peaches and new cyder, of which he was extremely fond, and had often partaken without danger. The King departed from Swineshead on horseback, as some say on the following morning, though others affirm that he remained there two days; but on his way to Sleford Castle he was forced to remove to a litter, in which he was carried to Newark Castle, where he died in a few days after. At this place he first saw his physician, the Abbot of Croxton,perhaps Ralph de Lincoln,-who had not been with him at Swineshead to control his appetite, and now his malady was past cure: the Abbot after John's death embalmed his remains, when his bowels were buried at Croxton in Leicestershire, and his body in Worcester Cathedral.

The arguments used by Mr. Pegge, to prove that such really were the progress and causes of the King's disease and death, are, firstly, the very natural and probable character of the circumstances themselves; and the general use of the word dysenteria, by the contemporary Historians to express the King's disease: secondly, a comparison with the decease of Cardinal Wolsey, who died of a dysentery, also produced by grief and vexation, though it was likewise strongly suspected that he had been poisoned: thirdly, that on the body being embowelled, no historian notices the appearance of any sign of venom, or of any suspicion entertained by King John's physician; although such as relate the ordinary tradition affirm that the corse was swelled by the poison: fourthly, the absence of all allusion to the subject in the King's will, where the only notice of his sickness is, that he was prevented being more particular "by grievous infirmity;" though it should be remembered that this instrument was certainly written by an ecclesiastic, and therefore might be suspected. And fifthly, Mr. Pegge observes, that no sort of revenge for the supposed murder at Swineshead ever appears to have been taken, nor even an enquiry made into it; although Henry III., with the Earl of Pembroke and others of his powerful friends and followers, were, in the very year after John's death, all triumphant at Newark, the very place where it happened, and but a short distance from the Abbey: which foundation, however,

continued to exist and flourish until the dissolution of Monasteries.

With respect to the evidence brought forward to prove that King John did in reality die a natural death, the best and most authentic historian of this period, was Matthew Paris, whose narrative exactly agrees with the foregoing, and was that on which Mr. Pegge founded his arguments. This author was probably about fifteen years old at King John's decease in October, 1216; since he was professed a Monk of St. Alban's Abbey in 1217. It is, however, doubted whether the former part of his work, the Historia Major, were not written to the year 1235, by one Roger de Wendover, Prior of Beauvoir, and one of Matthew's predecessors at St. Alban's, who was certainly contemporary with the event. Ralph de Coggeshalle, a learned Cistercian Monk and English Historian, who is supposed to have died in 1228, states that John's sickness and death arose from excessive gluttony; adding that his stomach was always insatiable, and that having devoured to surfeiting at Swineshead, his repast terminated in a dysentery. After the flux had somewhat abated, he adds that the King was blooded at Latford, a town in Lindsey, whither came to him the messengers of those besieged in Dover Castle; but his sickness soon returning he sent for his chaplain, and after a few days more of disease, he died intestate at the Castle of Newark. This assertion, however, the reader will remember to be an error; since the original of John's will is still preserved in the Archives of Worcester Cathedral, and a translation of it has been given on a former page. Another author contemporary with this event, was Richard de Morins, compiler of the Annals of Dunstaple, who was elected Prior of his House in 1202, and died in 1242; but he merely states, that the King expired at Newark Castle on the morrow of St. Luke. Similar information, or a statement that John deceased of sorrow of mind or a dysentery, is also given in the Annals of Margan, a Cistercian Monastery in Glamorganshire, ending in 1232: in the Annals of Burton, an Abbey in Staffordshire, which extend to 1263: in the Chronicle of Mailros, terminating in 1270: in the Annals of Waverley Abbey in

Surrey, concluding in 1291: in the History of the English Kings by Nicholas Trivet, who was born in 1260, and continued his work to 1307: in the Flowers of Histories, by Matthew of Westminster, who flourished about 1307: in the Historia Major Wintonienses by Thomas Rudborne, a Monk of Winchester in the fifteenth century: and in the Continuation of the Chronicle of Croyland, which was written about the time of Edward IV.-Such are the arguments and authors in favour of the King having died a natural death.

In briefly referring to the narratives of the poisoning, it should be noticed that it is said to have been effected in several different ways. That by the venom of a toad infused in wine, has been already mentioned in the preceding Memoir of John; but another tradition states, that the King hearing that the Abbot of Swineshead had a fair sister, a Prioress in the neighbourhood, sent to her; which causing the Abbot some anxiety, the Hospitaller of the House said to him, "Do but absolve me, father, and pray for me, and

I will rid the earth of this monster." The Abbot made some scruples, because he was the King; but the Hospitaller knowing that John liked fresh pears, proceeded to provide some that were poisoned, excepting three which were marked, and presented the fruit to the Sovereign. It was supposed at one period, that certain precious stones had the power of detecting poison, and this narrative states, that the gems of the rings which the King then wore, perspired at the approach of the envenomed repast; upon which he demanded of his host, "What is this you have brought me? poison?"-"Not poison," replied the Hospitaller, "but excellent fruit." John then bade him eat some, which he did, taking one of those previously marked, and at the Sovereign's command, ate the two others also; after which the King took one and died the same night. The Hospitaller,

It will be observed in the engravings of King John's monumental effigy, inserted on future pages, that it has royal gloves upon the hands with jewels on the backs; but the gold and gems having been long since taken away, it is said that some of the Vergers of Worcester Cathedral who exhibited the tomb, used formerly to point to the vacant sockets, as the places where the venom first made its appearance.

however, was not put to death for this act, but escaped by assistance of those who were unfriendly to the King.

In noticing this narrative, Mr. Pegge's objections are, that as the relator of it was resident at Gisborough Abbey in Yorkshire, he was too far away to know much of the private transactions at Swineshead, above an hundred miles distant: that some circumstances of the story are purely legendary that there was no Nunnery near Swineshead which could so easily be sent to: and that the fruit could not well be so soon poisoned, excepting by arsenic, which operates by tearing and lacerating the coats of the stomach and bowels, and not by a flux, of which the King died. He observes, farther, that this account of John's death contains many gross errors, such as its taking place the same night at Swineshead, instead of eight days after at Newark; and that the King was buried October 18th at Winchester, instead of Worcester: the enumeration of John's issue which follows it, contains also several mistakes.

It should next be observed, that the relator of this narrative was Walter de Hemingford, or Hemingburgh, a CanonRegular of St. Austin; whose history extends to the year 1308, and who died in 1347: and his account of the King's decease was copied by Henry de Knighton, into his book of the Events of England, which was also written in the fourteenth century. It is asserted by Mr. Morant, that the story of the poisoning is not mentioned by any Author who lived within sixty years of the time when it is said to have taken place, or before 1276; but Lewis declares it to be first noticed in the Chronicle of Peterborough, the Abbot of which, it being a neighbouring House of importance, would be likely enough to know the event so recorded. But although the first part of that register terminates in 1259, and the Abbot John, (de Caleto or de Caux,) who is said to have compiled it, and under whose name it went, died in 1262,yet it is affirmed that the book is in reality the work of the fourteenth century; and that it has either been interpolated, or was called, "the Book of the Abbot John," from a later governor of the House named John de Deepings. The passage contained in this Chronicle is, however,

not very decisive, since it states only that the King "being
at leisure from destroying and burning Norfolk, came to
Swineshead, where, according to some, he was poisoned, and
removed to Slafford." Having thus discarded the authority
of the Chronicle of Peterborough as contemporary, Mr.
Pegge proceeds to assert that no Author has mentioned the
poison within eighty years after the event; Bartholomew de
Cotton, a Monk of Norwich, who flourished about 1298,
He says, "In the year
being the first who notices it.
1216, on St. Luke the Evangelist's day, King John died,
being killed by venom at Swineshead, by a certain Hos-
pitaller of the said House, and he is buried at Worcester;"
but this statement is erroneous, inasmuch as John was at
Newark on the 18th, and deceased there. The doubtful
expressions "as it is said,"-" as it is asserted,"-" it is
yet reported by vulgar fame," and "the common fame
telleth," are used in speaking of the King's murder by
Thomas Wikes, whose history ends in 1307; John of Tyne-
mouth, who flourished in 1386; the Scali Mundi; and a
manuscript account of the acts of King John in the Cot-
tonian Library, the Author of which died in 1336. Nor are
the metrical Chronicles of Robert of Gloucester and Peter de
Langtoft more particular. The first of these Authors is con-
sidered to have flourished and died about 1280, the begin-
ning of the reign of Edward I., and when speaking of the
fatal Civil Wars of the Barons and Louis under King John,
his words are as follow:

"And ever robb'd the King John, and the North-country wide :
And did the land woe enow and more by het, (promised,)
He brought not all to nought ere he his life let. (left.)

At Newark he died, upon Saint Luke's day,
He was so hasten'd that scarce three days sick he lay :
If any man thereto did help, God it him forgive!
For he had ere this land to much wretchedness ydrive.
In the year of Grace he died, twelve hundred and sixteen,
And seventeen year he was King, and five months I ween,
And five days, and that thought many men long I wis,
At Worcester in the Minster fair yburied he is."

Peter de Langtoft was a still later Historian, being supposed to have died in the time of Edward II., though the Chronicle which passes under his name was really a tran