Page 154 of 155

8 (return)
[ NOTE H, p. 194. There is a paper or record of the family of Slarneborne, 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 Spelman (see Gloss, in verbo Drenges) and Dugdale, (see Baron, vol. i. p. 118,) it is proved by Dr. Brady (see Answer 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 history, 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. Alured. Beverl. p. 130. We are told by Ingulf, that Ivo de Taillebois plundered the monastery of Croylaud of a great part of its land, and no redress could be obtained.]

9 (return)
[ NOTE I, p. 195. The obliging of all the inhabitants to put out their fires and lights it certain hours, upon the sounding of a bell, called the Courfeu, is represented by Polydore Virgil, lib. ix., 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.]

11 (return)
[ NOTE K, p. 200. What these laws were of Edward the Confessor, which the English, every reign during a century and a half, desire so passionately 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 pass 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 favorable 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 institutions. The most material articles of it were afterwards comprehended in Magna Charta.]

12 (return)
[ NOTE L, p. 218. 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. lib. i. cap. 16. Textus Roffensis apud Seld. Spieileg. ad Eadm. p. 197. Gul. Pict. p. 206. Ordericus Vitalis, p. 521, 666, 853., Epist. St. Thom, p. 801. Gul. Malms, p. 52, 57. Knyghton, p. 2354. Eadmer, p. 110. Thorn. 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 tant cladi superesse poterant, fecerit, dicere, cum 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 rumnam detrusos, aut exhredatos, patria pulsos, aut effossia, oculis, vel cteris amputatis membris, opprobrium hominum factos, aut certe miserrime afflictos, vita privatos. Simili modo utilitate carere existimo dicere quid in minorem populum, non solum ab esed[**] a suis actum sit, cum id dictu sciamus difficile et ob immanem crudelitatem fortassis incredibile.]

13 (return)
[ NOTE M, p. 263 Henry, by the feudal customs, was entitled to levy a tax for the marrying of his eldest daughter, and he exacted three shillings a hide on all England. H. Hunting, 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.]

14 (return)
[ NOTE N, p. 266. 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, assembled synods, and were anxious to maintain ecclesiastical privileges, which never could be fully protected without encroachments on the civi[**] 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 canvassed 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 rigor; but it was an advantage to the king to have the archbishop of Canterbury appointed legate, because the connections of that prelate with the kingdom tended to moderate his measures. William of Newbridge, p. 383, (who is copied by later historians), asserts that Geoffrey had some title to the counties of Maine and Anjou. He pretends that Count Geoffrey, his father, had left his 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 savers 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.]

16 (return)
[ NOTE P, p. 293. 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) lays, 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.]