_Scotland._ | _France._ | _Germany._ | _Spain._ | | | Robert I., 1306. | Philip IV., 1285. | Albert, 1298. | Ferdinand IV., | Louis X., 1314. | Henry VII., 1308. | 1295. | Philip V., 1316. | Louis IV., 1313. | Alphonso XI., | Charles IV., 1322. | | 1312. POPES.--Clement V., 1305. Vacancy for two years. John XXII., 1316. _Archbishops._ | _Chancellors._ | Robert of Winchelsea, | John Langton, 1307. John de Salmon, 1320. 1308-1313. | Walter Reynolds, 1310. Robert de Baldock, 1323. Walter Reynolds, | John de Sandale, 1314. Adam de Orleton, 1327. 1313-1327. | John de Hotham, 1318. _Note._--The names of the Justiciaries, who now became legal rather than political officers, are no longer given. Throughout, the names under the head of Spain are those of the Kings of Castile. The reign of Edward II. affords the best apology for any excessive exertions of power which can be laid to the charge of Edward I. It is plain that there existed a readiness on the part of the nobles to take advantage of any weakness in the government of their ruler; on the part of the clergy to reclaim the liberties of their order; and of the lower classes to find a popular hero in every opponent of the government. It would seem indeed that there was no alternative between a strong and practically despotic government and anarchy. It was not till the feudal barons of England had had their fill of anarchy in the Wars of the Roses, and had destroyed themselves, that constitutional government, in our sense of the word, had a chance of existence, and our sympathies are constantly divided between the Church and barons, whose efforts alone promised freedom, and the power of the encroaching ruler, who alone ensured order. For the weakling who could secure neither one nor the other we can feel no sympathy. In the reign of Edward II. we feel as if we had fallen back again to the time of his grandfather. The great question at issue throughout is the same--Shall foreigners, or indeed any other king-chosen favourites, supersede the national oligarchy of great barons? The constant prominence of this question (which in the present reign was further embittered by the personal character of one at least of the favourites) renders it very difficult to distinguish the part played by real patriotic demands for good government and for constitutional limits to the royal power. It is pretty clear that the favourites were the chief cause of the disturbances of the reign; but, on the other hand, the evident advantages offered by some of the baronial claims, and the love of the populace, who ranked even Lancaster with its saints, compel us to believe that these turbulent disturbers of the peace were worthy of some sympathy.