slation from Robert de Brunne, terminating in the end of the reign of Edward I. The passage in it concerning John is as follows, and it is remarkable for perpetuating a tradition contrary to the report of all other authors, that this King died at Haugh in Lincolnshire, instead of at Newark: but the circumstance is not recorded in the French original. "And John reigned in his estre eighteen year.

At the Abbey of Swynesheved there he drank poyson,
At Haugh his life he left, so men say of that town:

A thousand and two hundred, the date was, & sixteen,

His time was all forwondred, & ended all with tene !" (loss,) Such are the very brief and uncertain reports of the Historians down to this period, though as they become later in date, the story is made more full and particular, and first Walter Hemingburgh gives the statement already referred to; after which appeared the account by Ralph Higden in his Polychronicon, and that attributed to William Caxton in the St. Alban's Chronicle, or Fructus Temporum. Higden was a Benedictine of the Monastery of St. Werburg in Chester, where he died at an advanced age in 1360, his work being translated into English and increased by John de Trevisa, a Cornish Divine, upwards of a century afterwards. "The common fame telleth," says this chronicler, "that the King swore there at meat, that the loaf of bread, that was then worth an halfpenny, should be worth twelve-pence within the year, if he might live. A Monk of the House heard that, and made him drink of venom, and shrove him (self) and was houseled, and drank to the King as it were his tastor: and so the King and he died both at once." The narrative attributed to Caxton, is, however, more circumstantial, and is as follows, according to the most familiar recital of it in the Chronicle of Richard Grafton.

"And in the self. same year, King John came to Swinestede Abbey, not far from Lincoln; he rested there two days, where, as certain writers report, he was most traitorously poisoned, by a Monk of the same Abbey, being of the Order of Saint Barnard, called Simon Swinested. And as Caxton saith in his book called Fructus Temporum, and Polychronicon also saith the same, the aforesaid Monk, named Simon, hearing the King upon an occasion to talk of bread, should say that if he lived a year longer, he would make that loaf of bread, being then of the value of one half-penny, worth twelve-pence; meaning that he would so prosecute his rebellious people, that he

would not leave one of them to be the owner of a plough. The Monk hearing the King thus speak, conceived of the King a very evil opinion, insomuch that forthwith the Monk went to his Abbot shewing him the whole matter, and what he was minded to do. He alledged for himself the prophecy of Caiaphas, saying, 'It is better that one man die, than all the people should perish: I am well content,' saith he, 'to die, and to become a martyr, so that I may utterly destroy this tyrant. With that the Abbot wept for gladness, and much commended his fervent zeal, as he took it. The Monk, then, being absolved of his Abbot for doing of this act beforehand, went secretly into a garden upon the backside, and finding there a most venomous toad, he so pricked him, and pressed him with his penknife, that he made him vomit all the poison that was within him. This done he conveyed it into a cup of wine, and, with a smiling and flattering countenance, he said thus to the King, If it shall like your princely Majesty, here is such a cup of wine as ye never drank before in all your life-time, I trust this wassail shall make all England glad.' And with that he drank a great draught, the King pledging him. The Monk anon after went to the Farmory, and there died, his guts gushing out of his belly; and had continually from thenceforth three monks to sing masses for his soul, confirmed by their general Chapter. The King within a short. space after, feeling great grief in his body, asked for Simon the Monk; and answer was made that he was departed this life: "Then God have mercy upon me!' said the King, I suspected as much!" With that he commanded his chariot to be brought, for he was not able to ride. So went he from thence to Sleford Castle, and from thence to Newark upon Trent; and there, within less than three days he died, when he had reigned xvii years, vi months, and odd days, and was honourably buried at Worcester, with his armed men attending upon the burial."

This narrative is also recited by the honest, though credulous, John Fox, in the fourth book of the first volume of his "Acts and Monuments;" wherein he concludes that the King was certainly poisoned, though he admits that those who have written of his death are at great variance; some saying, "that he died of sorrow and heaviness of heart, as Polydorus; some of surfeiting in the night, as Radulphus Niger; some of a bloody-flux, as Roger Hovedon; some of a burning ague; some of a cold sweat; some of eating apples, pears, plums, &c."

The principal argument in favour of any narrative recording the poison, is, the hatred borne to King John on account of his discourse at the Monastery; whether that related to what he would hereafter do to revenge himself on his subjects; or to his expression of anger, against the invasion of Louis the Dauphin, at which Simon

the Monk was particularly offended, the members of his society being inclined to support him. They are admitted to have been inimical to John, who came to their Abbey for a lodging in the time of his distress, and not from choice as to a party of his own friends; though the force he had with him was quite sufficient to ensure his entertainment. Another argument in favour of the poison is grounded upon a speech uttered by Henry III. to the Prior of Clerkenwell, who boldly said to him, that as soon as he ceased to do justice to his Prelates, he should cease to be a King; upon which the Sovereign answered in anger, "What! then, thou wouldest not cast me forth from my kingdom as my father was formerly cast out, and afterwards suddenly destroyed?" But Matthew Paris, who relates this circumstance, remarks that it was a rash and uncircumspect answer; and Mr. Pegge adds, that it was spoken in a passion in 1252, between thirty and forty years after the event: the word in the original text, also, being necare, to slay or destroy, which is very indefinite; and, therefore, the King meant only that his father's troubles were the cause of his death. The last argument for the poisoning is, that certain Monks, some stating three and others five, are actually have said to have been long after employed to sing and pray for the soul of him who had committed the murder. Mr. Pegge, however, replies to this, that neither that circumstance, nor the use of the toad, are mentioned by any historian older than the author of the Eulogium, who died about 1366, or 150 years afterward; and he therefore considers that the appointment of these masses might have taken place long subsequent, when the story had become common and generally believed.

In addition to these objections, Mr. Pegge derives several others from the various narratives themselves; though

The manuscript history so called, is preserved in the Cottonian Collection in the British Museum, in a volume marked Galba, E. VII. Art. ii. It is divided into five books, the last of which treats of Britain and its Sovereigns from Brute down to Edward 11I., about 1367, though it is continued down to the year 1413 by another hand, The original Author is uncertain, but he is supposed to have been a Monk of Canterbury, uamed Ninianus, who died about 1366.

he properly questions Morant's assertion, that a man would not destroy himself from revenge, or what he thought to be religious zeal for the public good. He notices, however, the different motives assigned to the Monk, and the several reports concerning the price to which John affirmed that bread should be advanced; Ralph Higden stating it to be 12d., Caxton 20s., the Polychronicon 20d., and the MS. Eulogium "a pound of bread as a pound of silver." He notices farther, the discordance concerning the Monk's own fate, Higden and Caxton affirming that he died from partaking of the poison, and Hemingburgh that he escaped and survived. He adds, likewise, that the time required for his confession, absolution, and preparation of the venom, would be too long for the King not to have risen from table; therefore the accounts which state that he was absolved only, are the more probable. Mr. Pegge also refers to the different materials said to have been used for the poison, and particularly questions whether the liquid drawn from a toad would be at all noxious. For he observes that Pennant states, that it is well known that quacks have eaten toads, and have even drank with impunity of their juices expressed into a glass; which is said to have been the venom employed against King John. This is, in some degree, confirmed in Dr. Shaw's Zoology, Vol. iii. part i. p. 143, where he says that the limpid fluid which these animals suddenly discharge when disturbed, is a mere watery liquor, perfectly free from acrimonious or noxious qualities; and that the common toad may therefore be pronounced innoxious, or quite free from any poisonous properties, at least with respect to any of the larger animals. To this he adds, that the innumerable tales recited by the old writers of its supposed venom, appear to be either gross exaggerations, or else to have related to the effects of some other species mistaken for the common toad; it being certain that some of this genus exude from their skin a highly acrimonius fluid.

Lastly, it is objected, that the story of the poison took its rise and became popular, from the King's death having happened at a critical time, and in an enemy's quarter; of a very short illness when he was in great perplexity, and

knew not whom to trust, no where to be safe. Hence it would be natural for the common people to conjecture the probability of poison, since such suspicions have often followed the deaths of great personages; and that which was at first only surmise, being afterwards frequently repeated and embellished by Monkish Historians who were opposed to the King, at length grew into positive assertion.

X. ACCOUNT OF THE INTERMENT AND DISCOVERY OF THE BODY OF KING JOHN IN WORCESTER CATHEDRAL.

Vide the preceding Memoir, page 491.

It was for some time doubtful in what part of this edifice the remains of King John were interred; for, it has been well observed, that the perplexities which attended this Monarch through his life, appear to have taken up their habitation with him even in his grave. As it has, however, been a point of posthumous interest in the memoirs of this King, it will not be uninteresting to give some account of this antiquarian discussion, and of the manner in which it was at length decided.

To commence, then, with a description of the Monarch's commonly-supposed place of sepulture, Dr. Thomas in his Survey of the Cathedral Church of Worcester, London, 1736, 4to., has the following account of his tomb.-"In the choir before the High-Altar, on a fair raised marble monument, lieth his portraiture in his royal ornaments, wearing a crown on his head, wherein is written Johannes Rex Angliæ; in his right hand a sceptre now broken, his left on his sword hanging by his side, at his feet a lyon rampant, Or, and below, in eight several panes, are shields charged with Gules, 3 lyons passant guardant, Or. So shineth he all in gold, between two Bishops censing him; signifying, I think, St. Oswald, Archbishop of York, and St. Wulstan, between whose two sepulchres or shrines he bequeathed his