shall and may peaceably and quietly have and hold their sokes with all their customs; so that the strangers that shall be lodged in the sokes shall give custom to none but to him to whom the soke appertains, or to his officer, whom he shall there put: And a man of London shall not be adjudged in amerciaments of money but of one hundred shillings (I speak of the pleas which appertain to money); and further there shall be no more miskenning in the hustings, nor in the folkmote, nor in other pleas within the city; and the hustings may sit once in a week, that is to say, on Monday: And I will cause my citizens to have their lands, promises, bonds, and debts, within the city and without; and I will do them right by the law of the city, of the lands of which they shall complain to me:

And if any shall take toll or custom of any citizen of London, the citizens of London in the city shall take of the borough or town, where toll or custom was so taken, so much as the man of London gave for toll, and as he received damage thereby: And all debtors, which do owe debts to the citizens of London, shall pay them in London, or else discharge themselves in London, that they owe none; but if they will not pay the same, neither come to clear themselves that they owe none, the citizens of London, to whom the debts shall be due, may take their goods in the city of London, of the borough or town, or of the county wherein he remains who shall owe the debt: And the citizens of London may have their chaces to hunt, as well and fully as their ancestors have had, that is to say, in Chiltre, and in Middlesex and Surrey.

Witness the bishop of Winchester, and Robert son of Richier, and Hugh Bygot, and Alured of Toteneys, and William of Alba-spina and Hubert the king's Chamberlain, and William de Montfichet, and Hangulf de Taney, and John Bellet, and Robert son of Siward. At Westminster.

(The Historical Charters and Constitutional Documents of the City of London, P. 3. Ed. cit.)

57. The Investiture Controversy

Eadmer

The policy of the Church forbade its ecclesiastics to receive investiture from a layman, even though he were a king. It also forbade churchmen to render homage to laymen. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, contested these points with Henry I.; the result was the compromise set forth in the selection which follows,

On the first of August an assembly of bishops, abbots, and nobles of the realm was held at London in the king's palace. And for three successive days, in Anselm's absence, the matter was thoroughly discussed between king and bishops concerning church investitures, some arguing for this that the king should perform them after the manner of his father and brother, or according to the injunction and obedience of the pope. For the pope in the sentence which had been then published, standing firm, had conceded homage, which Pope Urban had forbidden, as well as investiture, and in this way had won over the king about investiture, as may be gathered from the letter which we have quoted above. Afterwards, in the presence of Anselm and a large concourse, the king agreed and ordained that henceforward no one should be invested with bishopric or abbacy in England by the giving of a pastoral staff or the ring, by the king or any lay hand: Anselm also agreeing that no one elected to a prelacy should be deprived of consecration to the office undertaken on the ground of homage, which he should make to the king. After this decision, by the advise of Anselm and the nobles of the realm, fathers were instituted by the king, without any investiture of pastoral staff or ring, to nearly all the churches of England which had been so long widowed of their shepherds.

(Eadmeri Monachi Cantuariensis Historia Novorum, ed. cited.)

CHAPTER VIII

THE EARLY ANGEVINS

58. Henry II and Thomas à Becket at the Council of Woodstock

(July 1163)

Edward Grim

The reign of the strong king, Henry II., was marred by his quarrel with Thomas à Becket. The assassination of the archbishop has tended to obscure in the mind of the younger student of history the principles which were at stake in the quarrel. As chancellor, Thomas was the king's servant, but when created archbishop he became the servant of the Church, and as such he resisted the encroachments of the Crown upon what he believed to be the ecclesiastical prerogative. The first issue with the king came in 1163 at the Council of Woodstock, upon a matter of taxation; the second at the Council of Westminster in the same year, upon the question of the rights of civil courts to try ecclesiastical persons. The dissension was partly healed, and at the Council of Clarendon the compromise effected between Church and State was embodied in the Constitutions of Clarendon. But the dispute again broke out, and Becket fled from England. For years the struggle between ruler and prelate continued. In 1170 a reconciliation was effected, but only to be succeeded by more bitter strife. Some rash words of the king led to the murder of the archbishop. The sincerity of Henry's remorse may well be doubted. In consequence of the murder Henry was forced to submit himself to the pope.

When the king was tarrying on his manor at Woodstock, with the archbishop and the great men of the land, among other matters a question was raised concerning a certain custom which obtained in England. Two shillings from each hide were given to the king's servants, who, in the post of sheriffs, guarded the shires. This sum the king wished to have enrolled in the treasury and added to his own revenue. Whom the archbishop resisted to the face, saying that it ought not to be exacted as revenue- "Nor will we," said he, "my lord king, give it as revenue, saving your pleasure; but if the sheriffs, and servants, and ministers of the shires shall

serve us fitly, and maintain and defend our dependants, in no way will we be behindhand in contributing to their aid." But the king, taking ill this answer of the archbishop, said "By the eyes of God, it shall be given as revenue, and in the king's scroll shall it be writ; nor is it fit that thou shouldst gainsay, when no man would oppose your men against your will." The archbishop foreseeing and being aware lest by his sufferance a custom should be brought in whereby posterity should be harmed, answered, "By the reverence of the eyes by which you have sworn, my lord king, there shall be given from all my land or from the right of the Church not a penny." The king was silent, repulsed by the bold objection of the archbishop, but his indignation was not set at rest; for silently erewhile his fury from secular matters which seemed to be but little contrary to the archbishop, turned against the clergy, and his rage extended against the ministers of the church whose injuries specially redounded against the archbishop.

(Edward Grim, Materials for the History of Archbishop Becket. From St. Thomas of Canterbury, ed. W. H. Hutton, London, 1889. p. 36.)

59. The Council of Westminster

(Oct. 1163)

Herbert of Bosham

The king when he explained the cause of the summons straightway demanded that clerks seized or convicted of great crimes should be deprived of the guardianship of the church and handed over to his officers, declaring that they would be the more prompt to evil unless after spiritual punishment they were subject to corporal penalty, and that those who were not restrained by the memory of their orders from such enormities would care little for the loss of orders: and that the more worthy they were than other persons of the privilege of clergy so much the worse was their guilt; and hence they should be constrained by greater punishments whenever they were discovered in crime. Accordingly the king, advised by certain who made a boast of their learning in either law, straitly demanded that such persons should be deprived of their orders and handed over to the civil courts, the which not only human law but also the canonical authority of the Divine law sanctioned. Whence also concerning such it is found in the canons, "let him be given over to the court." Whence those who were prepared with learning on the king's behalf alleged, in nowise should be sent to exile or a monas

tery, but rather, according to the canons, to the court, and this "to be handed over to the court" [they explained to mean] to be given over to the secular power to be punished.

To the king and his party bringing forward these things, the archbishop, having had counsel with the bishops of his province and with prelates of learning, when he had answered at length and clearly on behalf of ecclesiastical liberty according to the canonical rule of the ancient fathers, at the end of his speech with all devotion besought the royal clemency not to bring into his realm a new discipline contrary to the rules of the holy fathers, under a new king Christ, and under a new law of Christ, by a new and strange kind of Lord. And this he besought firmly and oft for himself and for the security of the realm, again and again declaring that he neither ought to nor could endure it.

The king nothing moved by this, but rather the more excited as he saw the archbishop and the bishops opposing him and, as he reckoned, so unanimous and constant, demanded whether they would observe his royal custom.

Whereon the archbishop, after counsel had with his brethren, said that he and his brethren would observe them saving their order. And the bishops each made the same answer when questioned singly by the king. But one, Hilary of Chichester, considering rather the king's anger than the opinion of the others, without consulting the archbishop and the bishops changed the expression, saying that he would observe the royal customs in good faith; and indeed for a good purpose, as I think, that he might soothe the mind of the king. But the king, in no way appeased, spurned his goodwill with contumely; and turning to the archbishop and bishops, having heard the same speech from all, he said that they had formed a host against him and poison lay in that saying, "salvo ordine," and that it was full of guile. Wherefore he demanded that absolutely and without qualification they should promise to obey the customs. The archbishop to this answered that they had sworn fealty to him in life and limb and earthly honour, salvo ordine suo; and that under earthly honour were comprehended the royal customs and that they would not be bound in another form to observe them, but only in that to which they had sworn. When the day was now far advanced the king, angrily and without saluting the prelates, departed hastily from the hall, in ire and much indignation.

(Herbert of Bosham, as condensed in the Quadrilogus. From St. Thomas of Canterbury, ed. cited. p. 44.)