The difficulties which Hubert had to encounter were not caused by the question of the succession, but by the attitude of the great earls, all of whom had something to gain by the possible reversal of that repressive policy which had been pursued for the last twenty-six years, and some of whom had on former occasions taken a leading part against John, which he might now embrace the opportunity of avenging. A reactionary feudal party, a party of personal opponents, and a body of ambitious self-seekers, might all together, if they had taken up Arthur’s cause, have given John much trouble; but they contented themselves, as it was, with stating their grievances, and the archbishop was empowered to make any concessions that would appease them. The state of the country was not so peaceful as it had been during the last interregnum. The disturbers of public order took advantage of the attitude of the earls to plunder and ravage; but the strong arm of the justiciar avenged what he could not prevent, and, after a formal debate held between Hubert and the earls at Northampton, peace was restored, and the promises of John accepted as conclusive at all events for the present. [Sidenote: John’s coronation. ] On Ascension-day accordingly he presented himself at Westminster, and was there chosen, anointed, and consecrated with great splendor. On this occasion the ancient doctrine of election to the crown was vindicated in word and deed. Matthew Paris, the historian of this and the next reign, a writer who hated John with inveterate hatred, and who has therefore been suspected of having inserted in his work some things which never took place, has put in the mouth of the archbishop a somewhat elaborate speech, in which he declares that the crown of England is elective rather than hereditary, and that John’s title to the succession lies in the fact that he has been chosen king, as the first and strongest and most famous of the royal house. That some declaration of the kind was made is certain, for it is quoted by Lewis of France in the manifesto issued when he landed in England in 1216; but the historian draws suspicion upon his own account of it by saying that Hubert had a prophetic foresight in doing this; that he foresaw John’s misrule and insisted on his elective title as one that might be set aside hereafter. But in whatever terms the fact of the election was stated, and whether the claim of Arthur was denied or passed over in silence, it is important as showing the accepted doctrine of election in the thirteenth century. Arthur, according to the principles of inheritance of fiefs, as they were now admitted in England, was clearly his uncle’s heir. The election of John was, and perhaps was understood to be, a recurrence to the older rule by which the national choice of a king was directed to the ablest or eldest or most prominent member of the royal house. [Sidenote: Coronation oath. ]