archbishop. John forthwith dispatched messengers to Rome to prevent the pope's confirmation of this election. These envoys did not hesitate to declare that "the archbishop of Canterbury was a public enemy of the king of England; that he had given his help and counsel to the barons against his sovereign, and that if Simon Langton, his brother, were now promoted to the archiepiscopal see of York, there would be no peace for the king and kingdom." The pope listened to their objections, quashed the election' and forbade Simon Langton ever to return to England.

Meantime, before, or almost before, Pope Innocent's condemnation of Magna Charta could have reached England, King John was again complaining of his irreconcilable barons. On 13th September he wrote to the pope and, after expressing his "reverence due to such a Father and Lord," he tried to make out that the hostility of his subjects to him was due to his surrender of his kingdom to the Roman Church. "The earls and barons," he writes, were devoted to us before we submitted ourselves and our country to your dominion. From that time, and specially on that account, as they publicly state, they are violently opposed to us. "We however," he continues, "believe that, after God, we have in you a special Lord and patron, and that our protection and that of the whole kingdom, which is yours, is committed (by Him) to your Paternity." Consequently our business is indeed yours; we hand over all our authority to your Holiness and will approve whatever, upon the information of our messengers, you may think well to ordain.2

No direct reply to this communication is, apparently, extant. Innocent III, however, immediately sent a letter to the bishop of Winchester, Pandulph and others, excomRymer, i. 138.

1

1 Roger de Wendover, ii. 153.

2

municating the barons generally. "We are greatly astonished and moved," he writes, "to understand that, when our beloved son in Christ, John the illustrious king of England, had, beyond all expectation made satisfaction to the Lord and His Church, and in particular to our brother Stephen, the archbishop of Canterbury, and the bishops, they failed to protect and help him during the disturbances in the kingdom, which is known to all to belong to the Roman Church, by right of lordship. In this they made themselves abettors (conscii) not to say associates, in that wicked conspiracy, since he who fails to oppose a manifest crime cannot free himself from the taint of his evil company."

"See how these bishops defend the patrimony of the Roman Church! See how they protect those signed with the cross! Aye, see how they oppose those who strive to destroy the work of the Crucified One! Of a truth they are worse than the very Saracens themselves, since they desire to drive from his kingdom one from whom it was hoped help would be given to the Holy Land." The pope then goes on to excommunicate all disturbers of the peace of the king and kingdom, and to place their lands and possessions under an interdict. He charges the archbishop and bishops in virtue of obedience to publish this general sentence, on all Sundays and Feast days, until all shall have made their peace and returned to their obedience. And, continues the document, "if any of the bishops neglect to fulfil this our precept, let them know that he is suspended from the episcopal office, and his subjects released from their obedience to him, since it is but just that he who refuses to obey his superior shall not be obeyed by his inferiors."1

On receiving this letter, the bishop of Winchester and 1 Rymer, i. 138.

Pandulph went to the archbishop and required him in the pope's name to order his suffragans to publish it, and to do so himself in the diocese of Canterbury. They reached him only as he was actually on shipboard, waiting to cross over the Channel on his way to the General Council, and he asked them to leave the matter until such time as he could himself speak with the pope. He refused to publish the document until he had been able to explain to Innocent III the real state of the case. Pandulph and his fellow envoy, however, construing Langton's attitude into absolute disobedience to the authority of the Holy See, at once declared the cardinal suspended and forbade him to enter any church or to say mass till the suspension had been removed by proper authority. And, writes the chronicler, "humbly observing this suspension, the archbishop set out for the Apostolic See." Immediately upon his departure from the country, the bishop of Winchester and Pandulph, as they were directed, themselves published the excommunication. The barons, however, on the plea that no one was specifically mentioned by name in the sentence, wholly disregarded it.'

The Fourth Council of Lateran met in Rome in November, 1215. During the sessions of this assembly, the proctors of the English king charged Archbishop Langton with aiding and abetting the barons in their opposition to their sovereign, with refusing or neglecting to declare the papal condemnation of the barons' action, and finally, with declining to give any undertaking that he would publish the recent excommunication, for which he had been suspended by the bishop of Winchester, and had come on to Rome. Langton refused to reply or plead, and only requested to be absolved from the sentence passed on him in England. The pope would not consider his petition, and having taken

1 Roger de Wendover, ii. 155.

counsel with the other cardinals, confirmed the sentence of excommunication. Moreover, by a letter addressed to the bishops of the Canterbury province, and another directed to the laity and clergy, he charged them not to obey their archbishop "until such time as by his conduct he should merit absolution."1

The king was elated at the success of his diplomacy in Rome. He went in person to St. Alban's with the letters of suspension, and ordered them to be read in his presence to the monks assembled in chapter. He afterwards sat in the cloister for a long time, talking over the measures he was now going to take against any others who were opposed to him. It may here be noted that in the following year Cardinal Langton was absolved from the suspension under which he lay, upon giving his personal pledge not to return to England until the disturbances were entirely over.

King John soon made known throughout the country the pope's determination to put down all opposition to him. In December, 1215, further letters were procured from Rome excommunicating the leaders among the barons, personally and by name. John's mercenaries, whom he was pledged to disband and send out of England, were now turned loose on the estates and possessions of the barons. They were encouraged to rob and butcher without mercy. Outrages were committed by one army of these foreigners in the north of England and in the fen country, whilst a second was engaged in a similar work of destruction and rapine in the south. This state of things lasted for three months, and everywhere the barons lost ground and suffered great losses. But, writes a contemporary, "they received the news of their misfortunes with Christian fortitude, saying, 'The

1 Roger de Wendover, ii. 160; cf. Rymer, i. 139. 2 Matth. Paris, Chron. Maj., ii. 635.

3 Rymer, i. 139.

Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away.' These things must be borne with a brave heart." But when other nameless horrors, which had been committed by the king's orders, were told them, they exclaimed: "This is the beloved son in Christ of the pope, who protects his vassal by trying to subjugate this free and noble country in this unheard of manner! Alas! that he, who should heal the ills of the world, should be found openly to destroy the bodies of the poor, whom we are taught to call the Church."

"1

Driven to despair, the barons took a desperate step. Not seeing any other hope, they determined to invite Louis, the son of Philip of France, to come to their help, offering to make him king of England. After some brief negociations, Louis agreed to their proposals, and some of his French nobles reached London towards the end of February, 1216, bringing letters from Louis, who promised to be in England about Easter.2

Before this time, however, the pope, informed of the intention of the barons, had dispatched his legate, Gualo, into France to prohibit the expedition. Gualo was instructed to say that "the king of England was the vassal of the Roman Church, and that the pope would protect him, whose kingdom belonged to the Roman Church by the title of Lordship." On hearing this statement, the French king protested: "The kingdom of England," he said, "had never been part of the patrimony of St. Peter, nor is it now, nor ever shall be." Philip added that, in his opinion, John was not king of England at all, since he had been convicted of treason against his brother, King Richard, and consequently, "as he was not king, he could not give away a kingdom" that was not his to give. Besides this, he argued, even if he had ever been the rightful sovereign, "he had afterwards forfeited 1 Matth. Paris, Chron. Maj., ii. 637. 2 Roger de Wendover, ii. 174.