whom Henry raised up for his own discomfiture as directly and as persistently as if he had had from the beginning that object in view. [Sidenote: Richard of Cornwall. ] The opinions of historians have differed widely in drawing the characters of the two most influential men of this period. Richard, King of the Romans, a dignity which he attained in 1257, the second son of John, must have been on any showing a man of more energy and enterprise than his brother Henry; it is attested by his early achievements in war, by his crusade, and by the adventurous way in which he attempted and really maintained his hold on Germany. He was also a better manager; for whilst Henry was always hopelessly overwhelmed with debt, Richard was always amply provided with money, and able to lend his brother large sums, which kept him afloat for a time, but did not get him out of his difficulties. Richard had also much sounder ideas of policy, acting frequently with the baronial party, resisting and remonstrating against his brother’s foolish designs, and winning throughout both France and England no small reputation for political sagacity. In opposition to these favorable points must be set a strong public opinion existing at the time, and since constantly re-echoed both in England and in Germany. The English, disliking his attempts at foreign sovereignty, represented him as a foolish, extravagant, tricky man, who for the name of Emperor sacrificed his real interests and imperilled the interests of his country; a man who would let the Germans delude him out of all his treasure and then come back to England and take the unpopular side, as he did in the barons’ war. The Germans, who always treated the English kings as rich fools to be handled from time to time for their own profit, got out of him all they could in the way of money and privileges, and showed their gratitude by mocking him. A more careful view of his career leads to the conclusion that both his abilities and his success were underrated. He was certainly not a great sovereign, but the probability is that, with the chances he had, he might have done very much worse. He was one of the very last of the kings of the Romans who thought of building up the empire as distinct from their own dynastic power; who lavished what he had upon it instead of merely using the power and dignity which it gave him to increase the wealth of his own family. In respect to his conduct as an English earl we find him always acting as a mediator and arbitrator, never urging the king to his despotic and deceitful courses. If when the country was actually at war he threw in his lot with his brother, rather than with Simon de Montfort, whom he did not understand, but suspected and reasonably disliked, he can hardly be visited with severe blame. He was the wisest and most moderate, it would seem, of Henry’s advisers; but Henry was not fond of being advised. [Sidenote: Simon de Montfort. ]