expelled with abuse; beaten and pelted with stones, they naturally fled; and others near the palace, taking the alarm, followed their example. The Christian mob pursued, and some villains amongst them exclaimed, the King had issued an order for the extirpation of every Jew in the city. Inflamed by a mistaken idea of religion, and still more by the opportunity thus created of plundering the houses of these persecuted people, they were killed without mercy the moment they could be seized; and the streets of London presented victims of blind wickedness in all directions.

Those who escaped to their homes, and others who had not been from them, were assaulted; and, endeavouring to save their lives by flight, received the death-blow the instant they passed the threshold of their houses, and some were consumed in their habitations.

This dreadful act of public vengeance terminated with robbery; and it appears that little exertion was made to prevent the perpetrators from sating themselves effectually; a very few of the ringleaders were subsequently apprehended, and suffered the punishment due to thousands besides. What, indeed, could be expected of a government which permitted a general plunder and destruction of Jews previous to the commencement of a crusade?

Richard I. possessed a quality which produced him more honour and adiniration from his contemporaries,

temporaries, than the exercise of all the virtues of the human character could otherwise have excited in the then state of society. Richard, the Lion-hearted, feared no enemy; braved death in every form, and, at length, died in the field through a wound inflicted by the arrow of Bertrand de Gourdon, one of the garrison of the Castle of Chalons. A warlike people governed by a Prince of this description, whose person was majestic and whose features accorded with the manly and firm character of his mind, could not fail of being celebrated by every author of the period. Hence we find them ardent in their praises of him as a warrior and statesman.

After the Castle of Chalons was taken, the whole of the party which defended it were hanged, except Gourdon. Richard asked him, why he had endeavoured to take his life? Gourdon boldly replied, that the King had himself killed his father and brother, and, therefore, deserved the same punishment from his hands. Richard had the magnanimity to acknowledge the truth of his answer, and ordered him to be set at liberty.

His facetious and satirical reply to the Archbishop of Rouen, almost at the close of his life, demonstrates the playful disposition of his mind. The prelate recommended the immediate dismissal of his three favourite daughters, Pride, Avarice, and Luxury. I give them in marriage, said the

King; the first to the Templars, the second to the Monks, and the third to the Prelates.

A man of true courage is generally liberal and forgiving to his conquered enemies, and this was the case with Richard. And yet it would be no difficult task to prove that he neglected all the essential interests of his kingdom, and exhibited many traits of sensuality, infidelity, cruelty, and avarice; exclusive of his acts as a son.

This monarch was seated at supper when he received advice that the King of France had commenced the siege of Verneuil in Normandy, then held by the troops of Richard. Exasperated at the intelligence, he vowed he would no: turn his back till he had met the French; and to accomplish this odd resolution he commanded that part of the wall of his palace which was situated between him and the enemy to be broken down, and he went through the breach immediately to the field of battle.

Of all the Kings which have enjoyed the throne of England, not one seems to have been so completely and generally condemned as John; who began his public life by conspiring against a father, to whom he was under the deepest obligations.

This one act is quite sufficient to render his character infamous; we are, therefore, not surprised to find he was capable of murdering a nephew, attempting to dethrone a brother, cruel to

his family, and unfaithful to his wife. As a King, he was oppressive, and would even have made the corn-fields of his subjects pasture for his deer, and themselves perfect slaves, had not the Barons been faithful to their natural rights.

When in the plenitude of power, Religion, and its professors, were the constant objects of his ridicule; and yet the terrors he felt at the frowns of the Head of the Church, induced him, at a less propitious moment, to resign his crown into the hands of a legate, who returned it as to an abject vassal.

No remarkable changes in the manners and customs of the court, the nobles, and the people, appear to have taken place for a long period: were we to judge of them from many of the writers of the time, they were neither creditable to the nation, nor profitable to individuals. Froissart condemns the English for their haughty insolent affectation of independence, and contempt of strangers. William of Malmesbury goes still farther, and represents every rank as emulating each other in pride, ignorance, and rapacity: and others paint the clergy as sacrilegious, cruel, and luxurious; assuming the habit of piety merely for wicked purposes. These accounts should, however, be received with great caution; as we have upon record, in opposition to them, numerous instances of generosity of mind, liberality, courage, and genuine though perhaps mistaken piety.

The

The whole body of knights swore to promote the peace and good order of society; and, it is but justice to grant,, soine cases must have occurred in which they performed their vows. When civil war ceased. for a short interval humanity and benevolence insinuate themselves into the castles and palaces, and spread their influence through their environs: unfortunately, their operations were soon frustrated, and they were compelled to yield to revenge and ambition-two evils very often predominant during the prevalence of the Feudal system.

Strange as it appears to a modern, the manners of the great were a series of contradictions: at one time the knight, inflamed with the most ardent gallantry, would offer his life at the feet of the ladies, and treat them with the most extravagant adulation; and at another, he would burn her husband or father's castle, destroy them in battle, and render these revered objects worse than mendicants. A youth, after having made choice of his mistress, would proclaim her perfections at the point of his sword; and he that dared assert his own excelled her, must maintain his position, and even die in defence of it. We may readily imagine' the consequences of this folly in the inevitable feuds it caused in families, which naturally bore their part in these senseless dissensions. When they were indulged to excess

(as