Page 161 of 163

7 (return)
[ NOTE G, p. 233. This story of the six burgesses of Calais, like all other extraordinary stories, is somewhat to be suspected; and so much the more as Avesbury, (p. 167,) who is particular in his narration of the surrender of Calais, says nothing of it; and, on the contrary, extols in general the king’s generosity and lenity to the inhabitants. The numberless mistakes of Froissard, proceeding either from negligence, credulity, or love of the marvellous, invalidate very much his testimony, even though he was a contemporary, and though his history was dedicated to Queen Philippa herself. It is a mistake to imagine, that the patrons of dedications read the books, much less vouch for all the contents of them. It is not a slight testimony that should make us give credit to a story so dishonorable to Edward, especially after that proof of his humanity, in allowing a free passage to all the women, children, and infirm people, at the beginning of the siege: at least, it is scarcely to be believed, that, if the story has any foundation, he seriously meant to execute his menaces against the six townsmen of Calais.]

8 (return)
[ NOTE H, p. 236. There was a singular instance, About this time, of the prevalence of chivalry and gallantry in the nations of Europe. A solemn duel of thirty knights against thirty was fought between Bembrwigh, as Englishman, and Beaumanoir, a Breton, of the party of Charles of Blois, The knights of the two nations came into the field; and before the combat began, Beaumanoir called out, that it would be seen that day who had the fairest mistresses. After a bloody combat, the Bretons prevailed; and gained for their prize, full liberty to boast of their mistresses’ beauty. It is remarkable, that two such famous generals as Sir Robert Knolles and Sir Hugh Calverley drew their swords in this ridiculous contest. See Pere Daniel, vol. ii. p.536, 537, etc. The women not only instigated the champions to those rough, if not bloody frays of tournament, but also frequented the tournaments during all the reign of Edward, whose spirit of gallantry encouraged this practice. See Knyghton, p. 2597.]

9 (return)
[ NOTE I, p. 253. This is a prodigious sum, and probably near the half of what the king received from the parliament during the whole course of his reign. It must be remarked, that a tenth and fifteenth (which was always thought a high grant) were, in the eighth year of this reign, fixed at about twenty-nine thousand pounds; there were said to be near thirty thousand sacks of wool exported every year. A sack of wool was at a medium sold for five pounds. Upon these suppositions it would be easy to compute all the parliamentary grants, taking the list as they stand in Tyrrel, vol. iii. p. 780; though somewhat must still be left to conjecture. This king levied more money on his subjects than any of his predecessors; and the parliament frequently complain of the poverty of the people, and the oppressions under which they labored. But it is to be remarked, that a third of the French king’s ransom was yet unpaid when war broke out anew between the two crowns. His son chose rather to employ his money in combating the English, than in enriching them. See Rymer, vol. viii. p. 315.]

11 (return)
[ NOTE K, p. 281. In the fifth year of the king, the commons complained of the government about the king’s person, his court, the excessive number of his servants, of the abuses in the chancery, king’s bench, common pleas, exchequer, and of grievous oppressions in the country, by the great multitudes of maintainers of quarrels, (men linked in confederacies together,) who behaved themselves like kings in the country, so as there was very little law or right, and of other things which they said were the cause of the late commotions under Wat Tyler. Parl. Hist. vol. i. p. 365. This irregular government, which no king and no house of commons had been able to remedy, was the source of the licentiousness of the great, and turbulency of the people, as well as tyranny of the princes. If subjects would enjoy liberty, and kings security, the laws must be executed.

In the ninth of this reign, also the commons discovered an accuracy and a jealousy of liberty, which we should little expect in those rude times. “It was agreed by parliament,” says Cotton, (p.309), “that the subsidy of wools, woolfels, and skins, granted to the king until the time of midsummer then ensuing, should cease from the same time unto the feast of St. Peter ‘ad vincula’ for that thereby the king should be interrupted for claiming such grant as due.” See also Cotton, p. 198.]

12 (return)
[ NOTE L, p. 290. Knyghton, p. 2715, etc. The same author (p. 2680) tells us, that the king, in return to the message, said, that he would not for their desire remove the meanest scullion from his kitchen. This author also tells us, that the king said to the commissioners, when they harangued him, that he saw his subjects were rebellious, and his best way would be to call in the king of France to his aid. But it is plain that all these speeches were either intended by Knyghton merely as an ornament to his history, or are false. For (1.) when the five lords accuse the king’s ministers in the next parliament, and impute to them every rash action of the king, they speak nothing of these replies, which are so obnoxious, were so recent, and are pretended to have been so public. (2.) The king, so far from having any connections at that time with France, was threatened with a dangerous invasion from that kingdom. This story seems to have been taken from the reproaches afterwards thrown out against him, and to have been transferred by the historian to this time, to which they cannot be applied.]

13 (return)
[ NOTE M, p. 295. We must except the twelfth article, which accuses Brembre of having cut off the heads of twenty-two prisoners confined for felony or debt, without warrant or process of law; but as it is not conceivable what interest Brembre could have to treat these felons and debtors in such a manner, we may presume that the fact is either false or misrepresented. It was in these men’s power to say any thing against the persons accused. No defence or apology was admitted; all was lawless will and pleasure.

They are also accused of designs to murder the lords; but these accusations either are general, or destroy one another. Sometimes, as in article fifteenth, they intend to murder them by means of the mayor and city of London; sometimes, as in article twenty-eighth, by trial and false inquests; sometimes, as in article twenty-eighth, by means of the king of France, who was to receive Calais for his pains.]