DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.6886#0161
WESTMINSTER ABBEY. 129
offenders, which, in his opinion, should be considered as a sufficient satisfaction to
the city for the outrage which had been committed against its inhabitants. But
one Constantine Fitz-Arnulph, a rich and factious citizen, urged them to take into
their own hands the means of revenge, and undertook to lead them on to pursue
it. Thus inflamed, they proceeded to Westminster, where they pulled down the
steward's house, and did considerable damage to the buildings about the abbey,
employing at the same time, with great uproar, and in a treasonable manner, the
name of Louis, the dauphin of France*.
In consequence of this tumultuous conduct of the Londoners, the abbot
hastened into the city to Philip Dawbenny, one of the king's council, to make
complaint of the injuries which his abbey had sustained; when the citizens,
having received intelligence of his visit, and naturally suspecting the object
of it, surrounded the house, took away twelve of his horses, and treated his
servants in a most unmerciful manner. Dawbenny in vain endeavoured to
pacify the enraged people; and while he was thus employed, the abbot, alarmed
at the danger which appeared to threaten him, passed through a back door of the
house, made his way to the Thames, where he fortunately found a boat, in which
he escaped; though not without being assailed by the mob, who pelted him
violently with stones, till the rowers had taken him out of the reach of their fury.
On being informed of this tumult, Hubert, who at that time held the office of
justiciary of England, proceeded to the Tower, and sent for the mayor, in order to
make enquiry into the authors of the disturbance. The result of this inquisition
was fatal to Constantine Fitz-Arnulph, who, with two others of the ringleaders,
was condemned to be hanged, and the sentence.was speedily executed; though the
* Louis, the dauphin of France, had invaded England but a few years before, and had been in
possession of London, where he had received very unequivocal proofs of attachment. This cir-
cumstance accounts for the rebellious use made of his name on this occasion.
Vol. I S
offenders, which, in his opinion, should be considered as a sufficient satisfaction to
the city for the outrage which had been committed against its inhabitants. But
one Constantine Fitz-Arnulph, a rich and factious citizen, urged them to take into
their own hands the means of revenge, and undertook to lead them on to pursue
it. Thus inflamed, they proceeded to Westminster, where they pulled down the
steward's house, and did considerable damage to the buildings about the abbey,
employing at the same time, with great uproar, and in a treasonable manner, the
name of Louis, the dauphin of France*.
In consequence of this tumultuous conduct of the Londoners, the abbot
hastened into the city to Philip Dawbenny, one of the king's council, to make
complaint of the injuries which his abbey had sustained; when the citizens,
having received intelligence of his visit, and naturally suspecting the object
of it, surrounded the house, took away twelve of his horses, and treated his
servants in a most unmerciful manner. Dawbenny in vain endeavoured to
pacify the enraged people; and while he was thus employed, the abbot, alarmed
at the danger which appeared to threaten him, passed through a back door of the
house, made his way to the Thames, where he fortunately found a boat, in which
he escaped; though not without being assailed by the mob, who pelted him
violently with stones, till the rowers had taken him out of the reach of their fury.
On being informed of this tumult, Hubert, who at that time held the office of
justiciary of England, proceeded to the Tower, and sent for the mayor, in order to
make enquiry into the authors of the disturbance. The result of this inquisition
was fatal to Constantine Fitz-Arnulph, who, with two others of the ringleaders,
was condemned to be hanged, and the sentence.was speedily executed; though the
* Louis, the dauphin of France, had invaded England but a few years before, and had been in
possession of London, where he had received very unequivocal proofs of attachment. This cir-
cumstance accounts for the rebellious use made of his name on this occasion.
Vol. I S