upon the completion of the conquest, pope Gregory VII demanded to be recognized by the king as suzerain (1077-1079), he was met with a refusal.5 Nevertheless, the mere fact that William had partly relied on the papal approval of his undertaking, compelled him from the outset to exhibit a certain consideration to the claims of Rome. This explains the circumstance-though other reasons may also have prevailed —that in an ordinance issued probably about 1070 he went far towards gratifying the wishes of the church. By this ordinance he withdrew from the secular courts all jurisdiction in cases which pertain to the guidance of souls,' referred such cases to the exclusive adjudication of the ecclesiastical authorities (at whose disposal he placed the coercive powers of the state), and in so far admitted the validity of ecclesiastical law. Thus, for the first time expressly, the state recognized, though in a limited sphere, an independent, ecclesiastical power; this recognition formed a firm basis for the church in all future contentions with the state. But William, on the other hand, also laid a foundation for the permanent incorporation of the higher clergy into the body politic of England as peers of the other magnates. This was effected by extending to the higher clergy that feudal relation which, even as regards secular magnates, was first perfected under William I.8 This innovation was essentially effected by the condition imposed by William, probably about 1072, that the several bishoprics and greater abbeys should furnish a definite number of knights; various administrative measures in the same spirit gradually put the lands of the higher 5 Letter of William I to pope Gregory (printed in Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus Vol. 148 p. 748, among the letters to pope Gregory, No. 11): Hubertus legatus tuus, religiose Pater, ad me veniens ex tua parte, me admonuit quatenus tibi et successoribus tuis fidelitatem facerem et de pecunia, quam antecessores mei ad Romanam Ecclesiam mittere solebant, melius cogitarem: unum admisi, alterum non admisi. Fidelitatem facere nolui, quia nec ego promisi, nec antecessores meos antecessoribus tuis id fecisse comperio. Pecunia tribus fere annis, in Galliis me agente, negligenter collecta est; nunc vero divina misericordia me in regnum meum reverso, quod collectum est per praefatum legatum mittitur; et quod reliquum est, per legatos Lanfranci archiepiscopi fidelis nostri, cum opportunum fuerit, transmittetur. The date of the letter as given in the text is inferred from lotters No. 5027, 5074, 5135 in Jaffé. Dünzelmann in Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, XV, 533 would lead us to adopt 1078-9. According to Freeman, History of Conquest IV, 433, note 1, it was not before 1076; according to Stubbs, Const. Ilist. I, 309, note 1, c 9 § 101, about 1076. 6 Alleged reasons are:-(i) that the intention was to weaken the Anglo-Saxon folk-moot in favour of the Norman bishops; (ii) Spelman's conjecture (cf. app. I, note a) that the ordinance dates from 1085 being adopted, it is contended that the ordinance was the price paid the church for renouncing opposition to the then projected, afterwards (at the Council of Salisbury in 1086) executed plan, that all capable of bearing arms, including the sub-tenants of the clergy and laity, should take solemn oath of fealty to the king. 7 The ordinance is printed in appendix I, where note a discusses the date. For further particulars as to its scope see § 60, note 3. 8 For a similar relation between thegns and king in Anglo-Saxon times see Gneist, Verfassungsgesch. § 1, note 1. clergy on the same footing in other respects as those of the secular vassals. The view took form that the possessions of all the sees (Rochester excepted), of the larger abbeys and some parishes were baronies, that is fiefs held immediately under the king as feudal lord.10 Important was it that this view was also adopted by the church, and that here again the two contending powers had a common basis.11 In course of time manifold inferences, which, however, could not always be followed out to their full extent, were drawn from the feudal character of the possessions of the higher clergy. Many of these alleged 'inferences are due to the fact that previously existing rights and duties were brought within the purview of the feudal principle and interpreted by its light. The means by which William sought to keep the church in check are collected by Eadmer, a contemporary writer, as follows:-"Some of the things which he ordered to be newly observed throughout England I will set forth. He would not endure that anyone in all his realm should, save at his bidding, admit the chosen pontiff of the Roman city as pope, nor that any should at all receive letter from the pope unless it had first been shown to him. Nor did he suffer that the primate of his realm, to wit, the archbishop of Canterbury presiding over a general council of the bishops, should enact or forbid ought, save such things as were according to his royal will and had been first ordained of him. Nor yet did he grant that it should be permitted to any of his bishops to appeal, excommunicate or visit with other ecclesiastic pains any of his barons or servants, accused by public clamour of incest, of adultery, or of some capital offence." 12 It is hard to say now whether these principles were really so new as Eadmer assumes. At all events, we have to do here not with general orders issued by William, but Compare § 27, note 13. 10 Compare § 21, note 4. 11 Only in Anselm's struggle with Henry I was the king's position as suzerain of the prelates for a time challenged. In chapter 11 of the constitutions of Clarendon, which was not rejected by the pope, the statement is quite clear: Archiepiscopi, episcopi, et universae personae regni, qui de rege tenent in capite, et habent possessiones suas de domino rege sicut baroniam, et inde respondent justitiis et ministris regis, et sequuntur et faciunt omnes rectitudines regias et consuetudines. Non 12 Eadmer (born probably about 1060, died about 1124, or according to Rule 1144), Hist. Nov. (Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 81) p. 9: Cuncta ergo divina simul et humana ejus nutum expectabant. Quae cuncta ut paucis animadvertantur, quaedam de iis quae nova per Angliam servari constituit ponam. ergo pati volebat quemquam in omni dominatione sua constitutum Romanae urbis pontificem pro apostolico nisi se jubente recipere, aut ejus litteras si primitus sibi ostensae non fuissent ullo pacto suscipere. Primatem quoque regni sui, archiepiscopum dico Cantuariensem si coacto generali episcoporum concilio praesideret, non sinebat quicquam statuere aut prohibere, nisi quae suae voluntati accommoda et a se primo essent ordinata. Nulli nihilominus episcoporum suorum concessum iri permittebat, ut aliquem de baronibus suis seu ministris, sive incestu, sive adulterio, sive aliquo capitali crimine denotatum publice nisi ejus praecepto implacitaret aut excommunicaret, aut ulla ecclesiastici rigoris poena constringeret. upon the completion of the conquest, pope Gregory VII demanded to be recognized by the king as suzerain (1077-1079), he was met with a refusal.5 Nevertheless, the mere fact that William had partly relied on the papal approval of his undertaking, compelled him from the outset to exhibit a certain consideration to the claims of Rome. This explains the circumstance-though other reasons may also have prevailed —that in au ordinance issued probably about 1070 he went far towards gratifying the wishes of the church. By this ordinance he withdrew from the secular courts all jurisdiction in cases which pertain to the guidance of souls,' referred such cases. to the exclusive adjudication of the ecclesiastical authorities (at whose disposal he placed the coercive powers of the state), and in so far admitted the validity of ecclesiastical law. Thus, for the first time expressly, the state recognized, though in a limited sphere, an independent, ecclesiastical power; this recognition formed a firm basis for the church in all future contentions with the state. But William, on the other hand, also laid a foundation for the permanent incorporation of the higher clergy into the body politic of England as peers of the other magnates. This was effected by extending to the higher clergy that feudal relation which, even as regards secular magnates, was first perfected under William I.8 This innovation was essentially effected by the condition imposed by William, probably about 1072, that the several bishoprics and greater abbeys should furnish a definite number of knights; various administrative measures in the same spirit gradually put the lands of the higher 5 Letter of William I to pope Gregory (printed in Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus Vol. 148 p. 748, among the letters to pope Gregory, No. 11): Hubertus legatus tuus, religiose Pater, ad me veniens ex tua parte, me admonuit quatenus tibi et successoribus tuis fidelitatem facerem et de pecunia, quam antecessores mei ad Romanam Ecclesiam mittere solebant, melius cogitarem : unum admisi, alterum non admisi. Fidelitatem facere nolui, quia nec ego promisi, nec antecessores meos antecessoribus tuis id fecisse comperio. Pecunia tribus fere annis, in Galliis me agente, negligenter collecta est; nunc vero divina misericordia me in regnum meum reverso, quod collectum est per praefatum legatum mittitur; et quod reliquum est, per legatos Lanfranci archiepiscopi fidelis nostri, cum opportunum fuerit, transmittetur. The date of the letter as given in the text is inferred from lotters No. 5027, 5074, 5135 in Jaffé. Dünzelmann in Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, XV, 533 would lead us to adopt 1078-9. According to Freeman, History of Conquest IV, 433, note 1, it was not before 1076; according to Stubbs, Const. Ilist. I, 309, note 1, c 9 § 101, about 1076. 6 Alleged reasons are:-(i) that the intention was to weaken the Anglo-Saxon folk-moot in favour of the Norman bishops; (ii) Spelman's conjecture (cf. app. I, note a) that the ordinance dates from 1085 being adopted, it is contended that the ordinance was the price paid the church for renouncing opposition to the then projected, afterwards (at the Council of Salisbury in 1086) executed plan, that all capable of bearing arms, including the sub-tenants of the clergy and laity, should take solemn oath of fealty to the king. 7 The ordinance is printed in appendix I, where note a discusses the date. For further particulars as to its scope see § 60, note 3. 8 For a similar relation between thegns and king in Anglo-Saxon times see Gneist, Verfassungsgesch. § 1, note 1. 9 clergy on the same footing in other respects as those of the secular vassals. The view took form that the possessions of all the sees (Rochester excepted), of the larger abbeys and some parishes were baronies, that is fiefs held immediately under the king as feudal lord.10 Important was it that this view was also adopted by the church, and that here again the two contending powers had a common basis.11 In course of time manifold inferences, which, however, could not always be followed out to their full extent, were drawn from the feudal character of the possessions of the higher clergy. Many of these alleged 'inferences are due to the fact that previously existing rights and duties were brought within the purview of the feudal principle and interpreted by its light. The means by which William sought to keep the church in check are collected by Eadmer, a contemporary writer, as follows:-"Some of the things which he ordered to be newly observed throughout England I will set forth. He would not endure that anyone in all his realm should, save at his bidding, admit the chosen pontiff of the Roman city as pope, nor that any should at all receive letter from the pope unless it had first been shown to him. Nor did he suffer that the primate of his realm, to wit, the archbishop of Canterbury presiding over a general council of the bishops, should enact or forbid ought, save such things as were according to his royal will and had been first ordained of him. Nor yet did he grant that it should be permitted to any of his bishops to appeal, excommunicate or visit with other ecclesiastic pains any of his barons or servants, accused by public clamour of incest, of adultery, or of some capital offence." 12 It is hard to say now whether these principles were really so new as Eadmer assumes. At all events, we have to do here not with general orders issued by William, but 9 Compare § 27, note 13. 10 Compare § 21, note 4. "Only in Anselm's struggle with Henry I was the king's position as suzerain of the prelates for a time challenged. In chapter 11 of the constitutions of Clarendon, which was not rejected by the pope, the statement is quite clear: Archiepiscopi, episcopi, et universae personae regni, qui de rege tenent in capite, et habent possessiones suas de domino rege sicut baroniam, et inde respondent justitiis et ministris regis, et sequuntur et faciunt omnes rectitudines regias et consuetudines. Non 12 Eadmer (born probably about 1060, died about 1124, or according to Rule 1144), Hist. Nov. (Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 81) p. 9: Cuncta ergo divina simul et humana ejus nutum expectabant. Quae cuncta ut paucis animadvertantur, quaedam de iis quae nova per Angliam servari constituit ponam. ergo pati volebat quemquam in omni dominatione sua constitutum Romanae urbis pontificem pro apostolico nisi se jubente recipere, aut ejus litteras si primitus sibi ostensae non fuissent ullo pacto suscipere. Primatem quoque regni sui, archiepiscopum dico Cantuariensem si coacto generali episcoporum concilio praesideret, non sinebat quicquam statuere aut prohibere, nisi quae suae voluntati accommoda et a se primo essent ordinata. Nulli nihilominus episcoporum suorum concessum iri permittebat, ut aliquem de baronibus suis seu ministris, sive incestu, sive adulterio, sive aliquo capitali crimine denotatum publice nisi ejus praecepto implacitaret aut excommunicaret, aut ulla ecclesiastici rigoris poena constringeret. with isolated instances from which Eadmer has, on his own responsibility, inferred a general rule.13 William II felt the danger of an independent organization of the clergy under their own heads, the archbishop of Canterbury as primate of England 14 and the council of the national church. Accordingly he attempted to prevent these heads as long as possible from attaining to well-ordered efficiency. The death of Lanfranc in 1089 left his archbishopric vacant; the king refused to fill it, declaring that he would be his own archbishop.15 For several years he withstood the pressure of the nobility and the clergy. However, during a severe illness, which was skilfully utilized by the church party, he yielded so far as to appoint a new archbishop (1093). Even then he still declined to give permission for the holding of a council of the national church.16 Under his rule the rights which the crown had hitherto enjoyed, were maintained.17 Financial claims 13 Stubbs, Const. Hist. I, 309 c 9 § 101, inclines to the view that an agreement of effect as quoted was entered into between the king and the English church. There is however no statement of the chroniclers that such was the case, and Eadmer's language points to a one-sided exercise of power, not to any sort of contract. 14 The subordination of the archbishop of York to the archbishop of Canterbury had been recognized during the reign of William I. It had, it is true, been effected in concert with the king, and at a later date Henry I sought to maintain, in opposition to the pope, the agreement which had been reached. Cf. § 34. Though the kings may have had their reasons for regarding the subordination as advantageous to the state; yet, on the other hand, the government of the church party was thus unified and strengthened. nee 15 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. (Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 81) p. 30, year 1093: ipse (Anselm) hoc tempore, nec alius quis archiepiscopus erit, me excepto. 16 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. (Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 81) p. 48, year 1094. Archb. Anselm says to Will. II: Iube, si placet, concilia ex antiquo usu renovari. Generale nempe concilium episcoporum ex quo rex factus fuisti non fuit in Anglia celebratum, nec retroactis pluribus annis. The king replies:-cum mihi visum fuerit de his agam, non ad tuam sed ad meam voluntatem.-See also letter of Anselm in note 17.-As to the council at Rochingeham, 1095, cf. $ 54, note 16. 17 Chronicle of abbot Hugo of Flavigny (the chronicle was written by degrees circ. 1085-1102; the author was in England in 1095 or 1096 as an attendant of the papal legate; printed in Monumenta Germaniae; Scriptores VIII p. 474), year 1096: Tunc temporis pro componenda inter fratres Willelmi regis filios concordia, Willelmum videlicet regem Anglorum et Robertum comitem Normannorum, abbas Divionensis ex praecepto papae mare transierat, et ut praescriptum regem ammoneret de multis quae illicite fiebant ab eo, de episcopatibus videlicet et abbatiis quas sibi retinebat, nec eis pastores providebat, et reditus proventusque omnium sibi assumebat, de symonia, de fornicatione clericorum; et quia conventionem fecerat cum eo Albanensis episcopus, quem primum illo miserat papa (cardinal the bishop of Albano, legate in England in 1095), ne legatus Romanus ad Angliam mitteretur nisi quem rex praeciperet, et quia adeo auctoritas Romana apud Anglos avaritia et cupiditate legatorum viluerat, ut eodem Albanense praesente et consentiente nec contradicente, immo praecipiente, Cantuariensis archiepiscopus fidelitatem beato Petro et papae iuraverat salva fidelitate domini sui regis. Quae res intantum adoleverat, ut nullus ex parte papae veniens honore debito exciperetur, nullus esset in Anglia archiepiscopus, episcopus, abbas, nedum monachus aut clericus, qui litteras apostolicas suscipere auderet, nedum obedire, nisi rex iuberet. Letter of Anselm (end of 1099 or beginning of 1100) to Paschal II (Migne, |