The History of England Part 36

NOTE [E]

The ingenious author of the article G.o.dWIN, in the Biographia Britannica, has endeavoured to clear the memory of that n.o.bleman, upon the supposition, that all the English annals had been falsified by the Norman historians after the Conquest. But that this supposition has not much foundation, appears hence, that almost all these historians have given a very good character to his son Harold, whom it was much more the interest of the Norman cause to blacken.

NOTE [F]

The whole story of the transactions between Edward, Harold, and the Duke of Normandy, is told so differently by the ancient writers, that there are few important pa.s.sages of the English history liable to so great uncertainty. I have followed the account which appeared to me the most consistent and probable. It does not seem likely, that Edward ever executed a will in the duke's favour, much less that he got it ratified by the states of the kingdom, as is affirmed by some.

The will would have been known to all, and would have been produced by the Conqueror, to whom it gave so plausible, and really so just a t.i.tle; but the doubtful and ambiguous manner in which he seems always to have mentioned it, proves that he could only plead the known intentions of that monarch in his favour, which he was desirous to call a will. There is indeed a charter of the Conqueror preserved by Dr. Hickes, vol. i., where he calls himself REX HEREDITARIUS, meaning heir by will; but a prince possessed of so much power, and attended with so much success, may employ what pretence he pleases: it is sufficient to refute his pretences, to observe that there is a great difference and variation among historians, with regard to a point which, had it been real, must have been agreed upon by all of them.

Again, some historians, particularly Malmesbury and Matthew of Westminster, affirm that Harold had no intention of going over to Normandy, but, that taking the air in a pleasure boat on the coast, he was driven over, by stress of weather, to the territories of Guy, Count of Ponthieu: but besides that this story is not probable in itself, and is contradicted by most of the ancient historians, it is contradicted by a very curious and authentic monument lately discovered. It is a tapestry, preserved in the ducal palace of Rouen, and supposed to have been wrought by orders of Matilda, wife to the emperor: at least it is of very great antiquity. Harold is there represented as taking his departure from King Edward in execution of some commission, and mounting his vessel with a great train. The design of redeeming his brother and nephew, who were hostages, is the most likely cause that can be a.s.signed; and is accordingly mentioned by Eadmer, Hoveden, Brompton, and Simeon of Durham. For a farther account of this piece of tapestry, see Histoire de l'Academie de Litterature, tom. ix. p. 535.

NOTE [G]

It appears from the ancient translations of the Saxon annals and laws, and from King Alfred's translation of Bede, as well as from all the ancient historians, that COMES in Latin, ALDERMAN in Saxon, and EARL in Dano-Saxon, were quite synonymous. There is only a clause in a law of King Athelstan's (see Spellm. Conc. p. 406) which has stumbled some antiquaries, and has made them imagine that an earl was superior to an alderman. The weregild, or the price of an earl's blood, is there fixed at fifteen thousand thrimsas, equal to that of an archbishop; whereas that of a bishop and alderman is only eight thousand thrimsas.

To solve this difficulty we must have recourse to Selden's conjecture, (see his t.i.tles of Honour, chap. v. p. 603, 604,) that the term of earl was in the age of Athelstan just beginning to be in use in England, and stood at that time for the atheling or prince of the blood, heir to the crown. This he confirms by a law of Canute, Sec.

55, where an atheling and an archbishop are put upon the same footing.

In another law of the same Athelstan, the weregild of the prince, or atheling, is said to be fifteen thousand thrimsas. See Wilkins, p.

71. He is therefore the same who is called earl in the former law.

NOTE [H]

There is a paper or record of the family of Sharneborn, which pretends, that that family, which was Saxon, was restored upon proving their innocence, as well as other Saxon families which were in the same situation. Though this paper was able to impose on such great antiquaries as Spellman (see Gloss. in verbo DRENGES) and Dugdale, (see Baron. vol. i. p. 118,) it is proved by Dr. Brady (see Answ. to Petyt, p. 11, 12) to have been a forgery; and is allowed as such by Tyrrel, though a pertinacious defender of his party notions (see his Hist. vol. ii. introd. p. 51, 73). Ingulf, p. 70, tells us, that very early, Hereward, though absent during the time of the Conquest, was turned out of all his estate, and could not obtain redress. William even plundered the monasteries. Flor. Wigorn. p. 636. Chron. Abb.

St. Petri de Burgo, p. 48. M. Paris, p. 5. Sim. Dun. p. 200.

Diceto, p. 482. Brompton, p. 967. Knyghton, p. 2344. Alur. Beverl.

p. 130. We are told by Ingulf, that Ivo de Taillebois plundered the monastery of Croyland of a great part of its land, and no redress could be obtained.

NOTE [I]

The obliging of all the inhabitants to put out their fires and lights at certain hours, upon the sounding of a bell called the COURFEU, is represented by Polydore Vergil, lib. 9, as a mark of the servitude of the English. But this was a law of police, which William had previously established in Normandy. See Du Moulin, Hist. de Normandie, p. 160. The same law had place in Scotland. LL. Burgor cap. 86.

NOTE [K]

What these laws were of Edward the Confessor, which the English, every reign during a century and a half, desire so pa.s.sionately to have restored, is much disputed by antiquaries, and our ignorance of them seems one of the greatest defects in the ancient English history. The collection of laws in Wilkins, which pa.s.s under the name of Edward, are plainly a posterior and an ignorant compilation. Those to be found in Ingulf are genuine; but so imperfect, and contain so few clauses favourable to the subject, that we see no great reason for their contending for them so vehemently. It is probable, that the English meant the COMMON LAW, as it prevailed during the reign of Edward; which we may conjecture to have been more indulgent to liberty than the Norman inst.i.tutions. The most material articles of it were afterwards comprehended in Magna Charta.

NOTE [L]

Ingulf, p. 70. H. Hunt. p. 370, 372. M. West. p. 225. Gul. Neub. p.

357. Alured. Beverl. p. 124. De Gest. Angl. p. 333. M. Paris, p. 4.

Sim. Dun. p. 206. Brompton, p. 962, 980, 1161. Gervase Tilb. lib. i.

cap. 16. Textus Roffensis apud Seld. Spicileg. ad Eadm. p. 179. Gul.

Pict. p. 206. Ordericus Vitalis, p. 621, 666, 853. Epist. St. Thom.

p. 801. Gul. Malmes. p. 52, 57. Knyghton, p. 2354. Eadmer. p. 110.

Thom. Rudborne in Ang. Sacra, vol. i. p. 248. Monach. Roff. in Ang Sacra, vol. ii. p. 276. Girald. Camb. in eadem, vol. ii. p. 413.

Hist Elyensis, p. 516. The words of this last historian, who is very ancient, are remarkable and worth transcribing: "REX ITAQUE FACTUS WILLIELMUS, QUID IN PRINCIPES ANGLORUM, QUI TANTAE CLADI SUPERESSE POTERANT, FECERIT, DICERE, c.u.m NIHIL PROSIT, OMITTO. QUID ENIM PRODESSET, SI NEC UNUM IN TOTO REGNO DE ILLIS DICEREM PRISTINA POTESTATE UTI PERMISSUM, SED OMNES AUT IN GRAVEM PAUPERTATIS AERUMNAM DETRUSOS, AUT EXHAEREDATOS, PATRIA PULSOS, AUT EFFOSSIS OCULIS, VEL CAETERIS AMPUTATIS MEMBRIS OPPROBRIUM HOMINUM FACTOS, AUT CERTE MISERRIME AFFLICTOS, VITA PRIVATOS? SIMILI MODO UTILITATE CARERE EXISTIMO DICERE QUID IN MINOREM POPULUM, NON SOLUM AB EO, SED A SUIS ACTUM SIT, c.u.m ID DICTU SCIAMUS DIFFICILE, ET OB IMMANEM CRUDELITATEM, FORTa.s.sIS INCREDIBILE."

NOTE [M]

Henry, by the feudal customs, was ent.i.tled to levy a tax for the marrying of his eldest daughter, and he exacted three shillings a hide on all England. H. Hunt. p. 379. Some historians (Brady, p. 270, and Tyrrel, vol. ii. p. 182) heedlessly make this sum amount to above eight hundred thousand pounds of our present money: but it could not exceed one hundred and thirty-five thousand. Five hides, sometimes less, made a knight's fee, of which there were about sixty thousand in England, consequently near three hundred thousand hides; and at the rate of three shillings a hide, the sum would amount to forty-five thousand pounds, or one hundred and thirty-five thousand of our present money. See Rudborne, p. 257. In the Saxon times, there were only computed two hundred and forty-three thousand six hundred hides in England.

NOTE [N]

The legates a LATERE, as they were called, were a kind of delegates who possessed the full power of the pope in all the provinces committed to their charge, and were very busy in extending as well as exercising it. They nominated to all vacant benefices, a.s.sembled synods, and were anxious to maintain ecclesiastical privileges, which never could be fully protected without encroachments on the civil power. If there were the least concurrence or opposition, it was always supposed that the civil power was to give way: every deed which had the least pretence of holding of any thing spiritual, as marriages, testaments, promissory oaths, were brought into the spiritual court, and could not be canva.s.sed before a civil magistrate.

These were the established laws of the church; and where a legate was sent immediately from Rome, he was sure to maintain the papal claims with the utmost rigour: but it was an advantage to the king to have the Archbishop of Canterbury appointed legate, because the connexions of that prelate with the kingdom tended to moderate his measures.

NOTE [O]

William of Newbridge, p. 383, (who is copied by later historians,) a.s.serts, that Geoffrey had some t.i.tle to the counties of Maine and Anjou. He pretends that Count Geoffrey, his father, had left him these dominions by a secret will, and had ordered that his body should not be buried, till Henry should swear to the observance of it, which he, ignorant of the contents, was induced to do. But besides that this story is not very likely in itself, and savours of monkish fiction, it is found in no other ancient writer, and is contradicted by some of them, particularly the monk of Marmoutier, who had better opportunities than Newbridge of knowing the truth. See Vita Gauf.

Duc. Norman. p. 103.

NOTE [P]

The sum scarcely appears credible, as it would amount to much above half the rent of the whole land. Gervase is indeed a contemporary 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 five hundred and forty thousand pounds of our present money. The Norman Chronicle, p. 995, says that Henry raised only sixty 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 nowise probable. A nation may, by degrees, be brought to bear a tax of fifteen 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 sixty thousand knights' fees in England.

NOTE [Q]

Fitz-Stephens, 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 sees presumed, without his consent, to proceed to the election of a bishop; upon which be ordered all of them, with the bishop elect, to be castrated, and made all their t.e.s.t.i.c.l.es 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.

NOTE [R]

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 Lyttleton chooses to follow the authority of a ma.n.u.script 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 p.r.o.nounced 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 Const.i.tutions 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 sanct.i.ty, would employ in an a.s.sembly of his suffragans: he might act upon these principles, but never surely would publicly avow them. Folliot also says, that all the bishops were resolved obstinately to oppose the Const.i.tutions 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 dest.i.tute 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 forty-four thousand 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 he 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 he supposed quite complete. But that the collection was not made by one (whoever he were) very partial to that primate, appears from the tenor of them, where there are many pa.s.sages 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 p.r.o.nounced 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 he 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 quadripart.i.ta, 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.

NOTE [S]

Madox, in his Baronia Anglica, cap. 14, tells us, that in the thirtieth of Henry II. thirty-three cows and two bulls cost but eight pounds seven shillings, money of that age; five hundred sheep, twenty- two pounds ten shillings, or about ten pence three farthings per sheep; sixty-six oxen, eighteen pounds three shillings; fifteen breeding mares, two pounds twelve shillings and sixpence; and twenty-two hogs, one pound two shillings. Commodities seem then to have been about ten times cheaper than at present; all except the sheep, probably on account of the value of the fleece. The same author, in his Formulare Anglicanum, p. 17, says, "that in the tenth year of Richard I. mention is made of ten per cent. paid for money: but the Jews frequently exacted much higher interest."

END OF VOL. I.