurred to this course. He had persistently refused to pronounce any such sentence, saying that he knew well what the pope's mind was on such matters. He had, however, undertaken, if he, the king, would get rid of the foreign mercenaries he had imported, to do what he could for him. After this, he continues, we offered, through the archbishop, to submit the whole matter to you, the pope, through eight representatives, four appointed by me, and four elected by the barons. This too they rejected.

Further, the king desired to remind the pope that, as a necessary consequence of these continued disturbances, he had been obliged to give up his journey to the Holy Land, and consequently he could not now say when he would be able to undertake it. Moreover, in thus abandoning his expedition, many others who were going with him had been prevented doing so. "Finally, O venerated Father," he concludes, "in the presence of Brother William, a member of your court, and of the venerable Fathers, the bishops of Coventry and Worcester, we offered the said barons to submit to your Benignity all the demands they have made of us, that you, who enjoy the plenitude of power, might determine what is just; and they refuse all these offers. Wherefore, loving Father, we have determined to expose the present state of things to your Lordship, that in your kindness you might determine what should be done."1

Innocent III replied at once on the receipt of John's letter. He wrote in haste, for his reply is dated June 18, only three weeks after the dispatch of the king's communication. It was too late, however, to affect the situation.

Although of course the pope did not then know it, the Great Charter had been agreed to and sealed three days before the issue of the papal letter, which is addressed to Langton and the other English bishops. The king's agents, he says, had represented to him the difficulties which surrounded their royal master. He does not understand the situation. Long ago he had urged the king, in remission of his sins, to treat the barons with mildness and listen to their just petitions. "Why cannot they put an end to these contentions by the means sanctioned by the laws and customs of their country?" The barons had not even waited for his reply; but after the king had taken the cross and had promised them more than justice, they had taken up arms against him. They did not appear to feel concern that their action prevented the work of liberating the Holy Land, and forced the king to spend money intended for the Crusade upon resisting the destruction of their own country. What was most "wicked and absurd was, that when the king in his perversity had offended God and the Church, they had helped him; but that, when he had turned again to God and satisfied his Church, they then attacked him." To permit this would be an injury to God, to the Roman Church, and to the pope, as well as to the king, and would be a danger and a menace to the kingdom. "Wherefore," continues the document, "greatly desirous of procuring, as indeed we are bound to do, the peace of the kingdom of England, (we determine) to put down these disturbances and to protect the said king, who is our vassal, from injustice and injury; particularly as, by reason of the cross he has assumed, he is under our special protection. We therefore strictly enjoin upon the aforesaid archbishop and his suffragans, in virtue of their obedience, that they proceed to the excommunication of the said barons, if after eight