and disgusted the nation. One of the king's sons, named John, got most of the real power into his hands. Edward III., unfortunately for England, had many children, some of whose figures stand round his tomb in Westminster Abbey, on which his own beautiful image, with the flowing hair and noble face, reposes. The descendants of these children quarrelled and fought for the kingdom of England through more than 100 years. The third son, John, was born at Ghent, in Flanders, and so was called John of Ghent, or Gaunt, as it used to be written then. He married the daughter and heiress of the Duke of Lancaster, great-niece of that Earl of Lancaster whom Gaveston had called an old hog;" so he gained her titles and estates, and became Duke of Lancaster. Though he was a clever and well-educated man he did not rule well; he took no pains to please either the clergy or the people; the government was very wasteful, and only the courtiers were pleased. The wars he undertook were very expensive and very inglorious; he took a large army to France, which won no victories, but was nearly starved and ruined. The ministers whom he appointed to manage matters in England were altogether unworthy of trust; every one was discontented and uneasy. 21. It was not the barons now who stood forth against the tyranny, but the House of Commons, who were assembled in 1376. Parliament and the Black Prince. what was afterwards called the "Good Parliament." Hitherto the Commons had never done much but vote for the taxes if they approved them, and present petitions against grievances; they had not attempted to meddle with the government. Once indeed, when Edward III. had attempted to consult them, they would not give any advice, very modestly saying that they were "too ignorant and simple" to form any opinion on such great matters. Now, however, things were so bad that something must assuredly be done against John of Gaunt and his ministers, and the king's favourite Alice; they declared that they would have things reformed. 22. But where were they to look for a leader—a leader brave and great enough to stand against the king, and the Duke of Lancaster, and the government? Now was the time when the Black Prince came out again from his retirement, like the evening sun from behind the storm-clouds at Crecy. He had been living in the country, at Berkhampstead, very ill; often falling into fainting fits, which looked like death; but now that he saw his country's need he came forth from his quiet retreat, and was carried to London. He had a palace of his own in the city close to where the Monument now stands, but that was too far from the parliament, which met in the chapter-house of Westminster Abbey. He was brought to the royal palace at Westminster, so that he might be carried from his sick bed to the parliament. 23. When the Commons saw him, and knew that he was come to take their part, to stand up for freedom and justice, their spirit and the spirit of the whole nation rose. The Commons threw away their humility, and stood out boldly; they made their complaints, and for that time they won their victory. John of Gaunt had to give way, and even to leave the council altogether. Alice Perrers also was banished, and the worst of the king's ministers deposed from their places. Death of the prince. 24. This great and patriotic effort was the end of the Black Prince. It used up his last strength, and he died in the palace at Westminster. When it was known that he was dead the sorrow and consternation were inexpressible. Even his enemies grieved for him. The King of France, the son of that King John whom he had made prisoner at Poitiers, had special prayers and services said for him in the lovely Sainte Chapelle at Paris. But his own friends and relations, and his own country, could not be comforted at all. His poor old father never recovered from it, and died the next year. One of his old fellow-soldiers was so heart-broken that he refused to take any food, and died in a few days of grief and starvation. And the whole English nation mourned as it has, perhaps, never mourned before or since. LECTURE XXIX.-MEDIEVAL ENGLAND. The English people 500 years ago. The language. The writers. The friars. The clergy. 1. NOTWITHSTANDING all his victories, we have seen that Edward III. could not succeed in becoming King of France, but had to be contented, as well he might, with being King of England. Let us now learn something more of what England was at that time. The Americans have a saying that "it takes all sorts to make a nation." We will in the next two lectures find out what we can about some of the "sorts" who made up the English nation 500 years ago,-about the knights and squires, the country gentlemen, the clergymen, the ladies, the servants, the poor people,—and see if they were at all like the same class of people now; and, again, about some people of whom we do not see much in England at present, but of whom there were plenty in those days-the monks and nuns, and the friars. We will try and see how they lived, what they liked, what they believed, and what they thought. 2. One great change had already taken place. Hitherto almost all the books we have had to read, to learn about the The language. history of our country, were written in Latin; but the books which we must read to learn its condition at this time were written in English. It is very oldfashioned English; the spelling is different from our spelling, and there are a good many words here and there which we do not use now. But still it is English, and if we take a little trouble we soon get to read it quite easily. If we compare it with the old English before the Norman Conquest we see the change which was mentioned some time ago; we see many beautiful words which are not in the old language, and which are a great improvement to it; but the whole substance of the language is still that of our old German forefathers. 3. After the Norman Conquest the king and the upper classes all spoke French, and it is very strange to think that all the school-children even were taught in French, which must have made learning very up-hill work to them. A little before this. time it had become still more fashionable to talk French rather than English, and those who wanted to appear "genteel" always tried to do so, though they spoke very queer French sometimes. 4. But soon after this one John Cornewaile, a schoolmaster, had the bright idea that children would get on with their lessons better if they learnt in their own language; and other schoolmasters catching the thought from him, in about thirty years all was changed, and in every grammar-school they were taught in English, as they are now, and learnt French as a foreign language. Just about the same time the lawyers were made to talk English in the law-courts. Now, too, the fine lords and ladies at court, the princes and princesses, kings and queens, began to talk English, and to read English books. An English knight, Sir John Mandeville, who was a great traveller, and wrote a very amusing book in French full of his adventures and the wonderful things he saw or heard of, afterwards translated it into English, that every man of the nation, "lords and knights, and other noble and worthy men," might understand it. Thus the last distinction between the conquerors and the conquered disappeared, and in this sense at least we may say that the vanquished English overcame the victorious French. 5. The writers from whom we learn most about the manners and thoughts of the people at that time were not historians, writing histories, but poets, writing either to instruct The authors. or to amuse the people amongst whom they lived. One of them was a poor man, though a scholar, and he wrote for poor people. Two others were gentlemen living near the court, and writing sometimes for the king or princes and princesses. Naturally, therefore, the books are very different; but they all agree in many points. The writers all saw the same things, and described them truthfully in their different ways; they were all keen, and clever, and clear-eyed. William Langlande. 6. The first of them was called William, and though his surname is thought to have been Langlande, no one is quite sure what it was. Perhaps he had none at all; for in those days it was rather looked on as a mark of a gentleman to have a surname. Poor men generally only had a kind of nickname, or were called after their trades, as Tyler, or Baker, or Butcher. He belonged in some way to the Church, for he had a shaven crown; but he had a wife called Kit, and a daughter called Calote. He seems to have earned his U ་ living, and a very poor one, by singing hymns at rich men's funerals. This was not a cheerful occupation, and he had a very melancholy spirit. His long poem, which is called the Vision of Piers the Ploughman,' is mostly very sad, and tells us a great deal about the evils of the times, and the sins of all classes of people. This book has hardly any of the new foreign words in it; the lower people did not use or understand them yet; it was written in what we may call a rougher language, powerful but not elegant. 7. The other principal writer was named Geoffrey Chaucer, and is called the father of English poetry. Some people think his father was a gentleman, and others that he was a tradesman; but at any rate he was very prosperous and well-to-do. Geoffrey had a busy, stirring life. He soon got offices in the court, and was thought a great deal of by some of the princes, especially by John of Gaunt. He was sent abroad several times; once he was a soldier, fought and was taken prisoner in France, but was soon set free. At other times he went to Italy, to some of the beautiful cities there, to Florence, and Padua, and Genoa, where he saw lovely country, beautiful buildings and pictures, and, what he perhaps enjoyed still more, some of the great and learned men of Italy and their books. He afterwards translated some of the charming tales he learnt there into English. Geoffrey 8. Thus there was a great contrast between the two: one grave, poor, and indignant; the other gay, prosperous, and genial. But in many points, when they happen to write on the same subjects, they agree wonderfully. They were both good men, true at heart, hating sin and loving righteousness. Each confirms the other, though they tell the tale in a very different way. 9. William, in his poem, says he had a dream in which he saw a "field full of folk," and he tells us what they looked like, and how they talked and behaved. There were gentlemen and ladies gaily dressed, poor labourers, townspeople, bakers, cooks, singers and jugglers, beggars, priests, bishops, friars, &c. Could we but have a dream like it, and see that field once! It would teach us more than reading books of history for a year. But the next best is reading in his own words what he saw and heard. he 10. Chaucer tells us about just the same people, only he introduces them in another way. His was not a dream; what says he saw he may have really seen with wide-awake eyes. He met with a knight, a squire, a lady, a monk, an innkeeper, a parish clergyman, a cook, a ploughman, a scholar, a sailor, and |