During the primacy of Lanfranc cils met looked upon with such disfavor as to evoke, in the reign of Æthelred, a solemn condemnation in a formal decree of a national assembly. Under the new theories of William and Lanfranc, the holding of distinct ecclesiastical councils, so far from exciting condemnation, received open and positive approval. During the primacy of Lanfranc the meetings of such councils, which were held at the same time as the regusuch coun- lar gemots, became frequent.2 From an entry in the Chronifrequently. cle, under the year 1085, we learn that "at midwinter the king was at Gloucester with his witan, and he held his court. there five days; and afterwards the archbishop and clergy held a synod during three days; and Maurice was there chosen to the bishopric of London, William to that of Norfolk, and Robert to that of Cheshire; they were all clerks of William the king." It was, however, no part of William's policy to limits ecallow to these ecclesiastical assemblies the right to legislate clesiastical legislation. without limitation. Eadmer tells us that "he did not suffer the primate of his kingdom, the archbishop of Canterbury, if he had called together under his presidency an assembly of bishops, to enact or prohibit anything but what was agreeable to his will and had been first ordained by him."4 Under these circumstances, and subject to such limitations, the national councils of the English church finally became distinct bodies from the national parliaments. But it must not be and provin- inferred from this statement that it was only in national councils that the clergy met together for the purpose of deliberation and action. The character of the lesser councils can best be explained by reference to the jurisdictions into which the church, as a whole, was subdivided. At an earlier period of our inquiries the fact was pointed out that, although each one of the heptarchic states was Christianized from a distinct source, the general aspects of the missionary work were everywhere the same. The conversion of the king generally preceded the acceptance of the faith upon the part Diocesan cial coun cils. 1 Ethelred's Laws, §§ 36, 37, 38, in Thorpe's Ancient Laws, vol. i. p. 340; Schmid, p. 242; Freeman, Norm. Cong., vol. i. p. 248. 2 Such councils were held in 1071, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1078, 1081, 1086. See Latin Life of Lanfranc attached to the Canterbury Chronicle. 8 Chron. Petrib., 1085. 4 "Non sinebat quicquam statuere aut prohibere nisi quæ suæ voluntati occomoda et a se primo essent ordinata."-Eadmer, Hist. Nov., i. p. 6. See Stubbs, Const. Hist., vol. i. p. 286. of his people, and then the missionary bishop became the royal chaplain, and the kingdom itself his diocese. The dio- Diocesan cesan synod was therefore, in the early days, the highest organizaecclesiastical assembly of an heptarchic state. In this way under Ead Elder. the heptarchic divisions of the country reappeared in the earliest forms of organization which the church assumed. When Theodore came to bind the missionary bishoprics together under a single rule, so as to bring the united church into definite relations with the see of Rome, he began his work by breaking up the great original dioceses into smaller sees. Not long after Theodore's death the work of subdivision had so far advanced as to allow the grouping of the whole nation in sixteen dioceses subject to the metropolitan primacy of Canterbury. This arrangement was in a short time so modified as to allow to York the position of an archbishopric, with three suffragan sees. By the final subdivision of Wes- The system sex, under Eadward the Elder, the scheme of Theodore was completed at last carried out, and the territorial organization of the ward the dioceses, as then fixed, has remained with a few minor changes to the present day. In the organization of the church as thus finally established, the narrowest ecclesiastical assemblies were the diocesan synods; the next in the ascending scale, the provincial convocations of York and Canterbury; 2 the last and highest, the general councils of the united national church. The circumstances under which these general councils became, during the primacy of Lanfranc, distinct bodies from the national parliaments, have already been drawn out. The existence of such councils was National destined, however, to be of short duration. Owing to the short-lived. jealousy and strife between Canterbury and York, the assembling of general councils, after the independence of York had been vindicated by Thurstan, became practically impossible.* The government of the church thus passed to the two provincial convocations of York and Canterbury, which, as constitutional assemblies of the English clergy, have suffered no 1 Upon this subject see above, pp. 160, 161. 2 As to the respective constitutions of the convocations of York and Canterbury, see Wilkins, Concilia, vol. ii. 41, 49. 8 "The diocesan synod answers to the county court, the provincial convo- 4 Stubbs, Const. Hist., vol. ii. p. 198. councils Govern church passes to convocations of Canterbury and York. material change of organization from the reign of Eadward I. ment of the down to the present day. The clergy, as a mere spiritual organization, when assembled in convocation, possessed the power to legislate for the general government of the church, subject to such restrictions, limitations, or warnings as the king or the parliament might from time to time impose. In the Conqueror's reign, as has been already pointed out, even a general council, held under the presidency of the primate himself, was not allowed "to enact or prohibit anything but what was agreeable to his will and had been first ordained by him." 2 This rule was, however, so far relaxed in practice as to allow to the convocations great freedom of action, so long as their deliberations were confined to matters of purely spiritual or ecclesiastical concern.3 But the clergy, as a distinct body possessing class interests, stood to the state, so far as constitutional history is concerned, in another and Representa far more important relation. When, in the thirteenth century, the system of estates becomes thoroughly organized, parliament. the clergy head the list; in the classification of estates the order is, the clergy, the baronage, and the commons. The temporal representation of the clergy in the national parliament, as a distinct estate, must be considered hereafter. tion of the clergy in The 8. In the attempt which has now been made to define in general terms the effects of the Conquest on central, local, and ecclesiastical organization, it has been necessary to pass. not only beyond the limits of the Conqueror's reign, but beyond the limits of the Norman period itself. Let us return for a moment to that early stage in the history of the Conquest at which we have heretofore examined the manner in which William dealt with the conquered soil of his Eng lish kingdom, as it passed, district by district, under his authority. It was there observed that the theory upon which the Conqueror claimed title to the lands of the conquered was, that he, the heir of Eadward, upon coming to take pos 1 See Sir Travers Twiss's excellent article upon Convocation in Enc. Brit., 9th ed. vol. vi. p. 325. 2 Eadmer, Hist. Nov., i. p. 6 (ed. Selden). 8 "As a rule, the later sovereigns, in stead of restricting the liberty of meeting, contented themselves with warn ing the clergy not to infringe the royal rights."-Stubbs, Const. Hist., vol. iii. P. 324. See above, p. 235. which session of his kingdom, had been opposed, either actively or passively, by the whole English nation, who thus became involved in the guilt of treason. It was claimed that under the strict letter of the law the lands of all were forfeited to the king; but the application of this principle William undertook ' to regulate according to the circumstances of individual cases. There can be no doubt that, through the enforcement of this principle, the bulk of all the great estates passed during William's reign into Norman hands, although the main body of the people, the actual occupants of the soil, may have remained, as a general rule, undisturbed in their possessions. In view of this vast confiscation, in view of the numberless Causes grants and transfers of land which followed in its train, it is brought it not strange that William should have desired to know, as his about. reign drew to a close, "about this land, how it was set and by what men." From the well known entry in the Chronicle, Chronicler's under the year 1085, we further learn that "he sent over all entry under 1085 England into ilk shire his men, and let them find out how many hundred hides were in the shire, or what the king himself had of land or cattle in the land, or whilk rights he ought to have to twelve months of the shire. Eke he let write how mickle of land his archbishops had and his bishops and his abbots and his earls, and though I it longer tell, what or how mickle ilk man had that landholder was in England, in land and in cattle, and how mickle fee it were worth. So very narrowly he let spear it out, that there was not a single hide nor a yard-land,2 nor so much as it is shame to tell and it thought him no shame to do—an ox nor a cow nor a swine was left that was not set in his writ. And all the writs were brought to him since." Under this order, passed in the midwinter gemot of 1085-1086, the Great Survey was made. By Lammastide the work was done, and the result was the famous record of Domesday. The Survey was taken by royal commissioners, who went forth into every shire in order mal tenant in villenage. — Ibid., pp. 36, 73 1 Chron. Petrib., 1085. 2 The statement that "nas an alpig hide ne an gyrde landes" was omitted from the Survey "does not mean that not a hide nor a yard of land was omitted, but not a hide or a yard-land, i. e., a virgate." Seebohm, English Village Community, p. 92. The vir gate was the normal holding of the nor In order fully to grasp the nature and value of this great record, it is necessary to read Sir Henry Ellis' Introduction, in connection with Mr. Freeman's brilliant chapter entitled "Domesday." See Norman Conquest, vol. v. ch. xxii. which the Survey was taken. Manner in to prosecute their inquiries through the oaths of those who, in ordinary times, composed the county court. Oaths were exacted from the sheriff and all the barons of the shire and their Norman associates; every hundred appeared also by sworn representatives, and from each manor or township the priest, the reeve, and six villeins or ceorls.1 From the testimony thus obtained was reported the name of each manor, its owner in the time of King Eadward and its present owner; its extent in hides, the number of carucates or plough-teams; the number of homagers, ceorls or villeins, cotters, and serfs; how many freemen, how many sokemen; the extent of wood, meadow, and pasture; the number of mills and fisheries; the increase and decrease since King Eadward's time, the several and collective values of every holding.2 From this statement may be derived a very definite idea of the minuteness and exactness with which the commissioners made up the great rate-book of the kingdom. The leading fiction which perthe immedi- vaded the whole work was that King William was the immediate successor of King Eadward; their reigns were established as the two great periods of legal government; and the leading inquiry as to each parcel of land was, who was its owner in the time of King Eadward, who was its owner at the date of the Survey. Throughout the record, "the unit of inquiry is everywhere the manor, and the manor was a landlord's estate, with a township or village-community in villenage upon it, under the jurisdiction of the lord of the manor."5 It is therefore possible to gather from the Survey a very definite idea of the internal organization of the manorial system, and of the different classes into which each manorial group was divided. The division of the lands of the manor into William treated as ate successor of Eadward. Unit of inquiry the manor. 3 1 "Barones regis inquirunt, videlicet per sacramentum vicecomitis sciræ et omnium baronum et eorum Francigenarum, et totius centuriatus, presbiteri, præpositi, vi. villanorum uniuscujusque villæ."— Ely Domesday, Dom. iii. 497. 2 "Deinde quomodo vocatur mansio, quis tenuit eam tempore Regis Eadwardi; quis modo tenet; quot hide; quot carrucæ in dominio, quot hominum; quot villani; quot cotarii; quot servi; quot liberi homines; quot sochemanni; quantum silvæ; quantum prati; - quot pascuorum; quot molendina; quot piscina; quantum est additum vel ablatum; quantum valebat totum simul; et quantum modo.” — Ibid. 8 "By this report an exhaustive register of the land and its capabilities was formed, which was never entirely superseded."-Stubbs, Const. Hist., vol. i. p. 386. 4 Freeman, Norm. Conq., vol. v. pp. 9, 10. 5 Seebohm, Eng. Village Community, p. 82. |