Wednesday, 23 January 2013

The Constitutuions: Hutton's Translation and Commentary

Extract from
William Holden Hutton (1899). S. Thomas of Canterbury. pp. 50-9 D. Nutt.

Jan. 1164. - Council of Clarendon.

[The archbishops and bishops gave a general promise to
observe the customs. The king ordered that a formal
document should be drawn up embodying the customs of
his grandfather, Henry I. It appears that the task was
undertaken by Richard de Lucy, the justiciar, and Jocelin
de Balliol. The following are the articles. For the
meaning of the most important clauses see Professor
Maitland's Essay on Henry II. and Criminous Clerks.]

The Constitutions of Clarendon.
Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, vol. v., p. 71.

Because of the dissensions and discords which arose
between the clergy and the justices of the lord king
and the barons of the realm concerning the customs
and dignities, the recognition was made in the presence
of the archbishop and bishops and clergy and
earls and nobles of the realm. And these customs,
by the recognition of the archbishops and bishops
and earls and barons and the men of nobility and
age, were agreed to by Thomas archbishop of
Canterbury, Roger archbishop of York, Gilbert
bishop of London, Henry bishop of Winchester,
Nigel bishop of Ely, William bishop of Norwich,
Robert bishop of Lincoln, Hilary bishop of Chichester,
Jocelin bishop of Salisbury, Richard bishop
of Chester, Bartholomew bishop of Exeter, Robert
bishop of Hereford, David bishop of S. David's,
and Roger bishop of Worcester, and in the word
of truth they firmly promised that they should be
held and observed, to the king and his heirs, in
good faith and without evil intent, - in the presence
of Robert earl of Leicester, Reginald earl of Cornwall,
Conan earl of Bretagne, John earl of Eu, Roger
earl of Clare, earl Geoffrey of Mandeville, Hugh
earl of Chester, William earl of Arundel, earl Patrick
of Salisbury, William earl of Ferrars, Richard de
Lucy, Reginald of S. Valery, Roger Bigot, Reginald
of Warenne, Richer of Laigle, William of Braos,
Richard of Camville, Nigel of Mowbray, Simon of
Beauchamp, Humfrey of Bohun, Matthew of Hereford,
Walter of Medwin [Methuen], Manasses Biset
butler, William Malet, William of Curcy, Robert of
Dunstanville, Jocelin of Balliol, William of Lanval,
William of Cheyney, Geoffrey of Vere, William of
Hastings, Hugh of Morville, Alan of Neville, Simon
Fitz-Peter, William Malduit chamberlain, John
Malduit, John Marshal, Peter de Mare, and many
other nobles of the realm as well as clerks as lay. Of
the customs and dignities of the realm, according to
recognition, a certain part is contained in this
writing.* Of the which the heads are as follows.
[* From this and the statement at the beginning of the
preamble it would appear that a sort of general recognition
of the common law was made, of which only the
part relating to the Church was recorded and received.]

I.  Concerning the advowson and presentation of
churches if a dispute shall arise between laymen, or
between laymen and clerks, or between clerks, it
shall be tried and concluded in the king's court.
[Probably the Curia Regis, the highest tribunal of the
country, at once the judicial session of the king's chief
advisers and the great council of the baronage in its
judicial aspect, is here referred to. This appears now to
be a permanent court, and it probably already had a
staff of judges, as was certainly the case from 1178. The
Church claimed the suits as appertaining to the care of
souls; the State as questions of the right to property.
Undoubtedlyin in the last reign they had frequently been heard
in ecclesiastical courts, for very many letters of
John of Salisbury, as secretary to Archbishop Theobald,
refer to appeals to the Pope on rights of presentation.]

II.  Churches in the fee of the lord king may not
be granted in perpetuity without his assent and
consent.
[To this there was no objection on the part of the
Church. The Churches are those on the king's estates,
and the object of the order is to preserve the feudal
services. Later the kings would allow no episcopal jurisdiction
over their free chapelries, but issued writs of
prohibition from the king's bench.]

III.  Clerks charged and accused concerning any
matter, having been summoned by the king's justiciar
shall come into his court to answer there concerning
this matter if it shall seem meet to the king's court
that it be answered there, and in the ecclesiastical
court if it seem meet that it be answered there, so
that the king's justiciar shall send into the court of
Holy Church to see in what manner the suit be
therein tried And if the clerk shall be convicted
or shall confess the Church ought no longer to shield
him.
[Accused clerks are to answer before the king's justiciar
for a crime at common law, in Church courts for a crime
in ecclesiastical law. See Professor Maitland's article
above referred to.]

IV. — Archbishops. bishops, and beneficed clerks
mav not leave the kingdom without the licence of
the lord king. If they go abroad, if the lord king
pleases, they shall give security that neither in going
nor in tarrying nor in returning will they procure ill
or hurt to  king or kingdom.
[The right of closing the ports was an ancient prerogative.
Its exercise in this clause, taken in connection with
clause 8 is evidently designed to check, if not altogether
to abolish, appeals to Rome. It was thus interpreted by
the archbishop and strongly opposed. Robert of
Gloucester, writing a century later, explains its meaning
to be that the king should be "in the pope's stead."]
V. — Excommunicate persons ought not to give 
security for the future, nor to take oath, but only 
sufficient security and pledge to abide the judgment 
of the Church that they may be absolved. [In this clause there is a difficulty in the interpretation of 
the expression Vadium ad remaneus (cf. the practice of Roman 
Law ; Institutes, ed. Moyle, vol. i., p. 670. Poste's Gaius, lib. 
iv., sect. 185). It may mean "henceforeward give security," or 
"give security for future good behaviour." In the former 
case the pledge is merely to remain in the same parish. It refers 
to the custom of exacting an oath, on absolution, to obey the 
Church's decisions. The question became important during the 
last days of Becket's life and at the time of the murder, when 
he refused to absolve the bishops unless they took the customary 
oath of submission to the pope's judgment.]
VI.—  Laymen ought not to be accused save by 
certain and legal accusers and witnesses in the pre- 
sence of the bishop, so that [nevertheless] the arch- 
deacon lose not his right nor aught that he should 
have therein. And if the criminals be such that no 
one will or dare accuse them, the sheriff being re- 
quired by the bishop shall make to swear twelve 
legal men of the neighbourhood or township, in 
presence of the bishop, that therein they will mani- 
fest the truth according to their conscience. [Legal or law-worthy men - those regarded by the law as 
capable of bearing witness and taking an oath. Up to the 
Norman Conquest all freemen were " lawful " or "legal" men. 
The twelve men are a jury of presentment or accusation — a 
custom found in early English law (cf. Ethelred, III., cap. 3).
The custom was developed or revived by Henry II., and is 
substantially the same as the modern grand jury.] 
VII. — No one who holds of the king in chief nor 
any of his servants shall be excommunicated, nor 
shall the lands of any of them be put under interdict 
unless the lord king, if he be in the country, or his 
justiciar, if he be without the realm, be first informed. 
That he may do right by him : and so that what per- 
tains to the king's courts shall be there concluded, 
and what belongs in the ecclesiastical court shall be
sent thereto that it may be tried there. [This is an extension of the custom of William I, referred to 
above, p. 34. Here the prohibition is extended to include an 
interdict on the land. By excommunication of their attendants
without notice kings might be indirectly struck at, for by contact,
with an excommunicate they would become excommunicate also.]
VIII. - Concerning appeals when they shall arise, 
they ought to got from the archdeacon to the bishop, 
from the bishop to the archbishop. And if the 
archbishop shall fail in showing justice, resort should 
be had lastly to the king, so that by his order the . 
question be concluded in the archbishop's court: so 
that it should go no further without the king's assent. 
[This shows the existence of a regular system of appeals in 
ecclesiastical suits, though no regular system of appeals in lay 
courts existed at this time. The clause acted as a prohibition 
of appeals to Rome, and may be regarded as the definite 
declaration of a position never wholly abandoned, and finally 
assumed at the Reformation. It will be observed that the final 
decision is not left to the king but he remits the casue to the - 
archbishop's court for reconsideration.]*I.e., the possessor shall not lose possession until the suit be ended.
 IX. — If an action occur between a clerk and a lay- 
man, or between a layman and a clerk, concerning 
any holding which the clerk wishes to attach to free 
alms,* and the layman to lay fief, it shall be concluded 
by the recognition of twelve legal men under view 
of the king's chief justiciar, whether the holding 
belong to ecclesiastical or lay tenure, in the presence 
of the said justiciar. And if it be decided by recog- 
nition that it belongs to ecclesiastical tenure the suit 
shall take place in the ecclesiastical court; but if to 
lay tenure (unless the suitors both hold of the same 
bishop or baron) it shall take place in the king's 
court : so that on account of the recognition made he 
shall not lose seisin who was seised of it** until it be 
decided by plea.
[In the case referred to in this clause two questions are spoken 
of as requiring decision : first, whether a particular holding is
held on ecclesiastical or lay tenure, and second, which of the two
claimants, a clerk and a layman, has the right to the possession
of it. It is ordered that the first question should be always 
decided in the king's court, and the second in church or king's 
court according to the decision of the first. To this the eccle- 
siastical lawyers, always anxious to secure the trial of suits
concerning property, made strong opposition. The clause shows 
the use of juries for the decision of fact in civil suits, a custom
derived from the Norman inquest on oath from persons acquainted 
with facts (cf. Domesday). From the Norman Conquest such 
suits had been decided by wager of battle; but Henry II., 
during the chancellorship of Becket, introduced, by his Grand
Assize, the custom as here mentioned. Cf, Glanvill, De legibus Angliae, lib ii.]
* Ecclesiastical tenure
** I.e. The possessor shall not lose possession until the suit be ended. 

X.— If anyone belonging to a city or castle or town
or manor of the king, being cited by the archdeacon
or bishop for any crime for which he is obliged to
answer, will not, at their citations, give satisfaction,
it shall be lawful to put him under interdict, but not
to excommunicate him until the chief officer of the
king in his township be informed, in order that he
may compel him to give satisfaction. And if the
king's officer shall fail therein he shall be at the
king's mercy, and then shall the bishop be able to
coerce the accused by ecclesiastical law.
XI. — Archbishops, bishops, and all beneficed clergy 
of the realm who hold of the king in chief have their 
possessions of the lord king as a barony, and answer 
therefor to the justices and ministers of the king, 
and follow and do all royal rights and customs, and 
like other barons ought to be present at the judg- 
ments of the king's court, with the barons, till there 
shall come into judgment matter concerning mutila- 
tion or death.
[To this the Church made no objection. Ecclesiastics who 
hold of the king in chief are to hold according to ordinary feudal 
law. The clause refers to property not status, and has no 
bearing on the title by which the bishops sat in the Great 
Council. By the law of the Church ecclesiastics were bound to 
retire when a "question of blood" came on.]
XII. — When an archbishopric shall be vacant, or a 
bishopric, or abbacy, or priory on the king's demesne, 
it shall be in his hand and he take all revenues and 
outgoings as his own. And when counsel shall be 
taken of the Church the lord king shall command 
the greater persons of the Church, and the election 
shall be in the chapel of the lord king by assent of 
the lord king and counsel of those ecclesiastics whom 
he shall have called for the purpose. And there shall 
the elect do homage and fealty to the lord king as 
his liege lord, in his life and limbs and earthly honour, 
saving his order, before he be consecrated. 
[This, says Bishop Stubbs (Select Charters, p. 136), is " in 
conformity with the usage of Henry I. and with the practice of 
the West Saxon kings of England. But the right of election had 
long been claimed for the clergy of the Church whose vacancy 
was to be supplied. As early as the 8th century the letters of 
Alcuin give proof that such liberty was possessed by the clergy 
of York, and the subsequent restriction was probably owing to 
the example set by the emperors in France and Germany. 
Generally the Anglo-Saxon bishops were appointed by the king 
and witan, but there are traces, from the date of Theodore to 
the Conquest, of free elections occasionally allowed and con- 
stantly claimed. It was the peace of Anselm and Henry I. that 
"gave the king an absolute and legal influence in this matter." 
Fitz Stephen records that during Becket's chancellorship sees 
were not kept vacant and elections were canonical. Materials
iii., 23, translated above, p. 15.]
XIII. — If any one of the great men of the realm 
shall have failed to show justice, either concerning 
himself or his men, to archbishop or bishop or arch- 
deacon, the lord king ought to bring him to justice. 
And if perchance a clerk shall have failed in his duty 
to the lord king the archbishops and bishops and 
archdeacons ought to bring him to justice so that he 
may make satisfaction to the king. 

XIV.— The goods of those who are under forfeit of 
the king, no church or cemetery is to retain against the 
king's justice, because they are the king's, whether 
they be found within churches or without. 
XV.— Pleas concerning debts which are due with or without pledging of faith are in the king's justice. [To this the Church objected. Ecclesiastical lawyers treated debts as involving an oath or pleading of credit, and thus under the moral jurisdiction of the Church.]
XVI.— Sons of villeins ought not to be ordained with- 
out the assent of the lord on whose land they were born. 
[To this the Pope assented. The order, aimed at preventing 
the loss of villein services to the lords, is in principle as old as 
the so-called Constitutions of the Apostles. An indignant pro- 
test against this is made by Garnier [p. 89]. "God," he says, 
"has called is all to his service. Much more worth is the vil- 
lein's son who is honourable than a son of a noble who is false."].

Record was made of the aforesaid royal customs 
and dignities by the aforesaid archbishops and 
bishops, and earls and barons, and men of nobility 
and age at Clarendon the fourth day before the 
Purification of the Blessed Mary the Virgin, the lord 
Henry being present with his father the lord king. 
But there are also other many and great customs and 
dignities of holy mother Church, and the lord king, 
and the barons of the realm, which are not contained 
in this writing. The which shall be preserved to 
holy Church and to the lord king and his heirs and 
the barons of the realm, and shall be inviobly ob- 
served for ever.

In Latin

M. HOUARD (1779) 
Anciennes loix des françois conservées dans les coutumes engloises recueillies. 
p.272
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32298/32298-h/32298-h.htm


Aliud Exemplar ejusdem Concilii e Libro de Vita & Passione S. Thomæ Cantuariensis (Quadrilogus nuncupato) Parisiis impresso, An. 1495. desumptum.
Rescriptum illarum consuetudinum quas avitas vocant, quoniam quando & coram quibus facta est recognitio regalium consuetudinum 300.
Note 300: (retour) Quadrilog. lib. 5. in exordio.
273
Anno ab incarnatione Domini millesimo centesimo sexagesimo quarto, Papatus Alexandri anno quarto, illustrissimi Regis Anglorum Henrici secundi anno decimo. In præsentia ejusdem Regis facta recordatio & recognitio cujusdam partis consuetudinum & libertatum, & dignitatum antecessorum suorum videlicet Regis Henrici avi sui, & aliorum quæ observari & teneri debent in regno. Et propter dissensiones & discordias quæ emerserant inter Clerum & justitias Domini Regis, & Barones regni de consuetudinibus & dignitatibus. Facta est ista recognitio coram Archiepiscopis & Episcopis, & Clero & Comitibus & Baronibus & Proceribus regni. Et easdem consuetudines recognitas per Archiepiscopos & Episcopos, & per Barones, & per Nobiliores & Antiquiores regni, Thomas Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus, & Rogerus Eboracen. Archiepiscopus, & Gilbertus Londoniensis Episcop. & Henricus Wintoniensis Episcopus, Nigellus Eliensis Episcopus, & Willelmus Norwicensis Episcopus, & Robertus Lincolniensis Episcopus, & Hilarius Cicestrensis Episcopus, Jocelinus Saresberiensis, & Richardus Cestrensis Episcopus, & Bartholomæus Oxoniensis Episcopus, & Robertus Herefordensis Episcopus, & David Menevensis Episcopus, & Rogerus Wirgorniensis electus concesserunt, & in verbo veritatis viva voce firmiter promiserunt tenendas & observandas Domino Regi & Hæredibus suis, bona fide & absque malo ingenio; præsentibus istis: Roberto Comite Rochestriæ, Reginaldo Comite Cornubiæ, Conano Comite Britanniæ, Johanne Comite de Haugo, Rogerio Comite de Clare, Comite Gauffrido de Mandeville, Hugone Comite Cestriæ, Willermo Comite de Arundell, Comite Patricio, Willermo Comite de Ferrariis, Richardo de Luci, Reginald de sancto Walerico, Rogerio Bigot, Reginaldo de Warenner, Richerio de Aquila, Willermo de Bransa, Richardo de Canivilla, Nigello de Monbray, Simone de Bello Campo, Humphrido de Boun, Matheo de Herefordia, Waltero de Meduana, Maneter de Biseht Dapifero, Willermo Maleth, Willermo de Curti, Roberto de Dunestavilla, Jocelino de Baillolio, Willermo Lanualis, Willermo de Laisneto, Gauffrido de Veu, Willermo de Hastinga, Hugone de Moravilla, Alano de Neuvil, Simone filio Petri, Willermo Mallevit Camerario, 274Johanne Malevit, Johanne Marescallo, Petro de Mara, & multis aliis Proceribus & Nobilibus regni tam Clericis quam Laicis. Consuetudinum vero & dignitatum regni recognitarum, cujus quædam pars præsenti Scripto continetur, cujus partis capitula hæc sunt.
Capitulum primum.
De advocatione & præsentatione Ecclesiarum si controversia emerserit inter Laicos, vel inter Laicos & Clericos, vel inter Clericos in Curia Domini Regis tractetur & terminetur.
Cap. 2. Ecclesiæ de feudo Regis non possint in perpetuum dari absque assensu & concessione ipsius.
Cap. 3. Clerici citati & accusati de quacunque re sive moniti a justitia Regis veniant in Curiam ipsius, responsuri ibidem, de hoc unde videbitur Curiæ quid ibi sit respondendum, & in Curia Ecclesiastica unde videbitur quid sit ibi respondendum. Ita quod justitia Regis mittet in Curiam sanctæ Ecclesiæ, ad videndum qua ratione res ibi tractabitur. Et si Clericus convictus vel confusus fuerit non debet eum de cætero Ecclesia tueri.
Cap. 4. Archiepiscopis Episcopis, personis regni non licet exire de regno absque licentia Regis, & si exierint, si Domino Regi placuerit, assecurabunt quod nec in eundo nec in moram faciendo nec in redeundo perquirent malum vel damnum Regi vel regno.
Cap. 5. Excommunicati non debent dare vadium ad remanens nec præstare juramentum, sed tantum vadium & plegium standi judicio Ecclesiæ ut absolvantur.
Cap. 6. Clerici non debent accusari nisi per certos & legales accusatores & testes in præsentia Episcopi, ita quod Archidiaconus non perdat jus suum; nec quicquam quod inde habere debeat. Et si tales fuerint qui culpantur, quos nec velit, nec audeat aliquis eos accusare: Vicecomes requisitus ab Episcopo faciet jurare duodecim legales homines de vicineto seu de villa coram Episcopo quod inde veritatem secundum conscientiam suam manifestabunt.
Cap. 7. Nullus qui de Rege teneat in capite, nec aliquis Dominicorum Ministrorum ejus excommunicetur; nec terræ alicujus 275illorum sub interdicto ponantur, nisi prius Dominus Rex si in terra fuerit conveniatur, vel justitia ejus si extra regnum fuerit ut rectum est de ipso faciat, & ita id quod pertinebat ad Curiam regiam ibidem terminetur, & de eo quod spectabit ad Ecclesiam ad eandem mittatur ut ibidem tractetur.
Cap. 8. De appellationibus si emerserint ab Archidiacono debent procedere ad Episcopum, ab Episcopo ad Archiepiscopum, & si Archiepiscopus defuerit in justitia exhibenda, ad Dominum Regem est perveniendum postremo, ut præcepto ipsius in Curia Archiepiscopi controversia terminetur ita quod non debet ulterius procedere absque assensu Regis.
Cap. 9. Si calumnia emerserit inter Laicum & Clericum vel inter Clericum & Laicum de ullo tenemento quod Clericus ad Eleemosynam velit attrahere, Laicus vero ad Laicum feudum, recognitione duodecim hominum legalium per capitalis Regis justitiæ considerationem terminabitur, utrum tenementum sit pertinens ad Eleemosynam sive ad Laicum feudum coram ipsa justitia Regis. Et si recognitum fuerit ad Eleemosynam pertinere placitum erit in Curia Ecclesiastica. Si vero ad Laicum feudum (nisi ambo de eodem Episcopo vel Barone advocaverint) erit placitum in Curia Regis; sed si uterque advocaverit de feudo illo ante eundem Episcopum vel Baronem, erit placitum in Curia ipsius ita quod propter factam recognitionem saisinam non amittat qui prius saisitus fuerat.
Cap. 10. Qui de Civitate, Castello, vel burgo, vel dominico manerio Regis fuerit, si ab Archidiacono vel Episcopo de aliquo delicto citatus fuerit unde debeat iis respondere, & ad citationem eorum noluit satisfacere, bene licet eum sub interdicto ponere. Sed non debet excommunicari priusquam capitalis minister villæ illius conveniatur, ut justificet eum ad satisfactionem venire. Et si minister Regis inde defecerit, ipse erit in misericordia Regis, & exinde poterit Episcopus ipsum accusatum justitia Ecclesiastica coercere.
Cap. 11. Archiepiscopi & personæ universæ regni qui de Rege tenent in capite habent possessiones suas de Rege sicut Baroniam, & inde respondent justitiis & ministris Regis, & sequentur & facient omnes rectitudines, & consuetudines regias, & sicut Ba 276Barones cæteri debent judiciis Curiæ Regis cum Baronibus interesse usque dum perveniatur in judicio ad diminutionem membrorum vel mortem.
Cap. 12. Cum vacaverit Archiepiscopatus vel Abbatia vel Prioratus de dominio Regis debet esse in manu ejus, & inde percipiat omnes reditus & exitus sicut dominicos, & cum venerit ad consulendam Ecclesiam debet Dominus Rex mandare potiores personas Ecclesiæ & in capella ejus debet fieri electio assensu Regis & consilio personarum regni, quas ad hoc faciendum vocaverit. Et ibidem faciet electus homagium & fidelitatem Regi sicut ligio Domino suo de vita sua, de membris & honore terreno, salvo ordine suo priusquam sit consecratus.
Cap. 13. Si quisquam de Proceribus Archiepiscopis vel Episcopis, vel Archidiaconis, de se vel suis justitiam exhibere renuerit Rex debet justificare. Et si forte aliquis deforciaret Regi rectitudinem suam Archiepiscopi & Archidiaconi debent eum justificare ut Regi satisfaciat.
Cap. 14. Catalla eorum qui sunt in forisfacto Regis non detineat Ecclesia vel coemeterium contra justitiam Regis sive in Ecclesiis, sive extra fuerint inventa.
Cap. 15. Placita de debitis quæ fide interposita debentur, vel absque interpositione fidei sint in justitia Regis.
Cap. 16. Filii rusticorum non debent ordinari absque assensu Domini de cujus terra nati sunt sive esse dignoscuntur.
Concil. Clarend. 1164.Concilium apud Clarendoniam 8 Cal. Februar. A. D. 1164. id est, 11. Henr. II. præsidente Johanne de Oxonia de mandato ipsius Regis præsidentibus etiam ipsis Archiepiscopis, viz. Thoma Cant. & Rogero Eboracens. Episcopis Abbatibus Prioribus Comitibus Baronibus, &c.301
Note 301: (retour) V. Capitt. Mat. Par. pag. 96, & Nic. Trivet. & Ger. Dor.
In hoc Concilio discisæ sunt plurimæ radices Ecclesiasticæ potestatis, ex quo diu cum nutasset ipsa arbor, tandem corruit. Sexdecim Capitulis.
Hunc Johannem de Oxonia excommunicavit postea Thomas 277Archiepiscopus Cant. (vulgo Becket) ut patet in Epistola ipsius ad suffraganeos suos apud Hoved. pa. 99.
Novarum rerum & gravissimarum perturbationum tempestas in Ecclesiam Archipræsulemque ejus jam irruit, quam profusius & lugubriter canunt istius sæculi authores, sed expressius habeas ex Epistolis ipsorum agentium & patientium. Quæ cum plurimæ & ab Hovedeno magna ex partæ concinnatæ; sine obsecro ut te illi relegam, ne ab instituto nostro plus satis abripiar.


References
Thomas. - Littleton (1779). Anciennes loix des François: conservées dans les coutumes angloises ; suivies des Additions aux remarques sur les coutumes angloises. Le Boucher. pp. 272–

Baron George Lyttelton Lyttelton (1772). The history [of the  life of King Henry the Second, and of the age in which he lived: To which is prefixed, A history of the revolutions of England, from the death of Edward the Confessor to the birth of Henry the Second]. Printed by and for G. Faulkner. pp. 204–http://books.google.com/books?id=M8UBAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA20 Anciennes Loix Des Francois Conservées Dans Les Coutumes Angloises: Avec des Observations historiques & critiques, .... pp. 272–. 
Dorothy Whitelock; Arthur West Haddan (1981). Councils & synods, with other documents relating to the English church: A.D. 871-1204. Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-822394-8
Bodleian Library; Francis Douce (1840). Catalogue of the printed books and manuscripts bequeathed by Francis Douce, to the Bodleian library. p 48/ University Press. pp. 1–
William Stubbs (1870). "A.D. 1164. Constitutions of Clarendon."Select charters and other illustrations of English constitutional history from the earliest times to the reign of Edward the First. Clarendon Press. pp. 129–
Eadmer Historia novorum in Anglia
[Hist. Nov. i .6]



No comments:

Post a Comment