Read The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 Online
Authors: David Hume
[g]Neubr. p. 383. Chron. W. Heming. p. 492.
[h]M. Paris, p. 70. Neubr. p. 383.
[i]Neubr. p. 387. Chron. W. Heming. p. 494.
[*]Madox, p. 435. Gervase, p. 1381.
[NOTE [O]]
The sum scarcely appears credible; as it would amount to much above half the rent of the whole land. Gervase is indeed a cotemporary author; but churchmen are often guilty of strange mistakes of that nature, and are commonly but little acquainted with the public revenues. This sum would make 540,000 pounds of our present money. The Norman Chronicle, p. 995. says, that Henry raised only 60
Angevin shillings on each knight’s fee in his foreign dominions: This is only a fourth of the sum which Gervase says he levied on England: An inequality no wise probable.
A nation may by degrees be brought to bear a tax of 15 shillings in the pound, but a sudden and precarious tax can never be imposed to that amount, without a very visible necessity, especially in an age so little accustomed to taxes. In the succeeding reign, the rent of a knight’s fee was computed at four pounds a year. There were 60,000
knights fees in England.
[k]Fitz-Steph. p. 22. Diceto, p. 531.
[l]Hoveden, p. 492. Neubr. p. 400. Diceto, p. 532. Brompton, p. 1450.
[m]Since the first publication of this history, Lord Lyttelton has published a copy of
the treaty between Henry and Lewis, by which it appears, if there was no secret article, that Henry was not guilty of any fraud in this transaction.
[NOTE [P]]
Fitz-Stephen, p. 18. This conduct appears violent and arbitrary; but was suitable to the strain of administration in those days. His father, Geoffrey, though represented as a mild prince, set him an example of much greater violence. When Geoffrey was master of Normandy, the chapter of Seez presumed, without his consent, to proceed to the election of a bishop; upon which he ordered all of them with the bishop elect to be castrated, and made all their testicles be brought him in a platter. Fitz-Steph. p. 44. In the war of Toulouse, Henry laid a heavy and an arbitrary tax on all the churches within his dominions. See Epist. St. Thom. p. 232.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
366
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/695
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 1
[q]Ibid. p. 15. Hist. Quad. p. 9, 14.
[s]John Baldwin held the manor of Oterarsfee in Aylesbury of the king in soccage, by
the service of finding litter for the king’s bed, viz., in summer, grass or herbs, and two grey geese, and in winter, straw and three eels, thrice in the year, if the king should come thrice in the year to Aylesbury. Madox, Bar. Anglica, p. 247.
[t]Fitz-Steph. p. 23. Hist. Quad. p. 9.
[u]Fitz-Steph. p. 19, 20, 22, 23.
[w]Ibid. p. 16. Hist. Quad. p. 8.
[z]Ibid. p. 23. Epist. St. Thom. p. 232.
[b]Fitz-Steph. p. 25. Hist. Quad. p. 19.
[c]Fitz-Steph. p. 28. Gervase, p. 1384.
[d]M. Paris, p. 7. Diceto, p. 536.
[i]Fitz-Steph. p. 33. Hist. Quad. p. 32.
[k]Fitz-Steph. p. 29. Hist. Quad. p. 33, 45. Hoveden, p. 492. M. Paris, p. 72. Diceto, p.
536, 537. Brompton, p. 1058. Gervase, p. 1384. Epist. St. Thom. p. 208, 209.
[l]Fitz-Steph. p. 31. Hist. Quad. p. 34. Hoveden, p. 492.
[m]Hist. Quad. p. 37. Hoveden, p. 493. Gervase, p. 1385.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
367
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/695
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 1
[o]Hist. Quadr. p. 163. M. Paris, p. 70, 71. Spelm. Conc. vol. ii. p. 63. Gervase, p.
1386, 1387. Wilkins, p. 321.
[p]Hist. Quad. p. 38. Hoveden, p. 493.
[q]Fitz-Steph. p. 35. Epist. St. Thom. p. 25.
[r]Fitz-Steph. p. 45. Hist. Quad. p. 39. Gervase, p. 1386.
[s]Epist. St. Thom. p. 13, 14.
[t]Hoveden, p. 493. Gervase, p. 1388.
[u]Hoveden, p. 494. M. Paris, p. 72. Diceto, p. 537.
[NOTE [Q]]
I follow here the narrative of Fitz-Stephens, who was secretary to Becket; though, no doubt, he may be suspected of partiality towards his patron. Lord Lyttelton chuses to follow the authority of a manuscript letter, or rather manifesto, of Folliot, bishop of London, which is addressed to Becket himself, at the time when the bishop appealed to the pope from the excommunication pronounced against him by his primate. My reasons, why I give the preference to Fitz-Stephens are, (1.) If the friendship of Fitz-Stephens might render him partial to Becket even after the death of that prelate, the declared enmity of the bishop must, during his lifetime, have rendered him more partial on the other side. (2.) The bishop was moved by interest, as well as enmity, to calumniate Becket. He had himself to defend against the sentence of excommunication, dreadful to all, especially to a prelate: And no more effectual means than to throw all the blame on his adversary. (3.) He has actually been guilty of palpable calumnies in that letter. Among these, I reckon the following: He affirms, that, when Becket subscribed the Constitutions of Clarendon, he said plainly to all the bishops of England,
It is my master’s pleasure, that I should forswear myself and at
present I submit to it, and do resolve to incur a perjury, and repent afterwards as I
may.
However barbarous the times, and however negligent zealous churchmen were then of morality, these are not words which a primate of great sense and of much seeming sanctity would employ in an assembly of his suffragans: He might act upon these principles, but never surely would publicky avow them. Folliot also says, that all the bishops were resolved obstinately to oppose the Constitutions of Clarendon, but the primate himself betrayed them from timidity, and led the way to their subscribing.
This is contrary to the testimony of all the historians, and directly contrary to Becket’s character, who surely was not destitute either of courage or of zeal for ecclesiastical immunities. (4.) The violence and injustice of Henry, ascribed to him by Fitz-Stephens, is of a piece with the rest of the prosecution. Nothing could be more iniquitous, than, after two years silence, to make a sudden and unprepared demand upon Becket to the amount of 44,000 marks (equal to a sum of near a million in our time) and not allow him the least interval to bring in his accounts. If the king was so palpably oppressive in one article, he may be presumed to be equally so in the rest.
(5.) Though Folliot’s letter, or rather manifesto, be addressed to Becket himself, it does not acquire more authority on that account. We know not what answer was made by Becket: The collection of letters cannot be supposed quite complete. But that the PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
368
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/695
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 1
collection was not made by one (whoever he were) very partial to that primate, appears from the tenor of them, where there are many passages very little favourable to him: Insomuch that the editor of them at Brussels, a Jesuit, thought proper to publish them with great omissions, particularly of this letter of Folliot’s. Perhaps, Becket made no answer at all, as not deigning to write to an excommunicated person, whose very commerce would contaminate him; and the bishop, trusting to this arrogance of his primate, might calumniate him the more freely. (6.) Though the sentence, pronounced on Becket by the great council, implies that he had refused to make any answer to the king’s court, this does not fortify the narrative of Folliot. For if his excuse was rejected as false and frivolous, it would be treated as no answer.
Becket submitted so far to the sentence of confiscation of goods and chattels, that he gave surety, which is a proof, that he meant not at that time to question the authority of the king’s courts. (7.) It may be worth observing, that both the author of Historia quadraparrita, and Gervase, contemporary writers, agree with Fitz-Stephens; and the latter is not usually very partial to Becket. All the ancient historians give the same account.
[y]Hist. Quad. p. 47. Hoveden, p. 494. Gervase, p. 1389.
[e]Hoveden, p. 494. Diceto, p. 537.
[k]Fitz-Steph. p. 39. Gervase, p. 1390.
[l]Fitz-Steph. p. 40. Hist. Quad. p. 53. Hoveden, p. 404. Neubr. p. 394. Epist. St.
Thom. p. 43.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
369
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/695
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 1
[n]Fitz-Steph. p. 42, 44, 45, 46. Hist. Quad. p. 57. Hoveden, p. 495. M. Paris, p. 72.
Epist. St. Thom. p. 45, 195.
[o]Fitz-Steph. p. 46. This historian is supposed to mean the more considerable vassals
of the chief barons: These had no title to sit in the great council, and the giving them a place there was a palpable irregularity: Which however is not insisted on in any of Becket’s remonstrances. A farther proof how little fixed the constitution was at that time!
[s]Hist. Quad. p. 88, 167. Hoveden, p. 496. M. Paris, p. 73.
[t]
Quis dubitet,
says Becket to the king,
sacerdotes Christi regum et principum
omniumque fidelium patres et magistros censeri.
Epist. St. Thom. p. 97, 148.
[u]Epist. St. Thom. p. 63, 105, 194.
[x]Fitz-Steph. p. 46. Epist. St. Thom. p. 52, 148.
[y]Brady’s Append. No. 56. Epist. St. Thom. p. 94, 95, 97, 99, 197. Hoveden, p. 497.
[z]Fitz-Steph. p. 56. Hist. Quad. p. 93. M. Paris, p. 74. Beaulieu Vie de St. Thom. p.
213. Epist. Thom. p. 149, 229. Hoveden, p. 499.
[a]Hoveden, p. 517. M. Paris, p. 75. Diceto, p. 547. Gervase, p. 1402, 1403. Robert de
Monte.
[d]Fitz-Steph. p. 68, 69. Hoveden, p. 520.
[e]Hist. Quad. p. 104. Brompton, p. 1062. Gervase, p. 1408. Epist. St. Thom. p. 704,
705, 706, 707, 792, 793, 794. Benedict. Abbas, p. 70.
[g]Hist. Quad. p. 103. Epist. St. Thom. p. 682. Gervase, p. 1412.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
370
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/695
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 1
[i]Epist. St. Thom. p. 837, 839.
[n]Epist. St. Thom. p. 818, 848.
[o]Gervase, p. 1414. Parker, p. 207.
[p]M. Paris, p. 86. Brompton, p. 1065. Benedict. Abbas, p. 10.
[q]Hist. Quad. p. 144. Trivet, p. 55.
[r]Ypod. Neust. p. 447. M. Paris, p. 87. Diceto, p. 556. Gervase, p. 1419.
[t]Hoveden, p. 526. M. Paris, p. 87.
[u]Hoveden, p. 526. Epist. St. Thom. p. 863.
[w]Chron. Gervase, p. 1399. M. Paris, p. 74.
[x]Neubr. p. 391. M. Paris, p. 74. Heming. p. 494.
[z]M. Paris, p. 67. Girald. Cambr. Spelm. Concil. vol. ii. p. 51. Rymer, vol. i. p. 15.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
371
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/695
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 1
[m]Brompton, p. 1069. Neubrig. p. 403.
[o]M. Paris, p. 88. Benedict. Abb. p. 34. Hoveden, p. 529. Diceto, p. 560. Chron.
Gerv. p. 1422.
[p]Brompton, p. 1071. Liber. Nig. Scac. p. 47.
[q]Ypod. Neust. p. 448. Bened. Abb. p. 38. Hoveden, p. 532. Diceto, p. 562.
Brompton, p. 1081. Rymer, vol. i. p. 33.
[s]Hoveden, p. 529. Diceto, p. 560. Brompton, p. 1080. Chron. Gerv. p. 1421. Trivet,
p. 58. It appears from Madox’s History of the Exchequer, that silk garments were then known in England, and that the coronation robes of the young king and queen cost eighty-seven pounds ten shillings and four pence, money of that age.
[u]Epist. Petri Bles. epist. 136. in Biblioth. Patr. tom. xxiv. p. 1048. His words are,
Vestrae jurtsdictionis est regnum Angliae, et quantum ad feudatorii juris
obligationem, vobis duntaxat obnoxius teneor.
The same strange paper is in Rymer, vol. i. p. 35. and Trivet, vol. i. p. 62.