СНАР. John de Stratford, and reappointment of Robert. Adminis tration of the Strat fords. Their fall. ments of the King. office of Chancellor, and the King again appointed Robert Stratford, Bishop of Chichester, as his successor. The two brothers continued jointly to manage the King's affairs in England without the slightest suspicion of any change in his sentiments towards them till his sudden and wrathful return, when they were dismissed from their employments, and, but for their sacred character as ecclesiastics, would have been in great danger of losing their heads. Edward had derived no fruits from the great naval victory he had lately gained on the coast of Flanders, and though he Embarrass- had commanded a more numerous army than ever before or since served under the banner of an English sovereign, he had been able to make no progress in his romantic enterprise. He had incurred immense debts with the Flemings, for which he had even pawned his own person. The remittances from England came in much slower than he expected, and he found it convenient to throw the blame on those he had left in authority at home. His sudden return. ment of the Lord Edward's He escaped from his creditors, and after encountering a violent tempest, arrived at the Tower of London in the middle of the night of the 30th of November. He began by committing to prison and treating with unusual rigour the constable and others who had charge of the Tower, on preImprison- tence that it was negligently guarded. His vengeance then fell on the Lord Chancellor, whom next day he deprived of Chancellor. his office, and ventured for some time to detain in prison. Nay more, he inveighed against the whole order of the against the priesthood as unfit for any secular employment, and he aspriesthood. tonished the kingdom by the bold innovation of appointing a layman as Chancellor. Considering how ecclesiastics in those ages had entrenched themselves in privileges and immunities, so that no civil penalty could regularly be inflicted upon them for any public malversation, and that they were so much in the habit, when once elevated to high station by royal favour, of preferring the extension of priestly domi rage Advantages and disadvantages of appointing to office of Chancellor. Rot. Cl. 14 Ed. 3. m. 13. Upon this occasion the Great Seal was broken on account of a change in the King's armorial bearings, and another Seal, with an improved emblazonment of the fleur-de-lys, was delivered by the King, when embarking for France, to St. Paul, the Master of the Rolls, to be carried to the new Chancellor. nation to gratitude or respect for temporal authority, it seems at first sight wonderful that the great offices of state were ever bestowed upon them. On the other hand, there were peculiar causes which favoured their promotion. Being the only educated class, they were best qualified for civil employments requiring knowledge and address; when raised to the prelacy they enjoyed equal dignity with the greatest barons, and gave weight by their personal authority to the official powers intrusted to them, while at the same time they did not excite the envy, jealousy, and factious combinations which always arose when laymen of obscure birth were elevated to power. They did not endanger the Crown by accumulating wealth or influence in their families, and they were restrained by the decency of their character from that open rapine and violence so often practised by the nobles.* These motives had hitherto induced Edward to follow the example of his predecessors, and to employ ecclesiastics as his ministers, at the risk of their turning against him and setting him at defiance. But, finding that by the Clementine Constitutions he was obliged immediately to release the dismissed Chancellor from prison, and that the Archbishop, whom he likewise wished to call to account, fulminated an excommunication against him, he resolved in future to employ only men whom he could control and punish. Hume's Hist. vol. ii. p. 409. CHAP. XIII. CHAPTER XIV. CHANCELLORS AND KEEPERS OF THE GREAT SEAL, FROM THE APPOINTMENT OF SIR ROBERT BOURCHIER TILL THE APPOINTMENT OF WILLIAM DE WICKHAM. СНАР. Dec. 14. 1340. SIR ROBERT Chancellor. THE first lay Lord Chancellor appointed by an English king was Sir ROBERT BOURCHIER, Knight, a distinguished soldier. He was the eldest son of Sir John Bourchier, a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, the representative of a family long seated at Halstead, in Essex, His education was very slender, being engaged in military adventures from early and mili- youth; but he showed great capacity as well as courage in tary career. the field, and was a particular favourite of King Edward III., whom he accompanied in all his campaigns. In 1337 he was at the battle of Cadsant, and had lately before Tournay witnessed the discomfiture of all Edward's mighty preparations for the conquest of France. He joined in the loud complaints against the ministers who had been appointed to superintend the supplies and levies at home, and in the advice that the Stratfords should be punished for their supposed misconduct. Retirement and death of Exchancellor Robert de Stratford. The resolution being taken to put down the ascendancy of ecclesiastics, from the shrewdness and energy of this stout knight, he was thought a fit instrument to carry it into effect, and not only was the Great Seal delivered to him, but he was regarded as the King's chief councillor. After Robert de Stratford, the late Chancellor, had been released from prison, he made submission, and it was agreed to take no farther steps against him. He appears now to have retired from politics, and we read no more of him except that he acquired great applause for the prudence with which Rot. Cl. 14 Ed. 3. m. 10. XIV. he suppressed a mighty sedition in the University of Oxford, CHAP. arising from the opposite factions of the northern and southern scholars, — the former, by reason of the many grievances they complained of, having retired for a time to Stamford in Lincolnshire. He afterwards resided entirely in his diocese. His life was prolonged to the 9th of April, 1392. But it was determined to take ample vengeance on Exchancellor John de Stratford, to whose mismanagement was imputed the bad success of the war, and who continued to defy the power of the Crown. First came a proclamation under the Great Seal, framed by Lord Chancellor Bourchier, and ordered to be read in all churches and chapels, charging the Ex-chancellor with having intercepted the supplies granted to the King, and either with having appropriated them to himself, or having diverted them from their legitimate objects. To this Stratford opposed a pastoral letter, victoriously refuting the accusation. Prosecuchancellor John de tion of Ex Stratford. ment. summons bishop. But a parliament was always considered the ready engine A parlia of vengeance in the hands of the dominant party, and one was summoned to meet at Westminster, in April, 1341. Still some apprehensions were entertained from the sacred character of the party to be accused, and from his eloquence and influence if he were regularly heard in his own defence. The King and his military Chancellor therefore resorted to Writ of the unconstitutional step of withholding from him a writ of refused to summons, thinking that he might thus be prevented from the Archappearing in the Upper House. The Ex-chancellor, nothing appalled, sent a remonstrance to the King, stating (among His remonother things), "that there were two powers by which the strance. world was governed, the holy, pontifical, apostolic dignity, and the royal subordinate authority; that of these two powers the clerical was evidently the supreme, since priests were to answer at the tribunal of the Divine judgment for the conduct of Kings themselves; that the clergy were the spiritual fathers of all the faithful, and therefore of Kings and Princes, and were entitled by a heavenly charter to direct their wills and actions, and to censure their transgressions; and that Prelates had heretofore cited Emperors before their CHAP. tribunal, had sat in judgment on their life and behaviour, and had anathematised them for their obstinate offences." * XIV. His appearance in Palace Yard. Informa tion against him in Exchequer. Triumphs over the King. Spirited conduct of House of Peers. On the day when parliament met the Archbishop showed himself before the gates of Westminster Hall, — arrayed in his pontifical robes, holding the crosier in his hand, and attended by a pompous train of priests. This ceremony being finished, he was proceeding to the chamber where the Peers were assembled, but he was forbid by the captain of the guard to enter. While demanding admittance, he was seized by officers and carried to the bar of the Court of Exchequer, where he was called upon to plead to an information which had been filed against him by the AttorneyGeneral, and which treated him as a great pecuniary defaulter to the Crown. He then stationed himself in Palace Yard, and solemnly protested that he would not stir from that place till the King gave him leave to come into parliament, or a sufficient reason why he should not. Standing there in this manner, with the emblems of his holy office, some that were by began to revile him, saying to him, "Thou art a traitor: thou hast deceived the King and betrayed the realm." He answered them, "The curse of Almighty God and of his blessed Mother, and of St. Thomas, and mine also, be upon the heads of them that inform the King so. Amen, amen." During two days the King rejected his application; but he petitioned the Peers against the injury thus offered to the first Peer in the realm, and the House took it up as a matter of privilege. The King agreed to a personal conference with him in the Painted Chamber, and after some discussion, consented to his taking his seat in the House, but his Majesty then abruptly withdrew, and employed Sir John Darcy and Sir William Killesby to accuse him before the citizens of London and the House of Commons. The Lords, alarmed for the rights and honour of their body, prayed the King to acknowledge, that when a Peer was impeached by the Crown for high crimes and misdemeanours, he could not be compelled to plead before any other tribunal * 1 St. Tr. 57. |