Page:Cambridge Medieval History Volume 3.pdf/309

266 certainly as early as July 1036 decided to visit Italy for the second time. The appeal of the opposing parties, therefore, came very opportunely. "If Italy hungers for law, I will satisfy her," he remarked on receiving the news. He crossed the Brenner in December, spent Christmas at Verona, and reached Milan early in the new year. On the day following his arrival a popular rising occurred which was imputed, not without some reason, to the instigation of Aribert. Lacking confidence in his strength to deal with the situation in the stronghold of his enemies, Conrad decided that all questions of difference should be determined at a diet to be held at Pavia in March. Here numerous complaints were brought against the arrogant archbishop, foremost amongst his accusers being Hugh, a member of the Otbertine family, who held the countship of Milan. The Emperor demanded redress; the archbishop defiantly refused to comply. Conrad, judging his conduct treasonable, took the high-handed measure of thrusting him into prison under the custody of Poppo, Patriarch of Aquileia, and Conrad, Duke of Carinthia. Poppo, however, was not sufficiently watchful of his important prisoner, and suffered for his negligence the displeasure of the Emperor. A certain monk, Albizo by name, had been allowed to share with his lord the hardships of prison; through his agency escape was effected. One night, while the faithful Albizo feigned sleep in the bed of the archbishop, the sheets drawn close over his head to prevent recognition, Aribert in the harmless guise of a monk passed safely through his gaolers, mounted a horse waiting in readiness, and rode in haste to Milan, where he was welcomed with enthusiasm by the patriotic burghers.

With reinforcements brought by his son from Germany Conrad besieged Milan, but without much success; it amounted only to some indecisive fighting, the storming of a few strongholds, the devastation of the surrounding country. But if the siege of Milan produced little military result, it drew forth the most important constitutional act of the reign, one of the most famous documents of feudal law, the edict of 28 May 1037. This celebrated decree solved the question at issue between the greater and the smaller vassals. As in Germany Conrad had shewn himself in sympathy with the small tenants, so in Italy he now secured to them and to their successors the possession of their lands against unjust and arbitrary eviction by their lords. "No vassal of a bishop, abbot, abbess, marquess, count, or of anyone holding an imperial or ecclesiastical fief ... shall be deprived of it without certain and proved guilt, except according to the constitution of our ancestors and by the judgment of his peers." The next two clauses deal with the rights of appeal against the verdict of the peers: in the case of the greater vassals the hearing may be brought before the Emperor himself, in the case of the smaller either before the overlords or before the Emperor's missi for determination. Then, the succession of the fief is secured to the son, to the grandson by a son, or, these failing, to the brother. Aliena-