Read The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 Online
Authors: David Hume
The escheats were a great branch both of power and of revenue, especially during the first reigns after the conquest. In default of posterity from the first baron, his land reverted to the crown, and continually augmented the king’s possessions. The prince had indeed by law a power of alienating these escheats; but by this means he had an opportunity of establishing the fortunes of his friends and servants, and thereby enlarging his authority. Sometimes he retained them in his own hands; and they were gradually confounded with the royal demesnes, and became difficult to be distinguished from them. This confusion is probably the reason why the king acquired the right of alienating his demesnes.
But besides escheats from default of heirs, those which ensued from crimes or breach of duty towards the superior lord, were frequent in ancient times. If the vassal, being thrice summoned to attend his superior’s court, and do fealty, neglected or refused
obedience, he forfeited all title to his land.r
If he denied his tenure, or refused his
service, he was exposed to the same penalty.s
If he sold his estate without licence
from his lord,t
or if he sold it upon any other tenure or title than that by which he
himself held it,u he lost all right to it. The adhering to his lord’s enemies,w
deserting
him in war,x betraying his secrets,y debauching his wife or his near relations,z
or even using indecent freedoms with them,
a
might be punished by forfeiture. The higher crimes, rapes, robbery, murder, arson, &c. were called felony; and being interpreted want of fidelity to his lord, made him lose his fief.
b
Even where the felon was vassal to a baron, though his immediate lord enjoyed the forfeiture, the king might retain possession of his estate during a twelvemonth, and had the right of spoiling and destroying it, unless the baron paid him a reasonable composition.
c
We have not here enumerated all the species of felonies, or of crimes by which forfeiture was incurred: We have said enough to prove, that the possession of feudal property was anciently somewhat precarious, and that the primary idea was never lost, of its being a kind of
fee
or
benefice.
When a baron died, the king immediately took possession of the estate; and the heir, before he recovered his right, was obliged to make application to the crown, and desire that he might be admitted to do homage for his land, and pay a composition to the king. This composition was not at first fixed by law, at least by practice: The king was often exorbitant in his demands, and kept possession of the land till they were complied with.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
321
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/695
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 1
If the heir were a minor, the king retained the whole profit of the estate till his majority; and might grant what sum he thought proper for the education and maintenance of the young baron. This practice was also founded on the notion, that a fief was a benefice, and that, while the heir could not perform his military services, the revenue devolved to the superior, who employed another in his stead. It is obvious, that a great proportion of the landed property must, by means of this device, be continually in the hands of the prince, and that all the noble families were thereby held in perpetual dependance. When the king granted the wardship of a rich heir to any one, he had the opportunity of enriching a favourite or minister: If he sold it, he thereby levied a considerable sum of money. Simon de Mountfort paid Henry III.
10,000 marks, an immense sum in those days, for the wardship of Gilbert de
Umfreville.d
Geoffrey de Mandeville payed to the same prince the sum of 20,000
marks, that he might marry Isabel countess of Gloucester, and possess all her lands and knights fees. This sum would be equivalent to 300,000, perhaps 400,000 pounds
If the heir were a female, the king was entitled to offer her any husband of her rank he thought proper; and if she refused him, she forfeited her land. Even a male heir could not marry without the royal consent, and it was usual for men to pay large sums for
the liberty of making their own choice in marriage.f
No man could dispose of his land, either by sale or will, without the consent of his superior. The possessor was never considered as full proprietor: He was still a kind of beneficiary; and could not oblige his superior to accept of any vassal, that was not agreeable to him.
Fines, amerciaments, and oblatas, as they were called, were another considerable branch of the royal power and revenue. The ancient records of the exchequer, which are still preserved, give surprizing accounts of the numerous fines and amerciaments levied in those days,
g
and of the strange inventions fallen upon to exact money from the subject. It appears, that the ancient kings of England put themselves entirely on the foot of the barbarous eastern princes, whom no man must approach without a present, who sell all their good offices, and who intrude themselves into every business, that they may have a pretence for extorting money. Even justice was avowedly bought and sold; the king’s court itself, though the supreme judicature of the kingdom, was open to none that brought not presents to the king; the bribes given
for the expedition, delay,h
suspension, and, doubtless, for the perversion of justice, were entered in the public registers of the royal revenue, and remain as monuments of the perpetual iniquity and tyranny of the times. The barons of the exchequer, for instance, the first nobility of the kingdom, were not ashamed to insert, as an article in their records, that the county of Norfolk paid a sum, that they might be fairly dealt with;
i
the borough of Yarmouth, that the king’s charters, which they have for their
liberties, might not be violated;k
Richard, son of Gilbert, for the king’s helping him to
recover his debt from the Jews;l
Serlo, son of Terlavaston, that he might be permitted to make his defence, in case he were accused of a certain homicide;
m
Walter de
Burton for free law, if accused of wounding another;n
Robert de Essart, for having an inquest to find whether Roger, the butcher, and Wace and Humphrey, accused him of robbery and theft out of envy and ill-will, or not;
o
William Buhurst, for having an inquest to find whether he were accused of the death of one Godwin out of ill-will or
for just cause.p
I have selected these few instances from a great number of a like kind, PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
322
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/695
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 1
which Madox had selected from a still greater number, preserved in the ancient rolls
Sometimes the party litigant offered the king a certain portion, a half, a third, a fourth, payable out of the debts, which he, as the executor of justice, should assist him in
recovering.r
Theophania de Westland agreed to pay the half of 212 marks, that she
might recover that sum against James de Fughleston;s
Solomon the Jew engaged to pay one mark out of every seven that he should recover against Hugh de la Hose;
t
Nicholas Morrel promised to pay sixty pounds, that the earl of Flanders might be distrained to pay him 343 pounds, which the earl had taken from him; and these sixty pounds were to be paid out of the first money that Nicholas should recover from the
As the king assumed the entire power over trade, he was to be paid for a permission to
exercise commerce or industry of any kind.w
Hugh Oisel paid 400 marks for liberty
to trade in England:x
Nigel de Havene gave fifty marks for the partnership in
merchandize which he had with Gervase de Hanton:y
The men of Worcester paid 100
shillings, that they might have the liberty of selling and buying dyed cloth, as formerly:
z Several other towns paid for a like liberty.a
The commerce indeed of the kingdom was so much under the controul of the king, that he erected gilds, corporations and monopolies, wherever he pleased; and levied sums for these exclusive privileges.
b
There were no profits so small as to be below the king’s attention. Henry, son of Arthur, gave ten dogs, to have a recognition against the countess of Copland for one knight’s fee.
c
Roger, son of Nicholas, gave twenty lampreys and twenty shads for an inquest to find, whether Gilbert, son of Alured, gave to Roger 200 muttons to obtain his confirmation for certain lands, or whether Roger took them from him by violence:
d
Geoffrey Fitz-Pierre, the chief justiciary, gave two good Norway hawks, that Walter le Madine might have leave to export a hundred weight of cheese out of
It is really amusing to remark the strange business in which the king sometimes interfered, and never without a present: The wife of Hugh de Nevile gave the king 200
hens, that she might lie with her husband one night;
f
and she brought with her two sureties, who answered each for a hundred hens. It is probable that her husband was a prisoner, which debarred her from having access to him. The abbot of Rucford paid ten marks, for leave to erect houses and place men upon his land near Welhang, in order to secure his wood there from being stolen:
g
Hugh archdeacon of Wells, gave one tun of wine for leave to carry 600 summs of corn whither he would:
h
Peter de Perariis gave twenty marks for leave to salt fishes, as Peter Chevalier used to do.
i
It was usual to pay high fines, in order to gain the king’s goodwill, or mitigate his anger. In the reign of Henry II. Gilbert, the son of Fergus, fines in 919 pounds 9
shillings to obtain that prince’s favour; William de Chataignes a thousand marks that he would remit his displeasure. In the reign of Henry III. the city of London fines in no less a sum than 20,000 pounds on the same account.
k
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
323
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/695
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 1
The king’s protection and good offices of every kind were bought and sold. Robert Grislet paid twenty marks of silver, that the king would help him against the earl of Mortaigne in a certain plea:
l
Robert de Cundet gave thirty marks of silver, that the
king would bring him to an accord with the bishop of Lincoln:m
Ralph de Breckham
gave a hawk, that the king would protect him;n
and this is a very frequent reason for payments: John, son of Ordgar, gave a Norway hawk, to have the king’s request to the
king of Norway to let him have his brother Godard’s chattels.o
Richard de Neville gave twenty palfreys to obtain the king’s request to Isolda Bisset, that she should take
him for a husband:p
Roger Fitz-Walter gave three good palfreys to have the king’s letter to Roger Bertram’s mother, that she should marry him:
q
Eling, the dean, paid 100 marks, that his whore and his children might be let out upon bail:
r
The bishop of Winchester gave one tun of good wine for his not putting the king in mind to give a
girdle to the countess of Albemarle:s
Robert de Veaux gave five of the best palfreys,
that the king would hold his tongue about Henry Pinel’s wife.t
There are in the records of exchequer many other singular instances of a like nature.
u
It will however be just to remark, that the same ridiculous practices and dangerous abuses prevailed in
Normandy, and probably in all the other states of Europe.w
England was not in this respect more barbarous than its neighbours.
These iniquitous practices of the Norman kings were so well known, that, on the death of Hugh Bigod, in the reign of Henry II. the best and most just of these princes, the eldest son and the widow of this nobleman came to court, and strove, by offering large presents to the king, each of them to acquire possession of that rich inheritance.
The king was so equitable as to order the cause to be tried by the great council! But, in the mean time, he seized all the money and treasure of the deceased.
x
Peter of Blois, a judicious, and even an elegant writer for that age, gives a pathetic description of the venality of justice and the oppressions of the poor, under the reign of Henry:
And he scruples not to complain to the king himself of these abuses.y
We may judge what the case would be under the government of worse princes. The articles of enquiry concerning the conduct of sheriffs, which Henry promulgated in 1170, show the great power as well as the licentiousness of these officers.
z
Amerciaments or fines for crimes and trespasses were another considerable branch of
the royal revenue.a
Most crimes were atoned for by money; the fines imposed were not limited by any rule or statute; and frequently occasioned the total ruin of the person, even for the slightest trespasses. The forest-laws, particularly, were a great source of oppression. The king possessed sixty-eight forests, thirteen chaces, and seven hundred and eighty-one parks, in different parts of England;
b
and considering the extreme passion of the English and Normans for hunting, these were so many snares laid for the people, by which they were allured into trespasses, and brought within the reach of arbitrary and rigorous laws, which the king had thought proper to enact by his own authority.
But the most barefaced acts of tyranny and oppression were practised against the Jews, who were entirely out of the protection of law, were extremely odious from the bigotry of the people, and were abandoned to the immeasurable rapacity of the king and his ministers. Besides many other indignities, to which they were continually exposed, it appears, that they were once all thrown into prison, and the sum of 66,000