LANGTON
792
LANGTON
of study to the anxious responsibilities of a primatial
see and that struggle with kings and princes which was
too often the lot of Mslmps in those days. Called to
fill the See of C'antcrliuiy wliile the memory of An-
selm's banishment and Becket's martyrdom was yet
fresh in men's minds, Langton's case was at the outset
worse than that of liis two great predecessors, for,
however much they had later to suffer, they were at
least allowed to begin with some semblance of peace
and of royal favour. Appointed to the see in the
midst of a strenuous struggle and in direct opposition
to the king's wishes, Langton had to begin his episco-
pate with a long period of banishment. This quarrel,
in full force before Langton's name was suggested, has
been graphically told by Lingard, following in the
wake of Roger de Wendover and other old chron-
iclers. A dispute had arisen as to the right to elect
the Archbishop of Canterbury, which was claimed
both by the monks of the cathedral chapter and Ijy the
bishops of the province. On the death of Archljishop
Hubert Walter in 1205, some of the younger monks
attempted to steal a march on the opposite party by
the nocturnal and surreptitious election of Reginald,
their sulj-prior, who was forthwith sent to Rome to
seek confirmation at the hands of Innocent III. It
appears to have been their original plan that the pro-
ceedings should be kept secret until the candidate's
arrival in Rome. Certainly there was little likelihood
that the king would liave suffered him to go free if the
object of the journey had been known. His vanity,
however, induced Reginald, when safe out of John's
dominions, to lay aside all disguise and assume the
style of archbishop-elect. The angry king lost no
time in compelling the monks at Canterbury to hold
another election and to place on the archiepiscopal
throne his own favourite and prime minister, John de
Gr.ay, Bishop of Norwich.
A new delegation was then dispatched to Rome to ask the confirmation of this second election, and the pope had to decide between the claims of the rival can- didates. On different but equally satisfactory grounds he rejected both elections. The first was void by reason of its irregular and surreptitious character, while, even apart from the pressure which robbed the second elec- tion of the necessary freedom, it was irregular because the first had not yet been annulled in a regular and canonical manner. On the question at issue between the monks and the bishops he decided in favour of the former, as the evidence showed that the right of election had lielonged to them from Saxon times. And, as the field was now clear for a fresh election, he directed the monks then in Rome to choose a new archbishop, and recommended Langton as one well worthy of this office. This choice was duly made anil confirmed by the pope, who made it known to the Icing in a letter warmly praising the merits of the new archbishop, while in a" Bull to the prior and monks of Canterbury he called him "Our beloved son, master Stephen de Langton, a man verily endowed with life, fame, knowledge, and doctrine". But neither the words of Innocent nor the merits of Langton could satisfy the angry king, who wreaked his vengeance on the Church of Cantcrl)ury and vowed that Langton should never set foot in his dominions. Thus began the memoral)le struggle between the worst of English kings and the greatest of the medieval pontiffs. Find- ing John deaf to reason and remonstrance, Inno- cent proceeded to take stronger measures, and placed the kmgdom under an interdict. It seemed as if even this strong measure would be of no avail, for John re- mained obstinate for eight years.
At Icngtli, when Innocent proceeded to pronounce him exoonnnunicate, and his powerful rival Philip of France was prcjiaring to carry out the sentence of de- position, John, alarmed at the growing disaffection of his own sul)jccts and recognizing that further resist- ance was unavailing, consented to open negotiations
with the archbishop. Langton, who had done his best
to guide and govern his flock from his place of banish-
ment, was thus able to land once more in England.
The king had in 1209 invited Langton to meet him in
England, and had sent him a safe-conduct for that
purpose. But, as this was addressed not to the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury but to "Stephen Langton, car-
dinal of the Roman see", the archbishop firmly re-
fused to accept it. Another invitation in 1210 proved
equally ineffectual, but, when John at length yielded in
his hour of danger and issued letters in due form, Lang-
ton lost no time in returning. He landed at Dover in
July, 121.3, and was met there by the king, who fell at
his feet with words of welcome and submission. John
had already on 15 May, 1213, resigned his kingdom to
Pandulph, the pope's legate, and had received it back
as a fief of the Holy See. It might have seemed that
the long struggle was now over, and that the arch-
bishop, after his eight years of banishment, could at
length enter on a peaceful period of pastoral labour.
But it is not likely that Langton himself cherished this
illusion. The king's apparent surrender to the pope
had indeed changed the issue, and had gained its ob-
ject of frustrating the schemes of the French King,
since, as a vassal of the Holy See, John could now ap-
peal to the pope for protection. But it still remained
to be seen whether John would fulfil his promises, and
whether, by ruling with justice, he would conciliate
his disaffected subjects. The course he had taken
since his submission to Pandulph gave ground for
grave misgivings, and events soon showed there was
as yet no room for peace.
But the conflict between John and Innocent was now to be succeeded by the momentous struggle be- tween the king and his barons. And, though Lang- ton's appointment as primate had been the chief issue in the former strife, his part in the constitutional con- flict, while not less conspicuous, was more active and commanding, for, in the words of Pattison, he was the "soul of the movement". This appears from his strong action at the meeting held at St. Paul's in Lon- don on 25 August, 1213. "Its ostensible object", says Lingard, " was to ascertain the damages sustained by the outlaws in the late quarrel. But Langton called the barons aside, read to them the charter of Henry, and commented on its provisions. They an- swered by loud acclamations, and the archbishop, tak- ing advantage of their enthusiasm, administered to them an oath by which they bound themselves to each other to conquer or die in the defence of their liber- ties." When the king was going to wreak vengeance on the barons for their disobedience, Langton firmly in- sisted on their right to a lawful trial, and added that, if John refused them this justice, he would deem it his duty to excommunicate all, except the king himself, who took part in this impious warfare. Such was the archbishop's vigorous line of action at the outset of the struggle which was brought to a successful issue two years later by the signing of the Great Charter at Runnymede. And, if he was the soul of the move- ment which led to these results, he may justly be re- garded as the real author of the Magna Charta.
It is important to observe that in this constitutional conflict Langton was labouring for the liberties of England and seeking to check the royal tyranny, which was the chief danger to the Catholic Church in that country, and which in a later age was to be one of the main factors in bringing about the separation be- tween lOngland and the Holy See. In this war he was abi.shiip liglitiiig for t lie Church, as well as an English- man fighting for the liberty of his country. It must, liowever, be remembered that many issues were in- volved in the struggle. There were dangers of excess on either side. Nobles as well as kings have been guilty of oppression and injustice, and the common people often suffer more from many tyrants than from one. Bearing this in mind, we can imderstand how
