as he had left them, and the poet takes the opportunity of making the following tirade of pure Robin Hoodism:—
"There was no man that for him ferde the wars,
But abbotes and priours, monk and chanoin,
On him left he nothing, when he might them none."
After a time Gamelin bethinks him of his brother Sir Ote's engagement to produce him, and he attends accordingly with his outlaws before the king's justice and the county. Sir Ote was already there "in fetters," having been sentenced to be hanged for Gamelin's default. Sir Ote being liberated, Gamelin announces his intention of hanging the judge and jury who had convicted him, as also the sheriff for his share of the transaction, and takes his seat on the bench, placing Sir Ote and his own old servant Adam (Shakespeare's Adam) by his side. The "justice" and the "false brother" are arraigned at the bar, and the sheriff and the twelve jurymen are fetched to bear them company. Gamelin next swears in the requisite number of his own men as jurors to try the new prisoners, and in the result all are found guilty and are summarily hanged.
Gamelin and Sir Ote are promoted by the king, who even finds places for all the outlaws. Gamelin then makes a good marriage, and the previous topsy-turfydom is thus set right.
After reading this précis the reader will, I think, agree with me that between this poem and the Lytel Geste there is a perfect concord of spirit and detail. The latter poem thus illustrates and supplements what is now lacking through the loss of the popular oral "Rimes." This view of the substantial agreement between the poem and the "Rimes" is strengthened by the fact that as time went on Gamelin was formally admitted amongst the personae of the Robin Hood legend as Young Ganwall.
There is one more circumstance connected with the legend which is not without interest. As we have seen, Robin Hood and his comrades are all simple yeomen, who have bettered their condition by turning thieves, though with a communistic pretence. But this was not to last for ever. When the English public had familiarised itself with the principle previously entirely unknown in Europe, that ratepayers should be taxed for the support of the poor, whether they liked it or
