sign in sign up
<<
Home , 1170s, Assize of Clarendon, Becket controversy, Gilbert Foliot, Governance of England, Henry II of England

/ PLEASE TYPE THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH TiMsis/DlMMtallon ShMt

Surname or Ftmlly n«me; Cofda

First name; Jota Manual cmier nam«/«:

Abbreviation for depra* as givan in the University calendar: PhD

School; History Faculty Arts and Social Scl«rtc«a

TMe: Tha councils of Hanry II In

Abstract 360 words maximum: (PLEASE TYPE) Thd main objective of this thesis Is to offer an understanding of the nature and political Importance of English royal councils In the reign of II (1154-1189); a subject that has never attracted historical attention before. While the analysis of particularly controversial meetings has been Incorporated in several studies, the common features of councils have never been made a subject of historical enquiry.

The present study has relied on the evidence provided In contemporary sources, such as the numerous chronicles and a large body of royal charters, treatises, and official documents which have been preserved for this period. It has also studied a number of pollticai, legal, administrative and fiscal treatises, all of which provide useful insights into the mentalKies of the time and the institutional makeup and under Menry II.

The first chapter is a chronological narrative which aims to Introduce the reader into the subject and to associate groups of councils with the different phases In Henry's reign. Then the terminology employed In the sources to identify and describe these meetings Is analysed so to understand how were these assemblies perceived In the polltJcai . The third chapter deals with the circumstantial aspects of councils by offering a study of the places and buildings where assemblies take place, as well as the calendar and the frequency they followed. The following two chapters discuss the evidence for and the process of concillar consultation, and the matters discussed at royal councils In this period. The following chapter studies the attendance and the social aspects of these meetings. The last chapter Is an essay which evaluates the place occupied by these councils within the early history of .

The central conclusion which brings together ail these chapters is that the unprecedented frequency with which Henry il summoned great assemblies meant that most important decisions made during his reign are connected with concillar activity and, therefore, assented by the nobles of the realm, and that gathering councils consequently became a very useful instrument of royal flovernance and a most public occasion for baronial politics in this period.

DMiaration ralctlng to dlsposttton of pro|aoi thaals/dlssartatlon

I hereby grant to tha University of New or Its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation In whole or In pari in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1M8.1 retain all property rights, such as paterrt rights. l also retain the right to use In future works (such as artlclee or books) all or part of iMs thesis or dissertation.

I also suthorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis In Dissertation Abstracts internetional (this is applicable to doctoral thaseaonly).

^ ^ " ' signature '

The University recognises that there may be exoeptionai eircumstancss requiring restrlctlona on copying or conditions on use. Request» for restriction for a period of up to 2 years must be made in wrtHng. Requests for « longer period of resihction may be considered In exceptional drcumatances and require the approval of the of Graduate Research.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Data of complation of requirements for Award; iijiojo-j COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

'I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or part In the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after Known, subject to the -p(t>vifiior>s of-the Copyright Aol 1^68 Ireteln^l-pnopnotary rights , -euch-ea-polent rights I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) afl or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstract International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only). 1 'have either • used no sdbstantial porlions of -copyright matwlalin • my iheei« or I have obtained permission to use CDopyright material; where penmlsslon has not been granted I have appliedAvlll apply for a partialrestriction o f the digital oopy of my thesis or dissertation;

Date

AUTHENTICITY STATEMENT

•I certify that the Library deposit digital copy Is a direct equivalent of the final ofTldally approved version of my thesis. No emendation of content has occurred and If there are any minor variations in tbrmatting, they are the result of the conversion to digital format.'

Date

ORIOINAUTY STATEMENT

I l^eby (kclùre that this submission is my own work ^nd U> the be^ of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational Institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have workecf at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project's design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression Is acknowledged.' signed -rrrrr.....^ oaf Jlkl.^.

The Councils of Henry II in England

José Manuel Cerda

A thesis submitted to the University of New South Wales in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History

2007 Contents

Acknowledgements 4

Abbreviations 6

Introduction 12

1. The King and his Councils 32

2. Nomenclature 91

3. Time and Space 122

4. General Consultation 161

5. The Business of the Realm 188

6. Assembled as One Man 221

7. Councils and 267

Conclusion 291

Appendices 298

Bibliography 320

Cover image: stone carving of a twelfth-century king, possibly a depiction of Henry II (Church of St Mary's Iffley, ) Acknowledgements

I have come across the friendship and good will of so many people because of this project, not all of whom can be mentioned here. I want to express my gratitude first and foremost to John Hudson, my external supervisor at the University of St Andrews. This thesis would not have been completed without his advice and support. I am also greatly indebted to John Maddicott, Highfield, Nicholas Doumanis, and David Cahill, for patiently reading proofs and providing important commentary. The complexities of this subject and my personal shortcomings have surely demanded a great deal of assistance. I am equally grateful to the late Rees R. Davies for opening all doors to me during my research visit to . The support of Martyn Lyons and the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences of the University of New South Wales has also been crucial in facilitating conference and research travel. I also benefited a great deal from the very useful assistance offered to me by Julia Smith at the University of Glasgow and from the supportive and friendly environment of its Medieval History Department.

Insightful guidance was extended to me by Clanchy, Thomas Bisson, John Watts, Benjamin Thompson, Peter Linehan, Martin Brett, Richard Oram, Judith Green, and David Carpenter. Equally useful was the assistance with vernacular sources and the access to records by Nicholas Vincent, Richard Sharpe, Judith Everard, Nicholas Kam, Hugh Doherty, Mark Hagger and Peter Damian-Grint. I ought to thank as well the librarians and staff of the and the Taylorian Institute at Oxford, the and the National Archives, for their diligence and patience in the face of unceasing requests.

My project originally included a study of the curias plenas, the Spanish equivalent to English royal councils. Research trips across northern Spain were a very pleasant and rewarding experience thanks to the generous assistance and friendship of many people, particularly of Fernando Luis Corral, José Manuel Pérez-Prendes, Félix Martínez Llórente, Santiago Domínguez Sánchez and Fr Manuel Pérez Recio. I also ought to thank many acquantainces in Madrid, León, Burgos, Valladolid, Murcia, and , whose hospitality greatly sweetened the archival routine; a welcomed refreshment throughout the burning days of the Spanish summer. The archivists of the of León, the Colegiata of San Isidoro, the Municipal Archive of Burgos, the Archivo Histórico Nacional in Madrid and the Arxiú de la Corona d' Aragó in Barcelona, were particularly helpful.

I would also like to thank the administrative staff of the School of History at the University of New South Wales, particularly the assistance of Lyn Stump, the late Jenni Granger, and my undergraduate thesis supervisors, Philip Edwards and Max Harcourt.

Many of my friends in Sydney, Oxford and Glasgow would also deserve a mention for providing a home-like environment away from home, and for making my academic routine more bearable. I particularly treasure the most entertaining conversations and bagpipe lessons with Norman MacLean in Glasgow. He was an untiring source of wisdom and encouragement.

Lastly but most importantly, I acknowledge the unrelenting support of my family and friends in Chile, for whom this project has been a painfully enduring experience. I am particularly indebted to my brother Juan Ignacio, whose ability and good will saved me from having to deal with sophisticated software in the crafting of maps.

J.M.C. Glasgow, 2007 Abbreviations

Adams, CC G.B. Adams, Council and in Anglo-Norman England {Oi^ioxd, 1926). AHR The American Historical Review. ANS Anglo-Norman Studies. ASC The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, volume 7, MS. E, ed. S. Irvine (, 2004). Battle Chronicle Chronicon Monaster ii de Bello: The Chronicle of , ed. and trans. E. Searle (Oxford, 1980). Barber, Henry R. Barber, Henry Plantagenet, third edition (Woodbridge, Plantagenet 2001). Bartlett, England R. Bartlett, England under the Norman and Angevin Kings 1075-1225 (Oxford, 2000). Benoit Benoit de Saint Maure, Chroniques de Dues de Normandie, ed. C. Fahlin, 2 volumes (Lund, 1951). Carpenter, Struggle D. Carpenter, The Struggle for Mastery (, 2003). for Mastery CCR Calendar of the Charter Rolls: Preserved in the Public Record Office, 6 volumes (London, 1903-27). Clanchy, England M.T. Clanchy, England and its Rulers, 1066-1272, second edition (Oxford, 1998). CJB Chronica Jocelini de Brakelonda, de Rebus Gestis Samsonis Abbatis Monasterii Sancti Edmundi: The Chronicle of Jocelin of Brackelond, ed. and trans. H.E. Butler (Oxford, 1949). CM Chronica de Mailros, ed. J. Stevenson (, 1835). In English translation: 'The Chronicle of Melrose', Mediaeval Chronicles of , trans. J. Stevenson (Lampeter, 1998). CS Councils and Synods with Other Documents Relating to the English Church, volume I, part II, 1066-1204, ed. D. Whitelock, M. Brett and C.N.L. Brooke (Oxford, 1981). Dialogus de . The Course of the by Scaccario Richard, FitzNigel, and Constitutio Domus Regis. The Establishment of the Royal Household, ed. C. Johnson, corrected by F.E.L. Carter and D.E. Greenaway (Oxford, 1983). Delisle, Recueil Recueil des Actes de Henri 11, Roi dAngleterre et Due de Normandie, ed. L. Delisle and E. Berger, 4 volumes (Paris, 1916-27). Diceto 'Ymagines Historiarum', Radulfi de Diceto Opera Histórica, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 volumes (London, 1876). Eadmer, HNA Historia Novorum in Anglia, ed. M. Rule (London, 1884). Eadmer, History Eadmer's History of Recent Events in England, trans. G. Bosanquet (London, 1964). EEA English Episcopal Acta. EHD English Historical Documents, volume 2, 1042-1189, ed. D. Douglas and G. Greenaway second edition (London, 1981). EHR English Historical Review. English Lawsuits English Lawsuits from William 1 to Richard 1, ed. R.C. van Caenegem, 2 volumes (London, 1990-1). EYC Early Charters Being a Collection of Documents Anterior to the Thirteenth Century, volumes 1-3, ed. W. Fairer (London, 1914-16). Eyton, R.W. Eyton, Court, Household, and Itinerary of King Henry II {London, 1878). Gervase Gervase of , Gervasii Monachi Cantuariensis Opera Historica, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 volumes (London, 1879- 80). GFL The Letters and Charters of Gilbert of Foliot, ed. A. Morey and C.N.L. Brooke (Cambridge, 1967). Glanvill Tractatus de Legibus et Consuetudinibus Regni Anglie qui Glanville Vocatur: The Treatise on the and Customs of England Commonly Called Glanvill, ed. and trans. G.D.G. Hall, revised edition (Oxford, 1993). GS , ed. and trans. K.R. Potter, revised edition by R.H.C. Davis (Oxford, 1976). Guemes Guemes de Pont-Sainte-Maxence, La Vie de Saint Thomas de Canterbury, volume I, ed. and trans. J. T.E. Thomas (Louvain, 2002). Hody, Councils H. Hody, A History of English Councils and Convocations (London, 1701). Howden, Chronica , Chronica Rogeri de Hovedene, ed. W. Stubbs, 4 volumes (London, 1868-71). Howden, Annals H.T. Riley, The Annals of Roger de Hoveden, 3 volumes (Felinfach, 1996). Howden, Gesta Roger of Howen, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbati, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 volumes (London, 1867). Huntingdon , Historia Anglorum: The History of the , Henry, of Huntingdon, ed. and trans. Diana Greenway (Oxford, 1996). HWM L 'Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal: The History of William Marshal, volume 1, ed. A.J. Holden, trans. S. Gregory (London, 2002). John of Worcester Chronicon Johannis Wigornensis: Chronicle of John of Worcester, volume 2, ed. P. McGurk (Oxford, 1998). Jordan of Fantosme The Chronicle of Jordan Fantosme, ed. and trans. R.C. Johnston (Oxford, 1981). JBS The Journal of British Studies US The Letters of John of , II, 1163-1180, ed. W.J. Millor and C.N.L. Brooke (Oxford, 1986). LPB Petri Blesensis Opera Omnia, ed. J.A. Giles, 4 volumes (Oxford, 1846-7). Lyon, Constitutional A Constitutional and of Medieval England (New , 1960). , HN , Historia Novella, ed. E. King (Oxford, 1998). Malmesbury, GRA William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum: The History of the English Kings, ed. and trans, by R.A.B. Mynors, completed by R.M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom (Oxford, 1998). Matthew Paris Matthaei Parisiensis Chronica Majora, ed. H.R Luard, 7 volumes (London, 1872-84). Monasticon William Dugdale et al, Monasticon Anglicanum: A History of the Abbeys and other , Hospitals, Frieries, and Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, with their Dependencies, in England and Wales, 6 volumes (London, 1817-30). MTB Materials for the History of Thomas , ed. J.C. Robertson, 7 volumes (London, 1875-85). MVSH Adam of Eynsham, Magna Vita Sancti Hugonis: The Life of St , 2 volumes, ed. D. L. Douie and D.H. Farmer (Oxford, 1985). Newburgh , 'Historia Rerum Anglicarum', Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, volume 1, ed. R. Howlett (London, 1884). Orderic , Historia Ecclesiastica, The Ecclesiastical History, ed. and trans. M. Chibnall, 6 volumes (Oxford, 1969-80). Parry, Parliaments C.H. Parry, Parliaments and Great Councils of Britain and {l^ondon, 1839). PR , 30 volumes (London, 1884-). Reynolds, Kingdoms S. Reynolds, Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe (Oxford, 1984). RRAN Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, volume 2, ed. C. Johnson and H.A. Cronne (Oxford, 1956), volume 3, H.A. Cronne and R.H.C. Davis (Oxford, 1968). RRS Regesta Regum Scottorum, volume 1, Malcolm IV, 1153- 1165, ed. G.W.S. Barrow (Edinburgh, 1960). Torigni , 'Chronica Roberti de Torigneio', Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, ed. R. Howlett, 4 volumes (London, 1884-9). TRHS Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. Wace, The Roman de Rou, ed. and trans. G. Burgess et al (Jersey, 2002). Warren, Henry II W.L. Warren, Henry II (Berkeley, 1973). Warren, Governance The Governance of Norman and Angevin England, 1086- 1272 (London, 1987). What king, going to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand?

St Luke, 14:31-32 Introduction

For England and its inhabitants, the reign of Henry II meant years of , reforms and consolidation, but also a period of political crises, war and rebellions. But if Henry held firmly the reins of his realm and his decisions were sometimes characteristic of arbitrary lordship, the course of such eventful decades was not only shaped by his personal abilities and character.' The complexity and importance of the measures and policies adopted during his reign very often claimed the expertise of his court and the counsel of his nobles. The restoration of peace, order and after his , the handling of the Becket conflict and his sons' rebellions, the promulgation of general , edicts and , and the unprecedented number of administrative, judicial and fiscal

' Jolliffe described Angevin governance as a "perversion of Christian ", and argued that Henry II's modus operandi was that of a ruthless and arbitrary lord, deaf to the advice of his nobles. See J.E.A. Jolliffe, Angevin Kingship (London, 1955), pp. 9, 13, 50, 166-175; and J.F. Baldwin, The King's Council in England during the (Oxford, 1913), p. 10. reforms, would have been overwhelming matters for a twelfth-cenUiry monarch to decide and enforce without the assistance of the . Such undertakings, moreover, not only superseded the competence and the dignity of the king and his court, but in dealing with the of customary practices and important issues touching the interests of the kingdom's powerful nobles, they were often opened to discussion and subject to some form of approval.

Like his predecessors and most European monarchs at the time, Henry relied heavily and constantly on the counsel of his court and entourage, as well as on the advice of influential in his kingdom. In this way perhaps, the king could assist his decisions on regular issues such as the running of the royal household, the planning of battles, the logistics of travel, the administration of land and , the celebration of ceremonies, and a variety of other ordinary business.^ But the public discussion of weighty matters, such as the royal succession or the reform of custom and , could only take place when the king, his court, and the nobles of the realm were assembled at councils. The meeting of councils, therefore, embodied a particular form of royal consultation, which will be the subject of the present study.

The approach of the present study rests on a fundamental yet often overlooked distinction between the sessions of the and conciliar activity. In this period and for the purpose of our analysis, the court {curia) is understood as a small body of advisors close to the monarch, and a group distinct from the royal household. It was the central organ of monarchical government, which met to treat business concerning the ordinary administration of the kingdom. This court was often enlarged by the presence of nobles outside the circle of permanent courtiers, who came to feast and celebrate with the monarch, or to assist in a variety of undertakings and discussions which required their position or expertise. A council {concilium), on the other hand, was a large and public assembly to which all the important nobles of the land were formally summoned by the monarch, to discuss matters concerning the entire realm and requiring general

^ Recent work on private counsel is in J.G.H. Hudson, 'Henry I and Counsel', The Medieval State-. Essays Presented to James Campbell, ed. J.R. Maddicott and D.M. Palliser (London, 2000), pp. 100-125. assent, and accordingly assist central governance while procuring peace and political stability for the kingdom. Our analysis of royal assemblies in the reign of Henry II will assume this to be the most appropriate understanding of this crucial distinction.

In this period, a royal council was therefore a congregation of the kingdom's nobility including great churchmen, summoned to a particular location and presided over by the monarch in the company and with the assistance of the royal court and its officials. As such, a council constituted a uniquely significant occasion in the political and social life of the realm, for in concentrating at once and in one place most -if not all- of the kingdom's powerful, it allowed for the granting of concessions, property and privileges, as well as for the discussion, promulgation and application of measures affecting the kingdom as a whole. This is what "general consultation" was essentially about. England, unlike most medieval kingdoms, was a land divided into shires and hundreds, communities that were units of royal government. A relationship of power between the magnates -both lay and clerical- and the central administration of the monarch dictated the political course and legitimised the governance of the kingdom. A council was an occasion when such territorial fragmentation was for a few days brought to a halt, enabling -and often enhancing- political confluence and cooperation.^ Such a meeting, however, could also witness fierce disputes and stormy confrontations, and such was actually the case for several of Henry's assemblies.

These gatherings were political events when general consultation took place, and as such, they have also been the passing object of studies concerned with counsel and consent in the Middle Ages. For J.S. Roskell and many others, the emergence of parliament is a phenomenon intimately related with the feudal aspects of royal consultation. Providing the monarch with counsel was in this period a service and a duty owed by all great nobles of the kingdom by virtue of

^ All these features will remain central for the development of parliaments in the following centuries. See Historical Studies of the English Parliament, ed. E. Miller and E.B. Fryde, volume 1 (Cambridge, 1970), p. 6. the which resulted from the tenure of land."^ The historiography of royal consultation explains that mainly as a consequence of the feudalisation of Europe in general, and the in particular, the nobles of England owed consilium and auxilium to their monarch, that is counsel and aid.^ The auxilium was embodied in the military service that all tenants-in-chief were obliged to perform, and the consilium was identified with the political advice that kings demanded from their powerful vassals. The public exercise of such a royal relationship was manifested in the meeting of a royal council. At the same time, however, royal consultation was not only beneficial to the monarchy but for all who attended these meetings, for according to custom and the rightful exercise of kingship, monarchs were expected to consult their important vassals on matters of significance. A godly and wise monarch -so stipulated the prevailing political thought of the time- was that one who listened to the advice of those around him, because in the words of one of Becket's hagiographers, 'no weighty matter should be decided without counsel'.^

In summoning councils, English monarchs were thus requesting the advice of their tenants-in-chief on various matters of governance, as well as obtaining general assent to policies and measures. It is not surprising then to find general

J.S. Roskell, 'The Problem of the Attendance of the Lords in Medieval Parliaments', Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 29 (1956), p. 198; Parliament and Politics in Late Medieval England (London, 1981-3), pp. 448-52. Refer also to J.R. Maddicott, 'An Infinite Multitude of Nobles: Quality, Quantity and Politics in the Pre-Reform Parliaments of Henry IIP, Thirteenth Century England, 7 (Woodbridge, 1999), p. 18. ^ Baldwin writes in reference to the king's council that 'its origin is found in the prevailing theory and practice of the feudal world, according to which the king, like any other lord, was accustomed to receive the "aid and counsel" of his vassals. It was vaguely the right and duty of the lord to demand this, as it was also the right and duty of a vassal to give it' (Baldwin, The King's Council, p. 3). Susan Reynolds has challenged the association between land tenure and the duty to provide counsel to the king, suggesting that the constant presence of in assemblies indicates that there was nothing particularly feudal about royal consultation (See Reynolds, Kingdoms, pp. 303, 314; and Fiefs and Vassals, the Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (Oxford, 1996), pp. 19-20, 101, 157). Reynolds' view is also shared by Thomas Bisson in reference to continental assemblies (T.N. Bisson, 'The General Court of : A Reconsideration', Parliaments, Estates and Representation, 20 (2000), p. 27; and 'Celebration and Persuasion: Reflections on the Cultural Evolution of Medieval Consultation', Legislative Studies Quarterly, 1 (1982), p. 187). More recently, however, Bisson has written: 'Medievalists today live in a self-erected torture-house of imagined dangers, some of them derived from social anthropology, others conjured up by the deconstructionalists of , still others the false friends of a cult of originality' (T.N. Bisson, 'The Problem of Medieval Parliamentarism', Parliaments, Estates, and Representation, 21 (2001), p. 10). ^ MTB, iv.305. An English translation can be found in EHD, ii.770-1. Herbert of Bosham refers to the Book of Wisdom in making this assertion, which relates to the approval of the royal constitutions at the Council of Clarendon in 1164. Another evangelical reference to the importance of political counsel is in St Luke, 14: 31-32. councils often defined in the literature as "royal consultations". Political consultation has been discussed in one way or another and to different extents by most histories of medieval England, but serious work exclusively devoted to counsel in this period -both private and conciliar- has left a great deal to be done, and particularly for the reign of Henry II.

The gathering of councils was one of the most efficient means of assisting the central tasks of monarchical governance. It was an occasion when centrifugal and centripetal channels were opened in a world dominated by difficult communications and distant loyalties: in the presence of England's nobles, the king and his court could obtain important information from the counties as well as delivering royal commands to the localities. Indeed, such meetings constituted a most crucial and efficacious political occasion for monarchs, who could otherwise only achieve such communication and control by means of expensive and prolonged itinerancy. Medieval parliaments will inherit this essential aspect of councils, as Edward Miller suggests, 'among the features which characterise early parliaments we may not ignore the habit of bringing the whole governmental force of England into a focus, the habit of concentrating intense administrative activity on the part of all the officials and offices of the king's government in one place and at the same time'.^ As English councils developed and gained importance throughout the twelfth century, the monarchy was gradually enabled to hold the reins of the kingdom more tightly, thus slowly contributing to the centralisation of government, and naturally, to the proliferation, sophistication and

o specialisation of royal offices.

Such a congregation was not only a momentous event for the main political actors, but it must have been an exhilarating occasion also for the town dwellers

^ E. Miller, The Origins of Parliament (London, 1967), p. 10. See also J.C. Holt, 'Prehistory of Parliament', The English Parliament in the Middle Ages, ed. R.G. Davies and J.H Denton (, 1981), pp. 4-6. ^ It has been argued by C. Warren Hollister and John W. Baldwin that this process is made manifest in England under Henry I, but W.L. Warren has challenged their views by suggesting that the reign of Henry I meant a 'transition from a sophisticated form of non-modem state managed through social mechanisms to a crude form of modem state organised through administrative institutions' (W.L. Warren, 'The Myth of Norman Administrative Efficiency: the Prothero Lecture', TRHS, Fifth Series, 34 (1984), p. 132. See also C.W. Hollister and J.W. Baldwin, 'The Rise of Administrative Kingship: Henry I and Philip Augustus', AHR, 83 (1978), pp. 867-905). and villagers that hosted the king, his court and entourage, the prelates and , , of the realm, and their accompanying hosts, travelling for days from all comers of the kingdom.^ They all had to be accommodated, entertained and fed, sometimes for many days and usually at the expense and care of the hosting dwellers. For most residents in a small locality, it was probably the first and last chance to see their king and such an impressively large and illustrious procession of magnates; for the multitudes at the , they must have been unforgettable days of feasting and amusement. For the chronicle sources, the holding of a council was a most special occasion: rex Henricus concilium celebravit was the customary form of reporting such an eventful occasion.

Above all, and in every sense, a council was the public stage of England's political life and a crucial occasion for the consolidation of Angevin governance; one for the display of social status, pageantry, ceremony and rituals, for the resolution of animosities and the transaction of privileges, property and information, for the administration of justice, the promulgation of laws, assizes, edicts and constitutions, for the discussion of treaties, alliances and military action, and not the least, a royal gathering that prompted communal worship, feasting, and celebration. It provided a unique opportunity for the performance of consensual politics; one of the underwriters of stability in the kingdom and of Angevin polity. On the other hand, councils were also occasions for discord, and the sites of fierce disputes and antagonism among those present. It is at least surprising that such eventful meetings have not yet afforded a comprehensive study.

Political assemblies, however, were by no means a political novelty of the twelfth century, but followed a long tradition embodied in the meeting of the Anglo-Saxon and the Anglo-Norman councils from the conquest in 1066 to the end of Stephen's reign in 1154. England was unified in the early tenth century under the West Saxon monarchy and government by itineration must have become increasingly difficult. Having the nobles coming to assemblies would

^ Robert Bartlett illustrates this consideration by making reference to the magnitude of the Council of Clarendon, assembled in 1164 (Bartlett, England, p. 144). This usage may show significant patterns which will be studied in the chapter on nomenclature. have satisfied the new demands of governance which accompanied the enlargement of the kingdom. This practice was continued in England by Norman rulers after 1066, but it is likely that some conciliar features were adapted to the new organisation of the kingdom.

It is likely that this tradition was also shaped by conciliar practices developed by the Church since before the fall of the Roman Empire, the most significant of which was perhaps the meeting of ecumenical councils, the first one summoning the prelates of all Christendom at Nicea in the year 325." At a local level, councils and synods gathered the clergy to discuss issues and promulgate canons concerning ecclesiastical administration and spiritual matters relating to some or all the dioceses in the kingdom. In fact, as early as 673, the church in England established that two synods were to meet every year, although they lapsed in the ninth and tenth centuries.'^ As some of the important clergy were also royal officials and influential landowners close to the affairs of the court, it is logical to suggest that ecclesiastical conventions must have been particularly important in shaping secular practice as well.'^

The witenagemot or Witan, was the royal assembly of Anglo-Saxon England and gathered the wise men of the land with certain regularity. The most comprehensive, though now outdated, study of these meetings was presented in 1913 by Felix Liebermann in The National Assembly in the Anglo-Saxon Period. More recent but still outdated is the study offered by T. Oleson, who has

" Among an extensive bibliography, further information on these councils can be found in H. Jedin, Ecumenical Councils of the : An Historical Survey (New York, 1961). F. Lieberman, The National Assembly in the Anglo-Saxon Period (London, 1913), p. 46. Some local ecclesiastical councils in the medieval period are referenced in J.M. Wallace- Hadrill, The Barbarian West 400-1000 (Oxford, 1985), pp. 122-8. Particularly relevant for England is Councils and Synods with Other Documents Relating to the English Church, vol. 1: A.D. 871-1204, ed. D. Whitelock, M. Brett and C.N.L Brooke (Oxford, 1981). Ecclesiastical influence on royal assemblies has been explored in A. Marongiu, Medieval Parliaments: A Comparative Study (London, 1968), p. 41; B. Tiemey, 'Freedom and the Medieval Church', The Origins of Modern Freedom in the West, ed. R.W. Davies (Stanford, 1995), pp. 66, 88; A.R. Myers, 'Representation as a European Tradition', History Today, 5 (1955), p. 98; and G. Post, 'Roman Law and Early Representation in Spain and , 1150-1250', Speculum, 18 (1943), pp. 96-9. As records were produced by clergy, it is not surprising to encounter similar terminology in the description of ecclesiastical and royal gatherings, without there being necessarily a correspondence in institutional practice (See Reynolds, Kingdoms, p. 304). It must be noted, however, that many laymen replaced clerks in royal offices, a process which was accelerated in the reign of Henry II (See R.V. Turner, 'The Literatus in Twelfth- and Thirteenth-Century England: How Rare a Phenomenon?', AHR, 83 (1978), pp. 928-45). nevertheless made an important contribution to the subject in offering a comprehensive and detailed study of the witenagemot during the reign of .

As pointed out, Anglo-Norman councils inherited and continued the conciliar tradition established in the late Anglo-Saxon period, but the effects of William's invasion on institutional practices is still a debatable matter. The councils summoned by Anglo-Norman kings have received some treatment by the secondary sources, but generally as small chapters of royal biographies or as incidental passages of political or ecclesiastical studies, and not as subjects of detailed institutional analysis. Compilations by Humphrey Hody at the beginning of eighteenth century and C.H. Parry in 1839 have modestly grouped English councils without pretending to be thorough studies, and G.B. Adams' Council and Courts in Anglo-Norman England, while contributing a great deal to the subject is no longer considered an up-to-date reference. For a long time, it has been necessary to emulate the professional approach of the editors of Councils and Synods With Other Documents Relating to the English Church, who have offered the most complete analysis of ecclesiastical assemblies in twelfth-century England. Their reference to royal councils, however, is understandably modest.'^ Judith Green's work on the governance of England during the reign of Henry I, offers insightful comments on those royal councils which assembled from 1100 to 1135. The present study embarks on a project similar to Adams' but having as a subject the councils of Henry I's grandson, and unlike the compilation of Councils and Synods, it is exclusively concerned with secular assemblies, and only with those that met in England. This work does not include, therefore, the councils of Henry II which assembled in the continent, nor is it concerned with political consultation outside general assemblies.

Liebermann, The National Assembly, T. Oleson, The Witenagemot in the Reign of Edward the Confessor (London, 1955). See also F. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England {Oxiord, 1971), pp. 552-6, 564-72, and particularly pp. 555-6; P.H. Blair, An Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England, third edition (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 215-21. Some of the observations here made about the Witan and early Norman courts and councils will served as comparative points when discussing the nature of Henry IFs assemblies in the following chapters. ^^ J.A. Green, The Government of England under Henry I (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 20-4; Hody, A History of English Councils and Convocations (London, 1701); C.H. Parry, Parliaments and Great Councils of Britain and Ireland {London, 1839); G.B. Adams, Council and Courts in Anglo- Norman England (Oxford, 1926); CS. Primary sources which contained information on the sessions of the Witan and the councils of Anglo-Norman England have a great deal to offer but not as much as the conciliar data considered by English chroniclers from the middle of the twelfth century.'^ The reigns of Henry I and Stephen are the subjects of several chronicles, among them the narratives of Eadmer, Henry of Huntingdon, Orderic Vitalis, William of Malmesbury, Symeon of Durham, John of Worcester, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the Gesta Stephani, as well as the overlapping chronicles of William of Newburgh and of Battle Abbey.Most of these writers are acquainted with conciliar terminology and are not afraid to use it in the description of ecclesiastical gatherings. The information they offer concerning royal councils, however, is very modest if compared to the literary corpus of Angevin chronicles; firstly, because councils were summoned less frequently under Henry I and Stephen, and secondly, because some of these gatherings simply failed to attract the attention of contemporary historians. Some changes in the conciliar terminology and the nature of the sources throughout the twelfth century will be studied further in the second chapter.

As we have suggested, the meeting of a royal council was an event somehow affecting the entire kingdom and, as such, very rarely escaped the narrative of chronicles. Most of these chronicles followed the monastic literary traditions, with a few exceptions of accounts possibly closer to the affairs of the royal court and the politics of governance. This is indeed the case of the histories left by Roger of Howden, a cleric and royal official, who composed the most important chronicles for the reign of Henry II, the Chronica Rogeri Hovedene and the Gesta Regis 18 Henrici Secundi, formerly attributed to Benedict of . Roger's Gesta

Among the main chronicle sources covering the period 1100 to 1154 are Eadmer's Historia Novorum in Anglia, the Gesta Stephani, Henry of Huntingdon's Historia Anglorum, The Chronicle of John of Worcester, Orderic Vitalis' The Ecclesiastical History, William of Malmesbury's Historia Novella and De Gestis Regum Anglorum, and William of Newburgh's Historia Rerum Anglicarum. There are several other local histories and monastic accounts for the period. In terms of official records, a new edition of the charters of Henry I and Stephen will soon appear, but the existing are the volumes of the Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum. A collection of the main primary sources for conciliar activity is included in appendix 9. See A. Gransden, Historical Writing in England, vol. 1, c.550-c.l307 (London, 1974), pp. 1 Só- li 9; and Bartlett, England, pp. 616-33. See D.M. Stenton, 'Roger of Howden and Benedict', EHR, 68 (1953), pp. 575-9; and F. Barlow, 'Roger of Howden', EHR, 65 (1950), pp. 352-60. The authorship of the Gesta Regis Henrici was written as a contemporary draft of the events from 1169 to 1192, while his Chronica was compiled later, and it is a more polished and ambitious version, which narrates the since 732. It is 'generally considered to be the most reliable and well-informed work of English history produced in the late twelfth century'.^^ These chronicles provide the most complete and consistent reports of Henry's councils, which are described concisely -within a paragraph or two-, but clearly identifying the gatherings as concilia with more terminological precision than the other chronicles. This is particularly the case for the councils of the and , when Roger's writing is contemporaneous with the gatherings, some of which he may well have attended. This is not surprising given that Roger was in the king's service and linked to the royal court, becoming a justice of the forests for the northern shires in 1189 and accompanying Richard I on the .^^ Roger may be described as an informed historian, at least in comparison to contemporary writers, for he draws on significant experience and a number of narrative sources, and also incorporates into his description a range of important royal documents. He is therefore an indispensable source for constitutional history, and a very helpful informant in political matters. According to Frank Barlow, Roger 'had clearly moved in court circles, was greatly interested in the internal and external aspects of Angevin government, had good sources of information, and was able to use a personal knowledge of public events and of official records'.^' When it comes to the description of royal governance and

Secundi has been attributed to -who had the chronicle copied for his library- since Stubbs' Rolls Series edition of the chronicle in 1867. Antonia Gransden questioned the conclusions of Stenton, and argued that the Gesta may be an anonymous composition (Gransden, Historical Writing, i.226-30). David Comer, on the other hand, has defended Stenton's findings, and suggested that the parson of Howden is also the royal clerk, and thus the author of the Gesta, which was probably written in 1192-3, while the Chronica was written later, between 1192-3 and 1201-2 (D. Comer, 'The Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi and Chronica of Roger, Parson of Howden', Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 56 (1983), pp. 126-144). D. Comer, 'The Earliest Surviving Manuscripts of Roger of Howden's Chronica', EHR, 98 (1983), p. 297; Comer, 'The Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi\ p. 144. Stenton, 'Roger of Howden', pp. 575-9. Barlow, 'Roger of Howden', p. 358; Comer, 'The Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi", p. 133; Gransden, Historical Writing, i.226-30. Robert Bartlett points out that 'much of the legislation of Henry II, for instance, survives only because it was transcribed into the historical writings' of Roger (Bartlett, England, p. 627). John Gillingham also indicates that Roger was a well traveled and politically informed chronicler (J. Gillingham, The English in the Twelfth Century (Woodbridge, 2000), pp. 69-93). J.C. Holt has indicated that the assizes in Roger of Howden's chronicles are not later additions but integral parts of the narrative, and that the survival of these texts bears witness to the importance of this historian (J.C. Holt, 'The Assizes of Henry II: The Texts,' The Study of Medieval Records: Essays in Honour of Kathleen Mayor, ed. D.A. Bullough and B.A. Storey (Oxford, 1971), pp. 87-91, 101). Furthermore, Anne Duggan has pointed out that administration, it is difficult to find an equivalent chronicler for the reigns of Henry I and Stephen.

Other general histories of England covering the events of this reign are the Latin chronicles of Gervase of Canterbury, Ralph of Diceto, William of Newburgh, Robert of Torigni, , and The Chronicle of Battle Abbey. In reference to the councils related to the , no descriptions are as detailed as the hagiographies of William FitzStephen and Herbert of Bosham. Particularly useful within the vernacular tradition in this period, are the Old French chronicles of Benoit de Saint Maure and Jordan of Fantosme, as well as The History of William Marshal, Guemes de Pont-Sainte-Maxence's biography of , and the Icelandic account of the archbishop's feat in the Thomas Saga Erkibyskups. Also informative are the collection of contemporary letters, the most relevant of which are those written by , Thomas Becket, and Gilbert of Foliot.

Just as the narrative of Roger of Howden offers the most substantial and detailed accounts of the assemblies summoned from 1175 to 1188, the Chronicle of Battle Abbey is the principal source for the councils of the , which the writer generally calls concilia or magna concilia. But unlike the Gesta or the Chronica, the chronicler at Battle Abbey follows the traditional patterns of a monastic narrative, primarily concerned with ecclesiastical and religious matters, and less so with affairs of the court and secular government. After Roger and Becket's hagiographers, however, the scribe of Battle provides the most complete descriptions of royal councils in this period. 22

unlike Ralph of Diceto, who had a tendency to abbreviate long texts, Roger incorporated into his narrative most documents and long letters in full (A. Duggan, 'Ne in Dubium: The Official Record of Henry IPs Reconciliation at , 21 May 1172', EHR, 115 (2000), p. 656). G.O. Sayles, on the contrary, has accused Roger of Howden of generally neglecting to report the business of English assemblies. Sayles, The King's Parliament, pp. 22-3: '...even the twelfth-century chronicler, Roger of Howden, who was interested in politics and administration, rarely informs us of the business transacted at the great festivals... Howden has nothing definite to say of the council at Clarendon that met in the winter of 1165-66...where some momentous legislation was promulgated'. Apart from feasting occasions 'hardly any light at all is cast upon assemblies that met on other occasions'. While it is true that Roger is not an infallible reporter of conciliar activity, Sayles' assertion seems to overlook a substantial amount of chronicle evidence, as the chapters of this study will reveal. ^^ Refer to Battle Chronicle, pp. 16, 21-23; and N. Vincent, 'King Henry II and the Monks of Battle: the Battle Chronicle Unmasked', Belief and Culture in the Middle Ages: Studies Presented The councils of the are best described by the Latin and vernacular biographies of Thomas Becket, some of which were witness account of the discussions at Woodstock in 1163, Clarendon and in 1164. From these reports, the historian obtains the most detailed insights into the proceedings of a royal council in twelfth-century England. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the councils linked to the Becket dispute were extraordinary occasions and thus not the most appropriate examples of royal councils in Henry's reign. Furthermore, although these biographers were contemporaries of the archbishop and these councils, their biographies are not. Having these considerations in mind, the detail revealed about royal councils in the accounts of William FitzStephen, Guemes de Pont-Sainte-Maxence and Herbert of Bosham is unrivalled among English chroniclers of the period.^^

Our knowledge of royal councils is also assisted by Ralph of Diceto, archdeacon and, from 1180, the dean of St Paul's Cathedral in London. He was a learned man, who studied in Paris and, like Roger of Howden, was acquainted with the affairs of the royal court and political matters. In 1166, he was sent to the papal curia as representative of the excommunicated by Becket, and in 1189 he officiated at the coronation of Richard L He was probably present at the councils of Northampton in October 1164 and London in ll??.^"^ His major work, the Ymagines Historiarum, draws a great deal of information from the letters of , of London, and the chronicle of Robert of Torigni. References to councils, moreover, are very modest and the terminology employed to identify meetings is often descriptive and imprecise, usually preferring the term tractatus to concilium.

to Henry Mayr-Harting, ed. R. Gameson and H. Leyser (Oxford, 2001), pp. 264-287. See also Gransden, Historical Writing, i.272-80. ^^ Recent studies offer comprehensive information on these hagiographers. See, for example, M. Staunton, Thomas Becket and His Biographers (Woodbridge, 2006), pp. 31-40, 56-60, 101-10, 32- 40; A. Duggan, Thomas Becket (London, 2004), pp. 41-8, 61-82; and Gransden, Historical Writing, i.298-306. According to Stubbs, however, 'in the roll of English historians of the twelfth century no name stands higher than that of ' (, Historical Introductions to the Rolls Series, collected and edited by A. Hassall (London, 1902), pp. 35, 50, 57-8, 79). See also GxdinsdQn, Historical Writing, i.230-35. Robert of Torigni, also known as Robert de Monte, became of Le Bee in 1149 and of Mont-Saint-Michel in 1154. Unlike the other Latin chroniclers of Henry's reign, Robert was based in and his narrative is therefore more concerned with continental affairs. He wrote the Gesta Normannorum Ducum in sequence to the work of William of Jumieges and Orderic Vitalis, and his account is a particularly important source for the events of the 1150s and 1160s.'' He included a valuable report of Henry's coronation, but although he was familiar with temporal affairs across the Channel, his references to councils held in England are accordingly thin and distant.

Closer to English affairs was Gervase, a monk of Christ Church in Canterbury. He was among the clergy that buried Thomas Becket and was one of the monks entangled in the celebrated dispute between the Cathedral and Archbishop Baldwin in the 1180s. His chronicle covers the twelfth century and it is primarily concerned with ecclesiastical and religious matters, and particularly those of his diocese, all of which is reported concisely.^^ However, he is not unaware of political events and royal councils rarely escaped his attention. Like Ralph of Diceto, his descriptions of assemblies are concise and he occasionally employs the term concilium.

William of Newburgh's Historia Rerum Anglicarum is another important source for the reign of Henry II, although it is mainly known for reporting details of during the reign of Stephen. He was a Yorkshire monk, and his chronicle provides insightful descriptions of political situations and of Henry's character and kingship.^^ References to royal councils, however, are limited to the 1150s and 1160s, and they offer little contribution to the subject. Such is also the case of Gerald of Wales, a learned and well travelled clerk, who wrote a number of chronicles describing the geography and political situation in Ireland and Wales, as well as devoting some lines to Henry's personality and governance. He

^^ The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumieges, Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Torigni, ed. and trans. E.M.C, van Houts (Oxford, 1995), and 'Chronica Roberti de Torigneio', Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, ed. R. Howlett, 4 volumes (London, 1884-9). See also Gransden, Historical Writing, i. 199-200, 262-3, and Bartlett, England, p. 41. ^^ See Gervasii Monachi Cantuariensis Opera Histórica, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 volumes (London, 1879-80), pp. ix-xv. Refer also to Bartlett, England, pp. 617-8. ^^ See Chronicles of the Reigns (i) ix-lvii; Gransden, Historical Writing, i.263-8; Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, pp. 225-6; Bartlett, England, pp. 624-7, 630-33. accompanied the future to Ireland and preached the Third Crusade in Wales with the . Although he was appointed royal chaplain in 1184, his works are generally critical of the king.^^ This is an interesting feature because with the exception of Becket's hagiographers, all other chroniclers show sympathy for Henry and his policies. It is important to bear this in mind when studying Henry's ability to obtain the assent of his nobles for measures discussed at councils. Unfortunately, only very few passages of his chronicles are concerned with the description of royal assemblies.

The correspondence of Peter of Blois is a most valuable source for the study of Henry's character and kingship, but equally, his references to councils are brief and only indirect in so far as they relate to other matters. Peter studied in Paris and and was probably a pupil of John of Salisbury. He was in the royal service in and then in England, where he became of the archbishop of Canterbury and archdeacon of Bath in 1176.^^ His letters reveal a great deal about Henry's political behaviour, and in one of them he usefully explains the king's purpose in calling councils.The correspondence of Thomas Becket, John of Salisbury and Gilbert Foliot also provide substantial data on ecclesiastical councils, but references to secular assemblies is only incidental.

The study of English affairs in this period is thus facilitated by a number of narrative accounts, many composed in Latin and a few in the vernacular French. In addition to these chronicles, the reign of Henry II is peculiarly served by an increasing number of treatises, pipe rolls, royal edicts, proclamations, constitutions and assizes; perhaps a revealing feature of the changing political culture of Europe in the later decades of the twelfth century. For the reign of Henry I, only one pipe roll has been preserved, while the accounts during the reign of his grandson are recorded for every year in the pipe rolls, except for the

^^ See the introduction of the first volume of Gerald of Wales, Giraldus Cambrensis Opera Omnia, ed. J.S. Brewer, J.F. Dimock, and G.F. Warner, 8 volumes (London, 1861-91). See also Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, pp. 5-6, 215-8, 227, and Bartlett, England, pp. 510-13. Although Gerald also included words of praise for Henry II, Robert Bartlett points out that the chronicler became particularly critical of the Angevins after retiring from the court, and that he had felt neglected by Henry and Richard in his aspirations for a bishopric. See R. Bartlett, Gerald of Wales, 1146-1223 (Oxford, 1982), pp. 59, 63-7. ^^ Bartlett, England, pp. 140-1. This important letter will be cited in other chapters {LPB, i. 195, no. 66). first year. Furthermore, Rannulf Glanvill's Treatise on the Laws and Customs of England, Richard FitzNeal's Dialogue of the Exchequer and John of Salisbury's Policraticus are extraordinary legal, administrative and political treatises respectively, which lend valuable technical information, essential to understand the policies of Henry IL This unprecedented character and volume of sources provide some ground to understand the administrative, fiscal and political thinking that contributed to the development of general assemblies.^'

The sources for the study of councils in this period are relatively abundant but, as has been pointed out, the accounts which make reference to conciliar activity are far from comprehensive, leaving much for speculation, particularly concerning the business transacted and the attendance at gatherings.^^ Furthermore, not all the information offered by the sources is completely faithful to conciliar events; chroniclers often exaggerate or mitigate descriptions, and forgeries of documents proliferate. This adds to the complexities of a source material which is often fragmentary, confusing and sometimes careless in the depiction of royal gatherings.

The summoning and celebration of these councils was normally reported by these sources with the Old French concile and the Latin concilium, which also described the meeting of ecclesiastical councils; in other parts of Europe, it was also the name given to incipient municipal bodies. During the reign of Henry II, the terms magnum concilium (great council) and generale concilium (general council) also proliferate among chronicle passages; possibly a linguistic manifestation of some changes in the composition of royal assemblies, and thus their political importance. These considerations will be analysed with more detail in one of our chapters.

While common features in the institutional organisation of West European kingdoms are repeatedly recorded in twelfth-century sources, they could be as much the result of common scribal and narrative practices as they were faithful

Refer to appendix 9 for an overview of the sources for conciliar activity in the reign of Henry II. ^^ This is also a reality affecting the parliamentary sources of the thirteenth century. See Miller and Fryde, Historical Studies, p. 3. See also Lyon, Constitutional, pp. 19-24. reflections of institutional realities, for they were mostly written by clerks and monks who possessed similar diplomatic training and responded to the same literary traditions. Nevertheless, these considerations should not lead one to conclude that the similarity of the institutional information provided by the chronicles and documents of twelfth-century Europe was merely an aspect of widespread linguistic usage. Indeed, most of the terminology employed by these sources in reference to royal assemblies seems to have followed ecclesiastical tradition -common to all Christendom in this period-, but so did the practice and features of church institutions permeate the development of royal assemblies. Stretching back to the early medieval period, the tradition and practice of ecclesiastical councils and synods provided universal guidelines for the development of royal assemblies, thus delineating similar institutional paths for most political assemblies in the twelfth century.^^

Royal of summons requesting the presence of the tenants at these council have not survived, thus depriving historians of useful information in regards to the purpose of the assemblies, the method of convocation, as well as more contingent aspects related to travel and expenses. The diplomatic evidence recorded royal donations, concessions and transactions, some of which probably resulted from the business treated at royal councils. In addition, they occasionally included clauses which indicate that the king had consulted with the nobles, some of whom appear in the witness lists at the end of each document. The output of royal chanceries in Europe -and thus the copies made by beneficiaries- generally increased throughout the twelfth century, unless particular circumstances dictated a different trend. No less than 3,200 royal charters are attributed to Henry

" Some of these church councils are sampled in Wallace-Hadrill, The Barbarian West, pp. 122-8; and CS. On the permeation of ecclesiastical practices into secular assemblies see Tiemey, 'Freedom and the Medieval Church', pp. 66, 88; Myers, 'Representation as a European Tradition', p. 98, and Post, 'Roman Law and Early Representation', pp. 96-9. This is the approximate figure of charters attributed to Henry II and being included in the forthcoming edition of the Angevin Acta. The charters of Henry II have been compiled under the direction of J.C. Holt and Nicholas Vincent, and are now close to being published. I am very grateful to Professor Vincent and Judith Everard for allowing me access to this collection, as yet unpublished. I am also in debt to those involved in the new edition of the Anglo-Norman Acta, and particularly to Nicholas Kam, for facilitating a comprehensive and very efficient survey of the charters of Henry I and Stephen. This is also a forthcoming publication. On the increase of chancery production, see M.T. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record, England 1066-1307, second edition (Oxford, 1993), pp. 58-62. According to H.E. Salter, only about one hundred of Some institutional information may be extracted from analysing original manuscripts -both narrative and official-, but our work is greatly facilitated and assisted by the study and edition of most sources useful for this subject, many of which have also been translated into English. The charters and official documents of English bishops in this period, edited in the useful volumes of the English Episcopal Acta, are also a contribution to our study.

The historiography of English councils -and particularly the work done on Henry IPs assemblies- is insufficient, fragmentary and very selective. As might be expected, only those meetings which produced political debates and disputes somehow challenging royal desires, have managed to attract some scholarly attention. After a quick glance, we are able to select several such councils which have found a place in the secondary sources because of their political importance. In the reign of Henry I, for example, the Council of London in 1107 met to resolve and settle the Investiture Conflict between the king and Archbishop Anselm, and the discussions at a council assembled at Windsor in December 1126 appear to have consolidated the position of Matilda as Henry's heir to the throne, as well as treating a conflict of supremacy between the archbishops of Canterbury and York. Only to mention two of Stephen's stormy meetings, the councils of and in April and December of 1141 decided England's future in dealing with the prevailing dispute between the king and Matilda, and in discussing matters concerning the royal succession. Although the king was only present at the Council of Westminster and both were actually legatine assemblies, the importance of these momentous meetings cannot be overlooked by any study pretending to explain the political history of twelfth-century England. Equally if not more significant were the four councils that assembled at Woodstock, Westminster, Clarendon and Northampton between July 1163 and October 1164, primarily to resolve the famous dispute between Thomas Becket and Henry II. Equally crucial were the meetings at Clerkenwell in 1185 and Geddington in 1188

royal charters surviving for the reign of Henry II were actually the product of the chancery (H.E. Salter, 'Two Forged Charters of Henry IF, EHR, 34 (1919), pp. 65-6). for the discussion of aids for the Holy Land. As such, they have also been the subject of general histories and monographic studies alike.^^

Nevertheless, these meetings represent but a small portion of Henry IPs councils. It is indeed surprising to find that, although the royal assemblies rarely failed to attract the attention of chroniclers in Henry's reign, the most significant contributions to the subject were made more than a century ago by William Stubbs in his introductions to the editions of the chronicles of Roger of Howden, and by James F. Baldwin's work on the King's Council in 1913. Having said this, these analyses of English councils under Henry II, amounted to a handful of pages, only a few more than those more recently dedicated to assemblies by W.L. Warren and Richard Barber.^^ In addition, work on early parliaments has provided the most recent contribution to the subject, which has traditionally been regarded as a prelude to the emergence of parliamentary assemblies. Ronald Butt's evolutionary analysis of the medieval English Parliament spends an entire chapter on pre-parliamentary gatherings, while John Maddicott's recent Ford Lectures devoted a whole section to the development of royal consultation and councils in England from the Norman Conquest to the end of Henry II's reign.^^

The general histories of Angevin England and the biographies of Henry II have made an enormous contribution to the political history of this period, but it is surprising to find that the great assemblies of the king and his nobles are not

^^ Recent biographical work on Thomas Becket offers comprehensive and useful information on the councils linked to the dispute with the king. Particularly important among these are Duggan, Thomas Becket, Staunton, Thomas Becket and His Biographers] and Barlow, Thomas Becket. References to the councils of the 1180s are made in F.A. Cazel, 'The Tax of 1185 in Aid of the Holy Land', Speculum, 30 (1955), pp. 385-92; and H.E. Mayer, 'Henry II of England and the Holy Land', EHR, 97 (1982), pp. 721-39. ^^ See Stubbs, Historical Introductions, pp. 161-7; See also Baldwin, The King's Council, pp. 11- 24; Warren, Governance, pp. 157, 163; Lyon, Constitutional, pp. 245-7; R. Barber, Henry Plantagenet, third edition (Woodbridge, 2001). Also useful are T. Reuter, 'Assembly Politics in Western Europe from the Eighth Century to the Twelfth', The Medieval World, ed. P. Linehan and J.L. Nelson (London, 2001), pp. 440-45; D. Queller, 'Political Institutions', One Thousand Years, ed. R. DeMolen (Boston, 1974), pp. 144-9. The studies of Reuter and Queller are not specifically focused on English councils. European perspectives on the evolution of consultation at assemblies is offered in Bisson, 'Celebration and Persuasion', pp. 181-204. ^^ R. Butt, A History of Parliament: The Middle Ages (London, 1989), pp. 21-30. See also S. Reynolds, 'The Historiography of the Medieval State', Companion to Historiography, ed. M. Bentley (London, 1997), p. 121. The Ford Lectures are annually delivered at the , and they traditionally consider an aspect of British history. Dr Maddicott's lectures were delivered in January 2004, and we look forward to see them published. afforded a chapter or at least a small section, and that the word "councils" is rarely indexed.^^ These studies provide the essential background without which an adequate understanding of these meetings becomes impossible, but while they master the period in identifying the fluctuating political situation as well as the innovations and reforms, they have a tendency to overlook the role played by assemblies in the political life of the kingdom and in devising such developments. As a complement, the present study aims to contribute to the understanding of this period by demonstrating that councils were so important, that a substantial portion of Henry's government can be studied almost entirely from analysing the features and proceedings of these meetings.

These institutional features provide our study with a structure of six chapters, each comprising of several sections. The first chapter aims to offer a chronological narrative of meetings, with more attention to those particularly crucial and best served by the source material. The objective of the section is to reveal the correspondence between the different group of councils and the stages in Henry's reign. Firstly, it will analyse those meetings involved in the restoration of peace and order after the . The second group of councils will treat the Becket conflict and the third will deal with an intense period of legislative, judicial and fiscal reforms, and the consolidation of Henry's position. The councils that followed the rebellion of his sons and discussed the participation in the Third Crusade will be the subject of the final section, which coincides with Henry's final years.

The second chapter will introduce the reader to the assemblies of the twelfth century by analysing the terminology employed by the sources to identify and

^^ Robert Bartlett's recent study includes a four-page section on assemblies as well as an entry for councils in the index (Bartlett, England, pp. 143-7, 766). It should be noted, however, that not all assemblies are royal councils. Another is found in F. Barlow, The Feudal 1042-1216, fifth edition (, 1999), p. 393, under magnum concilium. The information on councils provided in these pages is useful, but in being general historical surveys, it is understandably concise {Feudal Kingdom, pp. 856, 90, 101, and 152). Furthermore, Barlow's references to magnum concilium are mainly concerned with the enlargement of the Anglo-Norman curia, and not with the great assemblies of Henry II. See also K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, 2 volumes (New York, 1969, first published in 1887), i.20. Like Barlow, this reference to the magnum concilium is here primarily concerned with the enlargement of the king's court rather than with large assemblies of nobles. These are only but a small portion of studies which deal with Henry's reign. describe the convocation and meeting of a royal council. It will differentiate the meeting of territorial councils from other royal assemblies, such as those summoned with diplomatic purposes and identified by the sources as distinctive. The third chapter will set these gatherings in a temporal and geographical context by determining their rhythm, calendar, space and location, and how these aspects affected methods of convocation. It will also consider the tradition of - wearings along with ceremonial practices and the ritualistic dimension of assemblies. The consideration of circumstances such as these, reveals changing patterns, all of which constitute an essential aspect of the institutional frame of assemblies, and which make the councils of Henry II distinctive from its precedents, the most prominent feature being their frequency.

The other two chapters of this thesis will deal with aspects which have traditionally attracted the attention of historians. The fourth and fifth chapters will examine the functions and business of these gatherings; that is the changing nature of royal consultation, the matters discussed at the meetings, and the dynamics dictating the general approval of monarchical desires, decisions and policies. The role played by councils in deciding the future of Henry's innovations and in securing the political stability of the kingdom as well as the position of the monarchy, are the central themes in this chapter. They are as well crucial aspects in the institutional transformation of councils and are essential for a proper understanding of their political nature, together with the evolving attendance and composition, which is the subject of the sixth chapter. This part will scrutinise the basis for convocation and the role played by the nobility and the new social groups summoned to large assemblies as part of the political community. These two sections become particularly relevant in engaging with volumes of parliamentary studies, many of which have exclusively focused on the function and composition of assemblies.

The seventh and final section in this thesis will set these councils in the institutional context of Anglo-Norman and Angevin England by analysing the differences and similarities between the assemblies of Henry II and those summoned in the first half of the twelfth century as well as those after his reign, some of which came to be known as parliaments. In doing so, this chapter aims to underline the features more peculiar to Henry's councils, and find their place within the history of medieval institutions. These considerations, however, are not destined to determine whether the councils of Henry II constituted the first parliamentary meetings in England or the place they occupy within the parliamentary chronology. It is concerned, instead, with offering an understanding of how these gatherings acquired new institutional features, thus embodying a particular form of royal consultation and representing a new style of monarchical governance. Necessary links will be established with the emergence of parliamentary assemblies elsewhere in Europe, but whether or not these councils occupy a place within the history of parliament and are immediate precedents of the English Parliament, they are in themselves noteworthy subjects of historical enquiry. It was in the presence of his barons assembled at councils -it will be argued- that Henry II found the method and means to forge one of the most successful reigns in medieval England. The King and his Councils

The following introductory chapter aims to place each one of Henry's councils in a particular context. It is a historical narrative that reveals the relation between some of the main events of his reign and the convocation of councils, while leaving the study of the institutional features of these meetings -their geography, frequency and calendar, attendance and business- to the other chapters. This chronological account is, therefore, an appropriate point of departure for it provides the reader with a comprehensive description of meetings, indispensable to approach thereafter speculative aspects of our study.

Henry FitzEmpress, count of , was crowned in 1154 and died in 1189, spending only about seventeen years of his reign in England, the rest in continental Europe and the . According to the information contained in the chronicles of the time, the king was to assemble no fewer than thirty six councils while in England. These meetings may be separated into several groups, each one of them illustrating a different phase in the evolution of royal policy and the changing patterns of baronial politics. This chapter thus divides these gatherings into four sections: firstly, a group of assemblies concerned with the restoration of peace and justice after Stephen's chaotic reign, secondly, those staged during the dispute with Thomas Becket, then another group of meetings that discussed and implemented the reforms of the 1170s, and finally, those that dealt with the continental rebellion of 1183 and the Third Crusade. Accordingly, the study of conciliar activity during Henry's reign will provide a useful outline of the political history of England in the second half of the twelfth century.

Restoration (1154-1158)

On average, between two and three councils were summoned every year the king spent in England. This section will group eight meetings from Henry's accession in 1154 to the Council of Worcester in 1158; the last time Henry wore his crown in a public gathering, and a few months before leaving the island for several years.

Henry of Anjou was across the channel when King Stephen died on 25 October 1154. He was delayed by adverse winds and spent November in Barfleur, landing in England on 8 December, and being crowned at on 19 December 1154.' Henry's coronation in London is not identified by the chronicles as a concilium, denoting perhaps a subtle distinction between festive gatherings or curiae, and those general assemblies or concilia mainly concerned with government. However, it is not the aim of this chapter to discuss such institutional nuances, but to provide a general description of the occasion, whether a council or a court.

Henry was twenty-one when Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury and , placed the English crown upon his head and indisputably formalised and blessed his right to the throne on a cold winter day. Although the count of Anjou is often described by contemporary chroniclers as a man of simplicity when it came to dress, rituals and ceremony, the occasion must have been vested with grandeur and magnificence, and the laudes regiae must have filled the chambers at Westminster Abbey.^ It was certainly well attended: besides Theobald there

' Refer to appendix 1. ^ , a contemporary and member of the royal court describes the king as a man of sobriety and modesty (Walter Map, De Nugis Curialum, Courtier's Trifles, ed. and trans. M.R. James (Oxford, 1983), pp. 477, 487). See also Stubbs, Historical Introductions, pp. 104, 107; P.L. were two other archbishops, Roger of York and Hugh of , flanked by no fewer than sixteen bishops, many of the earls and barons of England, the count of and many others, including a cheering crowd of jubilant subjects. Henry was accompanied by his wife and his brothers, William and Geoffrey. After taking counsel with his nobles, the king confirmed the privileges and possessions of the Church and promised to establish peace and order in the kingdom, a pledge customarily included in the coronation oath and charter. In addition to the account of the chronicles and the charter of coronation, other royal charters record grants to William and Roger, earls of Arundel and , and to Saint Swithun's Cathedral Priory (Winchester).^

King Stephen's reign had been characterised by some years of violence, disorder and civil strife. In the face of such circumstances, Henry thus initiated his reign aiming at a complete restoration: the new king was determined to recover his royal lordship over the barons and to establish order and peace in his realm by means of holding tight control over the administration of justice. The spirit of his coronation charter made clear to everyone that the reign of his predecessor was to be forgotten and that England was to return to the days of Henry I, his grandfather. But if the task was clear, it was by no means a simple undertaking, for between the king and his goals stood the defiance of rebel barons, who had grown accustomed to the inability of a weak monarch. These nobles, however, proved no match for the count of Anjou, who quickly set about achieving his aims.

Only a week after the coronation, Henry found himself again in the midst of his barons at a Christmas court in Bermondsey, where they touched matters concerning the state of the realm and the restitution of peace."^ A festive court, however, was not always the most appropriate occasion for the enactment of important measures, so a general council was summoned to meet in London at the

Ward, 'The Coronation Ceremony in Mediaeval England', Speculum, 14 (1939), p. 176; H.G. Richardson, 'The English Coronation Oath', Speculum, 1 (1949), p. 46. ^ Primary references to the coronation are included in Battle Chronicle, p. 152; Torigni, iv.l82; Gervase, i.l60; Diceto, i.298-9; MS. London, British Library, Additional Charters, no. 28658. See also Eyton, Court, pp. 2 and 9, and Parry, Parliaments, p. 12. Henry's coronation has been described and discussed in many other secondary sources as well. ^ Gervase, i.l60; Eyton, Court, p. 2; Barber, Henry Plantagenet, p. 83. end of Lent in 1155. Henry spent much of January and in and shortly after the birth of his son Henry on 28 February, a great assembly of nobles filled the chambers of the royal at Westminster to discuss the first steps of the restoration.

In twelfth-century England, the exercise of military power was to a great extent determined by the possession of land, and particularly of castles. During the reign of Stephen, many strongholds were in the hands of nobles, who became regional tyrants, ruthlessly exercising their lordship, and thus contributing to a climate of instability, worsened by the presence of large numbers of Flemish . Only a fifth of English castles were controlled by the monarch in 1154, so at the Council of London in 1155, Henry determined that all those built between 1135 and 1154 were to be demolished and the land which was taken over as a result of the anarchy be handed back to the crown.^ Furthermore, the king deposed the fiscal earls appointed by Stephen and revoked many of his dispositions, declaring that the laws of his grandfather were to be strictly observed by all his subjects. He also established a new coinage throughout the whole realm and announced the harshest of penalties for those prepared to infringe it. These measures concerned the whole kingdom because they clearly aim at restoring royal authority over the entire land. In the words of Roger of Howden, the king caused nearly all castles, which had been erected in England in the time of king Stephen, to be demolished, and issued a new coinage, which was the only one received and current throughout the realm; he also established peace in the kingdom, and commanded the laws of king Henry, his grandfather, to be observed inviolably throughout the whole of his kingdom..

But Henry was wise enough not to exchange one tyranny with another for he was well aware that so radical a restriction of baronial power could have easily

^ According to R.A. Brown, there were 225 baronial castles and 49 royal castles in 1154, which compares to 179 baronial and 93 royal castles by 1214. See R.A. Brown, 'A List of Castles, 1154- 1216', EHR, 74 (1959), p. 249. The total number of castles was considerably higher according to J.H. Beeler (John H. Beeler, ' and Strategy in Norman and Early Angevin England', Speculum, 31 (1956), pp. 582-3. See also R.A. Brown, 'Royal Castle-Building in England, 1154- 1216', EHR, 70 (1955), pp. 376-7; E. Amt, The Accession of Henry II in England, Royal Government Restored 1149-1159 (Rochester, 1993), pp. 43-4; and Warren, Henry II, p. 129. The importance of castles is shown by the extraordinary efforts and resources spent by Henry and his Angevin successors in maintaining and refurbishing fortifications across the English kingdom (See H.M. Colvin et al, History of the King's Works, volume 1 (London, 1963), pp. 64-81). ^ Howden, Chronica, i.215. This English translation is taken from Howden, Annals, p. 255. See also Battle Chronicle, p. 154; Torigni, iv.l83; US, no. 14; and Eyton, Court, p. 6. prompted another civil war. A developed political instinct and respect for custom moved Henry to consult his nobles and legitimise each one of these measures with general assent, all of which was only possible by calling a council. Attendance is not described with precision by the narratives, but the king appears to have considered the advice of those present, particularly that of Archbishop Theobald. As could be expected, he was met with some opposition, but many probably realised that assertive royal governance would mean years of peace and order for England. Popular measures such as the expulsion of the Flemish mercenaries and the confirmation of charters protecting the and possessions of several bishops and abbots may have drowned dissenting voices into overwhelming support. Henry thus claimed his first political victory in the public context of a general council. It must have been clear for him that such meetings provided an ideal setting for the approval of his policies.

Henry's restoration, however, was far from complete and another council was summoned to meet at a royal castle in Wallingford, an important town a few miles south of Oxford. The sources are silent on the duration of the previous meeting at London, but it seems that the nobles were at Wallingford towards the end of March because Gervase of Canterbury indicates that the council -which he calls a conventus generalis- had assembled after , the last days of March. According to this chronicle all the prelates and princes of the English kingdom had gathered at the king's command to establish that William, Henry's oldest son, was to succeed him and in case of an early death, his place as heir to the throne would be occupied by Henry, William's younger brother. So much planning had the new king undertaken after his coronation that a peaceful succession seemed secured. With this arrangement, the king of England was not only cementing the future of the Angevin but in the face of possible rebellions, such disposition showed how conscious was Henry of the vulnerability of his own position. All these considerations must have dominated the proceedings at Wallingford since it was customary for kings to discuss the royal succession with their nobles at councils. Royal charters to the abbeys of Eynsham and Hyde, and to Saint Swithun's Priory were witnessed at Wallingford, and were probably drafted or discussed at the council.^

In the face of such dispositions, shouts of opposition were at least predictable, and so it was that shortly after the Council of Wallingford, Hugh Mortimer initiated a revolt in the . He was unwilling to surrender the castles of Wigmore and Cleobury and the royal fortification he held at . Roger, of Hereford, was also defiant at Henry's demands but he was persuaded by Gilbert Foliot, , to surrender his castles at and Hereford. Hugh's obstinacy, on the other hand, compelled the king to military action and at the siege of Bridgnorth Castle in May, Henry nearly lost his life as an arrow directed at him was intercepted by Hubert Saint Clair, who was fatally wounded. The English monarch and his barons had shown a great deal of foresight and political wisdom when disposing his succession at the Council of Wallingford in April.

The royal forces overcame Hugh's resistance and he was obliged to comply, but Henry was not satisfied with military success and turned this episode into an overwhelming political victory by parading Hugh's submission at a council to assemble at the very castle he had recently besieged. Not only was the council an evident manifestation of Henry's immediate control over such fortification, but more importantly, the meeting was also a most appropriate occasion to publicise royal supremacy. The king had caused the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls and barons of his land to be present at Bridgnorth for everyone to witness the peace made between the king and the troublesome . In a few months, Henry's enemies had either fled or were subdued and the restoration of royal authority in England was now on course. The next step was to look beyond his English domains and another council was accordingly arranged to meet at Winchester to discuss the conquest of Ireland. Charters to the abbeys of , Saint

^ Gervase, i.162; Battle Chronicle, p. 75; Parry, Parliaments, p. 12. Eyton believes that charters to , Norton Priory and Bury St Edmunds Abbey were granted at this assembly (See Eyton, Court, pp. 9-10; and Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, i.429). These were drafted at Wallingford but the dating is not precise enough to link them to the council. ^ See Battle Chronicle, pp. 160-161. On the siege of Bridgnorth Castle see Warren, Hemy II, pp. 60-1, 234; Barber, Henry Plantagenet, pp. 86-7; and Amt, Accession of Hemy II, p. 25. Bertin, and Saint Albans, and to Saint Andrew's Priory, Robert Pinzun, and the gild merchants of Chichester, may have also been granted at this meeting.^

The king travelled south and another council met at Winchester at the end of September. During this meeting, the Hospitallers of and Longueville Priory had their possessions confirmed and several liberties granted, as recorded in royal charters, witnessed by many nobles in concilio. A charter to also appears to have been issued in the assembly.'^ Henry also showed a letter that he had obtained from the which legitimised his ambitions over Ireland, a land perpetually divided by the struggles of petty kings and tribal warlords, and which the English king coveted for his brother William." The assembly, however, was persuaded by the king's mother. , to postpone the enterprise for it was prudent for Henry to attend more urgent affairs across the channel. The king of France and Henry's resentful brother, William, were a threat to the stability of the king's dominions in the continent, so in January 1156, Henry journeyed to the port of Dover and sailed across to Witsand in Normandy. Henry was to spend more than a year overseas, and according to the Chronicle of Battle Abbey, a council met at Westminster around Christmas to arrange matters for the king's departure and absence.'^ It is, however, the only account that we have of such meeting, which was probably not a great council but a Christmas court, similar to the one celebrated at Bermondsey the previous year.'^

^ Battle Chronicle, p. 160; GFL, nos. 128-30; Eyton, Court, p. 10. Eyton is certain about the connection of five royal charters with this meeting, but they were either granted during the siege {in obsidione) and thus before the council, or they have imprecise dating, perhaps with the exception of a notification of an exchange between the king and Robert Pinzun (See The Cartulaiy of Shrewsbury Abbey, ed. U. Rees (Aberystwyth, 1975), no. 162; Royal Writs in England from the Conquest to Glanvill: Studies in the Early History of the , ed. R.C. van Caenegem (London, 1959), no. 115; A. Hay, The History of Chichester (Chichester, 1804), pp. 578-9; EYC, i.73-4, no. 76; EEA, i. no. 233; Delisle, Recueil, no. 5). Newburgh, pp. 103-5; Torigni, iv.l86; Delisle, Recueil, nos. 6 and 7. Eyton links three other charters with this meeting (Eyton, Court, p. 12). Again, there are a number of possibilities for the dating of these documents which, furthermore, have small witness lists. " The pope and the Irish bishops supported Henry's Irish designs because the church in Ireland had suffered greatly from the ongoing quarreling among the petty kings of the island. Angevin control would bring some peace and stability to a fragmented land (See L. Hays and D. Jones, 'Policy on the Run: Henry II and Irish Sea Diplomacy', JBS, 29 (1990), pp. 306, 315). Battle Chronicle, p. 161. The institutional and political distinction between councils and courts will be explained in the following chapters. Henry returned to England in April 1157 to find that the peace of his realm was being disturbed by a conflict involving two of the most powerful men in the land: William of Blois, son of the late King Stephen, and Hugh Bigod. The latter was the earl of and ; he had sided with the Angevin camp after 1141, fought Stephen during the rest of the civil war, and was now coveting absolute control over . In conflict with this was one of the dispositions of the Treaty of Winchester accorded between Henry and Stephen in 1153, which established that William of Blois was to inherit all the lands his father had held before becoming king of England. This included the county of Norfolk, hence the quarrel with Hugh Bigod.King Henry was to tolerate no dispute that could possibly threaten the stability he had so decisively gained for his kingdom. He commanded his nobles to meet him at Bury St Edmunds on 19 May, only a few weeks after his arrival from Normandy. The settlement at the Council of Bury St Edmunds was severe for it was resolved that both parties were to surrender their castles to the king.'^ Henry had again used the public stage of a council to assert his authority and make clear that peace, justice and order were there to stay.

Besides the prelates and magnates of England, the Council of Bury St Edmunds had also gathered a crowd of common people, according to the Chronicle of Battle AbbeyThis crowd may have taken part in the celebration of Pentecost and enjoyed the solemnity of the event, for the king is said to have worn his crown publicly for the first time since his coronation.

Furthermore, the bishop of Chichester and the abbot of Battle took advantage of the king's presence among the barons to voice a dispute concerning the rights and privileges of their churches, but Henry was so occupied with other business that a date was assigned for the parties in conflict to be present at Colchester. An even larger multitude of barons -including the two archbishops- gathered the following week to put an end to this old controversy. Notwithstanding the size of the

This political situation is explained in Barber, Henry Piantagenet, pp. 88-9; and Warren, Hemy II, pp. 67, 69. Torigni, iv. 192-3; Warren, Henry II, p. 67. See also Battle Chronicle, pp. 174-6; Eyton, Court, p. 26; RRS, p. 114. On the rebellion of Hugh Bigod see Warren, Henry II, pp. 66-8; Amt, Accession of Henry II, p. 28; and Barber, Henry Piantagenet, p. 69. Battle Chronicle, pp. 176-7: '...apud sanctum Edmundum diademate insignitus regali, multis ibidem convenientibus, archiepiscopo...episcopis, abbatibus, comitibus, baronibus, et populi multitudine... ' gathering, the meeting at Colchester was not a concilium, but a session of the royal court exclusively concerned with important judicial business and commonly

identified by contemporary sources as aplacitum}^

The proceedings at Bury St Edmunds, however, were not limited to resolving internal disputes and to royal ceremonies, but also involved discussion of Angevin prospects over Wales and Scotland. King William of Scotland had died in 1153 and was succeeded by his grandson, Malcolm IV, who was invited by Henry to attend the gathering at Bury Saint Edmunds. There he was compelled by Henry's greater power to perform homage and receive the earldom of Huntingdon in exchange for his loyalty and subordination, and for the possessions that according to Robert of Torigni belonged to the English king: the city of , the county 1 8 of Lothian, and the castles of Edinburgh, Bamburgh and Newcastle-upon-Tyne. It was probably at this meeting, moreover, that William Mauduit and the Holy Trinity Priory of Cathedral secured possessions and privileges by royal charters.'^

The situation in Wales was rather more complicated because it was ruled by three princes who had reacted differently to Henry's authority. Only the ruler of in central Wales was resigned to comply, unlike the princes of Gwynedd in north-west Wales and in the south who remained defiant.^® The English king then summoned another council of nobles to obtain their support and commitment for a military campaign against Owain, ruler of Gwynedd. They all gathered at Northampton in the middle of July to plan the invasion of Wales. A strategy was carefully drawn up and immediately after the council a third of the service in England congregated in to stun northern Wales with a brief but aggressive incursion. The Welsh resisted but they were soon coerced to

Battle Chronicle, p. 209; A. Saltman, Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury (New York, 1969), no. 11, pp. 243-4; Gervase, i.l63; Eyton, Court, pp. 26-7. According to Richard Barber, the submission and homage of the Scottish king and the settlement of the quarrel between William of Blois and Hugh Bigod was all done at the Council of Northampton in July and not at Bury St Edmunds in May (Barber, Henry Plantagenet, p. 89). The order of events presented here corresponds to that suggested in Warren, Hemy II, pp. 67, 69. The Beauchamp Cartulary Charters, 1100-1268, ed. E. Mason (London, 1980), no. 175, p. 102; Acta of Henry II and Richard I: Hand-List of Documents Surviving in the Original in Repositories in the , ed. J.C. Holt and R. Mortimer (London, 1986), no. 223, p. 129. Barber, Henry Plantagenet, pp. 88-9; Warren, Henry II, pp. 68-70. submission.^' After only three years on the throne, Henry was not only the master of his own barons, but was now the overlord of Britain. The councils of 1155 and 1157 had witnessed the implementation of Angevin policy and were vital in facilitating such political success.

The Council of Northampton was as crowded an occasion as the meetings at Bury St Edmunds and Colchester, and the multitude present also witnessed the reconciliation of two influential churchmen: the archbishop of Canterbury and the abbot of Saint Augustine. Gervase of Canterbury writes that after much discussion concerning the kingdom. Abbot Silvester made a humble profession to the English primate in obedience to a written mandate from Pope Adrian.^^ It is also recorded that the of Montacute and Wix benefited a great deal from this meeting for in concilio they obtained the royal confirmation of the possessions and liberties of their communities.^^

At the Council of Northampton, a letter was drafted to Frederick Barbarrossa, acknowledging the imperial embassy sent to Henry's court and promising to dispatch English envoys who would respond to the emperor's request for the relics of Saint James. Henry's letter was received at an imperial assembly gathered at Wiirzburg in September 1157. Empress Matilda had inherited a relic of Saint James the Apostle from her father and German emperor, Henry V, which she had taken to England and given to in 1126. Frederick wanted the precious relic returned to and placed in the imperial chapel, a petition which was probably discussed at the Council of Northampton. Henry's letter promised an embassy, but the envoys politely disappointed the emperor's wishes.^"^

More background information on the Welsh campaign is offered in Warren, Henry II, pp. 69-70; Barber, Heniy Plantagenet, p. 89; and Bartlett, England, p. 75. On Henry's "imperial" measures see also R.R. Davies, The First English Empire: Power and Identities in the British Isles, 1098- 1343 (Oxford, 2000), pp. 13-15, 72-4. " Gervase, i.l63. See also GFL, no. 293; EEA, i. no. 90; vii. no. 64; xv. no. 60; x. no. 31; PR, 4 Hen.II., p. 112; Parry, Parliaments, p. 12; Eyton, Court, p. 27; J. Boussard, Le Gouvernement d'Henri II Plantagenêt (Paris, 1956), p. 411. Monasticon, iv.515; CCR, ii. 136-7; iv.379-80. K. Leyser, 'Frederick Barbarossa, Henry II and the Hand of St James', EHR (1975), pp. 481, 488-9, 499, 505. See also 'Gesta Frederici I Imperatoris', ed. R. Wilmans, Monumenta Germaniae Historica Scriptores, 20 (Münster, 1871), pp. 419-20; and K. Leyser, Medieval Germany and its Neighbours, 90Ö-725Ö (London, 1982), pp. 215-40. Towards the end of 1157, the king 'caused himself to be crowned a second time',^^ in the words of Roger of Howden. This was done at a Christmas court, and possibly celebrated the recent birth of his third son, Richard. However, the crown wearing ceremony was performed in a village called Wigford, just outside the city walls of Lincoln, following an ancient superstition explained by the chronicler William of Newburgh: 'the illustrious king of England, was solemnly crowned at Lincoln on Christmas day, not within the walls, indeed, on account, I suppose, on that ancient superstition which king Stephen, as before related, laudably condemned and ridiculed; but in a village adjoining the suburbsThe king may have taken this opportunity to award some charters, probably to the abbeys of Thomey and Spalding.^^

The English barons witnessed their king and queen wearing their crowns again and for the last time at Worcester, where a great council was summoned for the festival of Easter in April 1158. The crowns had been carefully transported many miles from Winchester for the occasion. Ralph of Diceto and Roger of Howden coincide in reporting a most unusual occurrence at the council: after the celebration of Mass, Henry and Queen Eleanor placed their crowns upon the altar 28 and swore not to wear them ever again. In a world filled with ceremony and ritual, such a move appears as most surprising, but the English monarch was known for his sobriety, and was well aware that after years of fiscal chaos, the English treasury was not solvent enough to sponsor expensive regal solemnities.^^

It is possible that some continental affairs also occupied the king and his nobles at Worcester. Henry wanted to recover the Norman portion of the county of the , which had been annexed to the dominions of the king of France. The relations with Louis VII had been eased in 1156, after Henry's homage for his

^^ Howden, Chronica, i.216 (Howden, Annals, p. 256). ^^ Newburgh, pp. 117-8. Howden, Chronica, i.216; Newburgh, pp. 117-8; PR, 4 Hen.II., p. 136; Eyton, Court, p. 31. Editions of the charters are in CCR, i.65; iv.l62. ^^ Diceto, i.302; Gervase, i.l67; Torigni, iv.202; Howden, Chronica, i.216; EEA, ii. no. 37; PR, 5 Hen.II., p. 175; Parry, Parliaments, p. 13; Eyton, Court, p. 35; Hody, Councils, p. 139; Barber, Henry Plantagenet, p. 90; Warren, Henry II, p. 70. ^^ Further considerations on this event will be offered in chapter three, when discussing the ceremonial aspects of assemblies. continental lands, and a magnificent embassy to Paris, led by the recently appointed chancellor, Thomas Becket, paved the way for an agreement between the monarchs. When they met in August, they agreed on a marriage alliance by which Louis' daughter was to marry Henry the Younger. The Norman Vexin was 'in to be the dowry. The English embassy had departed after the council so it is possible that the terms of negotiation with France were discussed by the nobles at Worcester. It is also possible that Henry discussed the request for a levy to finance a campaign against the county of , the collection of which was certainly made across the sea the following year. The king was unwilling to commit his vassals in large numbers to such a long and harsh enterprise, so he requested , which allowed him to hire mercenaries and attack Toulouse in 1159.^' Those assembled at Worcester may have also witnessed some royal concessions to Roger of , Buckfast Abbey, and the Cathedral Church of Hereford.^^

Between the council and his departure to Normandy in August, the king spent two intense months visiting Scotland, northern England, and then went south to the royal houses at Woodstock and Clarendon. In August, he sailed from to the continent where he spent the next four and a half years.^^

Since his coronation, the king had been on English soil for three years, during which he restored royal authority and prestige, recovered all lands and castles that belonged to his grandfather, extended his dominions, and brought chaos and violence to an end. General support and cooperation for these measures was masterfully obtained at councils, for Henry knew that by calling great assemblies, he could manage his barons, regional matters under vigilance, and promulgate royal policy. The events that followed Henry's accession reveal that a royal council was not only the public stage of Angevin politics, but could also be a most efficacious instrument of central governance.

See Barber, Henry Plantagenet, p. 91; and Warren, Henry II, pp. 71-4. See Bartlett, England, pp. 123-4, and Barber, Henry Plantagenet, pp. 95-6. C.W. Hollister, 'The Significance of Scutage Rates in Eleventh- and Twelfth-Century England', EHR, 75 (1960), pp. 577-9. ^^ Monasticon, v.385; The Register of , Bishop of Hereford (A.D. 1275- 1282), ed. R.G. Griffiths (Hereford, 1906), p. 96; MS. Oxford, Bodleian Library, d.d. All Souls, cl64, Salford Charter, 351a. See also Eyton, Court, p. 36. ^^ Refer to Henry's outline itinerary in Appendix 1. Much more could have been said about these important councils had the very few contemporary sources been more exhaustive and royal charters more explicit about their connection with assemblies. The biographers of Thomas Becket, on the contrary, have greatly enriched our knowledge of the councils assembled after Henry's return in 1163, for regardless of the institutional importance of these gatherings, the events surrounding the martyrdom at Canterbury were recounted with extraordinary detail.

The Becket Dispute (1163-1170)

When looking at the descriptions of councils incorporated into the biographies of Thomas Becket it may appear that the controversy with Henry was the main political event of the 1160s and Henry's foremost concern and setback during those years.^^ It was not so, for such a perception is generally formed by granting undue weight to the accounts of the archbishop's hagiographers. This section is, nevertheless, identified with the famous dispute only because the confrontation between the king and the primate prompted extraordinarily thorough descriptions of conciliar proceedings, in fact, the most detailed insights into the meetings of councils in twelfth-century England. Interestingly, the Becket councils are also the first and last in Henry's reign to attract the attention of vernacular accounts in Old French.

The conflict with the archbishop, therefore, was to become one among several matters that shaped the political scene in England. The king had spent four and half years outside the island and, although he had been constantly informed by royal messengers, the status quo of 1158 had been altered: peace was threatened by some disputes among his nobles and by an uprising in Wales. The king arrived at at the end of January in 1163, and called a council to meet in London the first week of March. The king's son, Henry, became heir to the throne at his older brother's death in 1156, but he had not been formally

^^ Some considerations on these sources were included in the introduction. ^^ GFL, no. 143; Eyton, Court, pp. 59, 61; Barber, Henry Plantagenet, pp. 103-4. acknowledged by the barons. A crown was thus prepared for young Henry, but no papal authorisation had been obtained for the ceremony.

Listead, the meeting served for the preparation of an expedition against the prince of Deheubarth, who had taken advantage of Henry's absence to violate his homage and cause some trouble along the borders. The Welsh prince and Malcolm of Scotland were forced to perform homage to Henry at the next council which assembled at Woodstock in July.^^

The king's court and the barons assembled at Westminster must have also facilitated the settlement between the and the abbot of Saint Albans, who were at odds concerning the subjection of the abbey to the bishop. With the advice and consent of the bishops present at the council, the prelate renounced his claim and received ten pounds worth of land and the manor of Fingest from the abbot.^^ The terms of a treaty with Thierry, , concerning the homage and service owed to Henry, was most probably a matter discussed at this council as well, for the agreement was made shortly after the assembly, on 19 March, at Dover. In 1103, Henry's grandfather had agreed with Robert of Flanders the payment of military service from Flemish knights. The agreement was renewed sixty years later by Henry II, perhaps as a diplomatic attempt to place himself between count Thierry and his lord, the king of France.^^

After the Council of London, the king went to the royal place at Windsor, where he celebrated an Easter curia with his entourage and several nobles. Henry sent a letter to Gilbert Foliot, bishop of Hereford, persuading him to accept the papal suggestion to be translated to see of London, where he could be a useful advisor in matters of state and church. The king also received a notification from the archbishop of Canterbury of the compensation promised by earl Geoffrey of to the monks of Ramsey Abbey for the injury done to this community by his father during the civil war. Henry then spent April, May and at Reading,

^^ Diceto, i.311. An assessment of royal rights over land tenure was also discussed at the Council of London in March, and enquiries were sent out to all the barons to know by how many had the knight's fiefs increased since the death of Henry I. These were returned three years later and are known as the Cartae Baronum of 1166. ^^ English Lawsuits, ii.378-9, no. 405. ^^ Warren, Henry II, p. 224. Wallingford and finally Wales, where he must have enforced his lordship over the local princes. In the Ymagines Historiarum, Ralph of Diceto relates that Owain, Rhys and five other Welsh leaders were summoned to attend a council at Woodstock in the first week of July, when they all together with King Malcolm of Scotland renewed homage to the king of the English. It must have been a particularly humiliating experience for the king of the Scots, who according to Robert of Torigni, was forced to surrender his own brother as a guarantee of peaceful submission.^^

But while Henry asserted control over his Scottish and Welsh vassals, one who was once a loyal servant used the Council of Woodstock to show publicly that he was not going to comply and cooperate with the king's wishes any longer. Archbishop Thomas Becket had resigned from the office of chancellor and further irritated the king by claiming the exercise of jurisdiction over the castles of Rochester, Saltwood, Hythe and Tonbridge, all of which were now under the jurisdiction of Roger of Clare, earl of , as a result of the expropriation of ecclesiastical land during the civil war.^^ Becket had previously voiced his grievances at a church council in and now took advantage of the gathering at Woodstock to demand the restitution of his lordship and the homage of Roger. Furthermore, the archbishop had recently excommunicated William of Eynsford, a powerful baron, over a disputed appointment of a vicar.

The prelate's attitude seriously tested his friendship with Henry, for those who held lands directly from the king, could only be excommunicated with royal permission. The king's indomitable anger was finally prompted when Becket opposed a reform discussed at the council, whereby the aid normally paid to the sheriffs to fulfil the tasks of local government was to be re-directed into the Exchequer. The archbishop argued that the measure was arbitrary and would only increase the king's revenue at the expense of his servants and the solvency of

^^ Diceto, i.311; Torigni, iv.218; Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, p. 211. Matthew Strickland has recently suggested, however, that many of the measures taken by English monarchs in reaction to aristocratic rebellion aim at reconciliation more than at humiliation. This is more so the case if we compare their actions to the punishment of rebels in the fourteenth century (M. Strickland, 'Réconciliation ou Humiliation? La Supression de la Rébellion Aristocratique dans les Royaumes Anglo-Normand et Angevin', Images de la Contestation du Pouvoir dans le Monde Normand (, 2007), pp. 65-78. Gervase, i.l74. local administration, and consequently vowed that not a single was to be collected in his domains."^'

Surprisingly, the king decided to avoid a major conflict by desisting on the project, but as a result of this clash at Woodstock, the archbishop not only lost his royal friendship, but managed to alienate the support of many of his bishops, who had taken note of their shepherd's imprudence. They were led by Gilbert Foliot, who had recently assumed the bishopric of London and refused to formally acknowledge subordination to Canterbury/^ The Council of Woodstock had thus witnessed the beginnings of one of the most celebrated disputes in medieval England, but the opposition of the prelate had not entirely dominated the proceedings at the council, which also secured -at least for some time- the submission of Wales and Scotland and benefited some of those present with royal charters. This appears to be the case of the abbot of Fumess, who settled a dispute with William Gilbert, and the monks of Priory, who had their privileges confirmed."^^

The major impasse with Thomas Becket, however, was badly in need of resolution and so the king summoned his nobles to attend a council at Westminster in the first week of October. Henry was constantly preoccupied with the preservation of peace and the efficient administration of justice for the stability of his kingdom, and the consolidation of his own controlling position. It was brought to his attention that the rise in committed by clergy was not being properly punished by ecclesiastical courts, and he proposed that those declared guilty by ecclesiastical jurisdiction were to be handed over to receive

G. Greenaway, The Life and Death of Thomas Becket According to William FitzStephen (London, 1961), p. 61. The debate concerning the sheriffs' aid at this council may be related to the decline of as royal revenue (See J.A. Green, 'The Last Century of Danegeld', EHR, 96 (1981), pp. 256-7). On the Council of Woodstock see Gervase, i.l74; GFL, no. 151; Howden, Chronica, i.219-220; EEA, ii. no. 2; PR, 9 Hen.IL, p. 48; RRS, no. 202; Guemes, pp. 76-80; MTB, ii.373; Diceto, i.311; Torigni, iv.218; Eyton, Court, p. 63; Warren, Henry II, pp. 96, 162-3, 458; Barber, Henry Plantagenet, p. 106; Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, pp. 205, 211; Boussard, Gouvernement d'Henri II, pp. 427-8, R. Mortimer, Angevin England, 1154-1258 (Oxford, 1994), p. 116; Staunton, Thomas Becket and His Biographers, p. 99; Duggan, Thomas Becket, p. 37; Greenaway, The Life and Death of Thomas Becket, p. 61; Norgate, England, i.43-4. The historiography of the Becket councils is too extensive to be all cited here. ^^ Monasticon, v.248-9. proper, or in other words harsher, punishment by secular authorities.'^'^ This issue was raised by the king at the Council of London, thus providing Thomas Becket with another motive for opposition.

This meeting has the features typical of a church council, for its original purpose was to establish the primacy of the see of Canterbury over the entire English church, and some of the chroniclers only mention the presence of the archbishops, bishops and other important clergy. It should not be ignored, however, that the assembly was convened by royal summons and was also attended by some earls and barons. Furthermore, the king also wanted all the prelates to make a formal and public acknowledgement of the laws and customs of the kingdom, as were observed in the times of his grandfather. Herbert of Bosham, the author of one of Becket's biographies, provides a description of what followed:

After explaining to them why they had been summoned, the king instantly demanded that clerks seized or convicted for great should be deprived of the protection of the Church and handed over to his offices...Nothing moved by this plea, but rather the more excited when he the archbishop and the bishops opposing him and, as he surmised, so unanimous and firm, the king then demanded of them whether they would observe his royal customs..

With the assistance of men learned in the law, Henry attempted to persuade Becket and his bishops that observing the royal customs was not contrary to law. The king spoke with conviction and assured that the law of the church was not only understood and observed by prelates, but the men of his court also enjoyed a great deal of legal wisdom. He must have explained, also, that his intention was to witness clerks tried and punished at secular courts, only if and after they had been stripped of their clerical privileges by ecclesiastical courts. Becket, on the other hand, defended his position by claiming that the clergy was a separate order, responsible only to the monarchy of Christ, and ultimately immune to secular jurisdiction."^^ The primate, in fact, was prepared to accept the royal

^^ MTB, iv.299-300; CS, pp. 849-51. MTB, iv.300. Some other sources which describe this meeting are: Gervase, i. 174-5; GFL, no. 146; US, pp. 4-5; Parry, Parliaments, p. 13; Hody, Councils, p. 218, The Correspondence of Thomas Becket, ed. A. Duggan, 2 volumes (Oxford, 2000), i.l09, no. 22; Howden, Chronica, i.220; Staunton, Thomas Becket, pp. 101-110; Duggan, Thomas Becket, p. 39; Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, p. 205; Greenaway, Life and Death of Thomas Becket, p. 62; CS, pp. 849-51; L.F. Salzmann, Henry II {honàon, 1917), p. 64; Eyton, Court, p. 64. ^^ Thomas Saga Erkibyskups, ed. and trans. E. Magnusson, 2 volumes (London, 1875), i.l46, 148. See also Clanchy, England, p. 131. customs but salvo ordine suo, that is preserving the honour and privileges of the Holy Church and, therefore, the judicial protection of its members and the exclusive jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts. The narrative of Herbert of Bosham continues with Henry's reaction:

.. .when the day was already far advanced, the king, who had been in an ill-temper all day, suddenly, and without bidding farewell to the prelates, departed from the hall in ire and indignation...On the morrow the king demanded and obtained the surrender of the castles and honours which the archbishop had held in custody from him during his tenure of the chancellorship. Without exchanging greetings with the prelates, or rather completely ignoring them, he returned to London secretly and before daybreak. This gave rise to great wrath and indignation.

Henry's fury must have filled Saint Katherine's Chapel at Westminster, where the discussions are said to have taken place, but on 13 October, shortly after or at the end of the council, the king and the archbishop were side by side presiding over the relocation of the relics of Edward the Confessor in Westminster Abbey.'^^ The royal departure to London must have simply signified Henry's return to his nearby royal residence at Saint Paul's, also in London, but a council of the realm was vested with so much importance that those assembled could not admit so abrupt an interruption.

The Council of London had left no victors on the field and thus it was followed by intense diplomacy seeking to bring the stalemate to an end. While Henry was at Salisbury, the bishop of advised him that only by means of episcopal intervention could this crisis be surmounted so the king sent the bishop of Chichester to persuade Becket to relax his position. Finally, however, the archbishop was convinced by a papal letter, asking him to come to terms with royal demands. The abbot carrying the letter was Philippe de l'Aumône who, perceiving Becket's willingness to comply, persuaded him to meet the king at Woodstock. The vernacular lines of Guemes de Pont-Sainte-Maxence provide the only description of the decisive encounter:

There they made him make his promise to the king, and concede that he would keep his customs in good faith, loyally; for he did not expect to hear them mentioned again. The king answered him: Tf you wish to consent, you must demonstrate the fact in the presence of all my barons. They have all heard how you have opposed me.

^^ MTB, iv.300. CS, pp. 848-9; F. Barlow, Edward the Confessor (London, 1979), pp. 325-7. If you intend to stand by the agreement you have made, summon all the clergy and I will summon my barons; there shall be no delay. There, in the presence of all of them, declare what you have granted to me'."^^

The forthcoming reconciliation between the king and the archbishop meant that the nobles would soon be summoned to another assembly, for a royal council presented the most appropriate occasion to publicise the agreement. And so it was that the king of England and all the prelates and magnates of the land found themselves gathered again at a royal residence often used as a hunting lodge located at Clarendon, near Salisbury. Meeting on 13 January, the feast of Saint Hilary, according to Gervase of Canterbury, or on 25 January 1164, according to Ralph of Diceto, the Council of Clarendon was one of the largest political gatherings to assemble in twelfth-century England, counting with the presence of many royal officials, the two archbishops, at least twelve bishops, ten earls, nearly thirty barons, and many others, probably including several abbots, priors, and perhaps some knights. The royal constitutions discussed and proclaimed at this council were witnessed by the king and fifty-two nobles, an extraordinary number of witnesses for a twelfth-century document.^^

This was indeed a most public event; not simply an enlarged royal court, but a general assembly of the realm, a magnificent gathering of nobles perhaps unwitnessed since Henry's coronation. The king was ready to make the most of such a splendid gathering and restore his royal dignity high above the grandest of his vassals. After facing public opposition from the primate, William FitzStephen notes that the king 'resolved on a ftill discussion of his royal privileges'.^'

^^ Guemes, p. 80. For a list of those who assented to the royal constitutions see MTB, iv.206-8. See also M.D. Knowles, A.J. Duggan and C.N.L. Brooke, 'Henry II's Supplement to the Constitutions of Clarendon', EHR, 87 (1972), pp. 763-71, and Bartlett, England, p. 144. More information on this council is given in Correspondence of Thomas Becket, i.508-9, no. 109; GFL, no. 170; Diceto, i.312, EEA, i. no. 260; PR, 10 Hen.II., pp. 10, 14; Howden, Chronica, i.221; RRS, no. 313; Gervase, i. 176-180 {EHD, ii.766-7); Guemes, pp. 80-84; Newburgh, pp. 141-2; MTB, iii.46, 278- 9, iv.305, V.218. The secondary references are equally vast, some of which are: Eyton, Court, p. 67; Parry, Parliaments, p. 13; Hody, Councils, pp. 220-225; Greenaway, The Life and Death of Thomas Becket, pp. 66-7; Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, p. 206; Mortimer, Angevin England, pp. 116-17; CS, pp. 852-3; G.J. White, Restoration and Reform 1153-1165: Recoveiy From Civil War in England (New York, 2000), pp. 196-8. More detailed treatment of the events is offered in Barber, Henry Plantagenet, pp. 110-115; F. Barlow, Thomas Becket (London, 1986), pp. 98-105; Duggan, Thomas Becket, pp. 41-3; Staunton, Thomas Becket, pp. 31-40, 100-103; Warren, Hemy II, pp. 97-8. MTB, iii.46. By royal command, the assembly was presided over by the king's chaplain, John of Oxford, and lasted several days in the midst of the English winter. Both parties had come to the council with clearly defined positions: the king and his courtiers were determined to have the royal customs approved by all notables in the realm, and the archbishop and some of his prelates were united in proclaiming such laws to be adverse to canon law. In the course of the first two days, the situation changed on the clerical side, for the archbishop's stand was softened by the advice of several men, among them the bishops of Norwich and Salisbury, the earls of and , and Richard , master of the Temple. The French verses of Guemes then proclaimed: 'They all stood up, and he made his promise to the king in the hearing of all his barons. He said that he would maintain both customs and law in good faith and loyalty

The king must have felt some relief at Becket's compliance and ordered some of his officials to make a written record of the laws and customs of the kingdom as were observed in times of his grandfather. The task was probably entrusted to Richard de Lucy and Jocelin de Bailleul but it may also be the work of John of Oxford. The text is commonly known as the Constitutions of Clarendon, but it is unlikely that such a carefully conceived legal document was written during the course of the council, being altogether more probable that it was at least drafted before the meeting.^^ The opening paragraph proclaims:

In the year 1164 from our Lord's Incarnation, being the fourth year of the pontificate of Alexander, and the tenth of Henry II, most illustrious king of the English, in the presence of the said king was made this record and declaration of a certain part of the customs, liberties and privileges of his ancestors, that is, of King Henry, his grandfather, and other things which ought to be observed and maintained in the realm. And by reason of the dissensions and discords which had arisen between the clergy and the of the lord king and the barons of the realm concerning the customs and privileges of the realm, this declaration was made in the presence of the archbishops, bishops and clergy, and of the earls, barons and magnates of the realm. And these same customs were acknowledged by the archbishops and bishops, and the earls, barons, nobles and elders of the realm..

^^ Guemes, p. 84. '' CS, pp. 852-3. 54 The royal constitutions are translated in to English in EHD, ii.766-70, from the Latin in Gervase, i. 178-180. See also Staunton, Thomas Becket, pp. 97-106; Duggan, Thomas Becket, pp. 44-8; Barlow, The feudal kingdom of England, pp. 243-6, 253-6; Clanchy, England, p. 114; and From Memory to Written Record, p. 69. As the text declares, the royal constitutions had already been vested with general assent, but in its written form, the document required the attachment of seals. When the text had been drafted, 'the king commanded the archbishops and bishops to annex their seals to the said writing', reports Roger of Howden.^^ The clauses were certainly read out to the whole assembly, and according to Guemes, a surprising dialogue followed:

'My lords', said the king, 'I want there to be no dissension. Let the Archbishop append his to this.' 'No!' said the Archbishop, 'by my duty to the God of glory, not while the soul still beats in my body!' For those who had advised him to take this course, and the king's associates, had assured him that if he would confirm, verbally, this matter before the king, and would grant it to him in the hearing of all his barons, it would never at any time be recorded or written down; the king would do all that he wished about it, and all anger between the two of them would be forgiven.^^

According to William of Newburgh, the intimidation wrathfully exercised by Henry proved too much for the bishops, who decided to abide by his demands:

...to procure their sanction by any means whatsoever, he so allured the whole of them with the exception of one, by blandishments, or terrify them with alarms, that they deemed it necessary to yield to obey the royal pleasure, and set their seals to the enactment of these new constitutions, I say, with the exception of one, for the Archbishop of Canterbury was alone inflexible and remained unshaken by every assault.^^

Becket's resolute spirit had certainly been fuelled by the writing down of the king's demands, which he found contrary to divine dispositions. One of the clauses established that those who held land from the king could only be excommunicated with his permission, another demanded that the 'archbishops, bishops, and all beneficed clergy of the realm, who hold of the king in chief, have their possessions of the lord king by barony and are answerable for them to the king's justices and officers...' It was also remembered that elections to vacant sees should take place at the king's chapel, with his assent and the advice of the clergy summoned for the occasion.^^

Thirteen of the sixteen clauses must have disturbed Becket's conscience, but a comprehensive reading of the Constitutions of Clarendon appears to indicate that

^^ Howden, Chronica, i.222 (Howden, Annals, p. 261). ^^ Guemes, p. 86. " Newburgh, pp. 141-2. ^^ This was declared in the clauses 11 and 12 of the constitutions. See Gervase, i.l80 {EHD, ii.770). the dispositions only reminded the ecclesiastical order of its place within the organisation of the kingdom. For Becket, however, these were not the laws of England as customarily observed, but innovations which attempted to reduce the rights and privileges of the church and ultimately bring ecclesiastical jurisdiction under royal control. The rightful conscience of the English primate could not be reconciled with such demands, and so Becket refused to attach his seal to the constitutions. The text, however, is closed with a paragraph which seems oblivious to the whole controversy and appears to ignore the archbishop's opposition as well as the bishops' ambivalence:

This record of the aforesaid customs and privileges of the crown was drawn up by the archbishops, bishops, earls, barons, nobles and elders of the realm at Clarendon on the fourth day previous to the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the presence of the lord Henry, and of his father, the lord king. There are, moreover, many other great customs pertaining to the holy mother-church and to the lord king and the barons of the realm which are not contained in this document. Let them be safe for holy Church and for our lord, the king and his heirs and the barons of the realm. And let them be inviolably observed for ever and ever.^^

It is easy to magnify this famous dispute in light of the chronicle record, but it is unlikely that the conflict between the king and the archbishop was the only matter discussed at Clarendon. The granting of royal confirmations and privileges may have also been treated at this council, like those favouring Maurice Fitz Robert and Reading Abbey, among other recipients. The famous controversy, however, had overshadowed any other transaction during the meeting.^^

In the midst of such a stormy occasion, the most significant achievement of the king and his nobles at Clarendon was the drafting of general laws regulating the relationship between the king and the church, for so long an unwritten convention controlling a delicate balance of power, rights and jurisdiction. If the royal constitutions ordered only some aspects of central governance, they were significantly one of the first codifications of customs in the island. The Council of Clarendon, however, had failed to accomplish its main purpose, for the king and

^^ Gervase, i.l80 {EHD, ii.770). See also Barlow, Thomas Becket, pp. 99-106; Bartlett, England, pp. 144, 404-7; Carpenter, Struggle for Mastejy, pp. 206-210. MS. London, British Library, BL Additional Charters, no. 7761; Monasticon, iv.42, no. 10. Another charter confirming the privileges and possessions of Eye Priory may have also been granted at this council, for the honour had been under Becket's control until 1164. See Eye Priojy Cartulary and Charters, 2 volumes, ed. V. Brown (Woodbridge, 1992-4), i.22. no. 7. the archbishop had separated even further from reconcihation. Henry had threatened the prelate with exile, and his family and friends with severe castigation. After the collision at Clarendon and having diminished his options considerably, the king will now resort to public humiliation, so another council was organised for October, an assembly that would finally sanction the demise of the archbishop.

Henry spent much of the summer at Porchester, Reading and Woodstock, and on Tuesday 6 October, the feast of Saint Calixtus, a gathering possibly as large as the Council of Clarendon met at Northampton, according to Ralph of Diceto, in obedience to an urgent royal mandate.^' The most detailed chronology of events is provided by William FitzStephen, one of Becket's biographers, who was present at the council. The town was not spacious enough to accommodate the king and the archbishop, so the latter stayed outside Northampton. Guemes de Pont-Sainte- Maxence, probably present at Northampton as well, assures that horses and squires were occupying the lodgings reserved for the prelate, perhaps an initial sign of royal disdain and of things to come.

The archbishop was thus summoned to attend the king's court and answer the accusations of John the Marshal and to excuse some fiscal irregularities during his chancellorship. Guemes explains that the king had established a harmful procedure whereby a baron could lose his court by an accusation made by false oaths. The archbishop, however, was unable to attend due to illness and short notice, and sent messengers to excuse his absence. But William FitzStephen writes that 'the king, incensed because the archbishop did not come in person to answer his summons and argue his case if he wish, treated his envoys badly, angrily abusing them with threats for answering the king's summons with a false,

Diceto, i.313-4: 'Convenerunt illuc episcopi, comites, barones, totius regni, mandato regis urgente... '. This meeting is described in detail by a number of contemporary sources, some of which claim to be eye-witness accounts, and continues to attract the attention of historians. See GFL, no.153; US, pp. 468-9; The Correspondence of Thomas Becket, i. no. 109; ii. nos. 32, 95; English Lawsuits, ii.433-57; PR, 10 Hen.II, pp. 45-6; MTB, iii.49-68; Newburgh, p. 142; Guemes, pp. 104-110; Howden, Chronica, i.224; Gervase, i.182-3. Some of vast secondary literature is: Duggan, Thomas Becket, pp. 61-82; Staunton, Thomas Becket, pp. 56-60, 132-140, 163-8; Hody, Councils, p. 227; Eyton, Court, p. 74; CS, p. 895; Warren, Henry II, pp. 485, 490; Barber, Henry Plantagenet, pp. 116-121; Barlow, Thomas Becket, pp. 110-114. empty and useless excuse, and even after they had given sureties he would hardly let them go'.^^

The king appointed another day for the case to be heard but instead of requesting the archbishop's presence according to tradition, that is by sending a personal of summons, he sent a general letter to the sheriff of , who was to inform the prelate of the king's mandate. This was indeed another demonstration of Henry's condescension and his determination to humiliate his powerful rival, who was also accused of contempt of the crown. Those assembled declared that the archbishop was to be punished by placing all his possessions in the king's mercy, although the pronouncement of the sentence prompted a heated discussion between the bishops and the lay magnates, a fragment of which is included by William FitzStephen:

The barons said, 'You bishops ought to pronounce sentence. This does not concern us. We are laymen, you are ecclesiastics like him, his fellow priests and fellow bishops'. To this one of the bishops replied, 'No, this is your duty, not ours, for this is a secular judgment, not an ecclesiastical one. We sit here not as bishops but as barons. Here we are barons just like you'(...) On hearing this argument the king was infuriated, and put an end to it, and on his command the , though unwilling finally pronounced the sentence. ^^

The archbishop was able to defend his case on the third day of the council, when he was interrogated by royal messengers, concerning loans amounting to one thousand pounds while exercising his office as chancellor. Becket replied that he had not been summoned for this and was therefore unprepared to dispute the accusations. On Saturday 8, the primate of England took counsel with each one his bishops and abbots, and remained at his lodgings for the next two days, falling sick on Monday. On Tuesday 11, Thomas Becket entered the walls of Northampton and stayed with the monks of Saint Andrew's, waiting to face the king and his court the following day. The archbishop was sentenced to pay the

^^ MTB, iii.51. This English translation is taken from The Lives of Thomas Becket, ed. M. Staunton (Manchester, 2001), p. 101. ^^ MTB, iii.52 {The Lives of Thomas Becket, pp. 102-3): '"Vos episcopi pronuntiare debetis sententiam, ad nos non pertinet hoc: nos laid sumus, vos personae ecciesiasticae, sicut ille, consacerdotes ejus, coepiscopi ejus. " Ad haec aliquis episcoporum: 'Lmmo, vestri potius est hoc officii, non nostri; non enim est hoc judicium ecclesiasticum, sed saeculare. Non sedemus hie episcopi, sed barones. Nos barones et vos barones pares hie sumus. " ' Some of Becket hagiographers were contemporary with the events they describe, but not so their accounts. The recollection of dialogues such as this must may not be regarded as literal. three hundred pounds he had used for the castles of Eye and Berkhampstead, a sum he was clearly unable to raise. That eventful Wednesday is recorded with some detail by William of Newburgh:

While the causes of the king's anger became daily more aggravated, on the day when the archbishop was to answer at large to the allegations against him, he ordered the solemn office of St Stephen -'The princes sat and spoke against me, and sinners persecuted me'- to be duly chanted before him at the celebration of mass. Afterwards he entered the court, carrying in his hand the silver cross, which was usually borne before him; and when some of the bishops present wished to undertake the office of carrying the cross before their metropolitan, he refused, and, although entreated, he would not allow any other to bear the cross in that public assembly.^"^

If the account of Roger of Howden is accurate, Thomas had provoked his opponents further by choosing to sit not among his equals, the nobles, but in the midst of a crowd of commoners.^^ Henry was at the time surrounded by his household in the chamber, and was enraged, but Becket's display must have also caused the indignation of the and the , his main opponents. According to Guemes, only the stood by his primate among all the prelates of England, who had actually advised the king to obtain papal support to depose the archbishop. The earls also warned the archbishop that he ought to obey his king by virtue of tenure, to which Becket replied that he held lands not in barony but granted in perpetuity by royal charters. By this stage, however, Becket had realised the time for arguments was over and facing mounting antagonism and hostility, and fearing for his life, decided to escape that night out of Northampton and through the woods, travelling south and sending himself into exile in France, where he found refuge at the Abbey of Pontigny. The council had lasted a week and like the meeting at London in October of 1163, it had also ended abruptly and in thorny circumstances.

The king and his courtiers reacted promptly and drafted official letters to the king of France, notifying that the former archbishop of Canterbury had been tried and sentenced by the king's full council (plenario concilio), declared a traitor, and convicted of perjury. Henry also requested Louis VII to offer no protection or shelter to Becket, just as the English king would lend no refuge to the enemies of

^ Newburgh, p. 142. ^^ Howden, Chronica, i.264. the king of France.^^ Henry's notification and petition proved futile, for the French king became one of Becket's strongest allies on the continent. Pope Alexander annulled the sentence against the archbishop in June the following year.

No other English assembly in the twelfth century attracted more attention from the chronicles than the Council of Northampton. Henry could not have felt as victorious as he probably did after the councils of 1155 and 1157, but the assembly at Northampton shows that the king had secured enough political support to have England's primate and papal legate judged and sentenced for opposing royal policy. Henry's determination to consolidate royal authority and his control over the barons would cost him dearly, but the archbishop was to pay dearer for his cause.

The king spent two or three months across the channel thereafter, and it might be assumed that after such extraordinary events, the Angevin monarch was constantly and forever concerned with the controversy. This was far from the case, for Henry's attention quickly turned to other matters. He held a diplomatic conference with Louis VII at Gisors on 11 April and returned to the island to assert his authority over the Welsh. The situation in Scotland was equally defiant since King Malcolm had initiated diplomatic approaches to France.

Henry spent the first two months of 1166 in England. At the beginning of Lent, he presided over a council of bishops at Oxford to deal with the presence of Cathar heretics in his kingdom. A letter of Gilbert of Foliot, bishop of London, reveals that the heretics were concentrated in the diocese of Worcester, but according to William of Newburgh, the king was reluctant to penalise them without due judicial process:

The king, however, being unwilling to punish them without examination, commanded a council of the bishops to be assembled at Oxford. Here, when they were solemnly interrogated concerning their faith, the man who appeared the best

^^ The royal notification is included in MTB, v. 134, no. 71, a fragment of which declares: 'Sciatis quod Thomas, qui Cant' fuit archiepiscopus, in curia mea a plenario baronum regni mei concilio ut iniq(uus) etproditor meus etperiuruspublice iudicatus est... '. informed undertaking the cause, and speaking for all, replied that they were Christians, and highly venerated apostolic doctrine. ^^

Shortly after this ecclesiastical convention at Oxford, the king travelled south and summoned his barons to be present at his residence in Clarendon to discuss and enact a reform to improve the administration of justice throughout the kingdom. Just as the king had questioned the severity of ecclesiastical courts in 1163, he was now questioning the effectiveness of judicial processes concerning criminal offences. The was then promulgated to deal with this situation. The text of this document first legitimises the legislation with the following introduction: 'In the first place the aforesaid King Henry, on the advice of all his barons, for the preservation of peace, and for the maintenance of justice has decreed that inquiry shall be made throughout the several counties and throughout the several hundreds...

With the Assize of Clarendon, Henry was essentially implementing the policy which had characterised his governance since the coronation in 1154; England was to return to the days of peace, justice and order of his grandfather and emerge from the ruins of the anarchy. In this sense the assize was anything but revolutionary for it seems to have responded more to present circumstances than to visionary prospects. The measures, however, went far beyond the constitutions of 1164, for they established some of the foundations for a centralised system of justice and the procedures of common law, none of which Henry and his advisers appear to have consciously projected.^^ Like the Constitutions of Clarendon and

^^ GFL, nos. 157-9, pp. 207-11; Newburgh, pp. 132-3. This was a small group of heretics and were of German origin (Bartlett, England, pp. 479-80). ^^ EHD, ii.440-3. The Latin version of the assize was incorporated by Roger of Howden into his chronicle (Howden, Chronica, ii. 248). The fifth clause of the text orders that judgment and expropriation of possessions of those arrested by the oath established in the assize, may not be done by anyone but the king in his court and in the presence of his justices. The ninth clause obliges the barons to allow the sheriffs to enter their land by reason of conducting judicial procedures. The document is sealed by proclaiming that 'the lord king wills that this assize shall be kept in his realm so long as it shall please him'. More details on this assize may be found in R.C. van Caenegem, The Birth of the English Common Law, second edition (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 20-21; Mortimer, Angevin England, pp. 55-6; Bartlett, England, pp. 184-6, 480; Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, p. 234. A general overview of Henry's assizes is offered in Clanchy, England, pp. 127-131, and Barlow, Feudal Kingdom, pp. 260-7. ^^ According to John Hudson, some norms and procedures were already in place before the reforms of the 1160s, but 'Henry IPs reign brought many developments which increased the number, variety, and role of decisive norms' (J.G.H. Hudson, 'Court Cases and Legal Arguments in England, c.1066-1166', TRHS, Sixth Series, 10 (2000), p. 114; see also pp. 97, 99). See also J. Martindale, 'Between Law and Politics: the Judicial Duel under the Angevin Kings (Mid-Twelfth all royal measures concerning the entire realm, the assize of 1166 was also promulgated at a council, and legitimised by the assent of the nobles assembled.

The Council of Clarendon must have also discussed the return of the baronial enquiry launched at the Council of London in March 1163, asking the king's tenants-in-chief to declare how many knights they held in military service. These returns are known as the Cartae Baronum and came back to the royal court in 1166. The connection to the assembly at Clarendon is most probable as the king spent only two months of 1166 in England, and it is likely that the returns served as data for the adjustment of scutage, a matter possibly treated at the council. But if the tribute was modified at the assembly, two years later the barons only agreed to the amount they had always paid to the crown as knight-service.

The king left England in March of 1166, and spent the next four years in the continent, a period of intense diplomacy to keep his dominions across the channel intact, orderly and peaceful, to maintain a favourable stance with Louis VII, and to find course for reconciliation with Thomas Becket. He returned to England in March 1170 and celebrated the festivities of Easter at Windsor with William of Scotland, whose brother David was knighted at Winchester a month later. It had become a custom for the king of the English to call councils soon after his arrivals from Normandy, and this was not an exception, for the nobles were required to meet at London in the second week of June. His attempt to achieve peace with the archbishop had ultimately failed in the continent, and this assembly was to conduct the last public humiliation of the former archbishop of Canterbury.

Just as he had done for Henry's coronation in 1154, the Norman chronicler Robert of Torigni provides a detailed report of the attendance at the council. There present were the archbishop of York, the bishop of London, Salisbury, Rochester, Chester, , and Durham. The bishop of Worcester was in Normandy at the time, and the bishops of Norwich and Winchester were unable to

Century to 1204)' Law, Laity and Solidarities, Essays in honour of Susan Reynolds (Manchester, 2001), pp. 116-150. Warren, Henry II, p. 100 and Barber, Henry Plantagenet, pp. 122-3, 244-5. Details about the baronial returns are gathered in BHD, ii.969-70. See also T.K. Keefe, Feudal Assessments and Community under Henry II and his Sons (Berkeley, 1983), p. 192, and appendix IV. Refer also to Bartlett, England, pp. 231-4; and Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, pp. 84, 201. come due to illness. The sees of Carlisle, Hereford, Bath, Lincoln, Chichester, and Ely were vacant at the time. The Norman bishops of Bayeux and Seez had accompanied Henry across the channel and were also present at the coronation of his son.^^ Roger of Howden reminds us of the distinguished presence of William, king of the Scots, and his brother David, . Gervase of Canterbury completes this report by stating that the earls, barons, the king's free tenants, the sheriffs, the overseers of the royal and the aldermen with their sureties, had also come to London for the council.^^ It is the first time that the attendance of royal officials at a council is clearly described in the sources.

The prelates and magnates had come to London to witness the coronation of Henry's son and heir, but the king was not only concerned with the future of his dynasty but also with the state of the realm after four years of absence. Just as the sheriffs and baronial officials of England had taken advantage of Stephen's absence during the anarchy to profit unfairly from their position, they had also taken advantage of Henry's absence between 1166 and 1170 to abuse their office and inflict all sorts of injustices over the king's subjects. In consequence, the king, who was always concerned with maintaining peace, justice and order in his kingdom, summoned the local officials to the Council of London and conducted an enquiry into their behaviour known as the Inquest of Sheriffs. It was established that the county officials

shall take oath from all the barons and knights and free men of the county that they will tell the truth concerning that which shall be asked of them on behalf of the lord king; and that they will not conceal the truth for love of any one or for hatred or for money or reward or for fear or promise or for anything else.^^

As a result of the investigations, eighteen of the twenty-five sheriffs and their bailiffs were replaced, in the words of Roger of Howden, 'because they had maltreated the men of his realm'.^'^ The other objective of this meeting was to procure the coronation of Henry the Younger. It seems that the inquest and the ceremony were foremost in Henry's mind, because he spent just four months in

Torigni, iv.245. ^^ Gervase, i.219; Howden, Gesta, i.4-5. ^^ Howden, Gesta and EHD, ii.470. More details about this enquiry are offered in White, Restoration and Reform, pp. 90-7, Bartlett, England, pp. 150, 158; and Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record, pp. 64-5. ^^ Howden, Gesta, i.4; EHD, ii.470. England before returning to Normandy on 24 June, to remain there for another four years.

The coronation took place at Westminster on 15 June, the second day of the council, and was performed with all due solemnity and tradition except for two transgressions: the right of royal in England was traditionally reserved for the primate, who was now in exile and was thus replaced in this important function by Roger, archbishop of York/^ Secondly, the young heir was supposed to be crowned with his wife and future queen, Margaret, the daughter of Louis VII of France. The news of the coronation had travelled to the continent, and had infuriated Becket, who sent letters to Roger and the bishops prohibiting their participation in the ceremony. Margaret was purposely delayed at Caen when she attempted to cross the channel for the coronation and this also enraged her father, the French king. Evidently, this premature coronation responds more to a premeditated maneuver to offend the king's main enemies in the continent than a desire to break with tradition and custom.^^ Henry's son was in fact crowned again at Winchester in August 1172, this time beside his wife, but in the absence of the archbishop of Canterbury, who was then dead.

William of Scotland, his brother David and the nobles of their kingdom did homage to Henry and his newly-crowned son the following day. The nobles approved Henry's return to Normandy with a view to appeasing King Louis' indignation and to launch yet another attempt at reconciliation with Becket. A week after the council, the king was already at Barfleur. He met the former archbishop in July at Freteval, and offered him safe return to England to perform another coronation. Becket accepted but contrary to the king's will, he took harsh revenge against those who had opposed him in 1164 and have continued to defy

^^ Warren, Henry //, p. 1IL On Henry the Younger's coronation see M. Strickland, 'Warfare and Baronial Rebellion', Law and Government in Medieval England and Normandy: Essays in Honor of Sir James Holt, ed. G. Gamett and J.G.H. Hudson (Cambridge, 1994), p. 78; and Barlow Thomas Becket, pp. 207-8. ^^ According to Warren, the sources indicate that Margaret was delayed at Caen (Warren, Henry //, p. Ill; and MTB, vii.309, 316-7). R.J Smith has recently explained that the coronation of the Young King 'is the most dramatic sign of Henry II's concern for the succession to the Angevin lands' (R.J. Smith, 'Henry II's Heir: the Acta and Seal of , 1170-83', EHR, 116 (2001), p. 297). Some thoughts on the coronation oath of 1170 are offered in Richardson, 'The English Coronation Oath', p. 47. him during his exile. The news of the archbishop's behaviour enraged the king, who was then celebrating Christmas at Bures in NormandyThe royal anger prompted four knights to cross the channel and brutally slay the archbishop in his own cathedral on 29 December 1170. The Becket controversy had been a painful experience for the king, but the next four years in Normandy were to be just as difficult.^^

The royal councils of the 1160s were not only assembled to deal with the Becket controversy but to survey also the general state of the kingdom and implement monarchical policy. The study of general assemblies, however, owes much to the conflict between the king and the archbishop because in attracting the attention of several chroniclers, it prompted the most detailed accounts of conciliar proceedings in twelfth-century England.

The public nature of royal assemblies is also established by the business transacted at these councils: the promulgation of the royal constitutions and Becket's in 1164, the judicial reforms of 1166, and the inquest of royal officials in 1170, were all made in the public arena of a general gathering; in the presence of England's barons assembled in councils. Accordingly, whenever the king wished to publicise and legitimise a decision with the advice and assent of his nobles, a council of the realm rendered the most effective means. If they often proved to be useful institutional instruments in the preservation of peace and order, and in the consolidation of royal authority, councils were also an occasion for heated political debate and opposition to monarchical plans. The antagonism of evicted barons in the 1150s and the animosity presented by an unbending archbishop the following decade, reveal that royal councils in this period were not always dominated by ceremonial compliance. These meetings, in sum, were not simply an occasional enlargement of the king's court, but were recognised as public assemblies. In the 1170s, these gatherings will meet more frequently to assist the king and his court even more effectively in the crafting and execution of important policies.

^^ Warren,//, p. 111. ^^ More details on the murder of the archbishop and on the king's diplomatic efforts towards the papacy, see Duggan, 'Ne in Dubium', pp. 643-58; and C. Johnson, 'The Reconciliation of Henry II with the Papacy. A Missing Document', EHR, 52 (1937), pp. 465-7. Reforms (1175-1179)

The king spent some months of 1171 and 1172 in Wales and Ireland, and required the laws of England to be observed by the Irish7^ In 1173, he was faced by a revolt mounted by his sons Henry, Richard and Geoffrey, who were not satisfied with their future inheritance. Henry's sons had been instigated by their mother, Eleanor of , and were quickly joined by a formidable alliance of the French and Scottish monarchs. A number of earls and barons in England supported the Young King, and about a third of castle holders in the island revolted against Henry, particularly in the midlands and the north. The war lasted until September 1174 and the old king emerged victorious. The rebels achieved no gain for Henry made no concessions; some were punished, and the "empire" 80 returned to the status quo prior to the uprising. William of Scotland had been captured at Alnwick and was released in December 1174 by means of a treaty in o 1 which he became Henry's vassal and liegeman. The war cemented royal authority for some years, but it had revealed serious fractures within the Henry's dominions.

^^ Diceto, i.351; Howden, Chronica, ii.26. Henry's visit to Ireland in 1171 and 1172 is also referred to in Hays and Jones, 'Policy on the Run', pp. 298-302; Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, pp. 219-220; Barber, Henry Plantagenet, pp. 154-5; Bartlett, England, pp. 87-8; Warren, Henry II, pp. 193-5. ^^ The main narratives of this revolt are included in Jordan of Fantosme, pp. 62-80, and Howden, Chronica, ii.45-66. For secondary accounts see Warren, Henry II, pp. 119-36; Barber, Henry Plantagenet, pp. 160-78; Bartlett, England, pp. 54-8. R.J. Smith explains that as an associate king, Henry the Younger felt he was entitled to further concessions from his father after his coronation in 1170. This sentiment played a role in prompting the rebellions of 1173 and 1183 (Smith, 'Henry II's Heir', p. 297). The distribution of Henry's land among his sons is studied in R.V. Turner, 'The Problem of Survival for the Angevin "Empire": Henry II's and his Sons' Vision Versus Late Twelfth-Century Realities', AHR, 100 (1995), pp. 84-6. See Howden, Chronica, ii.63. The treaty of Falaise is included in Howden, Gesta. i.96-9. For more information on this agreement, see also Mortimer, Angevin England, p. 141; Bartlett, England, pp. 84, 92; Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, pp. 226-9; and Barlow, Feudal Kingdom, . 283, 293; Strickland, 'Réconciliation ou Humiliation?, pp. 68, 74. Ralph V. Turner has asserted that the Plantagenets regarded the "empire" as 'worth preserving (and) as a family enterprise possessing some measure of political cohesion'. The term "empire" has for a long time been a convenient construct which can hardly describe the lands under the control of Henry II, perhaps more appropriately identified as Angevin "dominions" or "space" (Turner, 'The Problem of Survival for the Angevin "Empire"', pp. 82, 96). For W.L. Warren, Henry II is likely to have envisaged the creation of a federation more than an empire (Warren, Henry II, pp. 561-2). The king returned to England in May 1175, and spent the next twenty-four months in the island; the longest period spent continually in the kingdom during his reign. He was able to dedicate more attention to English affairs, and was determined to restore order and peace in the realm, just as he had done in the 1150s. These years will also witness important legislation and reforms in the administration of his dominions, and were therefore characterised by intense conciliar activity. No less than twelve councils were held between June 1175 and July 1177; an unprecedented frequency for royal assemblies in England. The meetings obviously ceased to attract the attention of Becket's biographers, who had so diligently constructed reports of the councils of the 1160s, but as Roger of Howden begins to write from around 1170, his chronicles provide a most adequate substitute.

A church council assembled the clergy of England in 's Church at Westminster in May. The king was present with his son, but the discussions were presided over by , the new archbishop of Canterbury. This assembly discussed the status ecclesiae, and sought to correct some clerical practices. Elections to some vacant sees were carried out, settlements to clerical

Q o disputes were resolved, and funds for Saint Paul's Cathedral were requested. It was not a royal council, but an entirely ecclesiastical occasion.

Thomas Becket had been canonised in 1173 and his shrine at quickly began to attract pilgrims. One of them was the king, who had gone there to thank the for his intercession during the war. A letter written by Peter of Blois to the archbishop of Palermo in 1177 reports the king's devotion to the martyr:

Also you will have learned that the lord king has made the glorious martyr his chief patron in all his needs. For in fact on the very day when he first visited the tomb of the martyr, he subjected the king of Scots, persecutor and attacker most strong in prison chains. Thereafter he has triumphed most gloriously with the continual favor of successes by the help of the martyr over all his enemies.

^^ GFL, nos. 235, 306; Howden, Gesta, i.84; US, pp. 800-801; Howden, Chronica, ii.72-3; Diceto, i.399; Gervase, i.251-2; CS, pp. 977-8; Eyton, Court, p. 190. LPB, i. no. 66 (1177). See also Howden, Chronica, ii.61; and Bartlett, England, p. 456. See also A. Duggan, 'Diplomacy, Status, and Conscience: Henry II's Penance for Becket's Murder', Forschungen zur Reichs-, Papst- und Landesgeschichte. Peter Herde zum 65. Geburtstag von A week later they were gathered with the nobles at the Council of Gloucester on 29 June, the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul. Most sources ignored this meeting, but Roger of Howden reports that the council met to discuss Welsh affairs, and the rulers of Wales were there present. Some English nobles had incited the Welsh to resolve internal quarrels, thus disturbing the royal peace. The earl of Gloucester and William de Braose were singled out and warned by the king not to promote a civil war across the marcher lands.

As soon as the council finished, Henry and his son went to Woodstock, where another gathering had assembled to elect a bishop for the church of Norwich and to confirm the election of Geoffrey as bishop of Lincoln. It is difficuh to determine whether this was a royal council filled with ecclesiastical business or a church council attended by the kings in order to place some secular matters on the agenda. Neither Roger of Howden nor the Chronicle of Battle Abbey report the presence of earls or lay barons besides the bishops and abbots, but Henry took advantage of the meeting to publicise a royal edict forbidding the rebels of 1173 to come before his presence at court before sunrise or after sunset, without special summons, and that none living east of the river Severn should bear any kind of weapon, as detailed in the Gesta Henrici Secundi. This resolution and the measures taken at Gloucester clearly show how determined was the king in maintaining the peace so arduously achieved. Some monasteries which had remained without pastors after the church council at Westminster, had now sent representatives to Woodstock to have their proposed candidates approved by the

king.''

Although a general amnesty had been declared for the rebels, Henry's determination to curtail lawlessness and assert royal authority led him to further . The king and the nobles of his court assembled at not in a

Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen Dargebracht, ed. K. Borchardt and E. Bünz (Stuttgart, 1998), volume 1, pp. 265-70. Henry's visit to Becket's shrine in 1174 is briefly described in CM, p. 87. ^^ Howden, Gesta, i.92; PR, 21 Hen.II, p. 63; Parry, Parliaments, p. 15; Eyton, Court, p. 191. ^^ See Barber, Henry Plantagenet, pp. 187-8; Warren, Henry //, p. 141; and Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, p. 229. ^^ Howden, Gesta, i.92-3; Howden, Chronica, ii.78-9; Battle Chronicle, pp. 278-282. See also Eyton, Court, p. 192. References to the gathering at Woodstock in July are to be found in Howden, Gesta, i.92-3, Howden, Chronica, ii.78-9. See also Boussard, Gouvernement dHenri II, pp. 492-3. council, but a placitum or judicial session, which served to restore Henry's jurisdiction over the royal forests. According to Roger of Howden, the king 'impleaded {implacitavit) all the clergy and laity of his kingdom who, in time of the wars, had committed offences against him in his forests, and as to the taking

o Q of venison, and exacted fines of them all...On the first day of August he found himself in the midst of his courtiers penalising those who had taken advantage of the rebellion to infringe regulations concerning the royal forests. A prohibition to take venison, game or wood from his forest was declared and the punishments established for transgressing this disposition often revealed Henry's harshest side. Peter of Blois explains that the king was 'a passionate lover of woods; while not 89 engaged in battles, he occupies himself with birds and dogs'. Even the jusiticiar, Richard de Lucy, failed in his attempt to persuade the king to soften the treatment of those who had violated forest laws during the rebellion.^^

As soon as the placitum at Nottingham was closed, the king travelled north and on 10 August (Feast of Saint Lawrence), met with some of the English nobility, the king of Scotland, his brother David, and the Scottish bishops, abbots and nobles, at Saint Peter's Cathedral Church in York. This was the only royal council during the reign of Henry II to meet in northern England, and like the placitum at Notfingham, it served to interrogate the barons and clergy of Yorkshire concerning offences within the royal forests. The Treaty of Falaise -agreed in Normandy the previous year- was renewed and so was the vassalage of King William and his nobles to the king of the English. After performing the traditional ceremony of homage, the king of Scots delivered the castles of Roxburgh, Berwick, Jedburgh, Stirling and Edinburgh as security, to be used by Henry at this pleasure and be maintained by William. The subordinaron of the Scottish clergy to the king and the English church was also established at the council. William of Newburgh associates this meefing with the consummation of pacts or stipulafions of the peace achieved in Normandy, but this ceremonial occasion must have been a humiliadng occasion for the Scottish nobles, who were required to perform 'homage and liegance to the king of England as their chief lord, and so by a

^^ Howden, Chronica, i.79 (Howden, Annals, p. 398). See also Bartlett, England, p. 170, and BavbQT, Henry Plantagenet, p. 188. ^^LPB, i. no. 66(1177). Howden, Gesta, i.94; Howden, Chronica, ii.79; PR, 21 Hen.II., p. 36. solemn obligation they bound themselves to act with him and for him against all men, even before their own sovereign'.^^ The northern abbots and priors, on the contrary, made the most of the king's presence at the council to implore all sorts of benefits. Royal confirmations and grants went to the abbeys of Fountains and Whitby, and several such as Nunkeeling, Wilberfoss, Saint Clement's, Kirkham and Gokewell, among others.^^

There are no doubts as to the conciliar nature of the following meeting at Windsor in the first week of October, on the octave of Michaelmas. Identified by Roger of Howden as a magnum concilium, this gathering received Irish envoys led by Lawrence, archbishop of , and sent by king Roderic of Connaught, who was willing to make peace with Henry. In the words of Roger, 'the Catholic archbishop of Tuam, Cantordis, abbot of Saint Brandan, and master Laurence, chancellor of Roderic, king of Connaught, made the underwritten final treaty and agreement with our lord the king...'.^^ The treaty was made on 6 October and stipulated that Roderic was to remain as king of Ireland but holding his land from Henry, his lord, so long as he does justice to his people and renders tribute to the king of England, which was fixed at one beast out of every ten in his land. Henry then appointed an Irish man named Augustine to the bishopric of .^"^

Newburgh, p. 198. Refer also to Howden, Gesta, i.94-5; PR, 21 Hen.II., p. 182; Torigni, iv.267; Howden, Chronica, ii.82. The author of the Chronica de Mailros may not be a contemporary of the events, but his is an account focused on Scottish affairs, which provides important details that are probably based on contemporary documents {Chronica de Mailros, ed. J. Stevenson (Edinburgh, 1835), pp. 87-8). See also Strickland, 'Réconciliation ou Humiliation?, p. 74; Bartlett, England, p. 84; Clanchy, England, pp. 165, 172; and ^OTg^XQ,England, i.340. ^^ EYC, i.74-5, no. 78, vi.204-5, no. 106; Monasticon, iv.325, no. 5; Eyton, Court, p. 242. None of the chroniclers explicitly refer to this meeting as a concilium, nor is it considered an assembly of the realm by William Stubbs, but its business and attendance are characteristic of a royal council. C.H. Parry includes this meeting in his list of councils, but perhaps its features were typical of a ceremonial curia. Further considerations on this will be offered in the chapters on the nomenclature of assemblies and their business. See Parry, Parliaments, p. 15; Eyton, Court, p. 193; and Hody, Councils, p. 234. ^^ Howden, Chronica, ii.83. This English translation is found in Howden, Annals, p. 402. See also Barber, Henry Plantagenet, p. 189; Bartlett, England, p. 89; Clanchy, England, pp. 172-5; and Warren, Henry II, pp. 201-2. The political circumstances surrounding the treaty and the terms are discussed in detail in Hays and Jones, 'Policy on the Run', pp. 309-312. According to Hays and Jones, Henry's measures concerning Ireland were not part of consistent policy, since the king 'had to balance in his own interests within Ireland itself. This involved various permutations between himself, the Anglo- Norman barons in Ireland, the high king, and the native Irish, and this in itself immensely difficuh', thus requiring 'the skills of an outstanding political juggler, and Henry was to make quite reasonable fist of it by a sensible pragmatism and by conducting diplomacy, in a very real sense, "on the run'" (Hays and Jones, 'Policy on the Run', pp. 315-6). Royal confirmation of privileges was granted to Greenfield Priory and Roger Fitz Everard at Windsor in 1175, and most probably at this council.^^

The councils of 1175 exhibit some similarities with those of 1155 in that they also met to repair the state of the kingdom after years of violence and disorder, although the civil war of Stephen's reign had been far more disruptive than the rebellion of 1173-4. As in 1155, the king emerged from these meetings victorious; having judged the main offenders, rectified wrongdoings and recuperated peace for his realm. He was now in a position to continue with the implementation of royal policy and a series of administrative, judicial and fiscal reforms. Like the assemblies gathered in the 1150s, the councils of 1176 and 1177 vested these measures with the assent of the nobles and facilitated their execution throughout the kingdom.

Four months after the Council of Windsor, the king and his magnates met at Northampton. This assembly was possible as large and as important as the councils of 1164, for there gathered were the archbishops, bishops, earls, barons of England, and reported for the first time was the presence of milites or knights. William of Scotland and many of his nobles, both lay and ecclesiastical, were also present at this magnificent gathering.^^

Although the king had adopted measures to pacify the kingdom after the revolt and had brought powerful opponents under his authority, his land was still affected by crime. The circumstances were similar to those disturbing his subjects in 1166 and so in the midst of his barons and with their advice, Henry decided to promulgate judicial reform not only to convict criminals more efficiently, but to set mechanisms in place to reduce criminal activity. This measure is known as the , and although it is said to be a renewal of the Assize of

^^ Howden, Gesta, i.lOl; Howden, Chronica, ii.83; Hody, Councils, p. 234; Eyton, Court, p. 195; Acta of Henry 11 and Richard I, pp. 73, 88, nos. 104, 137. ^^ Howden, Gesta, i.107-111; Gervase, i.254-5; PR, 22 Hen.II., p. 15; Howden, Chronica, ii.87-92; RRS, ii.97; Hody, Councils, p. 234; Parry, Parliaments, p. 15; CS, pp. 996-8; Maddicott, 'An Infinite Multitude of Nobles', p. 24; Eyton, Court, p. 198, Boussard, Gouvernement d'Henri II, p. 494; Barber, Henry Plantagenet, pp. 190-1. Clarendon of 1166, it pushed the administration of justice in England into another level.''

Roger of Howden explains one of the main reforms, writing that 'in the presence of the king, his son, and of the archbishops, bishops, earls, and barons of his realm, by the common consent of all, divided his kingdom into six parts, to

QO each of which he appointed three justices itinerant'. Eyre justices had toured the kingdom since the days of Henry I in order to assist the administration of royal justice, but the Assize of Northampton regulated and regularised their visitations, as well as providing them with specific procedural instructions.^^ Each set of justices was in charge of a number of counties, each of which was to appoint communal representatives to declare by oath what crimes had remained unpunished since the coronation in 1154. The itinerant judges were also commanded to conduct a general survey with a view to bringing the entire realm under the jurisdiction of royal justice and the profits of judicial services into the Exchequer: 'they were to enquire into escheats, church revenues, forfeit lands and wardships, which were due to the crown; they were to deal with all revenue due, castle guard duties, outlaws and arguments over fiefs; they were to take the barons' homage on the king's behalf.The travelling officials were also required to enforce legal dispositions stipulated in the new assizes of novel disseisin and mort d'ancestor. The king asked the newly appointed justices 'to swear upon the Holy Evangelists, that they would with good faith, and without evil intent, observe these assizes underwritten, and cause them to be inviolably observed by the people of his realm'.The legal expertise of Henry's court and the regional information presented by those assembled at Northampton made of this legislation an important device for the preservation of peace throughout the

^^ Howden, Chronica, ii.89. For an English translation of the assize see EHD, ii.444-6. Refer also to van Caenegem, The Birth of the English Common Law, pp. 21, 122; Bartlett, England, p. 226; Barlow, Feudal Kingdom, pp. 260-1; Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, p. 235. More will be said about this important legislative measure in future chapters. ^^ Howden, Chronica, ii.87 (Howden, Annals, p. 406). ^^ W.L. Warren has doubted the existence of proper eyres under Henry I (Warren, 'The Myth', p. 124). Barber, Henry Plantagenet, p. 190. Howden, Chronica, ii.87; Howden, Annals, p. 406. This legislation is explained in Warren, Henry II, pp. 338-41, 345-7; and Barber, Henry Plantagenet, pp. 190-1. On the assizes of mort d'ancestor and novel disseisin, see van Caenegem, The Birth of the English Common Law, pp. 40- 48, 125-6; and Barlow, Feudal Kingdom, p. 262. Further analysis will be offered when discussing the legislative business at councils in forthcoming sections of this study. kingdom and consolidated royal presence in the localities, while creating new sources of revenue for the crown. The king had again used a well attended assembly to enact and legitimise one of the most important measures of his reign; a reform that, along with the assize of 1166, would constitute another central feature of the common law tradition.

The nobles at the council also witnessed a dispute between Richard and Roger, the archbishops of Canterbury and York, concerning the subordination of the Scottish church. Roger may have claimed this authority on the basis of close proximity to the Scottish dioceses and Richard because he was the primate of England. The bishops of Scotland spoke strongly against such a submission, and sent envoys to Pope Alexander to procure papal confirmation of their rights and liberties and the protection of their autonomy from the English church.The quarrel between Roger and Richard continued and became more intense at a church council in Westminster Abbey in March, and was not resolved until August. Surprisingly, the king had marginalised himself from this conflict, perhaps in the belief that an internal dispute within the church would not upset the peace of his kingdom.

But Henry would not let this quarrel escalate, and asked the papal legate to summon the clergy to a church council. The assembly met at Westminster in the middle of March to resolve a number of ecclesiastical matters, the most important of which was the dispute between the archbishops. It was summoned and presided over by Hugh, the papal legate, and attended by many bishops and abbots.The quarrel persisted, so the king convoked an assembly which met in London on 25 May to put an end to the archbishop's dispute and to discuss a proposition from a Sicilian embassy. King William of Sicily had sent the bishop of Troia, the archbishop elect of Capua, and Count Florio, as envoys to the king's court, with the mission of requesting Henry's daughter, Joan, in marriage for the Sicilian monarch. The English king, who shared Norman ancestry with William, agreed to the proposal 'with the consent of all the bishops, earls, and barons of the

On the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of York over the Scottish clergy see Bartlett, England, p. 94; Barber, Henry Plantagenet, p. 183; and Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, p. 147. Howden, Chronica, ii.92; Howden, Gesta, i.l 12-4; CS, pp. 998-1001. kingdom', assembled at a council in London.Joan was escorted during a long journey through Normandy, Aquitaine and Italy, and the marriage took place in February 1177. The Council of London had consolidated an important alliance with Sicily, but had failed to reconcile the archbishops.

The prelates finally exchanged the kiss of peace and agreed to a five-year truce in the presence of the king and the English nobility at another council in Winchester. The forthcoming feast of the assumption of the Virgin Mary (15 August) was the day fixed for the reconciliation of England's most prominent bishops. A long dispute had come to an end, but the stability of the kingdom was now being threatened by the young king Henry, who was consolidating alliances among his father's enemies across the Channel. The king could not let dissention breath and another assembly was called to Windsor for Michaelmas.

Henry knew that by controlling the castles in England in Normandy he would be in a position to mitigate hostilities and avoid another rebellion, so he replaced the baronial castellans with men in his confidence. The measure was particularly directed against the leaders of the 1173 revolt in England: the , Roger of Mowbray and Hugh Bigod, all of whom had their castles dismantled. Even Richard de Lucy, the king's , was required to surrender his castle at Ongar. The same disposition was enforced in Normandy by the bishop of Winchester, who was sent across the Channel as justiciar.

The first council of 1177 met at Northampton in January. It was attended by a Flemish embassy headed by Count Philip, who held the English king in high

Howden, Chronica, ii.94 (Howden, Annals, p. 413). Other references to this council are: LPB, i. no. 41; Howden, Chronica, ii.94; Gervase, i.258; Diceto, i.407-8; Hody, Councils, p. 239; Parry, Parliaments, p. 16; and Eyton, Court, p. 202. Evelyn Jamison has indicated that the 'Sicilian court was in fact a battle-ground...on the one hand Thomas' relatives and friends had been given a substantial welcome; on the other a formal alliance between the English and Sicilian kings was already envisaged' (E. Jamison, 'Alliance of England and Sicily in the Second Half of the 12'*" Century', Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 6 (1943), p. 23). The political circumstances surrounding the Sicilian petition and embassy to England as well as the arrangement of Joan's marriage to William of Sicily are described in Jamison, 'Alliance of England and Sicily', p. 29. Joan married William and was crowned at Palermo on 13 February 1177. The pope had encouraged the union as part of his diplomatic efforts towards the Hohenstaufen. See Howden, Gesta, i. 118-9, 124; Barber, Henry Plantagenet, p. 193; Parry, Parliaments, pp. 15-6; and Eyton, Court, pp. 205-6. Howden, Gesta, i.l24; Barber, Henry Plantagenet, pp. 193-4; Parry, Parliaments, p. 16. esteem and wanted his advice on a recent proposal from the king of France. Louis VII had requested Philip's nieces in marriage to his son and nephew, but with an interest in keeping Flanders and France apart, the English king told Philip that he instead would find suitable bridegrooms for Louis' relatives.'®^ Philip had also attended the Council of Northampton to secure Henry's support for the crusade. The English monarch had already declared his intentions of taking the cross, but he had sent envoys to Philip's court in order to delay his departure, fearing that Philip might have been coveting the throne of Jerusalem, which was then occupied by the House of Anjou.'®^ Henry knew he was not able to embark on such an enterprise at the time, so he decided to employ diplomacy in order to exercise some control over Philip's political prospects.

This council had gathered the magnates of the land after the feast of Saint Hilary and besides the discussions concerning foreign affairs, the king and his barons spent a great deal on internal matters. A number of clerical elections and appointments were made after some renounced their offices. Robert, earl of Leicester, and Hugh, earl of Chester, had their lands returned as they had held fifteen days before the war of 1173 began, and the king gave the earldom of to William d'Aubigny.'^^

Henry was not only esteemed by Philip of Flanders, but he was known among the Christian princes of Europe to be a ruler of great wisdom and prudence. The monarchs of the Iberian kingdoms of Castile and Navarre had maintained a dispute concerning the possession of land and castles, and had sent envoys to England in 1176 to seek an arbitration of Henry and his court and abide by his judgement. The king of Castile, who was Henry's son-in-law, claimed that his uncle Sancho of Navarre, had taken advantage of his wardship to take control over Castilian territory. Sancho, on the other hand, asserted that Castile had unjustly occupied Navarrese lands by military force. Henry could have pronounced a sentence with the assistance of his court, but the case was deemed important enough for the king to call a council, which assembled in London at

Howden, Gesta, i. 132-3. See also Bartlett, England, p. 59. Mayer, 'Henry II of England and the Holy Land', p. 727. See also Boussard, Gouvernement d'Henri 519-521. See Howden, Chronica, ii.l 18; Howden, Gesta, i. 132-3. Westminster Hall, the second week of March. The witness list of the written verdict reveals the features of a large gathering with strong clerical attendance; a total of twenty-seven nobles, among them, the archbishop of Canterbury, fifteen bishops, including three Welsh prelates, many abbots, priors, deans and , and some of the earls and barons of England."^ The archbishop of York, and the bishops of Salisbury and Chester were unable to attend due to illness, and the see of Lincoln was vacant. In the Gesta Henrici Secundi, Roger of Howden reports that the crowd was so large that they fitted into the hall with great difficulty. The meeting was convened for the first day of Lent, and the Spanish envoys were given three days to present their cases in writing, for the king and his barons were unable to understand what they had spoken, perhaps because of their accent. Seven Castilians, including the bishop of Falencia, and six Navarrese, including the bishop of Pamplona, spent the next three days drafting their cases to be presented before the English king and his barons at the council.

The barons after having carefully considered the allegations and petitions, and after providing the king with due counsel and advice, pronounced their deliberation and requested both parts to compromise and find peace. Henry urged Sancho of Navarre and Alfonso of Castile to respect the treaty made between them in August 1176 at Nájera, to restore all disputed lands, and obliged Alfonso to an annual payment to the king of Navarre consisting of three hundred maravedíes (Spanish coinage) for the next ten years. The Spanish envoys were to stand as pledges for the enforcement of this deliberation."'

Alfonso VIII refiised to abide by the terms of the settlement and the hostilities between Castile and Navarre continued. But if the sentence promulgated at the Council of London was to prove ineffectual, Henry's reputation as a just and wise

These are only the names of those who witness the text of the resolution, and not all those present at the council. Henry's sentence is recorded in several sources, such as English Lawsuits, ii.546-7 no. 494; and J. González, El Reino de Castilla en la Época de Alfonso VIII, volume 2: Documentos, II45-I190 (Madrid, 1960), nos. 99, pp. 267-9. The background of the Spanish dispute and the aftermath of Henry's pronouncement at London is well explained in F. Luis Corral, 'Alfonso VIII of Castile's Judicial Process at the Court of Henry II of England: An Effective and Valid Arbitration?', Nottingham Medieval Studies, 50 (2006), pp. 22-42. See also Baber, Henry Plantagenet, p. 194 and Bartlett, England, pp. 145-6. English Lawsuits, ii.546-7, no. 494. See also Diceto, i.419; and Luis Corral, 'Alfonso VIII', p. ruler must have enjoyed a boost as a consequence, while the council of the realm proved once again to be a most appropriate setting for the dispensation of justice at the highest level.

A busy itinerary kept the king and his retinue in during April, and the first week of May he was in the midst of his barons at Geddington; among them the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of Bath, Norwich and Saint Asaph 113 (Wales). None of the chroniclers identifies this gathering as a concilium, but the Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi reports that they all met to treat the state of the realm and procure its peace and stability."'^ Nothing is specified on the business discussed at this meeting either, but it was possibly related to the administration of the castles that the king had taken away from some of the nobles at the Council of Windsor in September 1176. In fact, those gathered moved from Geddington to Windsor, where Henry placed these fortifications in the hands of several barons, namely the archbishop of York, William de Stuteville, Roger de Stuteville, William de Neville, Geoffrey de Neville, and Roger de Conyers, who respectively gained control over the castles of Scarborough, Rakesburt, Maidens, Norham, Berwick, and Durham.^ The king also restored the estates of the earl of Chester, and sent envoys to Ireland to settle the way for John's lordship over the island.

W.L. Warren suggests that the king had held a preliminary "conference" at Geddington in May, which had turned into a full council at Oxford in August. This is unlikely to be the case for the king was at Winchester in August and left to Normandy on the 17th. A council did meet at Oxford, but shortly after the gatherings at Geddington and Windsor, towards the end of May." ^ Apart from the nobles of England, Roger of Howden lists a number of Welsh princes, who were also summoned by Henry to attend the council at Oxford:

Rees, the son of Griffin, prince of South Wales, David, the son of Owen, prince of , who had married the sister of the said king of England, Cadewalan,

Luis Corral, 'Alfonso VIH', pp. 34-5. Refer to appendix 1. Howden, Gesta, i.160-1; Howden, Chronica, ii.l33; Eyton, p. 213; Parry, Parliaments, p. 16; Hody, Councils, p. 242; Boussard, Gouvernement d'Henri II, p. 521. Howden, Chronica, ii.l33. See also Howden, Gesta, i.160; and Eyton, Court, p. 213. Warren, Henry II, p. 168; Howden, Gesta, i. 162-3; Howden, Chronica, ii. 133-4; Eyton, Court, p. 214. prince of Delnain, Owen de Kevilian, Griffin de Brunfeld, and , the son of Gervetrog, together with many other of the noblemen of Wales, who all did homage to the king of England, thereafter, and swore fealty to him against all men, and that they would maintain peace with him and with his kingdom."^

Such loyalty was immediately rewarded at the assembly, and the land of Merioneth was given by the English king to Rees of South Wales, and the land of Ellesmere to David of North Wales. Henry also utilised the gathering to organise Angevin rule over Ireland and consolidate his son John's lordship by fragmenting the island and providing his son with noble tenants: Hugh was to rule in Meath and the city of Dublin for the service of one hundred knights; Miles de Cogan and Robert Fitz Stephen were granted for the service of sixty knights; Hubert and William Fitz Hubert, together with Jollan de la Primerai received Limerick for sixty knights; William Fitz Audelin, the king's , was made custodian of the city of ; Robert le Poer, the king's marshal, was given the custody of Waterford. In the presence of his nobles at Oxford, the king also granted lands in county Waterford and Dublin to Ailward of and Matthew Fitz William, who were to assist in the protection of the city of Waterford with spearmen and ships. All these men were required to profess oaths of allegiance for their Irish tenancies to the king and his son at the council. William Fitz Audelin had founded the Abbey of Saint Thomas in Dublin, a house that had some 118 carucate of land confirmed by a royal charter during the council. The arrangements made at Oxford concerning the administration of Ireland virtually overturned the terms of the treaty made between Henry and Roderic, king of Connaught, at the Council of Windsor in October of 1175."^

The last of the five royal councils in 1177 met at Winchester the first week of July. The king had summoned the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops of England to be in his presence at Winchester on the octave of Saint John the Baptist. But according to the Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, Henry had also summoned the earls, barons and knights of his kingdom, and William of Scotland

Howden, Chronica, ii. 133-4 (Howden, Annals, pp. 454-5). On the Council of Oxford refer also to Howden, Gesta, i. 162-3; Eyton, Court, p. 214; Parry, Parliaments, p. 16; and Boussard, Gouvernement d'Henri II, pp. 521-2. W. Lynch, A View of the Legal Institutions, Honorary Hereditary Offices and Feudal Baronies Established in Ireland During the Reign of Henry the Second (London, 1830), p. 107; CCR, ii.387; J. Ware, De Hibernia et Antiquitatibus Eius Disquisitiones (London, 1654), pp. 237-9. See Hays and Jones, 'Policy on the Run', p. 313. to Winchester as he prepared to cross the channel on military business. The meeting is described by Roger of Howden's chronicle as a concilium, but it is not at all clear from the narratives whether the lay barons had been summoned only for military purposes or to join the discussion at the council as well.'^^ It is very likely that they joined the prelates at the council, where issues concerning the military campaign were discussed, because we know they were all gathered at Winchester and that Henry and his army did not cross the channel before 17 August. According to Stubbs, a military levy could have been a matter discussed

1 1 at this meeting. The nobles advised Henry to send the bishop of Bayeux, and Richard Gifford, as envoys to the king of France. They also suggested precautions in reaction to the recent behaviour of the bishop of Durham, and advised the king not to return the castles of Durham and Norham, which had belonged to the prelate.The council had also met to discuss ecclesiastical appointments: Richard, prior of Kirkby, was made abbot of Whitby, and Benedict, who was the prior of the Holy Trinity Church at Canterbury, became the12 3abbo t of Burgh. Both elections were blessed by the archbishop of Canterbury. Jacques Boussard's study of Henry's government identified two other assemblies for 1177; one which met at Marlborough in February and the other at Reading in April. Although he rests on the authority of Roger of Howden's Gesta, the evidence suggests that these were not royal councils, but small meetings confined to the king and a handful o.f hi124s advisers, or else, they may have been ad hoc enlargements of the .

The king left England on 17 August and returned in July the following year. He knighted his son Geoffrey at Woodstock and reduced the number of judges of the royal court from eighteen to five.'^^ A more important judicial reform was promulgated at the Council of Windsor in April 1179, where by the common counsel of the archbishops, earls and barons of his kingdom, and in the presence

120 Howden, Gesta, i. 177-8; Howden, Chronica, ii.l35. See also PR, 23 Hen.II., p. 201; Boussard, Gouvernement d'Henri II, pp. 521-4; and Bartlett, England, p. 146. See Howden, Gesta, p. cxlii, and Eyton, Court, p. 216. The bishop of Durham was suspected of treasonable behaviour during the 1173-4 rebellion and accused of not doing enough to stop the rebels (See GT. Lapsley, 'The Flemings in Eastern England in the Reign of Henry IF, EHR, 21 (1906), pp. 512-3, and Warren, Henry II, p. 373). Howden, Chronica, ii.l34. Boussard, Gouvernement d'Henri II, p. 521. Howden, Gesta, i.207. of his son, Henry divided the realm into four judicial provinces, each of which was assigned a number of itinerant judges, who were to administer royal justice. The measure was very much in line with Henry's policy of consolidating peace and order in the kingdom by increasing royal jurisdiction over the administration of justice and assimilating judicial procedure into a more centralised system. This reform could potentially infringe the judicial jurisdiction of the barons and thus the king must have deemed it appropriate to seek their approval -possibly after some form of coercion- at a royal assembly. According to Ralph of Diceto, the king's wishes responded to widespread problems in the administration of justice and this may explain the nobles' support for the scheme. A total of twenty-one royal judges were appointed, and were listed by Roger of Howden in his Chronica

The poHtical gatherings that met in England from 1175 to 1179 were occasions for important reforms in the administration of the realm and the consolidation of royal control over justice. Like the councils of the 1150s, these assemblies assisted the restoration of order and peace after a rebellion which could have defeated Angevin rule and substantially changed the course of English history. Like the councils of the 1150s, these meetings also strengthened Henry's lordship over Scotland, Ireland and Wales and boosted Angevin prestige in Europe. It is clear, moreover, that conciliar intensity followed important crises, a pattern which explains the extraordinary number of meetings between 1155 and 1157, and between 1175 and 1177.'^^ Unlike the councils at the beginning of Henry's reign, however, the gatherings of the 1170s are well documented in the sources, mostly due to the contribution of Roger of Howden's accounts.

After celebrating Christmas at Nottingham in the company of his greatest vassal, the king of the Scots, the king left England in April 1180, and returned to the island in July of 1181.'^^ An ageing monarch and increasing concerns abroad

Howden, Chronica, ii.l90; Diceto, i.434. See also Howden, Gesta, i.238; Eyton, Court, p. 226; Lyon, Constitutional, p. 222; and D. Nicholas, The Evolution of the Medieval World (New York, 1992), p. 226. See appendices 2, 3b and 3c. Some references to this gathering are: Howden, Gesta, i.244; Howden, Chronica, ii.l96; Torigni, iv.289; RRS, ii.97; Hody, Councils, p. 244; Parry, Parliaments, p. 16; and Eyton, Court, p. 229. Boussard suggests that the enforcement of a new coinage in 1180 was the result of an probably meant less dedication to English affairs, thus a reduction in the frequency of English councils. While the 1170s had been years of consolidation for Henry, the following decade brought new challenges to royal authority.

Rebellion and Crusade (1181-1188)

Assembled with his nobles at in 1181, Henry ordered his subjects to bear arms and be ready for military service.The royal justices were commanded to announce this edict in all the counties and to seize those found not bearing these weapons after the feast of Saint Hilary in January. The Assize of Arms was possibly the result of the discussions at a council between the king and his barons in the continent, but although it was also enforced in England, there is no clear connection between the legislation and a gathering of English nobles. This is indeed an extraordinary case, for as we have shown, most legislative acts of importance were discussed, or at least promulgated, at royal assemblies. ^^^

It is possible that the first council of the 1180s met at Nottingham in September 1181, and was attended by William of Scotland and some of the Scottish nobles, as well as the English archbishops and the bishops of Durham, Norwich, Ely and Chichester. However, none of the chroniclers identifies this rather small gathering as a concilium, which met primarily to discuss issues concerning the state of the Church. For example, a prohibition was issued for the clergy of Lincoln to have concubines, a matter typically discussed at a church council. Neither Warren nor

assembly which met in Oxford in March of 1180. He is the only one to have claimed this, for no other source reports such a meeting (Boussard, Gouvernement d'Henri II, pp. 536-7). Before returning to England in 1181, the king and his continental nobles promulgated a military assize at Le Mans. Like his grandfather, Henry II had employed Flemish mercenaries in his wars in the continent. In England, however, the presence of mercenaries signified pillage and violence, particularly during the reign of Stephen, and thus such deployment had become increasingly unpopular. Although the king had used mercenaries against Toulouse in 1159, he had also procured their expulsion from England in the 1150s. The relationship between the assize and the deployment of mercenaries, however, is still a debated issue. G.T. Lapsley used evidence in the pipe rolls to demonstrate that many of the Flemish mercenaries who participated in the campaigns in 1173-4 remained in England as merchants, traders or weavers (Lapsley, 'The Flemings in Eastern England', pp. 510-13) See also Bartlett, England, pp. 206, 216, 223, and Mortimer, Angevin England, pp. 41, 54. The Assize of Arms is recorded in Howden, Gesta, i.261, and translated in EHD, ii.449-51. See also Gervase, i.297; Warren, Henry II, p. 379; and Barlow, Feudal Kingdom, pp. 266-7. Barber make reference to this council, and Roger of Howden explains that King William was present because Henry had requested his company on his next journey to Normandy, as well as advising him to repatriate the bishops of Saint Andrews and , who had fled Scotland.'^'

Before leaving for Normandy, Henry assembled with his nobles during Lent of 1182, at Waltham, a manor of the bishop of Winchester in . This meeting is only reported by Ralph of Diceto and The Chronicle of Jocelin of

1 Brackelond, is not mentioned in Roger of Howden's chronicles. According to Ralph of Diceto, the magnates of the kingdom discussed and approved a substantial aid to the Christian consisting of five hundred marks of gold and forty-two thousand marks of silver.This financial commitment primarily benefited the military orders of the Temple and Hospital of Jerusalem and its delivery was arranged in Henry's will, signed at Waltham and probably at the council. A notification of an exchange of land between the king and Gilbert of Norfolk was testified at Waltham in March by eighteen nobles, among them the bishops of Winchester, Ely and Chichester, and a number of earls. A royal grant of protection to the Abbey of St Edmunds and its newly- elected abbot reveals that the was also present, and according to the account of Jocelin of Brakelond, the archbishop of had stayed in the abbot's lodgings and interceded for a free election of the new abbot at the king's court.

Henry sailed to Normandy early in March, and at Caen he asked his sons Richard, count of , and Geoffrey, count of Brittany, to swear an oath of allegiance to their eldest brother, Henry. This petition led to several disputes among the counts and turned them against their father just as had occurred ten

Howden, Gesta, p. cxliv. See also Howden, Gesta, i.280; CM, p. 91 ('The Chronicle of Melrose', p. 21); and Howden, Chronica, ii.259. CJB, pp. 15-23. Other references to this meeting are Gervase, i.297, and Diceto, ii.21. Further information is given in Boussard, Gouvernement d'Henri II, pp. 539-540; Eyton, Court, p. 246; Parry, Parliaments, p. 17; Bartlett, England, p. 426; and Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, p. 34. The Chronicle of Jocelin of Brackelond provides one of the most detailed accounts of an ecclesiastical election in twelfth-century England, as well as an insight into the politics of the royal court. Diceto, ii.21. Refer also to Mayer, 'Henry II of England and the Holy Land', pp. 727-8. Douglas, Feudal Documents, pp. 104-5, no. 100; CJB, p. 16. years earlier. Battles and sieges were unleashed between the parties, and King Henry would have lost his life had his horse not taken an arrow directed at him by the castle garrison while departing the city of Limoges. Not far from the city, his son Henry was attacked by fever and perished, causing Henry profound grief and leaving Richard as his likely successor. The king had lost two sons and heirs to the throne in the course of his reign, but he had managed to mitigate a second rebellion. Family quarrels, however, had worn him down.

Henry returned to England in June 1184, but spent less than a year in the island. The councils that followed reveal similar patterns to those assemblies that congregated after the rebellion of 1173. This was a time of restoration just like 1175-6, and Henry summoned two councils in 1184 to bring the restitution of his authority into effect. There was, however, another pressing matter: Richard, the archbishop of Canterbury had died on 16 February 1184 and a new primate ought to be elected. The nobles were thus summoned to Reading the first week of August on the feast of Saint Oswald. According to the report of Roger of Howden, the assembly was attended by all the bishops of England, the earls and barons, John Cumin, the archbishop of Dublin, and the prior and monks of Christ Church Priory.A dispute arose between the bishops, who had come expecting to control the election, and the monks, who claimed that right for their house. Finally, it was agreed that Baldwin, bishop of Worcester, was the most suitable candidate and he was enthroned on 19 May 1185 as the new English primate.

It is likely that the offences against forest law had increased while the king was occupied fighting the rebels, just as had occurred during the revolt of 1173-4. Henry had conducted an implacable judgment of the offenders at Nottingham in August 1175. Two weeks after the Council of Reading in August 1184, the king and his nobles promulgated the Assize of the Forest; sometimes referred to as the Assize of Woodstock, because it was drafted when the king was at Woodstock. There are no chronicle references of the convocation or meeting of a royal assembly at Woodstock in August, nor is it considered by Stubbs to be a council. The text of the assize, however, proclaims that it was legitimised 'with the advice

Howden, Chronica, ii.286. See also PR, 30 Hen.II., pp.137, 150-1; Diceto, ii.22; RRS, ii.98; Eyton, Court, p. 256. and assent of the archbishops, barons, earls, and magnates of England'.This clause denotes an important gathering of nobles, but the discussions of this measure, and even its approval, may have taken place at the Council of Reading two weeks earlier, an assembly which is clearly reported by Roger of Howden.'^^ Considering the frequency pattern of conciliar activity, it is unlikely that the king summoned two councils in such a short period of time.

The assize divided the forests of England and the king appointed foresters to enforce the regulations established. This legislation, as all forest regulation in twelfth-century England, must have been very unpopular, but there was not much novelty as far as royal policy is concerned. Since the beginning of his reign, Henry had procured the restoration of royal privileges over the forests, and since the 1160s had begun to profit a great deal from the administration of justice. The king had returned victorious from the continent and the councils of 1184 provided appropriate instances to assert his authority in England, just as the assemblies of 1175-7 had significantly assisted the restitution of peace and order.

The reconciliation between Henry and his sons, however, had not yet been officially sanctioned in the presence of the English nobility, and for this purpose another council was summoned to meet in London, at Westminster. None of the chroniclers explicitly identified this meeting as a concilium, but this status is implied in the accounts of Roger of Howden and Gervase of Canterbury. The king and his sons made their reconciliation public and formal at the council, but 138 according to Warren, such peace was little more than a ceremonial gesture. Furthermore, the king had assembled his prelates and the monks of Christ Church (Canterbury) to London in December to resolve a dispute concerning the election

Howden, Gesta, (ii) clxi: 'Haec est assisa domini Henrici regis fìlii Matildis, in Anglia, de forestis et venatione sua per consilium et assensum archiepiscoporum, episcoporum, et baronum, comitum et nobilium Angliae apud Wudestoke' {EHD, ii.451). See also Gervase, i.313; and Warren, Governance, p. 163. The Assize of the Forest is recorded in Howden, Gesta, i.323-4. More information about this measure may be found in C.R Young, 'English Royal Forests under the Angevin Kings', JBS, 12 (1972), pp. 1-5; Mortimer, Angevin England, p. 44; and Bartlett, England, p. 170. Howden, Chronica, ii.286: 'Deinde venit dominus rex usque Redingges, et celebrato ibi concilio de pastore Cantuariensis ecclesiae eligendo, orta est lis et contentio inter monachos Cantuariae, et episcopos Angliae ' (Refer also to Howden, Gesta, i.317; and Diceto, ii.22). Warren, Henry II, p. 597. Gervase reports that the king and some his nobles 'ad festum Sancti Andreae apudLondoniam convenerunt {Ger\asQ, i.318). Refer also to Howden, Gesta, i.320-1. of their archbishop. As we have pointed out, Bishop Baldwin of Worcester, became the English primate after much negotiation.'^^

A few days later, some of those assembled at the council, celebrated Christmas with the king and his family at Windsor. The solemn festivities were also attended by William of Scotland and David, his brother, Duke Henry of Saxony and his wife Matilda, the bishops of Durham and Lincoln, and several English barons. The marriage of the king of Scots was one of the matters discussed at the Council of Westminster, so he had probably been summoned by Henry to attend the meeting and subsequently invited to join the festivities at Windsor. William had sent an embassy to Henry's court asking him to arrange his marriage to Matilda, the duke's daughter and Henry's niece. It seems, however, that the union was frustrated due to parentage and the English king offered instead the hand of Ermengard of Beaumont, his second cousin. The marriage and wedding feast were to take place at the royal palace in Woodstock in September 1186.'"^°

The royal confirmation of the privileges and liberties of was testified at Westminster by Archbishop Baldwin, five bishops, four earls, and five other notables, and probably resulted from the discussion at the council. Such appears to be also the case of a royal confirmation to , which is also testified by the same prelates and was drafted at Westminster around the time of the council.'^'

Soon after the Council of Westminster had closed, Henry and his retinue moved to Windsor where he celebrated Christmas. The gathering included envoys from the Holy Land, sent by Patriarch Heraclius to seek assistance from the English king to rescue the Kingdom of Jerusalem from overwhelming circumstances: Baldwin IV was dying from leprosy and had made alarming advances into Christian territories.'^^ The keys of the kingdom and to the Holy Sepulchre were

Howden, Gesia, i.320-1. CM, p. 94 ('The Chronicle of Melrose', p. 24); Howden, Gesta, i.347; Howden, Chronica, ii.309-10. Leiston Abbey Cartulary and Butley Priory Charters, ed. R. Mortimer (Ipswich, 1979), pp. 73- 4, 121. See Mayer, 'Henry II of England and the Holy Land', pp. 725-6; and Bartlett, England, pp. 112-3. offered to Henry who, facing such monumental petition, decided to call a council of nobles to seek their advice on the matter. The meeting was set for March and the place was to be London.

Thus on 18 March 1185, a large crowd of nobles poured into the house of the Knights of Saint John of Jerusalem at Clerkenwell, south of the Thames, a most fitting place for a discussion on matters concerning the Holy Land. Henry had summoned all his vassals, and so there present were the bishops of England, William of Scotland, his brother David, and many English and Scottish nobles. Archbishop Baldwin of Canterbury was also present but not so his northern counterpart, for the see of York was still vacant. The patriarch was probably staying with the knights, and at the council he must have explained the daunting situation of the Holy Land and praised the English monarch and his potential to rescue that Christian stronghold from its sorry state. He asked Henry to go on crusade against Saladin, and to marry one of his sons to Baldwin's sister and heiress. As at the other councils so far described, Henry subjected the patriarch's appeal to the opinion of the barons there assembled. The discussions lasted for a week and, according to Ralph of Diceto, the magnates of the land decided that their ruler should honour his coronation oath, and accordingly govern and protect his kingdom as promised before God instead of attending the needs of the easterners. 143

The king assumed the resolutions at the council, although what the nobles deliberated was probably what the king wanted to hear. A Christian ruler of Henry's standing, however, could not afford to leave the Kingdom of Jerusalem entirely adrift, so he gave license to all his vassals to take the cross and set out on crusade against Saladin. The royal call met with extraordinary success for according to Roger of Howden, many committed to the cause, including the archbishops of Canterbury and Rouen, the justiciar of England, the bishop of

Diceto, ii.33. The Council of Clerkenwell attracted a great deal of attention from chroniclers, and it is well studied in the historiography. Some references are: Howden, Gesta, i.336; Howden, Chronica, ii.301-2; Gervase, i.325; LPB, i. no. 98, PR, 31 Hen.IL, pp. 5-7, 45, 143, 150, 217; RRS, ii.98; CS, pp. 1022-5; Eyton, Court, p. 261; Parry, Parliaments, p. 17; Hody, Councils, p. 245; Warren, Henry II, pp. 604-5; J.O. Prestwich, 'Anglo-Norman Feudalism and the Problem of Continuity', Past and Present, 26 (1963), pp. 49-50; Cazel, 'The Tax of 1185', pp. 385-92; Barber, Henry Plantagenet, pp. 217-8. Durham and many other prelates, as well as large numbers of earls, barons and knights from all comers of his Angevin lands.

Heraclius had already attended a French council at Paris in January with a view to securing support from Philip Augustus. It seems that the patriarch failed in this attempt for he was then found among the nobles of England two months later. Since the petition had also been extended to the French monarch, it was determined at Clerkenwell that the matter should also be discussed between Henry and Philip Augustus. Accordingly, after knighting his son John at Windsor, the king and a large retinue of bishops and barons journeyed to Dover and then crossed the sea towards Witsand on 16 April, meeting with the French king and the patriarch at Le Vaudreuil after Easter. The monarchs resolved to remain in Europe, but promised to collect an aid. None of the chroniclers makes reference to this commitment; neither do we have the original ordinance promulgating the collection of such tribute, knowledge of which we have only from a fourteenth- century copy, whose authenticity was doubted by Stubbs. Research published by Fred Cazel in 1955, however, strongly suggests that a tax in aid of the Holy Land was collected in 1185 in England and France by the military orders.If this was the case, this financial assistance could have been an alternative discussed at the Council of Clerkenwell to satisfy the patriarch's plea.

Heraclius' request dominated the proceedings at Clerkenwell, but it was not the only matter discussed by the nobles. The Treaty of Falaise made after the 1173-4 rebellion must have been revised at the council, since according to the Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, the king of England returned the earldom of Huntingdon to William the , king of Scots.William's loyalty and submission had proved beneficial.

Henry returned to England towards the end of April 1187, and a council gathered at Eynsham, a village north-west of Oxford, with the main purpose of filling a number of ecclesiastical offices. The council was assembled in the last

Howden, Chronica, ii.301-2. Mayer, 'Henry II of England and the Holy Land', p. 732. Cazel, 'The Tax of 1185', pp. 386-91. ^^^ Howden, Gesta, i.337; CM, p. 94. week of May and it is described in some detail in the Magna Vita Sancti Hugonis\ a biographical account of Bishop Hugh of Lincoln:

After that venerable man, Walter, bishop of Lincoln, had been raised to the archbishopric of Rouen, Henry II, king of the English, held a council at Eynsham. There he discussed for almost eight days continuously various matters of the realm with the bishops and nobles of his kingdom. On this occasion the gave hospitality to Baldwin, archbishop of Canterbury of blessed memory, and to certain of his suffragans. The king used to come there each day early in the morning, and when the conference ended returned to his palace at Woodstock. Elections to various bishoprics and abbeys took place at this time, and the canons of Lincoln arrived there to elect, or rather to receive the bishop designed for them by God."^^

A number of bishoprics had remained vacant for some time and by the end of Henry's reign it had become a matter of urgency to provide those dioceses with pastors. The most important election was to the archiépiscopal see of York, which had remained empty since Roger's death in 1181. Maintaining an episcopal see empty was a profitable business for the crown because the diocesan income was directed to the royal treasury in the absence of a bishop. The bishopric of Carlisle, for example, remained without a pastor from 1157 to 1204, a situation that appears to be a financial strategy of the king. Only the see of Lincoln was filled at the Council of Eynsham, and another assembly was summoned later in the year to finalise the elections.

After the council, Henry returned to his palace at Woodstock, as is reported in the Magna Vita Sancti Hugonis, and there he spent most of the summer, making a brief visit to Carlisle, and returning to Woodstock to celebrate the marriage between William of Scotland and Ermengard of Beaumont in September.The wedding Mass was celebrated by Archbishop Baldwin, who was escorted by the bishops of Norwich, Ely and Bath. The king of the Scots had come with his brother David, the bishop of Glasgow, the abbot of Melrose, and many Scottish nobles. The English monarch arranged for the celebrations to take place at his palace and gave control of to William as dowry.Having finalised the festivities, the Scottish entourage departed north and Henry travelled

MVSH, i.92. See also Howden, Chronica, ii.309; Howden, Gesta, i.345; and Eyton, Court, p. 268. ^^^ Refer to appendix 1. Howden, Gesta, i.347-351; Howden, Chronica, ii.309-310; PR, 32 Hen.IL, pp. 43, 49, 111, 168; CM, p. 94 ('The Chronicle of Melrose', p. 24); Eyton, Court, p. 268. south to meet his nobles at Marlborough and continue with the election of prelates. Friendship between the rulers of England and Scotland had reached such a point that an English contingent had marched north to put down a rebellion against William in Galloway.'^'

Marlborough was a small town located in , and for the first time used as a meeting place for a council during Henry's reign. On the feast of the exaltation of the Holy Cross (18 September), assembled at the royal castle were the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of Norwich, Bath, Bayeux, Ely, Durham, Worcester and Lincoln, and many other nobles who had been summoned to elect pastors for the churches of York, Exeter and Salisbury. Like the Council of Eynsham, this meeting reveals features typical of an ecclesiastical assembly, but the Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi assures that the gathering was called by the monarch and was also attended by many lay nobles, some of whom appear testifying a royal charter notifying the foundation of Witham charterhouse, and drafted at Marlborough around the time of the council.Furthermore, it is likely that the death of Duke Geoffrey in August and the fate of Brittany were also brought to the attention of the nobles at the council. The king of France had claimed the wardship of Geoffrey's daughter and heiress and the lordship over Brittany upon the duke's death. Henry and his nobles must have discussed a course of action at the council, and resolved to petition a truce with France so to freeze Philip Augustus' ambitions, at least for some time. After keeping Christmas at , and spending much of the winter in southern England, Henry visited the shrine of Thomas Becket at Canterbury and sailed to the continent from Dover.

Barber, Henry Plantagenet, p. 220; Boussard, Gouvernement d'Henri II, p. 521; Mortimer, Angevin England, p. 141; Bartlett, England, p. 60. In spite of the events of 1174, it seems that the relationship between Henry and William was not shaped by systematic bullying. Matthew Strickland has asserted that although Henry was known for being a magnanimous ruler, he occasionally resorted to the humiliation of his adversaries (See Strickland, 'Réconciliation ou Humiliation?', p. 74). Howden, Gesta, i.351-352; CCR, i.l 16. Refer to royal itinerary in appendix 1. A council with his continental nobles in January at Le Mans was the first of several European assemblies to gather in IISS.'^"^ The meeting concluded just before the end of the month with the promulgation of an unprecedented tax on movables to assist crusading efforts, and the granting of several privileges to those nobles venturing to the Holy Land. Henry crossed the channel shortly after, and on Thursday 11 February, he was with his nobles at Geddington in to promote the crusade and seek approval to exact the same continental levy, now from his English subjects. The event was described by the contemporary and possibly eye-witness account of Roger of Howden as a magnum concilium or "great council".It can hardly be a coincidence that such events had a similar prelude to the promulgation of the Assize of Arms, the military edict first approved in July 1181, also at Le Mans, and enforced shortly after throughout England. The , as it came to be known, was such a novelty in 1188 that similar initiatives in France and Scotland were aggressively opposed by the nobles. It was collected in English parishes as an ecclesiastical aid, but the tenth was soon to become a model for royal taxation on movable property thereafter. The royal ordinances ordered that 'each man shall give in alms a tenth of his revenues and movables (but) clerks and knights who have taken the cross shall not pay this tithe, except for their own property and ...Such disposition was so unprecedented that after the Council of Geddington, the bishop of Durham was sent to Scotland to promote the crusade among the nobles and to press an unwilling King William to impose a similar tithe over his dominions. Roger of Howden's Gesta confirms that the levy was rejected by the Scots, but his Chronica affirms that the tenth was effectively imposed by Philip Augustus over his French subjects.According to Gerald of Wales, the crusade was also promoted among Welsh nobles:

Important assemblies took place in the Iberian towns of Huesca (January), León (July), Carrion de los Condes (July), and Vilafranca (August). See Howden, Chronica, ii.338. EHD, ii.454-4; Howden, Gesta ii.30-2. See also W. Stubbs, Select Charters and Other Illustrations of English Constitutional History, ninth edition (Oxford, 1913), pp. 188-9; Bartlett, England, p. 167; and Barlow, Feudal Kingdom, p. 258. Further thoughts on this ordinance will be suggested when discussing the business of assemblies in later chapters. Howden, Chronica, ii.339: 'Philippus autem rex Francorum simili modo colligi fecit décimas reddituum et mobilium hominum suorum per omnes terras suas'. On the other hand. King William and his nobles listened to the bishop of Durham, but after considering the petition, 'habito suis consilio, respondit, se non posse ánimos eorum inclinare ad decimam dandam' (Howden, Gesta, ii.44); A.C. Lawrie, Annals of the Reigns of Malcolm and William (Glasgow, 1910), pp. 271-3. After a brief stay in Normandy the King came to England about the first day of February and straightway summoned a council in the neighbourhood of Northampton at Geddington. The Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury, preached and displayed the sign of the Cross, and Gilbert, Bishop of Rochester, also delivered a sermon, and the King, also labouring to the same end, the magnates of England, both clergy and laity, took the Cross upon their shoulders. But that he might allure and bind good men of Wales as of England to the service of the Cross, the King sent Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury, to the land of Wales.

A cold winter's day must have hardened the route for the nobles heading to the royal hunting lodge at Geddington, a village in Northamptonshire, for a council that possibly stretched over two weeks.The meeting appears to have been well attended, however, for according to the chronicle of Roger of Howden, there congregated were the bishops, abbots, earls and barons of the land, and many others, both clergy and laymen. The chronicle sources reveal the presence of the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of Durham, while a series of royal charters and notifications drafted early in 1188, and possibly connected with the assembly, were testified by the bishops of Norwich, and Lincoln, among others. More importantly, two notifications from the English king to Pope Clement III concerning the long-standing conflict between the archbishop and the monks of Canterbury, inform us that reconciliation was encouraged by the bishops and the magnates of the land, and that papal support for the primate was required by the king after taking counsel with all the bishops, abbots, religious men, and barons of his entire kingdom.It seems, therefore, that only the meeting of a royal council attended by the kingdom's magnates was deemed an appropriate setting for the resolution of an important dispute and the introduction of so extraordinary a tribute.

Contrary to Roger of Howden's report, it has been suggested that the French king failed to collect this tax on his subjects and was even forced to apologise for such an initiative (CS, pp. 1024-5; Warren, Henry II, pp. 378, 608,). The Autobiography of Gerald of Wales, ed. and trans. H.E. Butler (Woodbridge, 2005), p. 98. Refer also to Gerald of Wales, Opera, viii.208-9. According to Stubbs' itinerary of Henry II, the king was at Clarendon from 29 February. See appendix 1; and Stubbs (ed.), 'Outline Itinerary', in Howden, Gesta, p. cxlvii. See Gervase, i.412; Howden, Gesta, i.323; 'Epistolae Cantuarienses: the Letters of the Prior and Convent of Christ Church, Canterbury, from A.D. 1187 to A.D. 1199', Chronicles and Memorials of the Reign of Richard I, ed. W. Stubbs (London, 1865), ii. 172-3, no. 190; Howden, Chronica, ii.335, and Stubbs, Select Charters, pp. 188-9; CS, pp. 1024-5; Parry, Parliaments, p. 17; Hody, Councils, p. 245; Eyton, Court, p. 285; Norgate, England, ii.249. These assemblies, therefore, were no ordinary instances of governance, for they assembled most -or at least many- of the powerful men of the land in order to treat ecclesiastical and military matters concerning the entire kingdom. Henry returned to Normandy in July and celebrated a number of colloquia or diplomatic conferences in Normandy and Anjou before dying at in July 1189. The Council of Geddington thus turned out to be his last assembly on English soil, the political and institutional importance of which can hardly be overestimated.

The royal assemblies of the 1180s were crucial in the restoration of order and peace after the continental rebellion of 1183, and for the approval of extraordinary tributary measures to assist the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Councils were called less frequently in comparison to the years that Henry spent in the island from 1155 to 1177, but the meetings at Clerkenwell and Geddington were as crucial for the governance and stability of the realm as any of the Becket councils or the gatherings that promulgated the very significant reforms of the late 1170s.

Conclusion

Above all, the occasions on which Henry was in the midst of his barons were crucial instances for assertive governance, which to a large extent shaped the political path followed by England and the British Isles in this period. Accordingly, the grouping of councils set out in this chapter is, in some ways, a reflection of and may be identified with the different phases in Henry's reign. Little attention has been given to the extraordinary fact that most of the measures and reforms of importance were promulgated at royal councils in this period, and that the king managed to have them legitimised by the counsel and assent of his nobles, and enforced by his loyal officials. Having surveyed all the meetings, it seems that nowhere else but at councils could have the king enacted his policies with such political support. Henry honoured custom and wisdom in making most of his important decisions the subject of baronial consultation. It was primarily by

These conferences were held at Gisors (August), Chatillon (October), Bonsmoulins (November) and at La Ferte Bernard (May 1189) (See Diceto, ii.52-4, Howden, Gesta, ii.49-50, 66; and Howden, Chronica, ii.354). summoning councils with frequency that the king was able to materialise such political principle.

The present chapter has offered a chronological description of those great assemblies of nobles summoned by Henry II in England, and it is, therefore, a conciliar history of his reign. Now that we are acquainted with the subject matter of this study, the following sections will propose an interpretation of the changing institutional patterns revealed in these meetings. Accordingly, we now move onto analysing the terminology employed by contemporary sources to identify these meetings, the patterns of frequency and geography, the basis for and method of convocation, the business treated and the process of consultation, debate and approval, as well as their attendance and composition. Nomenclature

The study of nomenclature has proved useful in the study of medieval institutions, and the following analysis hopes to underline its importance in analysing the terminological subtleties surrounding the meeting of royal councils in the reign of Henry II, and their correspondence with changing political realities.

Terms such as concilium, curia and colloquium were often used in chronicles, treatises and charters in reference to a variety of meetings, yet the prevailing view is that such a myriad of names is indicative of the primitive and fluid character of assemblies in this period. A number of terms were indeed associated in contemporary sources with the councils summoned by the king between 1155 and 1188, but the following study will suggest that such names were not employed as alternatives in recognition of ill-defmed assemblies, but that chroniclers often distinguished between increasingly distinctive forms of gatherings, and accordingly used terms with some precision. The following section is not intended to provide a general survey of the use of concilium, curia and colloquium in medieval England, but these terms will be studied only in so far as they were employed in reference to or connection with royal assemblies in the twelfth century, and particularly those of Henry II. Concilium

James Baldwin wrote in 1913 that 'such words as council, curia regis, exchequer, parliament, and other were given a precision of meaning that is true of modem times but not of the Middle Ages'.' Such an observation is perhaps representative of a tendency which has viewed the study of conciliar terminology in this period as a futile exercise, but it needs to be qualified in the light of the evidence. Up to the eleventh century, concilium was a term normally associated with meetings of ecclesiastical nature, but it seems to have also been adopted by royal assemblies, which had begun to develop, perhaps under the influence of clerical practice and the growth of royal government. During the late Anglo-Saxon period, the English royal assembly was usually identified as the witenagemot or "the meeting of the wise men". One of the earliest examples which connects concilium to a royal assembly appears in Anglo-Saxon charters from as early as 704, and the term witenagemot or gemot is used in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle to describe a royal council in 1123. From the eighth to the eleventh century the term concilium appears in more than ten charters in connection with important meetings, but it must be noted that it is often qualified by the adjective synodalis, perhaps an indication of the ecclesiasical dimension of these assembles.^ It seems, therefore.

' Baldwin, The King's Council, pp. 1-2. See also R.E. Latham, Revised Medieval Latin Word-List (Oxford, 1980), p. 108. G.B. Adams indicates that during the Prankish period, the royal advisory body was interchangeably called curia, placitum, conventus, colloquium, synodum, and concilium (Adams, CC, p. xx). Such views are also shared in A.B. White, 'Was There a "Common Council" Before Parliament?', AHR, 25 (1917), pp. 8, 12, 17. See also Reuter 'Asembly Polities', p. 433. These suggestions have not been contradicted ever since. ^ According to Oleson this was not a technical term for it also describes a body of councillors (Oleson, The Witenagemot, p. 32). See also Bartlett, England, p. 143. ^ Many of these meetings are identified in the charters with the term concilium synodalis. In reference to Henry I's council at Gloucester in 1123, see ASC, p. 122, where MS.E of the chronicle uses gewitenemot. The charters where concilium is used are listed in P.H. Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters (London, 1968), nos. 22, 90, 168, 876, 937, 1428b, 1430a, 1431a, 1436, 1438, 1439. They are printed in H. Spelman, Concilia, Decreta, Leges, Constitutiones in Re Ecclesiarum Orbis Britannici, 2 volumes (London 1639-64), i. 189-90, 230-1, 317, 324; H. Pierquin, Les Annales et Conciles de I'Eglise d'Angleterre Pendant la Periode Anglo-Saxonne (Paris, 1913), pp. 445-7, 460, 468-71, 482-4, 443-4, 492-4; S.E. Kelly, Anglo-Saxon Charters, Abingdon, Part 2 (Oxford, 2001), nos. 124, 129. Oleson suggests that the meeting of the Witan often has to be inferred in the absence of explicit terminology (Oleson, The Witenagemot, pp. 27- 8). Further information on this usage is given in P. Lendinara, Anglo-Saxon Glosses and Glossaries (Aldershot, 1999), p. 229; and An Eight-Century Latin-Anglo-Saxon Glossary, ed. J.H. Hessels (Cambridge, 1890), pp. 37, 69. For Susan Reynolds 'what historians refer to as the "Old English witenagemot" and the Norman "feudal Great Council" or curia regis look different only because historians use Old English words for the first and modern English or Latin for the second that both terms were used in connection with the same assembly, where concilium was the Latin equivalent of the Old English witenagemot.

Concilium and consilium are often used in chronicle descriptions in reference to political assemblies and consultation. There is indeed an important semantic connection between these words, since consilium (counsel) was given by the nobles to the king whenever a concilium (council) assembled. The term concilium appears in England among chronicles from as early as the seventh century, generally to describe an assembly of some relevance; a council, royal or ecclesiastical, general or provincial. From the ninth century, the term regularly appears in connection with the advisory body of the monarch, and it is sometimes, but rarely, written as consilium.^

In the twelfth century, the word is also used in reference to ecclesiastical councils, along with terms such as conventus and synodus, which were distinctively employed, usually to manifest the importance and scope of the gathering.^ The Council of London in August 1107, for example, is identified by the chronicle of John of Worcester and Eadmer's Historia Novorum in Anglia as conventus, and so also the councils of Northampton in September 1131 and Winchester in 1133, which are respectively described by William of Malmesbury's Historia Novella and Henry of Huntingdon's Historia Anglorum with the term conventus. This word is also employed by Eadmer to identify a meeting between Henry I and his nobles at Salisbury in March 1116.^ The assembly of 1107 appears to be a royal council, but was heavily dominated by ecclesiastical presence and the discussion of clerical matters -even in the absence of Archbishop Anselm-, while the Council of Northampton in 1131 was no doubt a royal assembly. It is possible to perceive some measure of terminological

-throwing in the word "feudal" for further obfuscation' {Kingdoms, p. 304). Stenton argues that the Norman council was, in fact, equivalent to the witenagemot (Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p. 641). These linguistic considerations are taken from the Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, 10 fascicules, prepared by R.E. Latham (London, 1975-), ii.419. Some thoughts n the distinction between consilium and concilum are offered in White, 'Was There a "Common Council'", pp. 4, 17. White concludes that commune consilium was never applied to an assembly in twelfth-century England. ^ For a few examples the use of synodus, see Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, The Acta of William I, 1066-1087, ed. D. Bates (Oxford, 1998), nos. 303-4; and CS, p. 112. ^ Malmesbury, HN, pp. 19-22; Huntingdon, pp. 487-9; Eadmer, HNA, iv.l86, 237. ambiguity in this period which is far less common in the second half of the century. In fact, only the councils at Wallingford in 1155 and Northampton in 1164 were subject to such denomination; two meeting of a total of thirty-six/ The word synodus, on the other hand, normally referred not to a general meeting of the kingdom's clergy, but to a smaller regional assembly, generally a diocesan-wide gathering summoned by a bishop to discuss provincial issues. In the twelfth century, it is never used to describe an English royal assembly.

The terminology used by chroniclers may also provide hints concerning the distinction between royal and ecclesiastical assemblies in this period. Typically, the business of an ecclesiastical council was described as status ecclesie as opposed to status regni, and the attendance as praesules regni instead of proceres regni^ These nomenclature tests are far from infallible, but they give some useful general guidelines to separate clerical from secular gatherings, whenever these were truly distinctive.

The word concilium is also used to describe ecumenical councils summoned by the pope to discuss issues concerning the universal church. This is the case, for example, of the four ecumenical councils of the Lateran celebrated in 1123, 1139, 1179 and 1215.^ The term is also applied to legatine councils, which are a recurrent form of clerical assembly in England during the first half of the twelfth century. The legatine Council of London in 1127 is described by John of Worcester as follows: '...cui concilio presedit ipse sicut archiepiscopus Cantuariensis et legatus apostolice sedis... Whether the ecclesiastical councils were summoned by the pope, the legate or the primate, they are normally identified by the sources as concilia. That said, concilium was not exclusively

^ Gervase, i.l62; Newburgh, p. 142. It is important to note that while conventus is the only denomination given to the Council of Wallingford, the Council of Northampton is identified as concilium by most sources. (Howden, Chronica, i.224; MTB, iii.49, v. 134; The Correspondence of Thomas Becket, i.51). It is also worth noting that Gervase of Canterbury rarely uses the word concilium to describe an assembly opting instead for terms more familiar to monastic writing. In fact, only the Council of Clarendon in 1164 is identified by Gervase as concilium (Gervase, i.l72). See also C^", pp. 851-2. ^ The term proceres was normally used by official and narrative sources to designate lay nobles, while praesules was the usual denomination for ecclesiastical nobles. Refer also to appendix 8. ^ Gervase, i.276; Diceto, i.429. John of Worcester, p. 168. Other legatine councils in England were Westminster in 1125, 1141, 1143, 1151, and Winchester in 1139, 1141. These are all identified in the sources as concilia (Malmesbuty, HN, pp. 51-6, 90, 108; Huntingdon, pp. 742-3, 756-7; CS, pp. 733-41, 788-94). used to designate clerical assemblies. Like ecclesiastical meetings, royal assemblies in the twelfth-century were also called concilia, and as we have pointed out, the distinction between them is not always straightforward.''

In the narrative sources, the word concilium is used to designate royal councils in the same way it does for church assemblies. During the reign of Henry II, royal assemblies were invariably summoned by the monarch, and not the archbishop or the legate, and their business is often described as status regni. The clauses rex concilium habuit or rex concilium tenuit, as the king "holds" or "has" a council, are also used, but are far less common. When Henry II assembled with his nobles at a council, the chronicles often report that the assembly was celebrated or summoned {celebrare and convocare). On the other hand, the term curia is almost always accompanied by the verb tenere, thus the recurrent phrase "the king has/holds a court". Such distinction will be further clarified when studying the use of the term curia and its relation to concilium.

Nearly every royal council in the reign of Henry II is recognised by one or more chronicles as a concilium, with some very rare exceptions, when the assembly is identified with another term or is deduced by the description of institutional circumstances or the political context. These political settings are normally revealed when the narrative informs that the king was assembled with his nobles at a certain location, but chooses not to designate or define the event with conciliar terminology.'^ The incorporation of concilium into the English charters is surprisingly rare.'^ It is logical to think that many royal grants are connected to meetings of the royal council, and indeed this will be suggested when we make reference to the business of these assemblies. The granting of property and privileges is often the result of a discussion between the king and his nobles, sometimes within a conciliar context, at times within the more intimate circle of the court and the king's familiares. Thankftilly, the historian is not always forced to speculate, for such correspondence between an official record and a particular

" The assembly of the realm is usually singled out from ecclesiastical councils by its convocation, business and attendance, all of which will be discussed in the forthcoming chapters. Refer to appendix 2. Appendix 2 offers a comprehensive list of terminological usage for royal assemblies in this period. assembly is explicitly -but most rarely- made when the clause in concilio is incorporated in the charter, thus indicating that the royal privilege was granted "in council".'"^

Let us now refer to some examples which illustrate this usage. A royal confirmation to the bishop of Saint David's was made in 1115 'apud Westmonsterium in concilio', at Westminster in council.^^ This is not the first appearance of the clause in the reign of Henry I, but it is also used in charters drafted at the councils of Salisbury in September 1100, Westminster in December 1100 and December 1102, and Nottingham in October 1109.'^ It is employed again in reference to the restoration of the church of Malmesbury, the notification of which was done 'in concilio apud Northamptonam', at the Council of Northampton in September 1131.'^ Most of these charters bear exceptionally large witness lists, another confirmation of their link to conciliar activity. Interestingly, the clause in concilio appears to fade away to the extent that none of the charters attributed to King Stephen (1135-1154) reveals an explicit correspondence with royal councils, apart from coincidental dating and large witness lists. The clause, however, reappears in no less than five charters of Henry II. Henry's confirmation of the possessions and liberties of the Hospitallers of Jerusalem at the Council of Winchester in September 1155 has a long witness list followed by 'apud Wintoniam in concilio \ which is repeated in a confirmation to Longueville Priory, granted at the very same assembly.'^ Similar references are found in charters connected to the business of royal councils at Northampton in July 1157 and October 1164, and London in May 1176.'^ As in the charters of Henry I, the clause in concilio is sometimes accompanied by large witness lists and does also correspond with the description of narrative sources. The institutional significance

See appendix 5. ^^ RRAN, \\. no.l091. ^^RRAN, ii. nos. 494-5, 507, 619, 639, 778, 918-9. ^^ RRAN, ii.253,no. 1715. MSS PRO E40/13947 and PRO E40/14901; Delisle, Recueil, nos. 6 and 7. The clause in concilio is also used in two chaters granted at the Council of Northampton in 1157, to Wix Priory (Essex). These documents are known to be spurious or forged, but since they were probably drafted in the last two decades of the twelfth century, the use of in concilio remains, however, a significant feature. See Salter, 'Two Forged Charters of Henry IF, pp. 65-8 ; C.N.L. Brooke, 'Episcopal Charters for Wix Priory', A Medieval Miscellany for Doris Mary Stenton, ed. P. Barnes and C.F. Slade (London, 1962), pp. 45-63. Monasticon iv.515; MTB v. 134, no. 71; EYC, i.35, no. 24. An English translation can be obtained from EHD, ii, pp. 734-5, no. 130. of this correlation and the connection between charters and meetings of the royal council will be subject to further analysis in the forthcoming chapters.

The vernacular equivalents to concilium are by no means abundant, but some Old French chronicles contribute to our study with examples. The Anglo-Norman Dictionary defines cunseil or conseil as 'advise, counsel, meeting, [or] council', but no distinction is made in this reference between "counsel" and "council," and concile is not even considered as a term on its own.^^

Some of the vernacular accounts employed conseil and concile with certain frequency, although not always distinctively as respectively counsel and council. In describing an eleventh-century assembly, where the claims the rights to the English throne, Wace's Roman de Rou uses conseil instead of concile to identify the meeting:

'Voz avez \ font il, 'grant barnage, maint home avez vaillant e sage, qui sunt d'altresi grantpoeir e altretant quident valeir come nos a qui vos parlez, ceste parole lor mostrez; bien deivent al conseil venir qui al travail deiventpartir'?^

From the 1150s, it is difficult to find conseil and concile being used as alternatives for council. Furthermore, concile is used twice by Guemes de Pont-Sainte- Maxence in reference to the Council of Northampton in 1164.^^ Benoit de Saint Maure's Chroniques de Dues de Normandie, which is the sequel of Wace's work, were written in the 1170s, and identify most assemblies as parlement, concile and cort, while the term conseil is generally used in reference to consultation. It is significant for our study that these terms are incorporated into the same paragraph in the following passage:

^^Anglo-Norman Dictionary, ed. W. Rothwell, L.W. Stone and T.B.W. Reid (London, 1992), p. 131. Wace, 6025-6038, p. 230. The editor's translation into English is important because it reveals the nature of the terms: '"You have," they said, "a powerful body of men, many valiant and wise men, who are all of great power. They think they are just as worthy as ourselves to whom you are speaking. Say these things to them; they who are to share in the hardship should come to the council'". This assembly may have been presided over by Duke Richard II (996-1026), Richard III (1026-7) or Robert I (1026-1035), but it is not ascertained in Wace's narrative. '' See Guemes, 1383-1424, pp. 104, 106. Puis ne demora pas granment Qu 'il tint concile e parlement. Tuit ijosterent si baron E cil des soens de major non, E li evesque e li abbé I refurent trestuit mandé. Par lor conseil reisnablement...^^

This passage is particularly revealing for it uses both concile and conseil, but with different meanings. Another of the many examples of the use of concile in Benoit's chronicle reads as follows:

Quant cil afaires fu feniz, Sijosta li dus son concile, Ce sui lisant, a Buenne Vile.^^

Thus if the scribes and chroniclers wrote conseil to mean both "council" and "counsel", Benoit de Saint Maure escapes this tradition, and he is not the only chronicler to do so. Geoffrey Gaimar's reference to an assembly of the Anglo- Saxon King Edgar resembles Benoit's verses, and seems to illustrate twelfth- century usage:

Diloc turnat, al rei vint, A vn concile kil tint: Contes i out, barons, e chasez, E arceueskes, evesques e abbez.^^

These examples suggest that in this period the use of concilium and concile reveal more precision than traditionally thought, and that "consultation" and "council" were not equivalent concepts. It is in the variations of concilium -for instance, magnum and generale concilium- that this semantic precision is perhaps manifested more clearly in the reign of Henry II. 26

^^ Benoit, 9257-9265, i.270. 'He did not wait long before holding a council and a parliament. All the nobles took part in it, and those of his of greater name, and the bishops and abbots were all summoned there again. According to their reasonable counsel...' ^^ Benoit, 38828-38830, ii.480. There are examples where conseil is used as counsel. ^^ Geoffrey Gaimar, L 'Estoire des Engles, ed. T.D. Hardy and C.T. Martin, 2 volumes (volume 1: Text, volume 2: Translation) (London, 1889), 3675-78, i. 154-5. Other examples where conseil is used in reference to counsel can be found in: HWM, pp. 98, 118; Benoit, 1939-1940, i.57; 1269- 1271, i.37; 7040-7054, i.206-7; 7082, i.207; 9257-9265, i.270; 24138, ii.64; 38924-38928, ii.483. ^^ See appendix 2. It has also been suggested that Latin records too reveal a great deal of terminological imprecision, offering no distinction between the act of giving counsel, and the assembly where consultation takes place.^^ Such ambivalence is occasionally found in records prior to Henry's reign, but it seems rather exceptional. A notification from King Henry I to Walter Huse informing him and his officials of a grant to the abbot of Malmesbury, was drafted in September 28 1100, 'apud Sarum in consilio', literally translated as "at Salisbury in counsel" instead of "in council" or in concilio. In addition to this peculiar case, the Council of Westminster which gathered in the Easter of 1136 and appointed a new bishop for Bath, is identified by a royal charter as a generale consilium. The episcopal see was filled by the dispositions of a royal charter granted 'apud Westmonast(erium) in generalis consilii celebratione... This ambivalence is indeed surprising and such clause is never used in subsequent royal charters.

Conversely, instances when concilium is used to mean counsel are also rare, and most exceptional in the reign of Henry II. As one would expect, "common counsel" is in most cases the translation of commune consilium. But a royal notification of a grant to the Archbishop of Canterbury was made 'apud Northampton data et concessa sed apud Westmonasterium confirmata communi celebrato concilio...in April 1132. The word celebrato (celebrare) is an indication that concilio/um here is likely to mean "council", but the use of communi/e may indicate that the scribe intended to mean "common counsel", in accordance with common usage.

The Council of Windsor in April 1179 provides a later example, which might clarify the obfuscation to some extent. While Roger of Howden's Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi refers to the "common counsel" given by the magnates to the

^^ See Jolliffe, Angevin Kingship, pp. 166-7; and Butt, A History of Parliament, p. 22. ^^ RRAN, ii.3, no. 494. The original charter has not survived, and this is a copy included in Malmesbury Cartulary, BL, Add. MS. 38009, fo. 138 (see also Registrum Malmesburiense: The Register of , ed. J.S. Brewer and C.T. Martin, 2 volumes (London 1879-90), i.333). There is another charter which incorporates the clause apud Sarum in concilio (Sept? 1110) and is copied into Selby Cartulary, BL, Add. MS. 37771, fo. 14b (See also RRAN, ii.3, no. 495). RRAN, m.\6-l, no. 46. ^^ RRAN,\\.251 {29A.\U2). king as 'communi eorum concilio\ his later Chronica appears to amend it to 'communi consilio archiepiscoporum, comitum, et baronum', while identifying the assembly as a ^magnum concilium'Pollard's study on the evolution of parliament explains that 'while English medieval clerks wrote in Latin, they generally thought in French...Now the French have only one word, conseil, for the Latin concilium and consilium, and for our "council" and "counsel"; and it is by no means improbable that where we see "council," the medieval scribe was only thinking of "counsel"'. Not only is he overlooking the use of concile in the sources, but such an ambivalence is not recurrent enough to suggest that twelfth- century chroniclers made no distinction between "counsel" and "council." In contrast, the chronicle passages where the term consilium is employed in reference to consultation are too numerous to be all cited here.^^

The terms concilium and consilium are therefore distinctively used in the sources, but they are nevertheless intimately related to each other, for counsel often took place at councils, and such process is precisely the subject of the present study. Consilium was undoubtedly the most important aspect of councils in the twelfth century, and the main purpose for which they were summoned. This might explain in some way the linguistic similarities between the two and the occasional ambiguity to be found among the sources.

So far we have studied the term concilium as a signifier of ecclesiastical and royal assemblies in the twelfth century. From the decade of the 1150s, the terms magnum concilium and generale concilium are frequently incorporated into narrative accounts. Interestingly, while the names magnum concilium and generale concilium are attributed to ecclesiastical councils throughout the twelfth century, from 1100 to 1154 only one royal assembly is described as a great council; an assembly of nobles gathered at Gloucester in 1123. Hugh the Chanter identifies the meeting as a magnum concilium, but although he reports that the gathering was summoned by the king, it is a passage which typically describes an

Howden, Gesta, i.238; Howden, Chronica, ii.l90. ^^ A.F. Pollard, The Evolution of Parliament (London, 1968), p. 28. " See also H.G. Richardson, 'The Origins of Parliament', TRHS, Fourth Series, 11 (1928), pp. 137-185; G.O. Sayles, The King's (London, 1975), p. 33. See also our appendix 2. ecclesiastical council: 'In predicta festiuitate apud Gloecestriam rex de omnibus ecclesiasticis personis concilium magnum mandauerat pro episcopo Cantuariensis ecclesie eligendo'.^^ The presence of lay nobles is ascertained in a passage of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which clearly reveals the royal nature of the meeting. The ecclesiastical Council of Westminster in 1102 was described by John of Worcester and Eadmer as a magnum concilium, and the legatine assembly which met also at Westminster in 1127 is identified by John of Worcester as a generale concilium. These examples indicate that such terms were known to chroniclers prior to the reign of Henry II but, significantly, only one royal council is described as "greaf and none as "general" in the first half of the twelfth century. Besides the Gloucester assembly, important business was also discussed between Henry I and many of his nobles at London in 1107 and 1115, Windsor in 1126, and Northampton in 1131, and yet none of these meetings was qualified by the chroniclers as "greaf or "general". The ecclesiastical council at Westminster in December 1102 was also an important assembly which discussed a number of disciplinary measures for the clergy, and yet Eadmer writes that 'the transaction of this Council, as drawn up by Anselm himself, we think it not irrelevant to insert in this work'.^^ It appears that a similar judgment is assumed by chroniclers when referring to the business of most royal councils in this period.

^^ Hugh the Chanter, History of the Church of York, 1066-1127, ed. C.H. Johnson et al. (Oxford, 1990), p. 182. ^^ '...the king sent his writs over all England, and ordered his bishops and abbots and all to come and meet him for his council meeting on Candlemas Day at Gloucester, and they did so' (Whitelock, ASC, p. 188). See ASC, p. 122 for the Old English original passage. ^^ John of Worcester, pp. 102, 168; Eadmer, HN, iii.141. A royal council did also take place at Westminster in December 1102, but it was followed or met simultaneously with a church assembly presided over by Anselm and described by the chroniclers as a great council. The Anglo- Saxon Chronicle clarifies the distinction between these meetings: '...the king was at Westminster, and all the chief men in this country, cleric and lay; and Archbishop Anselm held a synod of clerics and these they prepared many decrees pertaining to ...' {ASC, Whitelock, p. 178). John of Worcester clearly separates the meetings as well: 'Ubi etiam Anselmus arciepiscopus tenuit magnum concilium de his que ad Christianitatem pertinent...and Eadmer provides a vague reference to the temporal relation between the gatherings when writing: 'per ibidem tempus celebratum est generale concilium episcoporum et abbatum totius regni...'. The Council of London in 1107 is described by the Battle Chronicle as a universal council, but this account was written several decades after the event and so its terminological significance is questionable. Eadmer and John of Worcester described the assembly rather more modestly as a conventus (John of Worcester, pp. 112-3; Eadmer, iv. 186-7). Refer also to Battle Chronicle, p. 116; and Hudson, 'Henry I and Counsel', p. 117. ^^ Eadmer,//M iii.141. In contrast, generale concilium and especially magnum concilium, are regularly used in chronicles to describe the assemblies of Henry II, and prominently so in the work of Roger of Howden. No less than twelve of the thirty-six assemblies of Henry II are described by the sources as "great" or "general councils". Although many of these references are taken from the extraordinary reports of Roger of Howden, William FitzStephen uses generale concilium twice and the Chronicle of Battle Abbey once, while Gervase of Canterbury also identifies one gathering as a

'JO magnum concilium.

These significant figures ought to be illustrated with some examples. The Council of Gloucester in June 1175 is described in the Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi as follows: 'In festo vero Sanctorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, dominus rex et rex filius suus magnum tenuerunt concilium apud Gloucestriam, cum Reso filio Grifini et aliis regibus Walliae'.^^ In addition, the councils of London in 1155, Clarendon in 1164, Northampton in 1164 and 1177, Westminster 1176, London and Oxford in 1177 are each identified by the chronicles as generale concilium.^^ William FitzStephen's biography of Thomas Becket reports that at the end of the Council of Clarendon in January 1164, 'unde rex postmodum aliud generale edicit concilium, locum designans apud Norhamtun(am) octava sancti Michaelis feria tertia. Concilii dicta dies aderat; ipsa die venimus Norhamtonam'.^^ In suggesting that "another" general council was to meet at Northampton nine months later, this indicates that the meeting at Clarendon had also been a general council, as is explicitly stated earlier in his account."^^ The latest of Henry IPs assemblies to be identified as a generale concilium was the

^^ These are the councils of London in 1155, 1163, 1170, 1177, Northampton in 1164, 1176, 1177, Gloucester in 1175, Windsor in 1175, 1179, Woodstock in 1175, and Geddington in 1188. References to these meetings are Howden, Chronica, i.220, ii.4, 83, 87, 118, 120, 133, 190, 338; Howden, Gesta, i.4, i.92; Gervase, i.254-5: MTB, iii.46, 49; Battle Chronicle, p. 154. The narratives of Ralph of Diceto and William of Newburgh refer to many councils, but very rarely employ the term concilium at all, while Robert of Torigni only reports a handful of assemblies, some of which he describes as curiae. ^^ Howden, Gesta, i.92. Battle Chronicle, p. 155, MTB, iii.46-58; Howden, Chronica, ii.l21, 133 (English translation in Howden, Annals, pp. 440, 454-5). The word "parliamenf is used in several instances throughout this period, mainly in the vernacular parlement. One example is provided by Guemes de Pont- Sainte-Maxence's description of the Council of Northampton of 1164 (Guemes, p. 56). See also Richardson, 'The Origins of Parliament', pp. 138-140. The use of parliamentum will be treated in our final chapter. MTB, iii.50. ^^ MTB, iii.46. meeting at Oxford in May 1177. Roger of Howden's narrative refers to the papal confirmation of John's kingship over Ireland in the following passage: 'Deinde venit rex Oxeneford, et in generali concilio ibidem ceJebrato constituit Johannem filium suum regem in Hybernia, concessione et confirmatione Alexandri summi pontifiais 'However, the terminology used does not always reflect the importance of an assembly, for the meeting at Oxford was clearly not the last significant gathering in Henry's reign. Even more important than this assembly were in fact the councils of Clerkenwell in March 1185 and Geddington in February 1188, both assemblies meeting to discuss crusading issues and the collection of taxes to aid the Holy Land. In the words of Roger of Howden, 'dominus vero rex, statim postquam in Angliam applicuit, magnum congregavit concilium episcoporum, abbatum, comitum et baronum, et aliorum multorum tam clericorum quam laicorum, apud Gaitingtung... The gathering at Clerkenwell is not identified by any of the sources as a great council, yet it is evident from the business transacted that this must have been a very important occasion: 'Statuta itaque die concilii, convenerunt secundum regis edictum apud Londonias, dominus rex et patriarcha, episcopi et abbates, comités et barones regni; et cum diu tractassent de itinere Jerosolimitanae profectionis... ' is recorded in the Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi.^^ Thus, if terminology employed is sometimes a useful indication of the magnitude and importance of the assembly, it was often descriptive rather than technical.

The changes perceived in comparison to the reign of Henry I are not simply the result of semantic evolution, but they appear to correspond to some institutional variations, perhaps in the attendance at assemblies and the business treated. Some of these aspects will be further explored in the course of this thesis. For the moment, it is relevant to establish that the terms magnum concilium and générale concilium existed before the reign of Henry II, because they are used by the sources in reference to some ecclesiastical assemblies."^^ Several church councils

Howden, Chronica, ii. 133-4. Howden, Chronica, ii.338. Howden, Annals, p. 82: 'Immediately upon his landing in England, our lord the king held a great council of bishops, abbots, earls, and barons, and many others, both clergy and laity, at Gaitington... Howden, Gesta, i.336. ^^ As early as 1102, John of Worcester reports that 'Anselmus arciepiscopus tenuit magnum concilium'. This account is particularly revealing if we consider that such council took place were described with such adjectives, and there are many more references that demonstrate that these terminological variations probably reveal patterns which extend beyond the natural evolution of semantics and literary styles.The case can be established further if we analyse the differences between the use of magnum and generale concilium in the context of royal assemblies.

Admittedly, magnum might have been an entirely descriptive term, devoid of much institutional precision."^^ Thus, if a twelfth-century chronicler reports that a particular meeting was a "great council", it is possible that he may only be describing the assembly as "large". Although it is significant that such a description is used recurrently during the reign of Henry II, and only once in the earlier period, it might not necessarily imply institutional change. However, if some assemblies are described as "general councils", then the chroniclers are not simply telling us that such gatherings were large or larger than the ordinary meeting of the curia. They seem to imply, perhaps, an institutional or political distinction between the enlargement of the king's court, and a gathering which is beginning to acquire the features of an assembly of the realm, or a public gathering. While magnus was, in most cases, a quantitative concept, generalis could have only been qualitative."^^ It is not surprising, for example, that the councils of Clarendon and Northampton in 1164 are identified as general. This is

immediately after the royal assembly of London, which is not described as a great council. In 1127, 'William, archbishop of Canterbury, summoned a general council of all the bishops, abbots, and other religious from all over England, to the monastery of St Peter's in the west of London'. And in 1151, a legatine council attended by King Stephen and some nobles, is described by Henry of Huntingdon as a 'concilium generale' {John of Worcester, pp. 102, 169; Huntingdon, p. 756). Other examples of church councils identified as such are in CS, pp. 607, 631, 664. ^^ It is difficult to calculate how many people attended royal assemblies in the twelfth century. Further thoughts on this will be offered in another chapter. Désiré Pasquet has asserted that the courts, councils and great councils of the twelfth century do not appear to be large gatherings (D. Pasquet, Essays on the Origins of the (Cambridge, 1925)). Pasquet supports this view on the evidence given about a council during the reign of Stephen. Furthermore, he groups courts and councils together, which is not useful for analysing the assemblies of Henry II. A more appropriate analysis of the attendance at assemblies is offered in chapter six. Even when we have some witness lists connected with twelfth-century councils, it is clear that they did not include all those present, but possibly only those who might have some form of involvement in the granting and drafting of royal charters. We know, for example, that a multitude of barons was present at these assemblies, but in most instances we are ignorant of their names and the exact numbers. Refer to appendices 6 and 8 for more information. ^^ See Adams, CC, p. 106. The terms universale concilium and generale concilium, 'though undoubtedly borrowed fi-om the vocabulary of the church, are more definite and are more likely to have been used without a sense of comparison. Their use, however, can hardly be placed before the middle of the reign of Henry I'. Generale concilium was used in the reign of Henry I, but not to identify royal councils, but ecclesiastical assemblies. not to suggest that the terminology always did justice to the importance of the assembly, for the councils of 1164 are also described with terms other than generale concilium and, moreover, a number of very important assemblies are not identified by any source as general councils. But if generale concilium was not as yet a concept of technical precision, its deployment in the description of royal councils still bears some significance. It should also be noted that the term is mainly employed in the chronicles of Roger of Howden, so if any significant changes took place concerning the composition of assemblies in this period, it was not given widespread recognition in the sources. Accordingly, if assemblies of great importance were normally identified as general councils, the difference between them and those termed great councils should not be stated categorically.

Browsing through the vernacular accounts in search of further enlightenment is not particularly useful, because the Old French variations of concilium are most rare. Again, the best source is the chronicle of Benoit, which employs the term grant concile alongside parlement and conseih

Son grant concile a fait joster. Sor ce fu granz li parlemenz, L 'esgarz e li esgaremenz. Maint estreit conseil i oct pris, Mais sol itant vos en devis: Par le loement des plus sages Tramist a Roem ses messages, Que Franque, I'arcevesque, vienge Sanz nule essoine qui le tienge; Auques ert ja de Rou privez, En paiz e toz asegurez. Tost fu I 'arcevesque metiz E tost fu au rei parvenuz; Recoillifu joiosement. Dum rejosta le parlement. ^^

Benoit, i.206-7: 'He had his great council assembled. On this [matter] great was the parliament/speaking/discussion, the attention and the perplexity. Many secret counsels were taken there, but this one only I relate to you: following the advice of the wisest, they should send their messengers to Rouen, that the archbishop Franco should go and that he should not be hindered/delayed by anything; he was already known somewhat to , on good terms and in surety with him. Quickly the archbishop set off If it is difficult to find the vernacular equivalent to magnum concilium, it is even harder to encounter the Old French for générale concilium. It might be reasonable to claim that when the word générale concilium came to describe the most important assemblies of the realm, the vernacular was already conceiving at least some of them as parlement. Grant concile, on the other hand, is not recurrent enough in the vernacular chronicles to suggest a terminological change of any importance, but like its Latin equivalent, it seems more characteristic of the second half of the twelfth century.

Curia

The meeting of a royal council in twelfh-century England can sometimes be assumed when the chronicles or official records employ the term curia. It appears that it was used consistently in England from the second half of the eleventh century, and consolidated among English documents, perhaps as a the result of the innovations introduced by Norman diplomatics and institutional practice. It came from the word curt, and it has a variety of meanings, but all related to each other, such as "assembly", "court", "residence" or "household", and it is often qualified as papal, imperial, provincial, judicial, manorial, and baronial, among others. It is also often used in reference to ceremonial gatherings.^' In the twelfth century, the curia or curia regis was an evolving government body, usually associated by the official and literary accounts with judicial, administrative and festive occasions, presided over by the monarch, and attended by the royal court, members of the household and entourage, as well as several barons. The financial sessions of the English curia were normally identified as meetings of the Exchequer, and the judicial occasions as placita.^^

and quickly arrived to the king; he was greeted with joy. At this the parliament was convoked again'. The term curia regis was first used in England in c.1086. See Dictionary of Medieval Latin, pp. 531-^-, Revised Medieval Latin Word-List, p. 126. ^^ The Exchequer probably originated at the beginning of Henry I's reign and was an ocJcasion in which the accounts of sheriffs were audited. J.E.A. Jolliffe argued that in the reign of Henry II, the royal chamber developed to the point of providing important financial assistance to the Exchequer The curia regis is a term which appears in the sources in reference to a number of realities: firstly, it may refer to the king's entourage; it could also be the small advisory body which counselled the monarch on a variety of issues to do with the administration and governance of the kingdom; it may also be a judicial session or a festive occasion in which the king celebrates an important religious feast with some of his nobles. The royal court -understood as the royal advisory body- was occasionally enlarged by visiting barons or men whose expertise or influence was called upon by the monarch to procure the resolution of different matters.^^ The royal court would also be present at every one of these large meetings, because it is likely that most issues were treated by the monarch and the members of the curia before they were submitted to the opinion of the magnates, and because these officials were ordinarily entrusted with the application of measures approved at large gatherings.

It had also been customary and convenient for Anlgo-Saxon monarchs to summon large assemblies, where important issues could be discussed and be the subject of wider consultation. According to Stenton, the dukes of Normandy are said to have relied more on the advice of the ducal court than on large assemblies.William I, king of England from 1066, continued the Anglo-Saxon tradition of calling assemblies with a view to obtaining counsel and support for at Westminster by collecting debts and payments at the counties while accompanying the king, and thus availing the monarch with immediate funding for itineration. This view has been challenged by H.G. Richardson, who argued that the financial activity of the chamber was not as sophisticated as Jolliffe believed, and that the functions of the Exchequer were rarely assumed by this body. Refer to J.E.A. Jolhffe, The Camera Regis under Henry IF, EHR, 68 (1953), pp. 6-8; and H.G. Richardson, The Chamber under Henry IP, EHR, 69 (1954), pp. 605, 611. The Exchequer has not attracted much historical scholarship in recent decades (See N. Vincent, The Origins of the Chancellorship of the Exchequer', EHR, 108 (1993), pp. 105-121, and particularly pp. 105-6). On the development of the judicial functions and the increase of judicial activity of the court coram rege under Henry II, see R.V. Turner, The Origins of Common Pleas and King's Bench', The American Journal of Legai History, 21 (1977), pp. 240, 246. ^^ The occasional enlargement of the Anglo-Noman curia regis has been treated in some secondary works. One of them is P.M. Stenton, The First Century of English Feudalism (Oxford, 1932), pp. 31-2. This phenomenon will be properly treated in one of the sections of the chapter on composition. The enlargement of the curia regis corresponds to the typical bifurcation experienced by medieval institutions which develop more specialised functions (Lyon, Constitutional, p. 256). ^^ Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 555-6: The Conqueror's Norman charters suggest that he rarely convened any assembly which in weight or numbers can be compared with the witan of Edward the Confessor. These assemblies that William is known to have held resemble courts rather than councils. Of the magnates who commonly attended them some were his kinsmen and others his personal friends'. important decisions, although 'for all except the greatest matters of the state it was the Conqueror's habit to use his court rather than his council.

Royal councils after the Norman Conquest appear to be enlargements of the king's court and it is, therefore, not surprising that chroniclers often identify these gatherings as curiae rather than concilia since, in fact, as Stenton suggested, they 'resemble courts rather than councils'.^^ This usage is not so much a manifestation of terminological ambiguity, as has often been suggested in the historiography, but it reveals important aspects of the nature of councils in this period. In other words, the role of the curia regis in the meeting of assemblies was so dominant in the second half of the eleventh century, that most of them were naturally decribed as courts rather than as councils. G.B. Adams is probably right in suggesting that in the first half of the twelfth century, no 'name or descriptive term (was) used which indicates a conscious distinction between the great and the small council'.^^ As we have indicated, however, the term concilium in the reign of Henry I is also used in reference to large assemblies. Adams' observation, moreover, is only useful if we are prepared to identify the curia regis as a "small council", as opposed to simply thinking of it as the king's court.

According to Ronald Butt, 'the business of the larger council was advice. The smaller council was the executive arm of the king's government. The distinction

r o is far from clear cut, and the words concilium and curia were interchangeable'. Such a view may perhaps be suitable for the early decades of the twelfth century, but the word curia is most rarely applied to the councils of Henry 11. When the term is used in a conciliar context, the chronicler is simply underlying an essential aspect of every royal assembly: the curia regis is invariably the core of every council, just as the king's council is the nucleus of every parliamentary session in

^^ Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p. 641. He also writes: 'The Great Council was the Anglo- Norman equivalent of the Anglo-Saxon witenagemot'. Unlike the attendance at the Witan, the composition of Norman councils was mainly tenurial, for the royal court was enlarged by summoning those who held land directly from the king, as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon earls, who were appointed by the monarch to offices, and regularly assumed an advisory role. These changes will be especially relevant when the composition of councils is studied in a later chapter, but they now provide a necessary background to understand patterns of institutional nomenclature. ^^ Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 555-6. ''Adams, CC, p. 106. Butt, A History of Parliament, p. 22. the thirteenth century.^^ Again, this consideration should not lead us to conclude that narrative sources reveal a great degree of technical precision in this period, but to suggest that the use of different words to refer to the same meeting is not necessarily a manifestation of terminological ambiguity.

During the reign of Henry I, the term curia is sometimes employed in a conciliar context. Eadmer reports that in 1107 the nobles of England came to the royal court at Easter, 'adunatis autem ad curiam ejus in Pascha terrae principibus Concilium also features in the same passage but in reference to a papal assembly to be held at Troyes.^' The meeting at Windsor is also described by Henry of Huntingdon as a curia, but he equally assures the conciliar nature of this gathering in writing that 'the nobles of both England and Normandy attended with fear and trembling'.^^ Similarly, it is written that Henry I held a curia at Whitsun in 1108, at the same time as or shortly after a concilium presided over by Anselm.^^ The ecclesiastical assembly is thus identified by Eadmer as a council, the royal gathering as a court, although the latter was clearly not an ordinary meeting of the curia regis. A most significant case is the royal assembly gathered in London at Pentecost in 1109. The narratives claim that there present were the bishops and princes of the realm and that matters of great importance were disussed, such as the bethrothal of Matilda to the emperor and the imposition of taxation. This business and composition appears to be that of a council, yet all three accounts for this assembly use the term curia to describe the occasion.^^ A dispute between the monks of Westminster and Colchester around the year 1115, is reported to have been solved by a 'judgement of the court'.^^ This judgement is

^^ Historical Studies of the English Parliament, ed. Miller and Fryde, vol. 1, p. 2. According to Maitland, 'a session of the king's council is the core and essence of every parliamentwn'' (Maitland, Constitutional Histojy of England, p. 26). See also H.G. Richardson, 'The Commons and Medieval Polities', TRHS, Fourth Series, 28 (1946), p. 32; and H.M. Cam, 'Parliamentary Origins in the Light of Recent Discussion', Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, A {\95\), p. 3. Eadmer,//A^,i. 184. Eadmer,//A^,i. 184. ^^ Huntingdon, pp. 456-7. " Eadmer,//A^,iv. 193-5. ^ See Eadmer, HN, iv.207, Hugh the Chanter, Histoiy of the Church of York, pp. 38-41, Huntingdon, p. 456. ^^ This is the narrative contained in one of charters granted to St John's Abbey (Colchester), and printed in J.H. Round, 'Early Charters of St John's Abbey, Colchester', EHR, 16 (1901), pp. 726- 7. Round questions the authenticity of the bishop's charter. Cf J.A. Robinson, Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster (Cambridge, 1911), p. 160. It seems that both sides, the monasteries of likely to have been reached at an assembly which is described by Eadmer as a curia, but identified in a royal charter to the bishop of St David's as a council.^^ Another example where curia is employed generally in reference to an enlarged meeting of the royal court and more specifically to a judicial session is provided in Hugh the Chanter's History of the Church of York. In the Christmas of 1126, the archbishop of York 'came to the king's court ready to set out for for the plea between him and John of Glasgow and the Scottish bishops...The term placitum is also used in this period in reference to judicial sessions of the court, for instance, in 1132, when according to Henry of Huntingdon, a magnum placitum met at Westminster to resolve a dispute between the bishops of St David's and concerning the boundaries of their dioceses.^^

It is hardly possible to find the term explicitly in connection to administrative sessions, for unlike the judicial occasions, these would not have resulted in recordable sentences now available to historians. But curia used more generally as a permanent body which fulfils a variety of functions, is best represented in the charters reporting consultation and in lists identifying court officials. We regularly encounter the term in the address of English charters. Early in 1114, for example, a precept drafted at Oxford by King Henry I is addressed 'omnibus constabulis et omnibus fidelibus suis de curia \ commanding that no one is to lodge in the vill of Abingdon without the consent of its abbot. This particular usage of curia here possibly refers to members of the royal household and perhaps those who happened to be at the meeting of the king's court.^^

Curia was also employed in the narrative sources to identify festive gatherings, regularly convened by kings for the important religious solemnities of the year

Colchester and Westminster, had presented forged charters to prove their cases: 'Tunc curia decrevit ita debere remanere sicut erat quando rex suscepit coronam regni. Quoniam non existente herede aliquo res Eudonis essent in regis arbitrio et iure. Ita rex iudicio curie tradidit abbati Colcestrie cum carta possidere ecclesiam illam dicens '. ^^ Eadmer, HN, iv.231; RRAN, ii. no. 1091. In the same passage, Eadmer uses generale concilium in reference to an ecclesiastical assembly. ^^ Hugh the Chanter, History of the Church of York, pp. 216-7: '...uenit ad curiam regis, paratus inde Romam pergere propter placitum, quod prediximus inter ipsum et loh(annem) Glesguensem episcopum et episcopos Scocie... '. ^^ Huntingdon, pp. 488-9. Magnum placitum is translated by the editor of this chronicle as a "great assembly", but this overlooks the specific nature of the meeting. RRAN, ìì.Wl, no. 1037.

Ill like Easter, Whitsuntide and Christmas, normally with the clause "the king held his court"7^ On Christmas day in 1126, King Henry held his court 'rex curiam tenuit ad Natale apud Windlesores, pergens inde Lundoniam Fifty years later, we encounter Henry's grandson and great grandson enjoying the festivities described by Roger of Howden in the same fashion: 'Adveniente itaque anno MCLXXVI, dominus rex filius Maîildis imperatricis, et rex filius suus cum eo, tenuerunt curiam suam in Nativitate Domini apud Windeshoveres 'In the light of this passage, it is important to note that Christmas was not just an occasion for the ceebration of royal courts, but also for aristocratic, archiépiscopal, episcopal and papal courts to be held as well. These are also identified in the sources with the term curia. As we shall explain in the forthcoming chapters, these feasts were not simply occasions for royal display, religious ceremonial, drinking and dancing, but prompted a great deal of political discussion as well.

In the reign of Henry II, the term usually refers to the papal court or reports an activity of the curia regis, predominantly the celebration of Christmas or a judicial session. In a conciliar context, this usage appears to stress the presence and activity of the royal court in every council. But if the curia regis continues to be the core of every council, chroniclers seem to concentrate on the conciliar rather than the courtly nature of royal assemblies in the reign of Hery II. In other words, it seems that councils are not seen as enlargements of the royal court any longer, but as assemblies of the realm. This change underlined the distinction between curia and concilium. Particularly relevant to support this case is a letter sent by Henry II to Louis VII of France towards the end of 1164, notifying that Thomas Becket had been judged 'in curia mea a plenario baronum regni mei concilio'J^ The prelate was subject to the judgment of the king's court, a distinctive body of officials performing judicial functions within the larger -and distinctive- context of a plenary council of barons. Henry attended an ecclesiastical council at Woodstock in 1175, when he declared that none of the

The verb tenere is also used in reference to concilia, but celebrare is very rarely employed to describe festive courts or the meetings of the regular curia regis. A rare exception is in Eadmer HN, iv.207: 'In subsequenti festivitate Pentecostes, rex Henricus curiam suam Lundoniae in magna mundi gloria et diviti apparatus celebravit '. Huntingdon, p. 476. For a similar example see also Huntingdon, pp. 454, 456. ^^ Howden, Gesta, i.l06. ^^ MTB, v. 134. Refer also to our appendix 5. rebels of the war of 1173-4 was to come to his court without special summons: 'in ipso concilio pracepit rex publico edicto, ne aliquis de terra sua, qui contra eum fuerat tempore werrae, veniret ad curiam suam nisi per mandatum ipsius; et si venisset illuc sine summonitione, caperetur tanquam hostis regisAlthough the term concilium is here used in reference to a church meeting, the distinction between his court {curia sua) and a large assembly of nobles is made clear.

The passages which link the term with the judicial activity of the curia regis and with the celebration of the Nativity of Christ are abundant. Furthermore, the recurrent incorporation of concepts such as placitum, concordia, querimonia or inquisitio in the royal charters is clearly indicative of the regularity of judicial activity at Henry's court. This terminological trend appears to be characteristic also of the reigns of Henry I and Stephen, but as many more councils assembled on Easter, Pentecost and Christmas, the term curia proliferates in the first half of the twelfth century in connection with religious celebrations. In contrast, councils begin to meet more frequently from the 1150s, and as a consequence, the conciliar calendar increasingly superseded the traditional dates for meetings. This might provide some clues to explain why all of Henry IPs councils are called concilia and not curiae.

Gervase of Canterbury identifies Henry IPs coronation at Westminster in December 1154 as a curia, and the same denomination is applied to an assembly at Nottingham in December 1179 by Robert de Torigni and Roger of Howden.^^ None of these meetings were actually councils, but festive courts. Some of the accounts describing the conflict between the king and Thomas Becket also employ the term curia in reference to royal assemblies, but they do so only to stress that the archbishop was tried at the king's court, which was always present at councils. The only exception in Henry's reign is the Council of Waltham in 1182, an assembly which gathers some of the features typical of a royal council but is reported by the Chronicle of Jocelyn of Brackelond as a curia?^

Howden, Gesta, i.93. The edict also established that none of them was to come before or after sunset, and none was to be equipped with arms. ^^ Gervase, i.l60; Howden, Gesta, i.244; Torigni, iv.89. ^^ CJB, pp. 15-23. The conciliar nature of this gathering will be discussed in later chapters. In sum, the word curia is rarely employed in the sources to identify the councils of Henry II, because unlike many of the assemblies of his Norman predecessors, they were neither festive courts, nor were they enlargements of the curia regis. Such distinctions will be properly clarified in the forthcoming chapters, for it is only in the study of business and attendance that councils and courts become truly distinguishable. An attempt to unravel this complex terminological mesh may result in the following conclusions: after 1066 and until 1100 most political meetings are identified as curiae because they were, in fact, enlargements of the king's court, either to celebrate important feasts or to include the expertise or influence of certain barons. This ad hoc enlargement of the curia is sometimes crystallised in secondary studies and identified as the "Great Council". Whether these were meetings of the Great Council or courts, they are distinct from assemblies in which the king met a large gathering of nobles, summoned to discuss the important business of the realm for several days. Very few such meetings occurred in England before the twelfth century, since the practice was to resolve most issues with the court and accordingly, large assemblies in this period are not always identified in the sources as concilia. Enlarged courts continued to meet with regularity in the reign of Henry I, but so did councils. These meetings, however, are not always distinguished in the sources from enlarged meetings of the king's court, perhaps because this was a period of transition concerning the practice of political consultation. This ceases to be the case in the reign of Henry II, when courts and councils are clearly distinctive in the sources, because concilia met with extraordinary frequency, and because their business and attendance is very often described in the chronicles as concerning the whole kingdom or as involving the entire nobility. These changes in the terminology, therefore, seem to have some correspondence with institutional variations and with the changing patterns of royal consultation. Some elements in this transformation can be seen from the reign of Henry I, but are most clearly manifested between 1155 and 1188.^^

^^ All of these changes will be discussed in the following chapters: next chapter will treat the frequency of assemblies, while chapters four and five will be devoted to their business and composition. Colloquium

Another term which is also said to have alternated with concilium and curia in the description of royal assemblies is colloquium. The evidence, however, strongly points towards different conclusions. Colloquium generally meant a conversation or discussion, and this is often the sense attributed not only in English chronicles, but also in continental accounts. In addition, it was also given to assemblies, and was sometimes associated with parleys, conferences, and later with parliaments.^^ During the reign of Henry II, however, when narrative and official accounts include the term specifically to identify an assembly, they have a tendency to signify a meeting between two or more monarchs to discuss matters of diplomatic nature or of common concern. This is almost invariably the case in the accounts covering the events of the second half of the twelfth century. The word was given the English equivalent of "conference" by William Stubbs, who seems to have also undertood its diplomatic dimension.^^ This is the word chosen in the present study not as an appropriate translation, but simply to avoid repeating the Latin form.

As we have said, this concept makes reference to meetings convened for the discussion of inter-regnal policies, treaties and agreements, and to establish military alliances and secure peace. In March 1101, barely seven months after Henry I's accession to the English throne, an assembly was held for the king and Count Robert of Flanders at Dover. The meeting resulted in a treaty which requested the king to pay four hundred silver marks in exchange for five hundred Flemish knights, soon to be placed under royal service. The word colloquium is not used in contemporary royal charters to identify the assembly, but another assembly, which also met at Dover nine years later on 17 May 1110 to confirm the treaty, is referred to as a colloquium. After meeting Robert, the king headed towards Windsor and twelve days later he notified William de Pont de I'Arche, Sheriff of Southampton and Wiltshire, that he had confirmed the gift of prior

^^ Dictionary of Medieval Latin, p. 383. Significantly, diplomatic meetings among rulers in the are also consistently identified in the official records as colloquia. ^^ Refer to Stubbs' outline itinerary of Henry II in the appendices of his edition of the Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, and H.T. Riley's translation of Roger of Howden's Chronica. This is also the English translation used -among others- by Timothy Reuter (Reuter, 'Assembly Polities', p. 433). Geoffrey and the convent of Winchester to Walter de Combe, 'quando r ever sus sum a Dovera post colloquium habitum cum Roberto comité Flandrensi ^^

The Angevin colloquia of the 1170s and 1180s are splendid examples of this usage. On 18 November 1169, for instance, a conference de pace facienda inter regem et archiepiscopum,^^ that is for the making of peace between Henry II and the exiled Thomas Becket, took place at Montmartre and was also attended by King Louis VII of France. His presence perhaps explains the use of colloquium. The meeting is described by Ralph of Diceto's Ymagines Historiarum, an account which specialises on Henry's movements in the continent, in the following manner: 'in octavis Sancti Martini habitum est colloquium inter regem Francorum et regem Angliae proxime Parisius... A letter from the to John of Salisbury also makes reference to the gathering. The letter was sent in February 1169, eight months before the conference, and refers to the convocation by informing that 'the archbishop and his fellow-exiles were summoned by the most Christian king, and were present at the conference...', 'a rege Christianissimo accitus, archiepiscopus cum coexulantibus sibi huic f 83 colloquio interfuit... The following year yet another conference was held at Montmirail, a meeting that was also attended by the king of France, and Bernard de Corilo, prior of Monte Dei. Ralph of Diceto reports the event by writing: 'habitum est colloquium apud Munmirail inter regem et archiepiscopum, ubi praesens fuit rex Francorum, et Bernardus de Corilo, prior etiam de Monte Dev.'' In December 1183, Henry II paid homage to the French king, Philip Augustus, o c on account of the continental lands of the . Philip Augustus

80 See RRAN, ii. nos. 515, 941, 948. Diceto, i.335. ^^ Diceto, i.335. ^^ US, no. 288. ^^ Diceto, i.338. ^^ Although it would probably be fair to suggest that Henry II was equally powerful, if not more powerful, than Philip Augustus, he nevertheless owed homage to him because he held lordship over continental territories which had traditionally recognised the king of France as their lord. This homage made itself conveniently unnecessary during the reign of Louis VII, when Henry II kept hold of the reins of Angevin-Capetian diplomacy (See Warren, Henry II, pp. 625-7). Some thoughts on Henry II's movements towards securing control over vast continental lands are offered in Turner, 'The Problem of Survival for the Angevin "Empire"', pp. 78-96. received financial compensation for Gisors, which was paid by Henry's son Richard, . In 1160, Richard had been betrothed to Margaret, daughter of the late Louis VII and sister of Philip Augustus, thus establishing a short-lived Anglo-Capetian alliance. But the age of the couple made an immediate marriage impossible in the eyes of Canon Law, because Richard was a small child and Margaret was still in her cradle.^^ Then contrary to this legal stipulation and to Louis VII's wishes, Henry II forced the union and rushed to take possession of his son's dowry, which effectively brought the Norman Vexin under Angevin control. But as expected, the marital union was dissolved, thus making Henry's control over those lands -which included Gisors- an unlawful possession at the expense of the French king. The king of England had thus violated the spirit of the agreement. This explains the diplomatic basis of the Conference of December 1183 and the financial compensation due to Philip Augustus. Consistently and revealing some degree of terminological precision, the word colloquium is employed no less than four times within a few lines of the Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi:

Procedente itaque tempore, domiuus rex Angliae et Philippus rex Franciae, cum episcopis et comitibus et baronibus et majoribus terrae suae, convenerunt ad colloquium de pace facienda, inter Gisorcium et Tyre, die Sancti Nicholai. In quo colloquio Henricus, rex Angliae, fecit homagium et ligantiam de omnibus tenementis transmarinis Philippo regi Franciae, cui nunquam antea homagium facere voluit. Et in eodem colloquio, rex Franciae concessit, quod Margareta soror sua, quae regina Angliae existiterat, acciperet pro calumnia dotis suae et Gisorcii...Finito itaque colloquio, et datis securitatibus hinc et inde de pactis servandis, reges in patrias suas reversi sunt. 87

The same precision is appreciated in the official records of the conference. An excerpt of the notification by Margaret of the settlement between the kings is consistent with the narrative sources in describing the assembly:

Ego siquidem in presentia dicti regis Franc(ie) fratris mei et multorum qui ad colloquium inter Gisorcium et Triam conuenerant, in manu prefati regis Angl(orum)

^^ Canon Law had determined that the minimum age for a valid marriage was twelve, and the ecclesiastical Council of Westminster in 1175 had specifically banned the marriage of female children to male infants under this age. Was this stipulation aimed at Henry II? It is known that it failed to stop his son John from marrying the nine-year-old countess of Gloucester, nor did it stop the marriage his sister Joan, who was probably eleven when she married William II of Sicily. On the ecclesiastical Council of Westminster, refer to CS, pp. 977-8, and about Joan's marriage see Howden, Chronica, ii.94; J. Gillingham, The Angevin Empire (London, 2001), p. 32; Warren, Henry II, p. 143; D. Matthew, The Norman (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 271-5. ^^ Howden, Gesta, i.306. integre refutaui quicquid de predictis petebam et ius omne quod in illis me habere dicebam, et de non repetendo fidem in manu ipsius corporaliter dedi.^^

Another example is a notification of a peace agreement between Philip Augustus and the count of Flanders established at a conference near Gerberoy in April 1182. The opening lines of an English charter read as follows:

Rex Henricus dilecto et fideli suo Ranu(Jfo) de GianniU' salutem. Scias quod die Clausi Pasch(e) inter Gelberacum et Curtiacum, habito ibi coUoquio, Dei gratia, constituta est pax et concordia plurimum interueniente opera et sollicitudine nostra inter dominum regem Francie et comitem Flandrie et eos qui comiti adheserant, ita quod ipso die affidata fuit utrobique tenenda sicut prolocuta fuit, et ego insuper in manum cepi ad efficiendum ut secundum quod diuisa est procedat.^^

This is only a selection of passages in which colloquium is distinctively used in connection with diplomatic meetings for the making of peace among kingdoms.^® All these twelfth-century gatherings were essentially royal, whether they were called councils, courts or conferences. But the difference between them is not simply underlined by terminological variations, since colloquium is used in association with a concrete set of institutional features and political circumstances. It is evident from the sources that the business of conferences was the discussion of peace treaties, military alliances and agreements between monarchs or princes. This feature is further illustrated by terms and clauses which normally accompanied the use of colloquium, such as concordia and pace facienda, both identifying the most important business of a conference: the making of peace. A careful reading of the sources, both official and narrative, reveals that these terms are often used together, and coincidence is not an adequate explanation.

This study has not attempted to suggest that colloquium was exclusively used in connection with diplomatic gatherings, but rather, that it was only very

^^ Delisle, Recueil, no. 660. ^^ Gerald of Wales, Opera, viii.189-190. Some examples are the conferences at Vendôme 1170 (Howden, Gesta, i.6-7), Gisors/Trie 1174 (Gervase, i.250; Howden, Chronica, ii.55), Yveri 1177 (Howden, Gesta, i.190-1), a French colloquium in November 1177 (Howden, Gesta, i.l96), 1180 (Howden, Chronica, ii.l97), 1181 (Diceto, ii.7); Chatillon 1188 (Howden, Gesta, ii.49), Bonsmoulins 1188 (Howden, Gesta,, ii.50), La Ferté Bernard 1189 (Howden, Gesta,, ii.66). In a political study of thirteenth-century assemblies, Gavin Langmuir has pointed out that some fifty conferences gathered in France between 1180 and 1230 and that 'more attention should be paid to these diplomatic meetings as one possible precursor of parliament' (G. Langmuir, 'Politics and Parliaments in the Early Thirteenth Century', Etudes Sur l'Histoire des Assemblees d'Etats (Paris, 1966), p. 55). exceptionally employed to designate assemblies other than diplomatic ones, such as royal and ecclesiastical councils, normally identified by the sources as concilia or curia. Whenever a meeting between Henry and his French counterpart took place, the chroniclers rarely use terms other than colloquium, thus indicating that they seem familiarised with the peculiarity of each type of assembly.

The Old French narratives provide further enlightenment on the use of colloquium and its vernacular translations or equivalents. Gavin Langmuir suggests that "parlement is employed primarily in two senses: for the diplomatic parleys called colloquia in Latin, and for the royal assemblies resembling those called concilia in Latin, that is for assemblies that were political or deliberative in character rather than judicial'.^' Langmuir's observations rightly establish an important distinction between the Latin and vernacular translations of a "diplomatic parley". For if parlement could mean colloquium or concilium depending on the context in which it is used, colloquium is not used as an alternative to concilium. The word parliamentum, which regularly appears in thirteenth-century records to identify English parliamentary meetings originates not in the Latin tradition as one might expect, but in the Old French parlement, possibly the Anglo-Norman equivalent to colloquium, used not as a diplomatic meeting but in its generic sense as a discussion or conversation. But apart from meaning "parley", which corresponds to an early twelfth-century usage, it can also be defined as "speech" or "word", which is more typically found in the

92 previous century. As it gains precision in the vernacular, parlement eventually comes to signify "conference" or "council" and then "parliamenf

Langmuir, 'Politics and Parliaments', p. 57. ^^ Parlement is defined as "word", "speech" and "parley" {Anglo-Norman Dictionary, p. 497). ^^ Anglo-Norman Dictionary, p. 497. See also Marongiu, Medieval Parliaments, p. 254. Gavin Langmuir has explained that parliamentary assemblies acquired the vernacular parlement instead of the Latin alternatives because 'although the churchmen who used concilium were more sensitive to institutional development and differentiation, the ecclesiastical connotations of the term they used increasingly failed to correspond with the conceptions of the majority of men who participated in and influenced the development of these secular assemblies' (G. Langmuir, 'Concilia and Capetian Assemblies, 1179-1230', Studies Presented to the International Commission for the History of Representative and Parliamentary Institutions, 18 (Paris, 1958), p. 55). According to G.O. Sayles, parlement 'slowly made its way in England into formal and official documents, though for a long time many clerks regarded it as a vulgar word, even after it had become latinised as parliamentum\ it is a word that a fastidious stylist will avoid, for which he will substitute in preference the classical colloquium'' (Sayles, The King's Parliament of England, p. 33). Refer also to G.O. Sayles and H.G. Richardson, 'Earliest Known Official Use of the Term "Parliament"', EHR, 82 (1967), pp. 747-750. Among the twelfth-century French narratives it is in Benoit de Saint Maure's Chroniques de Ducs de Normandie that parlement appears most often.^"^ Parlement is never used by Benoit in reference to particular meetings in England, but it is nevertheless employed in the context normally associated with the term. One of his passages briefly makes reference to a parlement as follows:

N'a queu jor iert le parlement EI 'etreiance e la devise N'en queu lieu est la chose emprise.^^ Another passage offers further illustration: Al conte Ernol, senz nul respite, Mande par bref e par escrit Qu 'encontre lui seûrement Vienge, nel laist, al parlement; E il si fist tot demands. En la terre de Vermendeis, La asemblerent, ne s ai plus, El lieu qu 'est diz Restibulus. D'enjanz, de trdisons e d'arz Fu lor conseilz e lor esgarz.^^ No other Anglo-Norman and early Angevin chronicle makes such frequent use of parlement^^ But we also fmd a few references in Geoffrey Gaimar's L'Estoire des Engles, written in the . Unlike Benoit's general usage, one of Gaimar's

^^ The chronicle was probably written in the 1180s by Benoit, as an alternative completion the writings of Wace. ^^ Benoit, 8676-8678, i.245: '... Nor on what day was the parliament and the permission and the discussion, nor in which place the thing was undertaken'. ^^ Benoit, 16511-16520, i.476: 'To count Amulf, without any delay, he orders, by letter and by writing that he must certainly come to meet him at the parliament, and not neglect it. And so he did immediately. In the land of Vermandois, there they assembled in the place called Restibulus; I know no more. Their council and their decisions were of trickery, of treachery and of cunning'. I am very grateful to Peter Damian-Grint for the translation of these passages from Old French. I have decided to include the translations and the entire passages because the context in which parlement is used is relevant for my study. ^^ Some other references to parlement in Benoit's chronicle can be found in Benoit, 1170, i.35; 1924, i.57; 2573, i.76; 7041, i.206; 7054, i.207; 9258, i.270; 12264, i.356; 18307, i.527. passages describes a particular Anglo-Saxon assembly which gathered in the year 1061:

Al rei Malcolub tant parlèrent, De ca Thuede len amenerent. Li reis Eadward encontre vint, Od Malcolub parlement tint. Presenz lifist, mult lonura, Ke malement tut enpleia; Pes e triues entrels vnt pris. Mais ne dura gueres de dis.^^

Another particular description is made by Jordan of Fantosme of a plenier parlement of King William of Scotland in the 1170s.^^ And a later reference is provided by the anonymous La Geste des Engleis en Yrlande, possibly written in the :

Desque a Reymund ad mandé Que tut lifreit sa volenti. Si remanda altresi Que desque a I 'iddle de Ins Tepheni Encontre lui a parlement Venist Reymund od sa gent.^^^

Conclusion

The evidence cited in this chapter points towards the following considerations: large royal assemblies in the twelfth century are generally identified in the sources as concilia, but the repetitive use of curia in connection with the gatherings of

^^ Geoffrey Gaimar, L'Estoire des Engles, 5091-5099, i.216. It is translated by Martin and Hardy as follows: 'To king Malcolm so well they spoke That they brought him beyond the Tweed. He came to meet king Edward. He had speech with Malcolm. Presents he gave him; much he honoured him, Which he made ill use of (ii.l61). ^^ Jordan of Fantosme, p. 226. La Geste des Engleis en Yrlande, The Deeds of the in Ireland, ed. E. Mullally (Dublin, 2002), 3010-3015, p. 130. For another reference to parlement see also 1674-9, p. 96. Raymond les Gros was an important knight. Mullally translates the passage as follows: 'He sent word to Raymond to say that he would what he [Raymond] wished and asked him [Raymond] in return to come with his men to meet him [earl Richard] and confer with him on Little Island' (p. 130). Henry I perhaps indicates that they were still perceived as enlargements of the king's court. In contrast, the proliferation of terms such as magnum and generale concilium from the 1150s seems to indicate that royal councils are gradually becoming assemblies of the realm or public gatherings rather than being extensions of the curia regis. Colloquium, on the other hand, is most rarely applied to royal councils in this period, and whenever employed specifically in reference to assemblies, it seems to be a term which identifies a diplomatic meeting between rulers. Words such as conventus and tractatus also appear in the chronicles, but in the reign of Henry II are only very exceptionally used in reference to large assemblies of nobles.

This chapter has intended to demonstrate that the array of institutional names is not necessarily a manifestation of ambivalent nomenclature, but seems more characteristic of a terminological repertoire which singles out each type of gathering in recognising distinctive features of attendance and business. If this is not clearly perceived before the middle of the twelfth century, in the reign of Henry II, terms such as curia and colloquium were employed to describe institutional forms different from the great assemblies of nobles, which are consitently identified as concilia. These terminological patterns were not simply determined by semantic evolution, nor were the scribes' choices dictated by the contingencies of prevalent literary forms. These terms constituted the terminological facade of an institutional world more neat and crystallised than traditionally thought. It is in studying these concepts that the historian is able to catch a glimpse of the defining aspects of each assembly. It will be the task of the following chapters to find the correspondence between the nomenclature of these gatherings and their institutional physiognomy.

When used not in reference to a religious convent, conventus was sometimes employed to identify a gathering, meeting or congregation. The councils of London in 1107, Salisbury in 1116, Northampton in 1131, Winchester in 1133, and Oxford in 1139 and 1154, are all identified with this word by at least one source (See Eadmer, HN, iv.l86, 237; Malmesbury, HN, pp. 20, 46; Huntingdon, pp. 487-9, 772-3). In contrast, among the assemblies of Henry II, only the Council of Wallingford in 1155 is identified by one source as conventus (Gervase, i.l62). The term tractatus, on the other hand, is used in the Magna Vita Sancti Hugonis in reference to the Council of Eynsham in 1186 (MVSH, i.92). Time and Space

One of the least visited subjects concerning the meeting of royal assemblies in twelfth-century England is the variety of geographical and temporal circumstances surrounding these gatherings. The frequency, location and summoning of councils have been overlooked, perhaps because those features are seen as accidental, and such an analysis is therefore regarded as too contingent to contribute to a better understanding of the institutional nature and the political importance of these assemblies. The considerations presented in the following sections will attempt to contradict such a view, and suggest that the institutional historian can learn a great deal about assemblies in analysing patterns concerning their time and space. In asking when, where and how often assemblies gathered, we begin to discover why they did so -perhaps a more central question.

It is the aim of this chapter, therefore, to answer these questions and, in so doing, to identify the changing geographical and temporal patterns of these councils. Among all royal gatherings in the twelfth century, only those assemblies clearly and specifically dated and located by the sources will be the subject of this analysis, which will concentrate on the assemblies summoned between 1155 and 1188. However, references will be made to earlier councils as the comparison leads to important conclusions concerning the development of these patterns. The Temporal Patterns

For the purpose of the following study, it is necessary to define some terms. "Frequency" is what measures the rhythm at which assemblies meet. An assembly which gathers often may be said to be "regular", but if it follows a pattern of established dates or meets at fixed intervals, it could be described as "periodical". Such distinctions are necessary for understanding the temporal changes experienced by royal councils in this period. The Anglo-Saxon witenagemot may have assembled with some regularity, but it is only after 1066 that royal gatherings appear to have followed a periodical pattern. William I is said to have assembled with his barons at Christmas in Gloucester, at Easter in Westminster, and at Whitsuntide in Winchester, according to a passage of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle} It would not be appropriate to claim from this evidence that assemblies met only in those abbeys, nor that their meetings were restricted to such feasts, but if early Norman assemblies have any claims to regularity and periodicity, this is the pattern they seem to have followed. Stenton suggests that the sessions of the Anglo-Norman great council were more regular than the meetings of the late Anglo-Saxon Witan.^ This is an important consideration when approaching the councils of the twelfth century, only if the enlargement of the curia regis was an equivalent occasion to the meeting of the Witan. Looking ahead of our period. The -proclaimed at the meeting of the barons in 1258- established that regardless of royal summons, 'there are to be three parliaments a year'.^ Such dispositions were quickly abandoned; parliaments

' According to H.R. Loyn, the Witan gathered in over fifty different locations between 900 and 1066 (H.R. Loyn, The Governance of Anglo-Saxon England (London, 1984), p. 102). On the frequency of the Witan during the reign of Edward the Confessor, see Oleson, The Witenagemot, pp. 70-75. The reference to the periodicity of the meetings of Norman assemblies can be found in ASC, p. 164. This record makes reference to the year 1087. Some references to the frequency of the Witan can be found in William of Malmesbury, 'Vita Wulfstani', in William of Malmesbury, Saints' Lives: Lives of SS. , , Patrick, Benignus and Indract, ed. and trans. M. Winterbottom and R.M. Thomson (Oxford, 2002), p. 83. See also Liebermann, The National Assembly, p. 17. Refer also to H.G. Richardson, 'The Coronation in Medieval England', Traditio, 16 (1960), p. 127: 'the early Norman kings planned to wear their crown on the three great feasts of Christmas, Easter, and Whitsun at three of the greater abbeys, Westminster, Winchester, and Gloucester'. See also Reuter, 'Assembly Polities', p. 434. ^ Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p. 641. For Stenton, the witenagemot was the equivalent of the Anglo-Norman great council. See also Oleson, The Witenagemot, pp. 158-161. ^ Clause 21 in the Old French version of the Provisions proclaimed: 7/ fet a remembrer ke le xxiiii unt ordene ke treis parlemenz seient par anThe Provisions of Oxford are included and translated did not follow such periodicity for the rest of the thirteenth century, and the initiative of summoning parliaments remained, in fact, a monarchical prerogative."^ Periodicity has been generally identified as an essential institutional feature and a constitutive ingredient of any parliamentary assembly by H.G. Richardson and G.O. Sayles, who wrote that 'periodicity implies definition: there cannot be a periodical occurrence of something that is not defined'.^ The councils of Henry II were not periodical, but met with such unprecedented frequency, so that in the span of three decades, they substantially moved towards gaining distinction from the royal court.

According to what is reported in contemporary sources and taking into account the time spent in England, Henry I summoned his nobles to an average of one council every two years he spent in England, while Stephen's assemblies were slightly more frequent; perhaps a surprising figure for those who have insisted in the anarchical character of this period.^ This estimate, however, is only marginally superior to the frequency of Henry I's councils, which according to the study of G.B. Adams met on twenty-seven occasions.^ Adams' figures are primarily based on the chronicle descriptions of the composition of these assemblies, supposedly attended by the proceres totius regni, the magnates of the entire kingdom. His estimate could only result from grouping royal assemblies with ecclesiastical ones, but when looking at the main narrative sources for the period, we find no more than twelve assemblies which fit the description of a royal council.

in Documents of the Baronial Movement and Reform, 1258-1267, ed. R.F. Trehame, I.J. Sanders (Oxford, 1973), pp. 96-112. See also pp. 300-308 and 314-316 for the writs of summons to the bishop of Durham for the Council of 1264, and the Parliament of 1265. See also G.O. Sayles, The Functions of the Medieval Parliament of England (London, 1988), pp. 64-77. In fact, an average of two parliaments met every year during the reigns of Henry III and Edward I, and less frequently in the reigns of Edward II and Edward III (See a calendar of parliaments in Sayles, The Functions, pp. xi-xiv). Antonio Marongiu argued that 'periodic convocations only occurred in so far as they appeared of use to the sovereign' (Marongiu, Medieval Parliaments, p. 56). J.S. Roskell also believed that summons remained a royal initiative (J.S. Roskell, Parliament and Politics in Late Medieval England {London, 1981-3), p. 448). ^ H.G. Richardson and G.O. Sayles, Parliaments and Great Councils in Medieval England (London, 1961), p. 36. Sayles adds that royal councils became parliaments when they were 'ordered to assemble three times a year at stated dates, for those who summoned such parliaments with such periodicity must have known what they meant by parliament' (Sayles, The Functions, p. 17). ^ Twelve royal councils are identifiable in the sources for the period 1100-1135. This figure does not include ecclesiastical assemblies and those gatherings presided over by the legate. Only seven royal assemblies met in England between 1135 and 1154, according to the sources. ^ Adams, CC, pp. 110-7. Royal councils began to assemble at an extraordinary pace from the reign of Henry 11. A total number of at least thirty-six meetings are reported by the sources to have met in England from 1155 to 1188.^ David Carpenter's calculations break down Henry IPs presence to forty-three per cent in Normandy, twenty per cent somewhere else in the continent, and thirty-seven per cent in Britain.^ On average, therefore, between two and three councils were held every year Henry spent in England, a frequency which is considerably above that of his predecessors and not inferior to the pace at which parliaments met in the late medieval period. In 1155, for example, just a year after Henry's accession, five councils are reported to have assembled, and from 1175 to 1177 -undoubtedly the most concentrated period of the century- no less than twelve assemblies brought the king together with the nobles of England.'^ The chronicle of Roger of Howden offers some clues for understanding such phenomenon when reporting that in 1155:

...being the second year of the reign of Henry, son of the empress Matilda, the said king returned from Normandy to England, and caused nearly all castles, which had been erected in England in the time of king Stephen, to be demolished, and issued a new coinage, which was the only one received and current throughout the realm; he also established peace in the kingdom, and commanded the laws of king Henry, his grandfather, to be observed inviolably throughout the whole of his kingdom, and in many matters followed the advice of Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury."

It is now necessary to remrn to the events described in the narrative offered in our first chapter. Henry was thus busy undoing the work of Stephen, and restoring order and peace after years dominated by lawlessness and violence. Holding several councils shortly after his coronation was perhaps the most successful method to put such policies into effect. But if the king thought to have everything under control, violence and disorder returned to haunt his own government when

^ See appendices 1 and 2. ^ Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, p. 193. Refer to appendices 1, 2, and 3c. " Howden, Chronica, i.225 (Howden, Annals, p. 255). From the Latin: 'Anno gratiae M C L VI., qui erat annus secundus regni regis Henrici filii Matildis imperatricis, idem Henricus rediit de Normannia in Angliam: et omnia fere castella, quae facta fuerant in Anglia tempore regis Stephani, demoliri fecit; et novam fecit monetam, quae sola recepta erat et accepta in regno; et ipse pacem stabilivit in regno, et leges Henrici regis avi sui praecepit per totum regnum suum inviolabiliter teneri, et in multis acquievit consilio Theodbaldi Cantuariensis archiepiscopi'. The business of this council is also described by Battle Chronicle, 155-6: 'The following Lent he convened a general council in London and renewed the peace and restored the laws and customs established from ancient times throughout England. There too a number of bishops and abbots had the charters and privileges of their churches confirmed by the writ and seal of the present king*. his sons Henry, Richard and Geoffrey led an aggressive rebellion on the continent. The fighting lasted several months and resulted in a royal victory; peace was finally achieved at a colloquium convened by Louis VII of France between Gisors and Trie in 1173.'^ But while the continental uprising was coming to an end, Henry's problems were exacerbated by the Scots, who were profiting from the king's absence and had joined the rebellion by invading .'^ The Scots were eventually pushed back northwards by an , and was captured at Alnwick in 1174. The same year, William and Henry signed the Treaty of Falaise, which imposed heavy duties and conditions on the Scots, one of which was the recognition of Henry's lordship over the Scottish king. The homage was paid to Henry at the Council of York in August 1175, when William was finally released."'^ William's homage, however, was simply one among many of the reparations that Henry sought, for the rebellion had loosened his grip not only on Angevin affairs and in the troublesome border lands of Northumbria, but also in England. Decisive measures soon came to restore royal authority. At the Council of Woodstock in July 1175, the king prohibited the rebels of 1173-4 to attend court without special summons, and a month later, at the Council of Nottingham, he sought to punish those who had violated forest legislation while he was fighting in Normandy. The king's reaction is evidenced in the narrative of Roger of Howden, who wrote:

In this year, also, the king, the father, impleaded all the clergy and laity of his kingdom who, in time of the wars, had committed offences against him in his forests, and as to the taking of venison, and exacted fines of them all, although Richard de Lucy gave a warranty that all this was done with his sanction, and by command of the king, sent from beyond sea.'^ Partially at least, the councils of 1175 became the stages for public reparation, and the political occasions for atonement. King Henry was absolutely determined to

The rebellion resulted primarily from Hemy IPs political movements in the continent, which saw his sons and wife's position diminished. See Gillingham, Angevin Empire, p. 34 and Barlow, Feudal Kingdom, pp. 282-3. '^Newburgh, pp. 182-3. ^^ Gillingham, Angevin Empire, p. 26. See also Mortimer, Angevin England, p. 141; C. Daniell, From Norman Conquest to (London, 2003), p. 59. The 1173-4 rebellion is treated in detail by Jordan of Fantosme's chronicle. See also Howden, Gesta, i.94-5; Newburgh, p. 198; Howden, Chronica, ii.82; Battle Chronicle, pp. 87-8, and Torigni, iv.267. Howden, Chronica, ii.79. Forest regulations attracted much popular resentment according to the author of the Dialogue of the Exchequer. See Dialogus de Scaccario, The Course of the Exchequer by Richard, Fitz , and Constitutio Domus Regis. The Establishment of the Royal Household, ed. C. Johnson, corrected by F.E.L. Carter and D.E. Greenaway (Oxford, 1983), pp. 59-60. return to the status quo of 1172, and the gathering of the realm seemed to be the most effective channel. It is possible, then, to suggest that conciliar intensity was the natural sequel to years of turmoil, like the period 1139-1141, when political crisis in England was perhaps at its peak and which also coincides with particularly intense years of conciliar meetings.'^

Admittedly, it is difficult to single out the factor(s) which determine the frequency of meetings, but it is nevertheless clear that the conciliar intensity experienced from the 1150s is extraordinary, and unprecedented in England. In sum, if the councils which assembled in the second half of the twelfth century were not periodical they were at least very frequent, for their regularity seems to have only been interrupted by military conflict.'^ This change of pace lies at the heart of our study, not only because this unprecedented frequency reveals how useftil were these meetings for the monarch, but because it also shows how important they must have become for the nobles and for the development of a political community in England. The political importance of councils in this period has already been stressed and will be ftirther underlined in reference to their business and composition. The significance of their frequency should not be underestimated, since an assembly which meets regularly is more likely to gain political recognition and achieve greater sophistication. As regards to royal consultation, the frequency of councils reveals how often was the king prepared to open up the discussion of important matters to a large assembly of nobles, and how regularly did he seek to legitimise his measures with general assent. As regards to the social aspects of assemblies, the frequency determined the number of occasions in which a large proportion of the kingdom's powerful would extraordinarily congregate in the same location and at once, in addition to convening for battle. These considerations will be stressed again when studying

No less than five councils met in England fi-om 1139 to 1141, a number which considerably surpasses the 0.73 annual average for the reign of Stephen. Though some of these councils were legatine, their main business was the restitution of peace and order, and thus all respond to the typical conciliar patterns in this period. These are the councils of Oxford in June 1139, Winchester in August 1139 and April 1141, Salisbury in December 1139 and Westminster in December 1141. See Malmesbury, HN, pp. 46, 51-6, 90-96, 108; Newburgh, p. 35; John of Worcester, pp. 284, 278; Huntingdon, pp. 724-5. Some authors believe that Angevin councils continue to meet periodically. If this is the case, they did not follow the festive patterns of their Anglo-Norman precedents (Bartlett, England, p. 143; Maddicott, 'An Infinite Multitude of Nobles', p. 17). the importance of frequency in regards to the function and composition of councils.

Just as frequency signals some political changes in this period, the dates when councils met can also reveal important patterns about the nature of these gatherings. It is not the aim of the present study to corroborate whether the early Norman councils did actually meet at Christmas, Easter and Whitsun, but instead to determine if this trend continued in the twelfth century. ^^ The meeting of some assemblies may have naturally fallen within Whitsuntide, but from 1100 to 1188, only the Council of Bury St Edmunds is connected specifically with the day when Pentecost is celebrated.'^

Most of the gatherings meeting for Easter Sunday in this period appear to be courts rather than councils, with a few exception such as the councils of Oxford in 1136, Worcester in 1158, and Windsor in 1179. Henry I certainly held Easter festivities with some of his nobles at Winchester in 1103 and Windsor in 1107, and Stephen and Henry II most likely followed this custom, as it had been practiced at least since the days of .^^ These meetings, however, were curia not concilia, and if some business was sometimes discussed at these occasions, it was only because the presence of the monarch among his nobles naturally prompted discussion. The nobles, however, attended these courts to celebrate the birth, resurrection and ascension of Christ, while they were summoned to councils to attend the state of the realm. They participated in a great It is likely that such practice was consolidated in the late Anglo-Saxon period, for as Liebermann points out, 'though several Teutonic tribes on the Continent used to assemble periodically at fixed times, and though the English church decreed in a.673 and 786 that every year two synods should be held, in English states no rule seems to have existed on which a day or how often the witan were to meet' (Liebermann, The National Assembly, p. 46). See also M. Biddle, 'Seasonal Festivals and Residence: Winchester, Westminster, and Gloucester from the Tenth to the Twelfth Centuries,' ANS, 8 (1986); and J. A. Green, The Government of England under Henry I (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 19-24. C.W. Hollister's monumental biography of Henry I spared only a few words for the royal councils summoned between 1100 and 1135. Battle Chronicle, pp. 175-7. It is reported that the king wore his crown on Pentecost day, but this ceremony may have preceded the council. An excerpt from Hugh the Chanter's History of the Church of York appears to make a connection between Whitsun and conciliar activity during the reign of Henry I, but is vague enough to hinder any conclusions. Early in 1109, 'when the king returned to England, many of the men of Canterbury came to meet him, making great offers and greater promises, urgently beseeching him not to suffer the dignity if the church of Canterbury is to be impaired. The king told them to wait till Whitsun' {History of the Church of York, pp. 38- 41). Entries for Whitsunday in this period can be found in C.R. Cheney (ed), A Handbook of Dates, new edition revised by M. Jones (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 184, 194, 217, 225. Cheney, Handbook, p. 228. deal of feasting, religious ceremonies and celebrations, while politics was usually 0 1 circumscribed to particular days. Gavin Langmuir has rightly pointed out that 'festive courts.. .could not be the basis for regular deliberations'.^^

Christmas was the most important occasion for the celebration of festive courts. The institutional distinction between courts and councils will be discussed further in the following chapters, but before the reign of Henry II, it is sometimes difficuh to distinguish between councils meeting at Christmas and Christmas 23 courts. During the reign of Henry I, the councils of Westminster in 1100 and 1102, and Windsor in 1126 met on Christmas day, while during the reign of his grandson, only the Council of London in 1155 met on this feast day.^"^ Naturally, a good number of ecclesiastical assemblies met at Christmas, Easter and Whitsun, but the evidence shows that the calendar of royal councils departed from this practice. Having said this, several royal councils assembled on other religious dates of lesser importance such as the Sundays of Advent and Lent, Michaelmas, Epiphany, the Purification of the Virgin Mary, Corpus Christi and Rogation, and the chroniclers rarely fail to report this.^^ If it was customary for Norman kings to meet their nobles at courts assembled at the three great feasts of the year, such practice is no longer applicable to twelfth-century councils, which begin to meet instead whenever the status regni or the negotium urgens demanded it. In other words, the rh3^hm of conciliar activity was more determined by the current state of the realm and the urgency of business than by the celebration of traditional feast days. It is important to note that much of the business that was done at festive courts during the reign of Henry I was gradually brought to councils from According to Liebermann, 'Teutonic peoples liked at all times to combine political and judicial business with feasting: it suffices to mention the guilds' {The National Assembly, p. 52). On the development of courtly culture under Henry I and feasting at courts in the twelfth century, see J.A. Green, 'Henry I and the Origins of the Court Culture of the Plantagenets', Plantagenêts et Capétiens: Confrontations et Héritages, ed. M. Aurell and N. Tonnerre (, 2006), pp. 485- 95. ^^ Langmuir, 'Concilia and Capetian Assemblies', p. 57. ^^ See RRAN, ii. nos. 488, 308, 619, 354, 1442; RRAN, iii. nos. 189, 787-790; Malmesbury, HN, pp. 7, 29; Hugh the Chanter, History of the Church of York, p. 217; Huntingdon, pp. 476-7; John of Worcester, pp. 278-9; Battle Chronicle, pp. 152, 160; Torigni, iv.l82; Howden, Chronica, i.216. In the medieval period, there was nothing pre-parliamentary about the festive display at assemblies, and as Richardson reminds, 'we must not forget that a parliament may have its festive side' (Richardson, 'The Origins of Parliament', p. 139). However, it is important to make a distinction between those assemblies which were exclusively, or at least predominantly, festive, and those which gathered for deliberations. ^^ These are some of the most important feast days of the religious calendar. the 1150s, since 'regular summonses to feasts at court were discontinued early in Henry IPs reign'.^^

At the festivals of Christmas, Whitsun and Easter it was customary for kings to wear their crowns, and indeed this was one of the central components of ceremonial kingship displayed at assemblies. According to Sayles, annual crown- wearings were established as early as the tenth century, and Richardson's study of English medieval coronations suggests that 'the early Norman kings planned to wear their crown on the three great feasts of Christmas, Easter, and Whitsun at three of the greater abbeys, Westminster, Winchester, and Gloucester'.^^ Councils and courts increasingly began to take place outside those festive occasions, and the intimate relationship between festive gatherings and crown-wearing meant that the decline of the former is likely to have escorted the demise of the latter. And so it seems to be the case, for according to the sources, crown-wearing at English councils became increasingly rare throughout the twelfth century and seems to have completely vanished after the 1160s. In December 1139, the chronicler John of Worcester reports that King Stephen celebrated Nativity Sunday (Christmas), and wore his crown according to royal custom, 'ibidem Dominicam Nativitatem celehraturus, et pro more regio coronam dignitatis

0 C portaturus'. Such practice appears to have assisted the incoming Norman kings in asserting their authority in the presence of their barons at courts, for they were dukes no more, but crown- wearing kings. But if such practice had survived until the reign of Stephen, one of the most politically loaded passages of Henry of Huntingdon's Historia Anglorum laments that:

...after Christmas [1139], King Stephen drove Nigel, , out of his bishopric, because he was the nephew of the above-mentioned , for whom the king's feelings of hatred had now extended to his kin. But to say where he was at Christmas, or at Easter, is of no importance. At this time, to be sure, the ceremonies of the court and the custom of royal crown-wearings, handed down from the ancient line, had completely died out; the huge store of treasure had by now disappeared; there was no peace in the realm, but through murder, burning, and

^^ Langmuir, 'Concilia and Capetian Assemblies', p. 57. ^^ Richardson, 'The Coronation in Medieval England', p. 127. See also Sayles, The King's Parliament, pp. 21-2; J. Gillingham, 'Thegns and Knights in Eleventh-Century England: Who Was Then the Gentlemen?', TRHS, Sixth Series, 5 (1995), p. 133. ^^ John of Worcester, p. 278. pillage everything was being destroyed, everywhere the sound of war, with lamentation and terror.^^

The display of royal rituals and ceremony at assemblies could hardly take prominence in a kingdom scourged by financial ruin. A crown-wearing is likely to have been a rather expensive event, and expensive enough to leave a trace in the accounts of the Pipe Rolls. In conducendis coronis regis ad Wirecestre... accounted the rolls in reference to the Council of Worcester, which gathered in April 1158 and is said to be Henry IPs last crown-wearing.^^ Stephen's reign gradually emptied the treasury and brought England to financial ruin, but a steady recovery is generally acknowledged in the decades which followed. After all, financial constraint may not be the most appropriate explanation for the demise of crown-wearing. King Henry publicly wore his crown at the meeting of the councils of Bury St Edmunds and Worcester in 1158.^' At Worcester, the king is reported by Roger of Howden to have sworn to wear his crown no longer:

...being the fifth year of the reign of king Henry, son of the empress Matilda, the said king caused himself, a third time, together with his wife Eleanor, to be crowned at Worcester, at the festival of Easter; and they came to the offertory; they took off their crowns, and offered them upon the altar; vowing before God, that they would never in all their lives wear them again.^^

^^ Translated in Huntingdon, pp. 722-5, from the Latin: 'Quinto anno, post Natale fugauit rex Stephanus Nigellum episcopum Eliensem de episcopatu suo, quia nepos predicti episcopi Salesberiensis erat, a quo odii incentiuum in progeniem eius [p. 724] traxerat. Vbi autem ad Natale uel ad Pascha fuerit, dicere non attinet. lam quipe curie sollennes et ornatus regii scematis, ab antiqua serie descendens, prorsus euanuerant, ingens thesauri copia iam deperierat, pax in regno nulla, cedibus, incendiis, rapinis, omnia exterminabantur, clamor et luctus et horror ubique PR, 5 Hen.II., p. 175. G.O. Sayles writes: 'Then the king wore his ceremonial crown; a votive mass was celebrated; chants {laudes) were sung in his honour; there were feastings at which the titular officers of the royal household performed their honorific duties. It would have been an affront to the king for any without good excuse to absent himself (Sayles, The King's Parliament, p. 21). Judith Green has explored some of the factors behind the demise of crown- wearing (Green, The Government of England, pp. 19-24). See also Bisson, 'Celebration and Persuasion', p. 184. A reference to the Council of Bury St Edmunds (May 1157) can be found in Battle Chronicle, pp. 174, 176: 'Post Pascha citato gradu rex ad mare prosperans navemque ascendens, flante austro secundo, in portu Hamtonie appulit indeque versus Lundoniam inter arripuit. Quod abbas cum accepisset, paratis que necessaria errant, eidem apud quoddam castrum fratris sui Ricardi de Luci in Essexia situm, Angra nomine, occurrit. Congratulantibus itaque ad invicem, quod Beo /avente prospere rex reversus extiterat, inter multam confabulationem rex eidem precepit abbati quantis die Pentecostes proximi apud sanctum Edmundum ubi tunc corona sua regia insigniri debebat, ita premunitus et instructus his que sibiforent necessaria venirent... '. A Christmas court at Lincoln (December 1157) is briefly mentioned in Howden, Chronica, i.216: 'Anno gratiae M C L VIII., qui erat annus Illltus. regni regis Henrici filii Matildis imperatricis, idem rex Henricus secundo fecit se coronari apud Lincolniam extra muros civitatis Wikeford'. ^^ This is the translation in Howden, Annals, p. 256 of the Latin in Howden, Chronica, i.216: Anno gratiae MC L IX., qui erat annus Vtus. regni regis Henrici filii Matildis imperatricis, idem It is difficult to find an explanation for Henry IPs actions at Worcester but as peculiar as it may seem, the scene is also described in the chronicle of Ralph of Diceto, who reports that after the third coronation of Henry at Worcester and the celebration of Mass, the king was not crowned thereafter; 'post celebrationem divinorum coronam super altare posuit, nec ulterius coronatus est'.^^ According to Stubbs, Henry 'disliked public ceremonial and grudged needless expense'. The king is also praised by Walter Map for his modesty and sobriety, but was his position so cemented in 1158 that he could dispense with the ceremonial display that accompanied crown-wearings?^^ Richardson reminds us that 'Henry II and especially Richard I were largely absentee monarchs and that a crown-wearing in England must have been momentous. But in the thirteenth century, as Henry Ill's passion for crown-wearings grew, the distinction between a crown-wearing and a coronation must have become sharp and emblematic

If frequency changed immediately after the accession of Henry II, the festive character of gatherings remained an important aspect of assemblies. It is only in the 1160s, and more specifically after Henry's return from Normandy in 1163, that crown-wearings are entirely forced out of royal assemblies, and thus the festive aspect of gatherings weakened.^^ The king could have also worn his crown in the presence of the nobles at councils, but while these assemblies also offered an occasion for feasting and ceremony, it was the celebratory features of courts that provided the most suitable context for crown-wearings. Eadmer's reference to

rex Henricus tertio fecit se, et Alienor uxorem suam coronari, in solemnitate Paschali apud Wirecestre: ubi cum ad oblationem venirent, desposuerunt coronas suas, et eas super aJtare obtulerunt; voventes Deo, quod nunquam in vita sua de caetero coronaretur'. Note that Roger of Howden's calendar follows the regnal year and thus he refers to the year 1159 instead of 1158. ^^ Diceto, i.302 W. Stubbs, The Constitutional History of England, in its Origin and Development, 3 volumes, sixth edition (London, 1903), volume 1, p. 603. ^^ Walter Map, De Nugis Curialum, pp. 477, 487; and Stubbs, Historical Introductions, pp. 104, 107. ^^ Richardson, 'The Coronation in Medieval England', pp. 134-5. Sayles, who concurs with Richardson, argues that the prolonged absences of Henry II meant that crown-wearings went out of vogue, but they were resumed under John and Henry III (Sayles, The King's Parliament, p. 24). ^^ According to Richardson, crown-wearings were not abruptly discontinued during the reign of Henry II, but they became much rarer than during Henry Ill's reign. It is likely that Richardson is here guiding himself by the evidence connected to the councils of the late 1150s. We know that crown-wearings disappeared thereafter, or they are at least not reported (Richardson, 'The Coronation in Medieval England', p. 127). a court held by Henry I in 1109 illustrates the association between crown-wearing and feasting, and the distinction between feasting and political business:

At the following Whitsuntide festival King Henry held his court in London with great worldly pomp and rich ceremonial. When the more festive days on which the King wore his crown were over, the King began to discuss with the bishops and the princes of the realm what was to be done about the consecration of the bishop elect of the church of York.^^

A great deal of the business discussed at festive courts during the reign of Henry I seems to have been shifted to councils under Henry II, and thus the sources tend to associate Christmas courts with celebration rather than discussion.

Analysing the seasonal patterns in the meetings of English assemblies provides incidental information. We might expect that kings would have preferred the milder temperatures of the autumn and the spring for summoning councils, but as indicated, the calendar was increasingly determined by the urgency of business, and less by religious feast days. This might explain why the seasonal patterns are not as pronounced as one might expect. Nearly forty per cent of Henry IPs councils met during spring, while about a quarter assembled at summer time. Fewer met in autumn and winter, but the differences are not substantial enough to establish clear pattems.^^

The duration of assemblies provides an idea of the temporal framework in which business was carried out and reveals, at the same time, some aspects regarding the organisation of gatherings. Unfortunately, the information provided by the sources in this respect is at best scanty and often implicit. One of the longest English gatherings met in London on 6 January 1121 and closed on 2 February, totalling twenty-six days. A council as important as Clarendon in January of 1164 assembled only for three days and the Council of Northampton, which sentenced Archbishop Becket in October of the same year, stretched over a week.'^^ The evidence points towards an average of five to seven days for most meetings, but it is clear that there was no fixed duration. In most cases it must

^^ Eadmer, HN, iv.207 (Eadmer, History, p. 222). ^^ Many of Stephen's assemblies met in winter and very few in summer. The seasonal differences for Henry I's assemblies are more similar to those for Henry II. See John of Worcester, p. 259; Eadmer HN, iv.292; Mortimer, Angevin England, p. 116; CS, ii.895. have been determined by the amount of business and the king's disposition to deal with it. Long meetings would have greatly complicated the logistics and increased the expenses. The sources are generally silent on who was expected to finance the meetings, but they spare no detail in describing the feasting and the ceremonial, all of which must have cost a great deal.

At the Council of Eynsham, Henry is reported to have 'discussed for almost eight days continuously various matters of state with the bishops and nobles of his kingdom'."^' This extract is unusually explicit about the duration of the assembly, but it is unlikely that conciliar discussions always extended for so long or developed with such intensity. The evidence available points to the fact that political discussions were probably allocated to specific days, and were only interrupted by liturgical celebrations and various forms of feasting. A very similar layout is described for the Council of Northampton in 1164 by Becket's biographer, William FitzStephen."^^

At times, political discussions at councils must have been intense and often prolonged beyond the expected; this was certainly the case at the 1163-4 councils which staged the dispute between Becket and Henry.^^ But if such discussions were perhaps the main reason which prompted the convocation of assemblies in the first place, it is also true that they could be a rather wearing exercise, which tested the patience of kings, nobles and bishops alike. Among various other matters, the Council of Woodstock met on the first day of July of 1175 to fill several vacancies in religious houses across England, hi describing the process, the chronicle of Battle Abbey records that 'much of the day had been spent in the fruitless labour of this disagreement, when the king, who with the archbishop was waiting for the news of compliance of the prior and his brothers, grew tired of the

MVSH, i.92. MTB, iii.49-58. The proceedings of the Curia of León in 1135 provide an interesting parallel. The narration taken from the Chronica Adefonsi Imperatoris, describes how on the first day, the discussion between the king and his nobles was centred on those issues 'which are proper for the salvation of the souls of all the faithful'. On the second day, everyone gathered to celebrate and 'to proclaim the king emperor', and on the final day, the king met with his nobles in his palace to deal 'with those matters which concerned the salvation of the whole of the kingdom of Spain' ('Chronica Adefonsi Imperatoris', ed. Antonio Maya, in Chronica Hispana Saeculi XII, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Medievalis, 71 (Tumhout, 1990), i. 193-4). Greenaway writes 'The council of Clarendon lasted three or four days, and the debates were certainly heated...' (Greenaway, The Life and Death of Thomas Becket, p. 67). delay. He suddenly strode in with an angry look and asked why they were holding things up...'."^"^

Thinking of the logistics that may have been necessary for the organisation of these gatherings provides an idea of the expenditure involved. Accommodation had to be made available, not only for bishops, magnates and barons, but also for their hosts and retinues.Of course, not everyone was invited to participate in the discussions, but they were all fed and accommodated. These crowds made royal assemblies an extraordinary event for town dwellers, who were probably expected to assume some of the expense.

Local monasteries are known to have hosted ecclesiastical magnates during assemblies. At the beginning of 1182, a council was summoned to Waltham in order to elect pastors for the vacant sees of several churches and monasteries in England.^^ One of these religious houses was the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds, which was due to elect an abbot and provided accommodation for an archbishop before the meeting of the council. The Chronica Jocelini de Brakelonda reports that prior to meeting the king at Waltham, 'while the abbacy was vacant, Augustine, Archbishop of Norway, stayed with us in the Abbot's lodgings, receiving ten shillings daily from the Abbot's money, by order of the King. And he was of great help to us in securing a free election, bearing witness to our merits and declaring publicly in the King's presence what he had seen and heard of us'."^^ A similar description is provided by the Magna Vita Sancti Hugonis in reference to the Council of Eynsham which assembled in May 1186:

On this occasion the monastery gave hospitality to Baldwin, archbishop of Canterbury of blessed memory, and to certain of his suffragans. The king used to come there each day early in the morning, and when the conference ended returned to his palace at Woodstock. Elections to various bishoprics and abbeys took place at this time, and the canons of Lincoln arrived there to elect, or rather to receive the bishop designed for them by God."^^

Battle Chronicle, pp. 282-3. More information will be offered in the chapter 'Assembled as One Man'. ^^ On the Council of Waltham see CJB, pp. 15-23; Gervase, i.297; Diceto, ii.21. pp. 15-16. ^^ MVSH, i.92 Some of those present at councils are sometimes said to have been accommodated at "lodgings", but the term is too vague to reveal any significant details. William of Malmesbury's Historia Novella reports, for example, a dispute between the men accompanying the bishop of Salisbury and those with the Count of Brittany concerning the use of lodgings at a council in Oxford:

When a council of the leading men was held at Oxford about 24 June the aforesaid bishops arrived also. The bishop of Salisbury was most unwiUing to set out...Then, as if fortune were favouring the king's wishes, a brawl arose between the bishop's men and those of Count Alan of Brittany about claims on lodgings, with the lamentable result that the bishop of Salisbury's men, who were sitting at the table, leapt up to fight before they had finished their meal.

When Thomas Becket arrived at Northampton to face the king and assemble with the barons of England, he found that the lodgings allocated to him had been occupied. The account of Guemes implies that this had been designed by the king to humiliate the archbishop:

Archbishop Thomas did not refuse to attend along with the rest of the baronage, but the baron went there in great humility. The king's men, who were well aware of all that was planned, had had their horses stabled where Thomas was to have stayed, and he told the king that he would not plead in his court until he had had all his lodgings cleared for him -then both horses and squires were ejected. The baron was summoned for a particular day, to be ready to answer there in person.^^

Some of the costs involved at assemblies were also assumed by the royal treasury. A chronicle reference to this effect has already been cited in reference to the Council of Worcester in 1158. Expenses related to similar ceremonies are reported in the Pipe Roll of 1157 in reference to the Council at Bury St Edmunds, concerning the transportation of the royal crown ( 'pro portandis coronis regis ad S. Aedmundum, xxii.s').^^ Other ceremonial expenses are listed in the accounts which relate to the coronation of Henry's son at the Council of London in 1170. The nobles would also commit financially to the demands of travel and display. Some of this is hinted in the Old French verses of the L'Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal.

I have no wish to prolong my tale at this point in telling you how many were the earls,

^^ Malmesbury, HN, pp. 46-7. Guemes, p. 38. PR, 3 Hen.IL, p. 107. For the pipe roll reference of the crown-wearing at Worcester in 1158 see Pi?, 5 Hen.IL, p. 175. the barons and the lesser nobihty, who had come to London that day to attend the coronation, or in speaking of the rich pageantry, or the number of fme and highly precious gifts which were presented on that day.^^

All these expenses refer more to the festive and ceremonial aspects which still remained in councils than the cost of running conciliar sessions. Unfortunately, the sources say little on the matter. A Pipe Roll entry refers to the travel expenses of the Spanish envoys to the Council of London in 1177. The ambassadors from Navarre and Castile went to England to hear Henry IPs arbitration in the territorial dispute between their kings: 'Et pro .j. navi ad passagium nuntiorum Regis Navarre .xl.s. per breve Regis. Et inpassagio nuntiorum Regis Castelle .Is. per breve regis

Since many assemblies met on Sundays, and especially those which coincided with important religious feast days, then the celebration of the Mass was perhaps the most appropriate opening ceremony. It is likely that the Eucharistic ceremony was celebrated every day at assemblies, and this would have been certainly the case at the meeting of ecclesiastical councils, even if the sources generally neglect to report it.^"^ An excerpt from William of Newburgh's account of the Council of Northampton, which assembled in 1164 to deal with Becket, suggests perhaps that the Mass was performed daily at assemblies: 'while the causes of the king's anger became daily more aggravated, on the day when the archbishop was to answer at large to the allegations against him, he ordered the solemn office of St Stephen - "The princes sat and spoke against me, and sinners persecuted me"- to be duly chanted before him at the celebration of Mass'.^^

As regards the closing of councils, the sources are even less informative, limited to vague accounts of the departure of nobles and bishops, or to royal summons for the next meeting. This seems to indicate that such institutional procedures had not

^^ HWM, 1915-1922, p. 99. See also Jordan of Fantosme, pp. 2-3. ^^ PR, 23 Hen.II., p. 188. Mass was obviously celebrated when important marriages took place after, before or during assemblies, like that of William of Scotland and Ermengard of Beaumont at the Council of Woodstock in 1186 (Howden, Gesta, i.351). ^^ Newburgh, p. 142. yet developed, or simply that they were not as important as to afford the attention of the chronicles. Some assemblies must have concluded earlier for some participants, who would usually face pressing business elsewhere. Towards the end of the Council of Northampton in 1164, and in view of preserving his life, Becket 'secretly escaped, and passed beyond the sea, where, being honourably received by the king, the nobility, and the bishops of France, he took up residence for a time'.^^ However, this is by no means an illustration of common practice.

In sum, English councils began to assemble with unprecedented frequency in the reign of Henry II. This change of pace is crucial, because it seems to have prompted a number of institutional changes. The extraordinary frequency also meant that gatherings increasingly met outside the systematic calendar of feast days, perhaps contributing to the demise of crown-wearings and, in general, a gradual decline of festive activity at assemblies. The patterns uncovered in this study have also established that the seasons were not a determining factor in the convocation of assemblies and that gatherings were spread evenly across the year, albeit that spring appears to be slightly more popular a choice than summer. The study of the duration and intensity of the meetings provides some interesting circumstantial information, but reveals little in terms of identifiable patterns or significant changes throughout the century.

The Geographical and Spatial Circumstances

The English Parliament today meets at a fixed location and in specified buildings. Thus the word parliament has come to mean not simply an occasion or a meeting but also a building, and architectural space, clearly identified as such. Accordingly, the word "Westminster" conjures up the English Parliament, and this is primarily the result of a process of sédentarisation that parliamentary sessions underwent during the late medieval period.^^ On the contrary, the

^^ Newburgh, p. 142. ^^ Although most English parliaments met in London and Westminster in the thirteenth century, they were also summoned to Northampton, Windsor, Winchester, . Bury St Edmund's, Marlborough and Gloucester. The predominance of London as a meeting place for parliaments geographical patterns of twelfth-century councils reveal a more complex scenario of itineration.

The following study will offer a general survey of the places and buildings selected for assemblies to meet, and will accordingly suggest some patterns as to the geography of Henry IPs councils. The location of most assemblies -meaning the city, town or village where they met- is clearly indicated by the narrative accounts, and in the absence of these, we can sometimes gather this information from the charters, which have clauses of dating and location. Even so, we are still left with a small number of assemblies which are either unlocated or undated. On the other hand, the sources are not very helpful in identifying the space of assemblies, in other words, the actual venue of the meetings.

Between 900 and 1066, the witenagemot is said by H.R. Loyn to have assembled in fifty different locations, nearly all of them in southern England. Between 1044 and 1066, nine meetings of the Witan took place at Winchester.^^ It is often assumed that after 1066, councils periodically met in London, Gloucester and Winchester, but this is not always corroborated by the sources, and as suggested earlier, most of these meetings were courts, not councils.

A large number of assemblies were summoned to locations most favoured by royal presence, such as Westminster, the place for all twelfth-century coronations. In late Anglo-Saxon England, Winchester had also enjoyed prominence as a royal city, later to become the seat of the treasury, when the king's coffers ceased to itinerate. Winchester was only rivaled by the economic power of London, which became England's dominant town sometime before the eleventh century, perhaps also assisted by the rising status of Westminster Abbey as a religious centre.^^ In

will become more established during the reigns of Edward II and Edward III. Refer to a calendar of parliaments (1258-1348) in Sayles, The Functions, pp. xi-xiv. ^^ Loyn, Governance of Anglo-Saxon England, p. 102. The author provides a map with all these places. More details on the locations of meetings under Edward the Confessor is provided in Oleson, The Witenagemot, pp. 70-75. ^^ 'London enjoys in the eleventh century an exceptional position far above all other towns of the kingdom' (Liebermann, The National Assembly, p. 37). See also M. McKisack, 'London and the Succession to the Crown During the Middle Ages', Studies in Medieval History Presented to Frederick Maurice Powicke, ed. R.W. Hunt, W.A. Pantin and R.W. Southern (Oxford, 1948), p. 79. Refer also to the maps in appendices 3a, 3b, and 3c. the words of the Gesta Stephani, London was 'the capital, the queen of the whole kingdom'.^^ Only two royal councils gathered in Winchester and one at Gloucester during the reign of Henry II, a modest number compared to the eight which gathered in London.^' It is evident from the outset that if it had been the practice of Norman gatherings to meet at these three towns, only London had retained such conciliar importance in the twelfth century. From 1100 to 1154, about a third of all royal councils met in London. This city was still unrivalled as conciliar location in the reign of Henry II, but his councils reveal more 62 geographical diversity, since only a fifth of his assemblies met in London. Chroniclers sometimes made a distinction between London and Westminster, and thus, if the location of a royal council is identified as London, the venue could have been the Tower, while if the location is Westminster, the council most likely met at Westminster Hall.^^ In the present study, the location of all such assemblies will be identified as London, while their venue will be specified as the hall or elsewhere in London.

Nearly all twelfth-century councils in England met south of Nottingham, only one assembly meeting at York, and not one at Canterbury. Royal government was primarily exercised by itineration but English monarchs spent most of their time in the southern part of the kingdom.^"^ Canterbury hosted a number of ecclesiastical gatherings, but witnessed not a single royal assembly in the twelfth century. Urban settlements of importance in England were generally those which enjoyed episcopal or archiépiscopal status, displayed by the splendour of their . Thus, while royal assemblies avoided Canterbury and York, a considerable number met in episcopal ones, and particularly in southern

GS, p. 5. The passage refers to the coronation of Stephen in 1135. See also Lierbermann, The National Assembly, p. 37. Although the sources make a distinction between London and Westminster, they were both within the confines of the same city. We will normally refer to them both as London, only to be distinguished when studying the space of assemblies in the next section, which is concerned not with towns and cities but, more specifically, with buildings. ^^ Royal councils met in London the following years: 1100, 1102, 1107, 1115, 1136, 1153, 1154, 1155 (2), 1163 (2), 1170, 1176, 1177, 1184. A council met at Clerkenwell in 1185, now also part of London. See also appendices 3a and 4. ^^ Some councils are specifically allocated to Westminster and London is not mentioned (i.e. 1155 and 1163). But some conciliar descriptions report that all came to London and met at Westminster, (i.e. 1176 and 1177). ^ See, for example, appendix 1. bishoprics.^^ But while the majority of councils between 1100 and 1154 met at episcopal towns, such a trend is not as dominant for the reign of Henry 11. This may have something to do with the influence that legatine councils exercised over royal assemblies and the prominence of ecclesiastical assemblies in the first half of the century.^^

Some episcopal towns such as Lincoln, Durham, Carlisle and Exeter never witnessed the meeting of a royal council in the twelfth century. Distance must have been an important consideration, since a large number of magnates from all comers of the kingdom were expected to be at these meetings. By medieval standards, a trip from London to York was a considerable undertaking, perhaps explaining the scarcity of conciliar activity in the most important northern town and the abundance of conciliar activity in southern England. Not a single council was summoned to assemble at the episcopal town of Durham, inconveniently situated 270 miles north of London, nor did the city of Exeter ever host a general meeting of the king and his nobles, for although it was a southern bishopric, it is situated in a comer of the kingdom, 175 miles southwest of London. The same principle must have applied to other distant bishoprics. Other circumstances may have sometimes affected the selection of meeting places, and the contingencies of the royal itinerary are likely to have shaped the geography of councils. It is likely that councils were summoned to places that the king knew he was going to visit within the next few months, while the royal itinerary itself was shaped by unexpected occurrence as much as by custom. Unexpectedly, Henry might have to travel north and quash a rebellion after which he might hold a council, and it was also customary for the king to hold a council while spending some time at a hunting lodge or a royal palace.^^

Medieval travelling was both costly and a dangerous undertaking, and the longer the joumey, the greater the expenditure and the risks. Early in the year 1182, a group of monks from the Abbey Bury St Edmunds set out for the Council of Waltham to participate in the election of pastors and, more specifically, to

^^ Refer to appendix 3a for a general overview of the geography of English councils in this period. ^^ This will be studied in the chapter on the business of councils. ^^ All these considerations on the geographical distribution of Henry IPs councils are gathered in appendix 3 a. voice their community's consent with regard to the election of an abbot."' The Chronicle of Jocelin of Brackelond provides a brief description of their journey; though a meagre account, it is unique among twelfth-century English chronicles. Hung about his neck he carried a case containing the letters of the Convent, as though he was the sole servant of them all; and without any to squire him, he went forth on his way to the Court, carrying his frock tucked up on his arms and following his comrades afar off...the Prior and the twelve with him, after much toil and delay, at length stood before the King at Waltham..

Had the roads of England been entirely safe in this period, free of thieves and brigands, no reference to the absence of a squire would be necessary. The chronicle is silent about the length of the monks' trip, referring discreetly to "much toil and delay". If this was indeed the case, how much would the expenses and the risks increase on a longer journey?

While danger on the road might have been an endemic problem, those traveling to assemblies occasionally faced violence at the meetings. As animosities and disputes frequently arose between nobles, an assembly of the realm was the occasion where such differences could be spelled out and often settled, most of the time by judicial methods but sometimes by means of violent confrontation.

Having surveyed the location of assemblies, it is now appropriate to look at the physical space of meetings. The witenagemot is said to have gathered large crowds on some occasions, but this was most extraordinary and the participation of those present must have been minimal, if any.^^ Gatherings of such magnitude could have only taken place outdoors, and it is known that the Witan often assembled in the open up to the later part of the tenth century.^' Little is known of the spots chosen by the king to meet his nobles, but they must have been familiar places to those attending, perhaps a famous ceremonial place, a prominent rock.

^^ CJB, p. 20. The assembly of 1182 almost certainly took place at the Bishop's Palace, now in ruins. ^^ CJB, pp. 18, 20-21. Loyn, The Governance of Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 102-4. Loyn, The Governance of Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 102-4. It has also been suggested that the meeting rooms chosen for a session of the Witan were sometimes inadequate for the number of nobles assembled. See also M.F. Giandrea, Episcopal Culture in Late Anglo-Saxon England (Woodbridge, 2007), p. 59. Not a great deal of information concerning the space of the meetings of the Witan is offered in Assembly Places and Practices in Medieval Europe, ed. A. Pantos and S. Semple (Dublin, 2003). or outside an important castle or church. Assembhes begin to meet consistently inside buildings sometime in the eleventh century, and when the Normans conquered the island, it was already an established practice. According to H.G. Richardson, crown-wearing festivals during the early Norman period normally took place at the great abbeys of Westminster, Gloucester and Winchester.^^ But whether it was bound to happen, the significance of this change should not be underestimated, because it had a substantial repercussion on the duration of meetings, as well as on record-keeping and charter-drafting, and more importantly, on the dynamics of conciliar debate. Fewer nobles could probably engage more intensely in a discussion held inside a hall than among a large crowd assembled in the woods. This is perhaps the most important of several features prompted by this transformation. We can only speculate on what could have happened to the development of royal assemblies in England had they continued to meet outdoors until the later medieval period.

The spatial data we have available from the sources is not particularly helpful, since it is often concise or implicit. However, the buildings that the king and his retinue must have occupied while holding councils can sometimes be identified. The evidence on the location of assemblies which is available for the reign of Henry II indicates that all of his councils met inside royal buildings. It should not be forgotten that a council was essentially a royal event, presided over and hosted by the monarch and so assemblies usually met at castle halls, residences, and hunting lodges, and very occasionally inside churches, episcopal residences or cathedral chapters. 73

The evidence for earlier assemblies provides some detailed descriptions of the space of councils. The account of Henry of Huntingdon affirms that in 1102, the king held a council in London, but John of Worcester specifies that it was 'apud Westmonsterium'J^ Around this time, however, if the account of Eadmer is correct, Anselm was holding an ecclesiastical council, even more specifically described: 'in ecclesia beati Petri in occidentali parte iuxta Lundoniam sita\ 'in

^^ Richardson, 'The Coronation in Medieval England', p. 27. ^^ Refer to appendix 4. Huntingdon, pp. 452-3; John of Worcester, pp. 102-3. the Church of St. Peter, which is situate[d] in the west, next to London'It is Hkely that these meetings were not simultaneous, for the king would have required the presence of his ecclesiastical nobles at the royal council as well. Moreover, the king is said to have approached Anselm through intermediaries 'after assembling the princes of the Kingdom in London', in order to obtain the prelate's consent to certain royal customs.^^ The ecclesiastical gathering was presided over by Anselm and probably followed upon the meeting of the royal council, which was also assembled in Westminster, as stated by John of Worcester.^^ Such specifications are most useful, for if it is certain that the ecclesiastical meeting took place in the Church of Saint Peter, the royal council could have met in the king's hall, the chapter house or somewhere else within the monastery. The Council of London in 1127 is reported to have met 'apud monasterium Sancti Petri'J^ thus making reference to the monastery of Saint Peter at Westminster, but not specifying whether the assembly met in the church or not. This was, in any case, a legatine council.

Westminster was not the default location of all the assemblies that met in the . As a matter of fact, while the Church of Saint Peter at Westminster was the established venue for the meeting of ecclesiastical councils and synods, most royal councils must have met, not in the church, but in the royal palace, located near the abbey. According to John of Worcester and Eadmer, the king assembled with his nobles 'in palatio regisin the king's palace, on the first day of August in 1107.^^ The Council of Westminster, which assembled in Michaelmas of the year 1115 to discuss the state of the realm and to settle some disputes, is said to have taken place 'apud Westmonasterium in palatio regis \ thus indicating that the king's palace was situated adjacent to the abbey or in its close proximity. ^^ The palatium regis identified by the sources referred to Westminster Hall, an extraordinarily large chamber built by King William II in 1097, and one of the few survivors of the conflagrations which have repeatedly

^^ Eadmer//A^, iii.141 (Eadmer, History, p. 149). ^^ Eadmer//iV, iii.137 (Eadmer, History, p. 144). 77 John of Worcester, p. 102. ^^ John of Worcester, p. 168. ^^ John of Worcester, pp. 111-112; Eadmer HN, iv.l86. Eadmer HN, iv.231. The studies of Colvin and Brown have confirmed that the royal palace was adjacent to the abbey. See Colvin, History of the King's Works, pp. 58, 491-2. affected the English metropoHs. This is also the case of Winchester, where the royal palace was practically adjacent to the minster. Winchester was home to the royal treasury which was translated to Westminster in the early decades of the thirteenth century. Norman rulers had favoured Winchester as a royal residence, but Westminster Palace became more prominent under the Angevins, who spent substantial resources on its refurbishment after decades of neglect. 81

Wallingford was an important town in this period partly because its bridge allowed travellers from and to London safe crossing over the Thames, a preference that was lost when another bridge was built at Oxford in the fifteenth century. It is difficult to think of a building other than the royal castle for the meeting of the Council of Wallingford in 1155. Similarly, the castle besieged and then occupied by Henry at Brigdnorth () in 1155 is the most likely venue for a royal council which is said to have assembled at Bridgnorth in July. The Council of Bury St Edmunds (Suffolk) in 1157 might have met at the abbey church, which was also the venue chosen by the barons to discuss the terms of the demands to the king in 1214. The royal castle of Northampton, the last ruins of which still stood in the nineteenth century, was the meeting place for the council which sentenced Thomas Becket in October 1164. The archbishop escaped from this meeting through the northern gate of this fortress.

Besides the palace at Westminster, the residences at Woodstock and Clarendon often witnessed royal presence in the twelfth century, and increasingly so during the reign of Henry 11. Chronicle references to royal residences in connection with the meetings of English councils can be found in those accounts describing the Council of Eynsham in May 1186 and a court held at Woodstock in September. The Magna Vita Sancti Hugonis notifies that after the meeting at Eynsham, Henry

Colvin, History of the King's Works, pp. 491-2. Refer also to C. Dyer, Making a Living in the Middle Ages, The People of Britain 850-1520 (London, 2003), p. 60. A map of Winchester in the eleventh century shows the location of these buildings. See also P. Binski, Westminster Abbey and the Plantagenets. Kingship and the Representation of Power 1200-1400 (New Haven and London, 1995), p. 5. A map of the medieval building of Westminster is included in Butt, A History of Parliament, p. xx. See also Green, 'Henry I and the Origins of the Court Culture', p. 494. ^^ See Anglo-Saxon Towns in Southern England, ed. J. Haslam (Chichester, 1984), p. 61; The Cambridge Urban History of Britain, volume 1: 600-1540, ed. D.M. Palliser (Cambridge, 2000), p. 376. ^^ On Bridgnorth Castle see Colvin, History of the King's Works, pp. 66, 73. Pictures of the ruins of these castles have been included in appendix 4 II 'returned to his palace (palatium) at Woodstock'.Three months later, the king's palace was the venue chosen for the wedding between William the Lion and Ermengard of Beaumont, a union consecrated by Archbishop Baldwin of Canterbury at a Mass 'in the royal chapel in the park at Woodstock', according to the Scottish chronicle written at Melrose Abbey.^^ Although the royal palace is not explicitly identified as the location of a royal assembly, it was probably the site of the two councils which met at Woodstock during the reign of Henry II. 86

Henry II 'transformed the buildings and character of the manor of Clarendon from being essentially a private occasional residence of the king and his immediate family and friends to a complex of buildings capable of 87 accommodating those magnates who gave advice on matters of state'. On 25 January of 1164, the king assembled with his magnates and bishops at Clarendon intending to have his constitutions publicly approved. The site has recently been excavated, but as far as we know, there was nothing else in Clarendon but a royal house which primarily served as a hunting lodge, occasionally occupied by the king and his court. Substantial building work and regular royal visits, however, seems to have turned the lodge into a palace. The only explicit reference to such location is found in Herbert of Bosham's account of the council, which is reported to have taken place at 'regis propriam mansionem, que ex re nomen habet Clarendune', the king's own estate or mansion.^^ The castle at Windsor also underwent substantial changes during the reign of Henry II and its proximity also served as a royal residence due to its proximity to London.^^ The castle hosted

MVSH, i.92. CM, p. 94 ('The Chronicle of Melrose', p. 24). ^^ These councils met in 1163 and 1184. was located within a royal manor. It was replaced by in the eighteenth century by order of the Duke of Marlborough. Important work on the palace at Woodstock was conducted during the reign of Henry II (Colvin, History of the King's Works, p. 84-6). See also appendix 4. ^^ T.B. James and A.M. Robinson, : the History^ and Archaeology of a Medieval Palace and Hunting Lodge near Salisbury, Wiltshire (London, 1988), p. 4. Refer also to Colvin, History of the King's Works, pp. 4-5, 58, 66, 73, 79-80, 84-6, 491-2, 910. Henry's building enterprise is compared to that of his grandfather in Green, 'Henry I and the Origins of the Court Culture', pp. 486-9. ^^ MTB, iii.278-9. See also CS, p. 885. Clarendon Palace is now in ruins, with only a few vanishing walls standing. It was a royal residence from 1072 until the late fifteenth century. Excavations began in the 1930s and they are still been carried out on the site. See James and Robinson, Clarendon Palace, p. 4. ^^ More details about building work on in this period can be found in Colvin, History of the King's Works, pp. 58, 79. councils in 1176 and 1179 and the king celebrated there several courts at Christmas and Easter.

No building is explicitly identified as the meeting venue of the Council of Bishop's Waltham in 1182, but in the account of Jocelin of Brackelond, it is written that Waltham was a manor of the bishop of Winchester.^^ Ralph of Diceto reports that the Council of Clerkenwell, which discussed a financial aid to the Holy Land in 1185, assembled in the house of the Knights of Saint John of Jerusalem, located south of the Thames, now part of London.^' The Council of Marlborough (Wiltshire) in 1186 probably assembled at the royal castle, which in this period was sometimes visited by kings to hunt in the nearby Savemake Forest.^^ The original building of the Church of Saint Mary Magdalene in Geddington (Northamptonshire) was probably built in the tenth century, and a door in the north aisle was known as the King's Door because it led into a royal hunting lodge.^^ In the absence of chronicle reference, it would be safe to assume that either the church or the hunting lodge attached to it is most likely to have witnessed the discussions of the royal council assembled in 1188 to treat matters concerning the upcoming crusade.

It is even more difficult to establish spatial arrangements within a particular building from the existing sources. At the Council of Northampton in 1164, for instance, Roger of Howden narrates that before leaving the court, Becket carried the cross into the assembly, and 'on entering the chamber, he found there a great number of the common people, on which he took his seat among them. The king, however, was in his private room with the persons of his household'.Becket's movements are recorded by the chronicler only because it was extraordinary for an archbishop to be seated among the commoners at the meeting of an important council, indeed at any type of public gathering. It is likely that in the context of a highly structured and hierarchical society that some form of customary protocol was followed when taking places and seats at assemblies. Evidence to support this

pp. 15-23. Diceto, ii.33. See also Warren, Henry II, pp. 604-5. This building has faced a number of renovations over the centuries, but its twelfth-century crypt has survived them. See D.A. Crowley (ed), 'Marlborough Castle', VCH Wiltshire, 12 (Oxford, 1983), pp. 165-70. ^^ J. Bridges, The History and Antiquities of Northamptonshire (Oxford, 1791), ii.310-11. Howden, Chronica, i.226 (Howden, Annals, p. 264). appears in a letter written in 1166 by the bishop of London, and addressed to Becket. Bishop Gilbert of Foliot reminds the archbishop of the events at the Council of Northampton, when 'all had taken their seats according to their dignity and rank, with becoming restraint and elegance he set forth what has been said concerning the spuming of his mandate as a charge against you'.^^ Gilbert's words provide some clues, but they do not reveal the specific location of the archiépiscopal seat. The archbishops were probably seated next to the king and close to the royal family, while the lay and ecclesiastical magnates must have been seated apart. The silence of contemporary sources invites further speculation.

Further considerations concerning the space of assemblies are hindered by the lack of evidence in the chronicles and charters. Geographical patterns reveal that nearly all of Henry IPs councils met in southern England, and usually in large halls at royal residences, such as castles, palaces and hunting lodges. The most important spatial transformation occurred earlier, when the witenagemot ceased to assemble in the open, probably in the later part of the tenth century. Had the Anglo-Saxon assembly continued to meet outdoors, the Normans would have probably established a new practice. One way or another, royal councils in the twelfth century no doubt benefited a great deal from such a development.

The Summons

As suggested, royal assemblies gradually ceased to meet at traditionally established locations and dates. As the conciliar calendar became less dependent on the periodical feast days and determined instead by the urgency of business, as well as the contingency and fragility of politics, it became necessary for nobles and bishops to be duly informed of the place and time of the next gathering. The evidence points to the important magnates of the realm being summoned to assemblies by means of written summons and the rest by general convocation delegated to royal officials in the counties.

^^ The Correspondence of Thomas Becket, i.515, no. 109. Writs of summons were not a novelty in the twelfth-century and, as we shall reveal, it is not difficult to find references to them among the sources prior to this period. Unfortunately, however, the very few letters of convocation which have survived are those summoning warriors to assemble for battle or the clergy to meet at an ecclesiastical synod or council. Not a single letter of convocation for a royal council has survived for this period.^^

A considerable proportion of English royal charters survive in original form or as beneficiary copies to this day, and yet not a single royal writ of summons is extant. It is clear that assemblies gathered regularly, and were attended by most bishops and important magnates of the kingdom. If written convocations were sent to all of them on every occasion a royal council was to assemble, then hundreds of writs of summons must have been issued in the twelfth century. Nicholas Vincent asserts that 'precisely because such writs were so routine and so much the product of a single moment, they have only rarely survived'.^^

Writs of summons may have been reused for other documents or as binding material for books. It is precisely in this format that Professor Vincent was able to find an English writ of summons in its original format. The document, however, was not sent by the king to call a noble to an assembly, but rather, it requested his assistance at war. It is, in fact, a military writ of summons addressed to William Marshal, who was to meet Henry II and his army in the middle of 1188. The royal writ succinctly commands:

Henry by God's grace King of England sends greetings to William Marshal. I command you that you come to me as soon as possible, prepared with as many

^^ The oldest surviving parliamentary summons refers to an assembly summoned in the year 1212. They were documents requiring 'six or more lawful and discreet knights who are to do what we shall tell them'. Refer to J.C. Holt, The Prehistory of Parliament', The English Parliament in the Middle Ages, ed. R.G. Davies and J.H. Denton (Manchester, 1981), p. 6. This important passage is translated from: 'Et tu ipse sis sub quanta poteris festinacione et adducas tecum sex de legalioribus et discretioribus militibus bailie tue ad faciendum hoc quod eis dicemus' {Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum, 2 volumes, ed. T.D. Hardy (London, 1833-44), i.32). See also E. Jenks, The Alleged Oxford Council of 1213', AHR, 22 (1916), pp. 87-90. Some thoughts on parliamentary summons to thirteenth-century English parliaments are offered in C.H. Jenkinson, The First Parliament of Edward I', EHR, 25 (1910), pp. 232-4. See also A.L. Brown, The Governance of Late Medieval England {London, 1989), p. 159; and Bartlett, England, p. 146. ^^ N. Vincent, 'William Marshal, King Henry II and the Honour of Chateauroux', Archives, 25 (2000), p. 8. The unusual circumstances of this finding are described in this publication. knights as you can have, to stand with me in my war and of what sort and notify me how many shall be your knightly following. You have so often lamented to me that I have enfeoffed you with a small fee. Know for certain that if you faithfully serve me, I shall give you in addition Chateauroux with the entire honour and with all its appurtenances we may be able.^^

It is difficult to conceive that the formula in this writ is all that different from writs of summons to a royal council. Timothy Reuter has, in fact, suggested that 'even peacetime assemblies sitting in judgment could be called exercitus, while the verbs used in Latin sources for the summoning of assemblies are those used for the summoning of armies

As a complement to this military model, the reconstruction of written convocations to assemblies is also aided by several references in the narrative sources. Writs of summons -ecclesiastical and royal- were not a novelty of the twelfth century, though more efficient and sophisticated methods of convocation may have developed in this period. In the narrative of Eadmer, for instance, there are references to letters sent by William II to Normandy seeking clerical consent for the election of Anselm as the primate of England, and then we find the archbishop himself sending out letters of convocation to his clergy to assemble a

^^ Vincent, 'William Marshal', p. 15. The writ was drafted in July 1188 and an English translation is provided in the article. After ftilfilling its purpose, the parchment had been sliced and recycled as a seal tag for another document now preserved at the County Record Office. ^^ Reuter, 'Assembly Polities', p. 435. Soon after the Norman conquest of England in 1066, King William ordered 'the abbot ^thelwig of Evesham to summon all who are under his authority and jurisdiction to have as many warriors as they owe to the king ready in the king's presence at Clarendon at the octave of Whitsun. iilthelwig is also to come on that day and bring with him five knights who he owes from his abbey'. (Bates, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, p. 452). According to Nicholas Vincent this is 'perhaps the earliest writ of military summons to have survived for the Anglo-Norman realm' (Vincent, 'William Marshal', p. 14) Its authenticity has been questioned by David Bates. Frank Stenton's reference to the composition of the Witan appears to imply that only the thegns received summons: 'The bishops, abbots, and earls attended in virtue of offices which they held by a royal grant; the priests belonged to the king's household; the thegns were present in obedience to a royal summons' {Anglo-Saxon England, p. 553). Another example of military summons is provided in the biography written about William the Marshal, the very same recipient of the cited writ of 1188: 'The King sent messengers to summon his earls, his barons and his sheriffs' {HWM, 1581-1586, p. 81). Another source for reconstructing writs of summons is the convocation to church councils. Under the title Summonitio Willelmi Cantuariensis archiepiscopi, the Book of Llandaff acknowledges summons by the archbishop - acting on behalf of the papal legate- for an ecclesiastical council to be held at Westminster in September 1125: 'Willelmus Cantuariensis archiepiscopis Urbano Landavensi episcopo salutem. Litteris tibi notum facere volumus quod Johannes ecclesie Romane presbiter cardinalis atque legatus legis ordinatione nostraque coniventia concilium celebrare disposuit Lundonie in navitate beate semper virginis Marie. Propterea precipimus ut in prefato termino in eodem loco nobis occurras cum archidiaconibus et abbatibus et prioribus tue dyocesios, ad defmiendum super negotiis ecclesiasticis et ad informandum seu corrigendum que informanda vel docenda seu corrigenda docuerit sententia convocationis nostre' {Liber Landavensis, The Book of Llandaff, ed. J.G. Evans, Series of Welsh Texts, 4 (Oxford, 1893), p. 49). council in 1095.'^^ References to royal and clerical writs of summons increased gradually and they become more explicit and precise in the twelfth century.'^'

A royal council was assembled at Gloucester in 1123 to elect an archbishop for Canterbury. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports that '...the king sent his writs over all England, and ordered his bishops and abbots and thegns all to come and meet him for his council meeting on Candlemas Day at Gloucester, and they did 1 09 so'. Judith Green has explained that 'if the king specifically wished for a large gathering he may well have issued writs of summons, as he is known to have done for the Candlemas meeting of 11

Roger of Howden's Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi asserts that the Welshmen who attended the Council of Oxford in May 1177 were summoned by a royal command or mandatum}^^ Jocelin of Brackelond offers a more precise reference in describing the relief felt by the monks of Bury St Edmunds when the king summoned their representatives to elect an abbot at the Council of Bishop's Waltham in 1182: 'our lord the King sent letters to us, commanding that our Prior and twelve of the Convent, unanimously chosen by our whole body, should appear before him on an appointed day to elect an Abbot'.

In the absence of original writs of summons, all these chronicle references come forth as witnesses to their existence not only because they make reference to a royal command, but also because they hint a precise method of convocation.

Eadmer//A^,i.37, 54. Some general references to summons during the reign of Henry I can be found in Hugh the Chanter, History of the Church of York, pp. 37-8, 186, 188; and Eadmer, HN, iii.137; iv.237. Convocations to legatine councils during the reign of Stephen are referred to in Huntingdon, pp. 724-5, 756-7, Malmesbury, HN, pp. 90-96, 108-9. Similar references for the following reign are found in Howden, Gesta, i.4-5, 143, 177-8, 335-6 for the councils of London in 1170, London in 1177, Winchester in 1177 and Clerkenwell in 1185; Diceto, i.312, 407-8 for the councils of Clarendon in 1164 and London in 1176; Gervase, i. 174-5, 258 for the councils of London in 1163 and 1176; Battle Chronicle, pp. 160-1 for the Council of Bridgnorth in 1155; and GFL, pp. 277-9 for the Council of Westminster in 1175. ASC, p. 122 (Whitelock, ASC, p. 188). Green, The Government of England, p. 23. Summons to royal courts -festal or judicial- may also provide some information. When Henry II wore his crown at Bury St Edmunds in 1157, the bishop of Chichester and the abbot of Battle were assigned a date and a place 'by that splendid prince's peremptory summons' when and where they could settle an old dispute concerning the dignity of their churches {Battle Chronicle, pp. 175, 177) Howden, Gesta, i.l62. 16. Benoit's Chroniques de Ducs de Normandie appears to employ the term letrez (letters) in connection with the summons of bishops and barons for consultation:

'Cele ovraigne fist a saveir A ses evesques haut, letrez, E a ses chers barons privez. Qui lifiirent amifeeil E que il soct de haut conseil \

The term sometimes used for "summons" is bref, a very common term in the Old French which generally identifies a command or a writ. Other words employed to convey similar significance are mande and somun/sumon, all of which occasionally appear amid vernacular verses.None of these terms enjoys the specificity conveyed by letrez, but the relevance of these verses from L'Histoire de Guillaume Le Maréchal is that they refer to the royal messengers. In 1184, a dispute was unleashed between the monks of Saint Augustine in Canterbury and the bishops of England over the election of an archbishop. In October of that year, the king 'misit nuntios et litteras ad conventum Cantuariensis ecclesiae, praecipiens, et cum priore suo plures ad eum mitterent monachos ad Winlesores sent messengers and letters to the convent, commanding them to come to Windsor.

It appears that some nobles were notified of a forthcoming assembly by individual writs, personally addressed -such as the summons sent to William the Marshal in 1188. The most appropriate reference to support such practice is contained in William FitzStephen's description of the events at the Council of Northampton in 1164. Thomas Becket had been summoned by the king to counter the accusations of John the Marshal, but the prelate refused to comply with Henry's command. The biographer informs that

.. .at the instigation of the said John the king appointed another day for the case to be heard, namely the first day of the council and sent out his letter to the sheriff of Kent summoning the archbishop. For he would not then, nor for a long time before, write to him in person, because he would not give him the customary salutation. Nor did

Benoit, 38924-38928, ii.483 ; Anglo-Norman Dictionary, p. 385. See Anglo-Norman Dictionary, pp. 75, 404, 740-1. Mande is used in Benoit, 1922-1930, i.57; 9257-9265, p. 270; Wace, 1795-1800, p. 144; 2923-40, p. 166). Somun/Sumon is employed in Wace, 1455-8, p. 136-7; andZe Geste, 3010-3015, p. 130. Gervase, i.313. the archbishop receive any other summons to the council, legal in form and directed to him in person, according to ancient custom.'®^

It is difficult to ascertain how ancient this custom was, but although the evidence is not overwhelming, it appears to have crystallised in the twelfth century. Bryce Lyon in his legal study of medieval England has pointed out that 'for the reigns of Henry II and Richard the chroniclers amply testify to the royal custom of summoning the greater barons by individual writ...the lesser barons never received individual summonses; but they must have been informed about councils in some manner...'."^ It is possible that those not summoned by means of personal letters may have received notification from royal officials. According to John Maddicott, the existence of a two-tier system of summons is unclear before the 1120s. Maddicott's suggestion is primarily based on a letter written by Gilbert Foliot in 1143-4, in which he describes the royal council of 1126, when the nobles -some of whom were accustomed to be summoned by name- recognised Matilda as heir to the English throne: 'Eorum namque qui statuto consilio propiis, ut dicitur, consueverant apellari nominibus, nemo plane relictus est qui non ei consilium de optinendo et tuendo post regis obitum regno Anglie et ducato Normannie sub iuramenti religione promitteret'}^^ Although no evidence of Anglo-Saxon writs of summons has been discovered, Liebermann believed it unlikely for the Witan to have been assembled by any other means.Whether the two-tier practice of summons had an Anglo-Saxon precedent or not, it is clear that the method was consolidated in the twelfth century and was made a baronial demand in the Great Charter of 1215. Clause 14 of Magna Carta declares:

And to obtain the common counsel of the realm for the assessment of an aid (except in the three cases aforesaid) or a scutage, we will have archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls and greater barons (majores barones) summoned individually by our letters, and we shall also have summoned generally through our sheriffs and bailiffs all those who hold of us in chief, for a fixed date, with at least forty days' notice, and at a fixed place; and in all letters of summons we will state the reason for the summons. And when the summons have thus been made, the business shall go forward on the day arranged according to the counsel of those present, even if not all those summoned have come."^

^^^ MTB, iii.49-58. Lyon, Constitutional, p. 247. Maddicott, 'An Infinite Multitude of Nobles', p. 23; GFL, no. 26, p. 63. Maddicott, 'An Infinite Multitude of Nobles', p. 23; Liebermann, The National Assembly, p.

See J.C. Holt, Magna Carta, second edition (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 454-5. The evidence we have presented indicates that this was already customary in the reign of Henry II, and that this clause in Magna Carta sought to secure its continuity. Bishops, abbots and earls and other greater tenants-in-chief of the king were all summoned to assemblies by means of nominated letters, while the lesser clergy and nobility were generally notified of the meetings through royal officials or the personalised letters sent to their lords, occasionally when their presence was required or as companions. In this way, kings required the presence of their barons, and occasionally that of knights and a handful of monks by commanding the bishops and earls to come accompanied by their subordinates or else by sending general summons to be read out by his royal officials.It is likely that personalised summons were only sent to the king's tenants-in-chief and a number of important prelates, but it is evident that not everyone present at royal assemblies from the 1150s held lands directly from the king. Thomas Bisson has indicated that tenurial convocation was more prominent in northern Europe than in the southern kingdoms, where political and social status seems to have been the basis for royal summons.''^ This discussion will be revisited when we study the composition of assemblies.

Lesser tenants-in-chief and companions were never summoned directly to assemblies, but they must have received general summons whenever their presence was required by the king. An appropriate example is included in the Chronicle of Jocelin of Brackelond in reference to the Council of Waltham in 1182: 'Post mortem Hugonis abbatis, peracto anno cum tribus mensibus, precepit dominus rex per literas suas, ut prior noster et duodecim de conuentu, in quorum ore uniuersitatis concordaret sententia, apparerent die statuto coram eo, ad eligendum abbatem' {CJB, p. 16). See also H.M. Chew, The English Ecclesiastical Tenants-in-Chief and Knight Service, Especially in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (London, 1932). In the second half of the thirteenth century, as citizens began to earn a place in parliamentary meetings in England, Edward's I general summons meant that the sheriffs had to decide which urban settlement qualified as a borough. See M. McKisack, The Parliamentary Representation of the English during the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1932), p. 17. According to G.O. Sayles and H.G. Richardson, most writs of summons of Edward I were not recorded (Richardson and Sayles, Parliaments and Great Councils, p. 47). Bisson argues that 'tenure remained more influential in northern consultation, status in southern; yet the diffusion of ideals of vassalage and customs of fiefs progressively lessened the eariy differences' (Bisson, 'Celebration and Persuasion', p. 198). A great deal has been written on the feudal origins of parliamentary assemblies, an approach which has been recently criticised by Thomas Bisson. John Maddicott points out that besides the clause of Magna Carta here cited, clause no. 11 of the Constitutions of Clarendon also stipulates land tenure as the basis for convocation. See Maddicott, 'An Infinite Multitude of Nobles', p. 18. However, if personalised convocation was made following the feudal order, land tenure did not exhaust the criteria for attendance, particulariy after the 1150s, for the sources cleariy indicate the occasional presence of untenured subjects at assemblies. Furthermore, Susan Reynolds has pointed out that parliaments 'were certainly not "feudal" in the sense that English historians use the word -that is, they were not composed only of those who held their land directly of the king' {Kingdoms, p. 314). See also G. Post, Studies in Medieval Legal Thought: Public Law and the State 1100-1322 (Princeton, 1964), p. 100. The vernacular lines of La Vie de Saint Thomas de Canterbury report that after the Council of Woodstock in 1163, Henry II told Becket: 'If you intend to stand by the agreement you have made, summon all the clergy and I will summon my barons; there shall be no delay. There, in the presence of all of them, declare what you have granted to me'.' The archbishop might have taken advantage of a large gathering of prelates to have them instantly summoned for the next council, but the use of archiépiscopal writs for the gathering of royal assemblies must have been occasional, if not extraordinary. The council which followed gathered at Westminster three months later, so the nobles may have returned to their settlements from Woodstock and then travelled to London for the next meeting. All this movement required time and so it was customary for the nobles expected to be notified with reasonable anticipation. Given the rhythm at which councils met from 1155 to 1188, such an exercise must have demanded some degree of planning and coordination. When Becket was summoned to appear before the king on the second day of the Council of Northampton in 1164, the archbishop refused on the grounds of illness, but he also claimed that the royal summons had been inadequately short.'

Naturally, some lay nobles and bishops were occasionally delayed or impeded from attending royal assemblies altogether, but the summons invariably required 118 an answer. Only extreme circumstances excused the absence of nobles at councils, and the monarch required such excuses to be presented before him in writing or through messengers. William of Malmesbury reports that at the Council of Winchester in 1139, almost all the English bishops were present with the notable exception of Archbishop of York, who 'excused his absence by letter on account of the ill-health from which he was suffering, for he could scarcely govern his body by his strength of his mind...'.^'^ Two years later, another council at Winchester was attended by a large group of nobles, and 'any who failed to attend gave reasons for not coming by representatives and letters...That same day after the reading of the letters of excuse by which some

"^Guemes, p. 80. Howden, Chronica, i.226. Regular excuses would be sickness or urgent business. Refer also to Warren, Henry II, p. 485. Malmesbury,//A^, p. 50. defended their absence, the legate called the bishops aside and conferred with them in secret'.

Ignoring the king's request to be present at court was so serious an offence that at the Council of Northampton in 1164, Thomas Becket was condemned to place his property at the king's disposal for not excusing his absence.'^' The penalties, moreover, were not restricted to movable property, for it is likely that nobles were also fmed for not answering royal summons.It must be said that the severity of the king's decision was prompted not only by Becket's absence at the council but also, and perhaps mainly, because of contempt of court. The following year, a noble named Hugh de Bech also committed the same offence by ignoring royal summons extended to the entire county: 'Hugo del Bech redd. Comp. de v.m. quia negavit summonitionem factam coram toto comitatu All these references show how seriously kings felt about the convocation of men to their presence, and how determined they were to enforce their mandates. It is unlikely that penalties such as these ever applied to those not attending a great council, but it is clear that the king always expected them to excuse their absence. Robert of Torigni, for example, refers to the excuses sent by those bishops who were unable to attend the coronation of Henry the Younger at the Council of London in Parallels could also be established with summons to councils of ecclesiastical nature.

Chronicle evidence provides further illustration. The animosities between King Stephen and Bishop resulted in the prelate's arrest at the Council of Oxford in June 1139. Roger was probably released because he was then summoned by the legate to attend an assembly at Winchester two months

Malmesbury, HN, p. 90. Warren, Henry II, p. 485. An entry of the pipe rolls for York registers the amount owed by the canons of that cathedral church for not attending the king's court in 1175, presumably held at the Council of York in August of 1175: 'Canon' de Eborac' deb' c.li. q'a n' uener't ad su 'monit 'one'. R' ad Ebor' ...' {PR, 21,Hen.II., p. 182). PR, 22, Hen.IL, p. 210. Other entries related to royal summons in the Pipe Rolls are in PR, 32, Hen.II, p. 49: Et Helye Ostiario .ij.m. ad portandam summonitionem Regis per Angliam Aj. terminis breve regis'. PR, 32, Hen.II., p. 142: 'Gillebertus de La Roche debet dim.m. pro falsa summonitione'. See also PR, 32 Hen.II., p. 111. Torigni, iv.245. Further details about the young king's coronation may be gathered from Smith, 'Henry IPs Heir', pp. 297, 308. later. When the legatine Council of Winchester assembled in August 1139 'the king, who did not lack confidence in his own case, sent earls to the council to enquire why he had been summoned'.A similar situation was unlikely under his successor, Henry II, who in keeping a very tight control over the affairs of the kingdom, established at Woodstock in 1175 that none of the rebels of the war of 1173-4 was to come to his court without special summons.

Royal summonses were thus fundamental documents for those attending assemblies and had they survived, would have provided very valuable information on the business and composition of assemblies, and not the least, on the methods of convocation. On the third day of the Council of Northampton in 1164, Becket 'was interrogated by messengers (sent by the king) concerning a loan of five hundred marks in connection with the war in Toulouse and another five hundred borrowed from a certain Jew on the king's security...he replied that he had not been summoned for this, nor was he prepared for it...'.'^^ The archbishop knew the reason for his summons because he was either told by royal couriers or such information was contained in a writ. This is, however, a peculiar case, since the prelate was not only summoned to attend the council -like all the nobles-, but also to face the king's court and answer the charges laid against him.

When receiving royal summons, it is logical to think that all those attending an assembly were perhaps informed not only of the location and date of the gathering, but more importantly, they were made aware of the general purpose of the meeting. In reference to royal convocation, clause 14 of Magna Carta established that apart from ensuring that the nobles were informed about the place 128 and date of meetings, 'the writs were to specify the reason for the summons'. It is very likely that this was already the practice in Henry's reign, although the purpose of assemblies can only be retrieved from the descriptions of chroniclers Malmesbury, HN, pp. 52-3. Howden, Gesta, i.93. In the introduction to the chronicle of the Gestis Regis Henrici, William Stubbs argues that 'the exclusion from the court, by the decree of Woodstock of 1175, of those members who had been in rebellion during the previous years, unless called up by special summons, is construed to prove the adoption of summonses in this reign; but the argument is unnecessary, for the use of summonses, not as a matter of law so much as of necessity, is clear enough at an earlier period' MTB, iii.49-58. Holt, Magna Carta, p. 322. and grants included in charters. The nobles probably assumed that the king was calling upon his right and the wise custom of seeking wider advice for the resolution of different matters concerning the status regni. But some writs may have contained references to specific business, such as the settlement of an important dispute, the preparation of military campaigns or the betrothal of a member of the royal family. In 1164, for example, the nobles must have known that summons to councils responded to royal initiatives to end the Becket controversy, but the writs of summons are likely to have underlined the main purpose of the meetings at Clarendon and Northampton. Interestingly, it seems that this information was not always made available to those preparing to attend councils. If the account of Herbert of Bosham is accurate, then this situation seems to have affected at least some of those present at the Council of Westminster in October 1163. Henry II 'summoned the archbishops, the bishops and the rest of the clergy to London [to take part] in a council at Westminster. After explaining to them why they had been summoned, the king instantly demanded that clerks seized or convicted for great crimes should be deprived of the protection of the Church and handed over to his offices...It is also possible that the writs of summons at times established the general purpose of an assembly, which was later specified by the king at the meeting itself

Adams points out in reference to the councils of Henry I that 'tractare becomes in time almost a technical word in formal summonses, denoting the business to be done by the council, but we cannot say it was so in this period'.In the second

MTB, iv.299-300. The surviving writs of summons of the thirteenth century are a good illustration of this practice. J.C. Holt's study of what he calls "pre-history of parliament" usefully compiles some of these general purposes established in royal writs. Holt, 'The Prehistory', pp. 20- 21. In 1212 they were to come 'to do what we shall tell them'; in 1213 'to speak with us concerning the affairs of our realm'; in 1227 'to present any complaints they have' against the sheriffs; in 1258 'to present their sealed enquiries in person to our council'; in 1261 to 'treat on the common affairs of the realm' with the magnates and 'to talk with us on these matters' with the king; in 1264 'to treat with us on the aforesaid matters' (the settlement after Lewes); and in 1265 'to treat with us and with the magnates of our realm and to give your counsel on these matters'. Bertie Wilkinson has observed that 'it is true that the nature of a parliamentary writ is very hard to define, and that the whole existence of such an instrument has been left in a state of considerable doubt by the latest historians of parliament... they may give us an invaluable insight into the mind of the chancery official; they may teach what he regarded as the essential qualities of a parliamentary assembly' (B. Wilkinson, Studies in the Constitutional History of the 13'^ and 14'^ Centuries (Manchester, 1952), pp. 48-9). Adams, CC, p. 117. half of the twelfth century, the treatment of the state and stability of the kingdom is often implied in the chronicle passages in relation to conciliar business.

The agenda of an upcoming council must have been clear to those regularly attending king's court, since it is likely that a number of issues -if not all of them- were discussed between the king and the members of the curia regis prior to opening these subjects to a large assembly of nobles. Future discoveries such as Vincent's may bring new light onto the subject of conciliar summons.

Conclusion

In the second half of the twelfth century, the frequency of English councils increased substantially and the calendar of meetings gradually ceased to be dictated by the traditional festive dates, a development which might have contributed to the demise of crown-wearings and some of the festive components of assemblies. These changes probably affected as well the evolution of methods of convocation, which were adapted to the new institutional demands and consequently became more sophisticated and technical. Substantial changes in the spatial patterns of royal gatherings may be characteristic of an earlier period, but they definitely come into focus in this century.

The frequency and location of twelfth-century assemblies have been overlooked by the historiography perhaps in the belief that, in being accidental, these considerations add nothing to the understanding of the nature of councils in this period. Historians have instead concentrated almost exclusively on the business and composition of meetings; a trend perhaps established in the nineteenth century by approaches excessively concerned with constitutional developments.

This section has attempted to give a voice to these conciliar circumstances, which have played a vital role in the shaping of medieval assemblies, and which contribute towards an understanding of the very intricate dynamics of institutional change in this period. The significance of the extraordinary rate at which royal councils met in the reign of Henry II will be fully appreciated in the following chapters, for a number of developments in the business and composition of assemblies may not have occurred had assemblies not gathered as frequently as they did from 1155 to 1188. General Consultation

In February 1188, Henry assembled his nobles at Geddington, where he discussed and approved some general ordinances for the collection of financial aid for the Holy Land, previously enacted at Le Mans in January. The meeting of the council also resolved a dispute between the archbishop of Canterbury and his priory concerning the foundation of a college at Hackington, and conducted several ecclesiastical elections. Moreover, several diplomatic letters were drafted and dispatched to the king of Hungary, the patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem, the emperor of Byzantium, the Holy Roman Emperor and Pope Clement III, all of which related to crusading. Incidentally, some castles were restored to King William of Scotland and charters were given to the prior of Christ Church Cathedral in Canterbury, as well as to .'

The year 1188 is particularly significant for our study, not only because it witnessed the last of Henry IPs councils but, perhaps more importantly, because the 1190s were no match to the conciliar intensity of the previous three decades. England bore the absence of its king for several years, the machinery of

^ See Howden. Gesta, ii.33; PR, 34, Hen.IL, pp. 106, 132, 206; EEA, ii. no. 255; vii. no. 183; Howden, Chronica, ii.335-8; Gervase, i.409-412; Diceto, ii.51-3. Some secondary references to the Council of Geddington are: CS, ii. 1024-5; Parry, Parliaments, p. 17; Hody, Councils, p. 245; Eyton, Court, p. 285; RRS, ii.98; and Lawrie, Annals of the Reigns of Malcolm and William, p. 271. government remaining in working order, but Richard's absences resulted in few royal councils. The conclusion of Henry's reign thus seems to have signaled the end of a crucial phase in the transformation of assemblies, one which seems to have played a part in facilitating central governance in the absence of a monarch.^

The function or main purpose of medieval assemblies has attracted some attention from historians, perhaps influenced by the work of G.O. Sayles, who as a challenge to the social approaches to parliamentary studies, argued that 'the history of any institution must first and foremost be a history of its functions'.^ The historiography, however, has afforded little importance to the business transacted at royal councils in the twelfth century. We are told that the role of royal assemblies was not formally constituted until the thirteenth century, and that the business treated in earlier gatherings is too fluid and variable to correspond to well-established functions. Bryce Lyons' words in his Constitutional and Legal History of Medieval England are particularly illustrative of this position:

It may be said of the position of the great councils in the scheme of Angevin government that its functions and rights were little more defined than under the Normans. Its work was yet indefinite, unspecialized, and performed only when demanded by the king. Angevin government functioned with or without the great council."^

The following study is an attempt to contradict such a view, and demonstrate that royal councils played a vital role in the governance of the kingdom, the preservation of peace and order, and justice, and most importantly, from the reign of Henry II they did so with unprecedented frequency. The subjects of the following study, therefore, will be the nature of the decision-making process at

^ John Gillingham is right to suggest that 'it is clearly a mistake to imagine that Richard "absences" in France meant that he neglected England', but he fails to acknowledge that the continuation of governance in the kingdom gives, at least to some extent, credit to the reforms and procedures set in place and in motion during the reign of Henry II (J. Gillingham, 'Conquering Kings: Some Twelfth-Century Reflections on Henry II and Richard V, Warriors and Churchmen in the : Essays Presented to Karl Leyser, ed. T. Reuter (London, 1992), p. 166; Cf Turner, 'The Origins of Common Pleas', pp. 23-54). ^ Sayles, The Functions, p. xv. H.G. Richardson adhered to the same view in a another book he published with Sayles, in which they suggest that 'the primary criterion by which an assembly is to be assessed is, we assert, that of function and not the presence or absence from the king's court of particular persons or some particular class of suitor' {Parliaments and Great Councils, p. 34). Ronald Butt has taken a similar stance in asserting that 'it was not the election of knights or burgesses, or any other particular composition which first produced a Parliament but its functions' {A History of Parliament, p. 13). Lyon, Constitutional, pp. 249-250. See also Baldwin, The King's Council, p. 4. assemblies and the changing patterns of royal consultation, the conciliatory aspects in the relationship between nobles and monarchs, and the institutional consequences of such cooperative governance in the development of councils in this period.

Kingship and Consultation

Perhaps in searching for modem-looking phenomena in medieval institutions, traditional historiography has tended to over-politicise the debates between rulers and nobles and the resulting constitutional restrictions to monarchical power. In light of this approach, "debating" at twelfth-century gatherings has often been dismissed as fulfilling entirely ceremonial purposes. Gavin Langmuir, for example, explained that 'what decisively separates medieval from modem societies is the extent to which political goals had to be formulated as issues of legal right because of the lack of any theory that allowed a legitimate place for competing interests'.^ In spite of its regularity and prominence in the sources, royal consultation in this context could hardly be regarded as an important function of twelfth-century assemblies, but may be seen instead as part of the rituals of kingship.^

^ Langmuir, 'Politics and Parliaments', p. 49. Reuter argues that 'the characteristic form of public political action was therefore not that of transparent mediation between divergent interests or claims openly expressed, but that of opaque ritualized behaviour symbolising closure and reaffirming an order which should if at all possible be seen not to have been threatened' (Reuter, 'Assembly Polities', p. 439). Swanson has indicated, however, that with the renaissance of the twelfth century, 'the physical conflicts were now being paralleled by explicitly verbal battles, in which victory was gained by convincing both opponents and third parties' (R.N. Swanson, The Twelfth-Century-Renaissance (Manchester, 1999), p. 82). ^ In reference to Sicilian royal assemblies, Clementi has written that 'it is therefore not only interesting but encouraging to discover that essentially new constitutional advance can, and is indeed likely to, be a slow spontaneous growth produced not by individual planning, a solution which has tended to find favour among historians, but from pressure of circumstance using the modem terminology...especially when the new development is entirely outside the experience of those involved in it' (D.R. Clementi, 'A Twelfth-Century Account of the Pariiaments of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily in the Liber de Regno Sicilie, 1154-1169', Parliaments, Estates and Representation, 19 (1999), p. 28). See also De las Cortes Históricas a los Parlamentos Democráticos, ed. E. Fuentes and J.L. Martin (Madrid, 2003), p. 37; W.P. Blockmans, 'A Typology of Representative Institutions in Late Medieval Europe', Journal of Medieval History, 4 (1978), pp. 189-217. The present chapter will look at the nature of royal consultation at large assemblies and attempt to challenge these views. The regularity of meetings clearly indicates that Henry II was often willing to submit important decisions to the judgment of his nobles, and that discussions at councils were, therefore, of consequence. This analysis will also serve to demonstrate that assent to royal policies is more likely to reveal cooperative attitudes towards governance than the coercive suppression of disagreement. While this antagonism is no longer over- stressed by medieval historians, some approaches to medieval institutions have continued to exaggerate the importance of constitutional crises and political confrontations between the monarchy and the nobility, and regard this phenomena as a most fundamental catalyst for political change. As pointed out in the second chapter, the nobles' consent to policies at assemblies must have contributed to the development of royal government, but such an outcome was not necessarily in contradiction with the interests of the nobles themselves. W.L. Warren points out that 'just as the king had been obliged to learn how to allay the anxieties of the bishops about the way royal authority was to be exercised over the clergy, so, it may be argued, he learned how to gain the co-operation or at least acquiescence of the barons in the expansion of royal government'.^

It was not only useful for monarchs to consult their powerful subjects, but it was

Q an integral part of the customary obligations of rightful kingship. An enlightening dialogue between the head of Battle Abbey and Henry II is recorded in the chronicle of the same religious house. The abbot urged the king to renew a charter given to the monastery by King William I, thus he 'showed it to the king, who said, "This could do with renewing". To this the abbot replied, "And we pray that, if it please you, you will renew it and confirm it by your royal authority".

^ Warren, Governance, p. 120. ^ David Nicholas has argued that even 'territorial princes, not only kings, consulted with their subjects on matters of general concern throughout the Middle Ages' (Nicholas, The Evolution of the Medieval World, p. 461) In reference to the process of baronial consultation at Sicilian assemblies in the twelfth century, dementi states that 'at these sessions the king [Roger II] was the last to announce his decision and if it differed from the advice which had been given, he carefully explained his reasons for coming to a different conclusion. He was, moreover, convinced that no decisions of importance ought to be reached hastily and without consultation' (dementi, 'A Twelfth-Century Account', p. 27) Additional information on this may be found in the following works: M. Bloch, Feudal Society, volume 2 (London, 1961); A.J. Carlyle, A History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West (London, 1950); F. Kern, Kingship and Law in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1939). The king said "I will not do it except by a judgment of my court"...'. The abbot was then advised on this matter by Richard de Lucy, his brother and the king's chief justiciar, and so 'waited a bit for a place and time when the king would shortly be sitting in the midst of his barons. Then he advanced and in view of all presented his charter, decayed with age, and requested that it be renewed by royal authority. The king asked a judgment of the barons about it, whether it should be done or not'.^ The events surrounding the proclamation of the royal constitutions at the Council of Clarendon also illustrate the prevailing attitudes towards the approval of important measures. According to Herbert of Bosham, the bishops of England were ready to attach their seals to the constitutions, but 'even if they were prepared to do so.. .a short delay was fitting on account of the gravity of the business, since according to the Book of Wisdom no weighty matter should be decided without counsel'.'^ The king's presence among the nobles and his petition of baronial judgement naturally points towards the meeting of a council.

J.E.A. Joliffe described Angevin kingship as 'a perversion of Christian monarchy' and argued that Henry II was a despotic monarch, arbitrary and ruthless in his measures, the follower of evil advisors, and distant from the counsel of his nobles.^' Tyrannical or benevolent, the debate on Henry's rule will continue for as long as "Angevin kingship" is accepted as a meaningful concept, and credit is given to the view that twelfth-century can be appropriately described as either absolutist or constitutional.'^ Kings in this period were neither absolute rulers nor constitutional champions, for no principles of political theory could have given shape to such regimes, and no institutional structure could have effected their application. Antonio Marongiu's point in regards to this discussion might need some qualification, but it is essentially right in suggesting that 'what characterised the Middle Ages was not the monopoly of power and law by the sovereign, nor the assertion of the principle that "what pleases the prince, has the force of law" {quidquid principi placuit, legis habet

^ Battle Chronicle, p. 311. MTB, iv.305 (EHD, ii.770-1). " Jolliffe, Angevin Kingship, p. 13. See also Lyon, Constitutional, p. 248; and Baldwin, The King's Council, p. 10. In the same year when Jolliffe published his book on "Angevin Kingship", J.C. Holt also credited the concept with some validity, finding a great deal of common ground and uniformity in the way Henry II and his sons conducted government (See J.C. Holt, 'The Barons and the Great Charter', EHR, 70 (1955), pp. 2-4). vigorem), but rather the priority of law and justice, with the king as a guarantor of 1 all rights'. Kings thus acted both arbitrarily and fairly at times, but the judgement of their actions is left to the political principles of the time, the contemporary expectations of kingship, and not to the measure of modem constitutionalism. John of Salisbury's distinction between tyrants and rulers in the Policraticus would otherwise prove futile. The tyrant is not a rightful monarch since royal authority in such a case is not sanctioned by God, and it is therefore illegitimate. It is argued in the Policraticus that 'there is wholly or mainly this difference between the tyrant and the ruler: that the latter is obedient to law, and rules his people by a will that places itself at their service...','"^ and '...the tyrant is, therefore, one who oppresses the people by violent domination, just as the ruler is one who rules by the laws'. Even if monarchs chose to ignore the prevailing traditions of Christian kingship, the political context which surrounded Henry in the second half of the twelfth century was far from the ideal setting for implementing an autocratic style of governance. Among the royal policies which contributed to the consolidation of Henry's rule was the concession of land grants and privileges to gain the collaboration and support of the nobles.'^ These royal policies often affected the entire kingdom so kings could hardly ignore the opportune advice of the important men of the land, thus risking alienating their support. As Brian Tiemey asserts, the monarchs of Europe 'summoned assemblies to serve their own ends;

Marongiu, Medieval Parliaments, p. 32. See also The Usatges of Barcelona, The Fundamental Law of , ed. and trans. D. Kagay (Philadelphia, 1994), no. 65, p. 80. Refer also to L. González Antón, Las Cortes de Aragón (Zaragoza, 1978), p. 23; R.N. Berki, The History of Political Thought (London, 1977), pp. 108-9; and B. Tiemey, 'Freedom and the Medieval Church', in R.W. Davies (ed). The Origins of Modern Freedom in the West (Stanford, 1995), p. 77. John of Salisbury, Policraticus, 4, 1, in Medieval Political Theory, p. 30. See also R. Bums (ed.), The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought, c.350-c.l450 (Cambridge, 1988), p. 325; and Swanson, The Twelfth-Century Renaissance, p. 95. John of Salisbury, Policraticus, 8, 17, in Medieval Political Theory, p. 53. Refer also to C.J. Nederman, 'Aristotelianism and the Origins of "Political Science" in the Twelfth Century', Journal of the History of Ideas, 52 (1991), pp. 190-92. Although far from a clear formulation, the ius resistendi will provide theoretical grounds for opposing tyrannical mie in this period (A.R. Myers, Parliaments and Estates in Europe to 1789 (London, 1975), p. 51). A recent and useful synthesis of Henry's mie and character is offered in N. Vincent, 'Henry IT, History Today, 54 (2004), pp. 46-51. J. Lally, 'Secular Patronage at the Court of Henry 11', Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 49 (1976), pp. 172-3. See also Green, 'Henry I and the Origins of the Court Culture', pp. 489-91. See also appendix 6. but they needed to do so because they hved in a complex society where rulers were powerful but not absolute, and where an idea of community participation in government had been nurtured by both Christian and Germanic traditions'.'^ There was no place for monarchical absolutism in this context. 'Know that I do not wish' -said Henry II according to Gervase of Canterbury- 'nor do I have the power to withdraw from the counsel of my kingdom, lest I be seen to nourish and discord in the kingdom'.'^ These could not be the words of an autocrat, and if we reasonably choose not to rely on this account, we may consider instead the extraordinary frequency with which Henry summoned councils and conclude that such words certainly characterised his attitude to government.

No absolute or autocratic ruler would have consulted the nobles as much as Henry II is reported to have done. The unwritten convention which associated consultation with the rightful exercise of kingship certainly preceded the twelfth century, but the evidence suggests that it is only from the reign of Henry II that most important decisions and policies are linked to general -or conciliar- consultation. There has been a tendency to allocate this transformation to the thirteenth century. Such an approach is perhaps best represented by Joliffe, who argued that 'in the common run of speech consilium was far less exclusively political than it is for us', and furthermore, that 'counsel and council, except as incidents of tenure, are not yet true political terms and concepts at all'.'^ But when King John consulted his nobles in 1213 concerning a peace with the Poitevins, Joliffe writes 'such a use of counsel is nearer to our own'.^^ This reading of royal consultation in the twelfth century stands perhaps on two main premises: the meeting of assemblies was an occasional display of ceremonial kingship, devoid

Tiemey, 'Freedom and the Medieval Church', p. 88. Refer also to J.H. Mundy, Europe in the High Middle Ages (London, 1973), p. 404. Central to this view is Susan Reynolds' point in Kingdoms, p. 331: 'In practice kings were often arbitrary and kingdoms were inclined to discord, but the arbitrariness did not imply theories of absolutism and the discord did not imply theories of popular sovereignty. There is, in the end, very little hard evidence of any fundamental conflicts of political ideology. The problem was one of means -how to achieve an agreed standard of justice- not the ends- finding a new sort of justice... kings, as Thomas Aquinas said, are sometimes called the fathers of their people, and they rule them for their common good'. Gervase, i.319 (Translated in G. Langmuir, 'Counsel and Capetian Assemblies', Studies Presented to the International Commission for the History of Representative and Parliamentary Institutions, 24 (Paris, 1961), p. 32). Henry II also granted charters to some English towns, which had gained some political presence in the second half of the twelfth century (Lyon, Constitutional, 5.219). ^ Jolliffe, Angevin Kingship, pp. 171, 173. ^^ Jolliffe, Angevin Kingship, p. 173. of much political -and thus constitutional- significance, and secondly, general or territorial consultation and common consent is genuinely manifested for the first time with the emergence of the "community of the realm" in the thirteenth 91 century. The second premise will be studied in the chapter on composition, but the first falls within our present discussion. Once more, it should be remembered - employing an assertion of Gavin Langmuir-, that 'there is no doubt that consultations were a valuable political device for the monarchy; what is too often forgotten is that they were also the fulfillment of an ancient royal obligation which the magnates were interested in preservinghideed, 'successful medieval kings acted on the general assumption that to take counsel was a source of strength and not of weaknessThere is no reason to believe that assemblies had become so "politicised" in the thirteenth century that monarchs could no longer assume the utility of requesting general counsel from their nobles.^^

Neither is there a reason to identify conciliar consultation as peculiar to feudalism or as a feudal obligation -if such concepts explain anything-, since that practice most certainly preceded the centuries normally associated with the development of feudalism and continued long after its demise. More about this will be said when we look at the basis for summons to assemblies in the following chapter. Joliffe has contradicted this view in suggesting that 'counsel, indeed, consilium, is of the essence of feudalism', a system that gave shape and form to the king's council. Similarly, James Baldwin linked the origins of the great council with 'the prevailing theory and practice of the feudal world, according to which the king, like any other lord, was accustomed to receive the "aid and counsel" of his vassals. It was vaguely the right and duty of the lord to demand

A thoughtful exposition of these views is offered by Bryce Lyon, who has pointed out that 'however little defined was the status of the great council, the fact that it was called upon for advice and consent established a precedent for the time in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries when its constitutional role in medieval government would be recognized' (Lyon, Constitutional, p. 250) ^^ Langmuir, 'Counsel and Capetian Assemblies', p. 25 ^^ Butt, A History of Parliament, p. 28 ^^ Baldwin pointed out that 'like any medieval king, Henry III did not regard it as a sign of weakness, but a source of strength, to have competent "aid and counsel"... and he declared in 1228 to Llewellyn: 'numquam ita fuimus consilio destituti, qui consilium nostrum ad maiora et difficiliora sufficit (oper)anda et emendanda' (Baldwin, The King's Council, p. 25). The excerpt is taken from Royal and Other Historical Letters Illustrative of the Reign of Henry III: From the Originals in the Public Record Office, 2 volumes, ed. W.W. Shirley (London, 1862-6), i.335. ^^ Jolliffe, Angevin Kingship, p. 166. See also Maitland, Constitutional History, p. 25; and Reuter, 'Assembly Polities', p. 433. this, as it was also the right and duty of a vassal to give it'.^^ This position has been challenged by Bisson's work on the general court of Agenais in suggesting that 'there is nothing exclusively feudal about such an obligation, the notion of which I regard as a worthless relic of a time when feudalism was credited with explanatory power'.

Duty or right, feudal or constitutional, these approaches have generally complicated our understanding of counsel and thus of the main purpose of councils. Langmuir reminds us that 'one of the most obvious yet least examined characteristics of royal assemblies is that they were, for contemporaries, primarily occasions on which counsel was given and taken'. In sum, the function of councils was consultation, and the evidence from narrative and official records indicates that assemblies were summoned by Henry II to fulfil no other underlying purpose. As pointed out, these gatherings were also occasions for social display, feasting and ceremony, but in Henry's reign, none of these activities appears to be of the essence of meetings. It must have been clear for Henry that securing general assent was fundamental for the successful enforcement of his policies, and that such an assent could be most effectively obtained by summoning councils.

Counsel and councils

^^ Baldwin, The King's Council, p. 3. He further stipulates that 'the other development of the council in its function of giving advice in matters of policy. This is perfectly in accord with the simplest feudal principles' (p. 10). ^^ Bisson, 'The General Court Agenais', p. 27. Bisson argued in 1962 that the court of Agenais responded to feudal principles of consultation, but has later admitted the word feudal to be inappropriate and misleading in this case. The first meeting of this court was probably in 1182. Fuentes and Martin, on the contrary, have recently insisted that parliamentary assemblies were not entirely a novelty, for in all kingdoms did the princes exercised their feudal right of receiving counsel {De las Cortes Históricas, p. 32). See also J.M. Pérez-Prendes, Las Cortes de Castilla (Barcelona, 1974), pp. 44-5, 51-2. ^^ Langmuir, 'Counsel and Capetian Assemblies', p. 21. Langmuir makes specific reference to the following works: A. Luchaire, Histoire des Institutions Monarchiques (Paris, 1891); J. Declareuil, Histoire Général du Droit Français (Paris, 1925); E. Chenon, Histoire Générale du Droit Français (Paris, 1926-9); F. Olivier-Martin, Le Droit Français des Origins a la Révolution (Paris, 1948). On private counsel, see also Reuter, 'Assembly Polities', p. 440; and Hudson, Henry I and Counsel', pp. 109-126. In order to understand the significance of consultative clauses in the sources, it is important to establish first a distinction between the different forms of royal consultation. Early medieval kings had surrounded themselves with a few advisors, whom they consulted in private and on a regular basis, on matters concerning the governance of the realm and diplomacy. This form of consultation was still prominent in the twelfth century, but it was gradually complemented by general consultations, whereby kings gathered the powerful men of the realm together with his court of regular advisors to discuss policies which required regional advice and general enforcement. General consultations, however, became a regular event only after the accession of Henry II.

Let us now turn to the evidence of royal consultation at assemblies. Even when the king appears to act coercively, for example, when removing some custodians from their castles in 1177, we are told by the Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi that he proceeded to maintain the peace and stability of the kingdom and enacted such measures by the counsel of his nobles, 'de pace et stabilitate regni tractassent, per consilium episcoporum et comitum et baronum suorum removit custodes 29 castellorum Angliae...Roger of Howden may be accused of serving royal rhetoric, but decisions such as this are very often linked to the meeting of councils.^^ Royal consultation is also established in a declaration granting indulgences to all those participating in the crusade to the Holy Land, an edict '...communi consilio episcoporum et com(itum) et baron(um) terrarum suarum approbata... Once more, the connection between this document and the

^^ Howden, Gesta, i. 160-1. The removal of rebellious custodians from castles was probably discussed at the Council of Geddington in 1177. It was also at a council that Henry decided to demolish castles held by rebels in 1155 (Howden, Chronica, i.215; ii.l33). Henry met some of his nobles at Windsor after the Council of Geddington. The charters granted at this meeting show important witness lists - normally an indication of a council meeting- but bear no consultative clauses, acknowledging the gathering and the settlement reached as: 'in curia mea apud Windesor' {English Lawsuits, ii.624, no. 578: this is a charter given to the bishop of Ely confirming a settlement recognising Roger Bigod's military service). Spelman, Concilia, ii.715-16 (April/May 1185). Commune consilium or "common counsel" in the twelfth century usually refers to the agreement between those present, rather than a general consent of all those belonging to the political community or Stubbs' commune consilium regni. It does not translate as the counsel or the consent of the community but rather as "common counsel" or consent. Jeaninne Quillet has written on the distinction between communis consensus and commune consilium in History of Medieval Political Thought, ed. Bums, p. 553. See also Sayles, The Functions, pp. 69-70; and Lyon, Constitutional, p. 246: 'When the great council tried Thomas Becket in 1164 Henry II considered the trial of an archbishop of Canterbury so serious that he discussions at the Council of Clerkenwell of May 1185 needs no further inquiry, for the document bears the same dating, and the assembly is reported to have gathered to treat crusading matters.^^

Like his grandfather, Henry was crowned at Westminster with the counsel of the nobles of the kingdom. The counsel of archbishops, bishops, earls and barons - whether explicitly identified in the sources or not- appears to legitimise most royal policies and business of general concern, particularly from the 1160s. In 1164, the bishops and nobles of England -with the notable exception of the archbishop of Canterbury- had attached their seals of approval to the controversial Constitutions of Clarendon.^^ The opening lines of the Assize of Clarendon of 1166 proclaim: 'Haec est Assisa, quam dominus rex Henricus consilio archiepiscoporum, et episcoporum et abbatum caeterorumque baronum suorum statuit pro pace servanda et justitia tenenda'^^ In 1176, Henry II introduced administrative and judicial reforms which divided England into six parts, a policy which according to the testimony of Gervase of Canterbury was also legitimised ^communi omnium concilio'?^ Four months later, the king's daughter, Joan, was betrothed to the king of Sicily consilio universorum, and the following year a judicial dispute between the kingdoms of Navarre and Castile was resolved at an English council cum deliberatione consilio?^ At the Council of Windsor in 1179 it was also 'communi consilio' that Henry appointed and assigned justices to each of the newly-created judicial regions. Similar consultative phrases appear in the chronicles in connection with the approval of financial aids to the Holy Land at royal councils in Waltham (1182), Clerkenwell (1185), and Geddington (1188).^^ We know that such consultation involved the bishops and nobles of the realm, and that it took place within conciliar discussions, since it is almost invariably preceded or followed by references to concilia. summoned numerous lesser barons to convey the impression that a feudal court representative of the realm was handing down the judgment'. ^^ Howden, Gesta, i.336; Diceto, ii.33; Gervase, i.325; LPB, i. no. 98; EEA, x. no. 98, 45, 143, 150, 217; Gervase, i.325; Howden, Chronica, ii.301-2. ^^ MTB, iii.46, 278-9; Gervase, i. 176-180; Guemes, pp. 80-84. See also Clanchy, England, p. 106. Howden, Chronica, ii.248; Stubbs, Select Charters, pp. 170-3. For an English translation see EHD, ii.440-3. ^^ Gervase, i.254-5. ^^ Diceto, i.419; Howden, Chronica, ii.94. ^^ Howden, Chronica, ii.l90, 301-2, 335-8; Howden, Gesta, i.238, 336, ii.33, Gervase, i.297, 325, 409; Diceto, ii.21,33, 51. Roger of Howden's reference to a council assembled at Windsor in the Easter of 1179, provides yet another of many examples where royal consultation is linked to councils:

Quo defuncto, dominus rex pater, magno celebrato concilio, apud Windesores, communi consilio archiepiscoporum, comitum et baronum, coram rege filio suo, divisit Angliam in quatuor partes; et unicuique partium praefecit viros sapientes ad faciendam justitiam in terra, in hunc modum.^^

An extract from a royal letter to Gilbert, the bishop of Hereford, further establishes the correspondence of council and general counsel, this time possibly in reference to the councils of 1163, 'ibi quotiens in regno meo de magnis aliquid agendum occurrit, concilia celebranda sunt, et cons ilia sumenda. Eo bar ones pro negotiis suis consilio fulciendis confluunt'.^'^ In June 1170, shortly before Becket's murder, the king had his son crowned at Westminster by the archbishop of York, while the English primate was in exile under the protection of the king of France. Since the archbishops of Canterbury often defended their prerogative to perform royal coronations in England, the events at the Council of Westminster must have enraged Becket. Paradoxically, such an offence did not preclude the reconciliation with the king in July, only a month after the meeting of the council. It is very likely then that the bishops and nobles of England advised Henry to seek an end to the enduring conflict and make his peace with the prelate. A royal notification sent to the archbishop of Rouen is contemporary with the and thus verifies the link between the king's attitude towards Becket and the counsel of the barons at the council:

Henr(icus) rex Angl(orum) R(otrodo) Rotomagensis ar(chi)ep(iscop)o. De vestro aliorumque fidelium baronum meorum consilio pads reformande inter me et archiepiscopum Cant'e susceptam formam domino pape nunciis et Utteris meis insinuauit.• • 40

A variety of vernacular sources also account for the prominence of general consultations in the second half of the twelfth century, but French references to

^^ Howden, Chronica, ii.l90. GFL, no. 143, pp. 185-6. MTB, vii.300, no. 669. conseil are too numerous to be listed here."^' All these examples of consultation provided at assemblies demonstrate how important councils had become during his reign and how often the king did consider general consultation for policies and measures. It is hardly possible to arrive at the same conclusion after considering the evidence for Henry's predecessors.

Royal consultation was not simply an occasional procedure befitting custom and reluctantly performed by kings, who would rather devise general policies without the counsel of the nobles, but it was the fundamental purpose of summoning assemblies in this period. The evidence so far presented in these chapters clearly points to the fact that Henry regularly consulted a large proportion of his nobles on matters of general concern or in the words of Benoit de Saint Maure, the 'grant besoing e son afaire' of the kingdom."^^ As the sources suggest, royal government was conducted by Henry II within such process with surprising frequency. Furthermore, while disputes and controversies are often favoured in the narrative of chronicles, the sources also imply that the political relationship between the king and his nobles was by no means dominated by uncompromising antagonism, and similarly, that the interests of the monarchy and the nobility were not always at odds. Just as royal councils staged disputes and debates, they often prompted conciliatory attitudes among the nobles, and provided the ideal setting for the peaceftil settlement of differences and reconciliation. The semantic connection between council, conciliatory and reconciliation is most evidently a linguistic manifestation of the political nature of these meetings. Consultative clauses in charters and chronicles indicate that conciliatory behaviour often must have governed the discussions at assemblies. In an age when kings lack the governmental means to enforce royal policies effectively and efficiently, it is difficult to conceive the legitimisation and application of such measures without the assent and cooperation of the nobles. In the thirteenth century, a parliamentary meeting was also 'the means of vesting the king's government with consent, of

For consultation {conseil) at English assemblies, see Benoit, 1939-1940, i.57; 1269-1271, i.37; 7040-7054, i.206-7; 9257-9265, i.270; 24138, ii.64; 38924-38928, ii.483; Wace, 6025-6038, p. 230; WM 1908-1928, pp. 98-99; 2366-2368, pp. 118-121; Guemes, 1001-1017, pp. 84, 86. ^^ Benoit, 2576, i.76. mobilising general support behind it and of neutralising discontents aroused by it'.^^

This is not to say that an assembly was always a peaceful gathering, where animosities were put aside and understanding among foes suddenly flourished. Nor were they occasions when opposing views were invariably reconciled. It is known that conflict featured prominently at several assemblies, but the enmity reported in the sources did not always emanate from the king towards the nobles. The regularity of conciliar activity must have contributed to the development of communal feeling among the nobles regularly attending assemblies, but this is far from suggesting that the nobles always reacted with cohesion to royal proposals. Lest we forget, when the discussions over the royal constitutions broke out at the councils of Clarendon and Northampton in 1164, Becket was not only confronted by the king but, most noticeably, he was unable to find support among his own bishops. Indeed, it appears that Henry had somehow bullied the prelates to support his cause, as William of Newburgh relates:

...to procure their sanction by any means whatsoever, he so allured the whole of them with the exception of one, by blandishments, or terrified them with alarms, that they deemed it necessary to yield to obey the royal pleasure, and set their seals to the enactment of these new constitutions.'^'^

This situation can hardly be described by what Thomas Bisson has termed "ceremonial consensus"; a resolution typical of 'a society in which issues were habitually resolved not through open debate and compromise but through recognition of a transcendent consensus as defined by the ruler, his prelates, and his baronial advisersThese considerations will be discussed later when we

Historical Studies of the English Parliament, ed. Miller and Fryde, vol.1, p. 6; Butt, A History of Parliament, pp. 1-9. R.V. Turner has argued that during the reign of Henry II, the knights assisted in the enforcement of judicial reforms in the counties (R.V. Turner, 'Changing Perceptions of the New Administrative Class in Anglo-Norman and Angevin England: the Curiales and their Conservative Critics', JBS, 29 (1990), p. 104). See also Warren, Governance, p. 120; and Hudson, 'Henry I and Counsel', p. 125. Newburgh, pp. 141-2. Bisson, 'Celebration and Persuasion', p. 189. In reference to the Witan, Stenton has argued that 'love or fear must have often hindered individual members of the council from opposing the declared will of the king. In one way or another all of them owed their seats to the reigning king or to one of his predecessors' (Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p. 553). Susan Reynolds argues that 'the general impression is that regnal assemblies worked through some kind of consensus or rough majority, influenced more or less by respect or fear of the king'. But even in 1258 'the purpose was the same: it was unity and consensus, not the kind of division which was enshrined in later estates or houses of parliament' (Reynolds, Kingdoms, p. 318). analyse the nature of assent and consent at assemblies, but if the dispute at the Council of Clarendon was resolved by means of royal coercion and the ceremonies of lordship, then we are obliged to disregard Herbert of Bosham's account, which affirms that when the king asked the clergy to attach their seals of approval, 'even if they were prepared to do so...a short delay was fitting on account of the gravity of the business, since according to the Book of Wisdom no weighty matter should be decided without counsel...The king's reaction to Becket's challenge must have frightened the prelates, but they also found themselves genuinely estranged by the primate's unrelenting position and, moreover, seemed willing to comply with royal demands.

Another council was assembled at Northampton five months later, when the conflict between the king and the archbishop reached a climax. In one of the archbishop's biographies, Guemes de Pont-Sainte-Maxence explained that 'after taking counsel with his bishops, Becket went in the court bearing his cross and dressed in liturgical vestments, which provoked a quarrel among the bishops. Only stood by him'."^^ Then the prelates approached the king and said as follows: "'You know how he made us confirm your laws, and now he is trying to make us all break faith; we are going to accuse him [to the Pope] on these grounds, unanimously, and so we shall be able to get him deposed from his see'".^^ It is unlikely then that the bishops' position resulted primarily from royal coercion.

Assemblies thus became an important occasion for the governance of the realm, staging important political discussions and witnessing the resolution of significant conflicts and disputes, while bringing the powerfiil and influential men of the land together. Again, such meetings are by no means unprecedented, but the lesser frequency and different character of royal councils before the 1150s, suggests that a considerable number of important matters were resolved by private counsel, if any consultation was considered. Kings before this period were also expected to consult their subjects on important issues, and so they did, but the advice more

^''MTB, iv.305 {EHD, ii.771). Guemes, 1487-1490, p. 110. ^^ Guemes, 1792-5, p. 124. often came from the royal entourage, the king's courtiers, his private counselors and the close familiares. But monarchs such as Henry II would see in the general gatherings of the realm a useful instrument to meet the demands of expanding royal governance. As Bisson has argued in reference to the general court of Agenais, these assemblies treated 'issues no lord-prince could retain in his arbitrary discretion after about 11If monarchs before this period were faced by similar circumstances, the evidence suggests that they often opted for private consultation, whenever the advice of the nobles was considered at all.

Stenton asserts that the assent of the witenagemot 'is recorded to the issue of laws and the imposition of taxes, to negotiations with foreign powers, and to measures undertaken for the defence of the land','^^ but he also suggests that an assembly constituted by royal appointees only rarely 'could have offered a direct opposition to a policy on which the king had set his mind'.^' It is then difficult to assert what such an assent could have actually meant.

The chronicle of Eadmer reveals that Henry I's ecclesiastical appointments at the Council of London in August 1107 were made 'per consilium Anselmi ac procerum regni',^^ by the counsel of Anselm and the powerful men of the kingdom. At the Council of Winchester in 1133, royal alms were given to the church of Saint John the Baptist and the hospital of Falaise 'omnium subscriptorum consilio These are among the few instances in which the king is explicitly reported to have considered general counsel, but a considerable number of important decisions are not linked by any of the sources to this type of consultation. Judith Green has indicated that 'major legislative and administrative

Bisson, The General Court of Agenais', p. 29; Marongiu, Medieval Parliaments, p. 55; Warren, 'The Myth', p. 114. Some thoughts on Henry II's familiares is offered in Turner, 'The Miles Literatus', p. 933. It is interesting to note that, in contrast, his son John seems to have set up what Turner has termed a "household government" when staffing the curia regis with familiares, whose influence became more prominent than that of the barons assembled at councils. Turner speculates that John 'may well have been plotting the kind of "unrealized absolutism" which J.E.A. Jolliffe asserted to be the aim of the Angevin monarchs' (Turner, 'The Origins of Common Pleas', p. 246). Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p. 552. Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p. 553. '' Eadmer,//A^,iv. 186-187. ^^ RRAN, \\.26'i,no. 1764. measures are likely to have been promulgated in councils, though there is little direct evidence on this point'.

John Hudson has suggested, moreover, that although 'there is no mention of counsel or consent with reference to Henry's decrees concerning the coinage, the treatment of thieves and robbers, or the holding of shire and hundred courts', he 'must also have consulted concerning important grants to the lay aristocracy, but this is very rarely mentioned', for it 'was not a standard feature of English charters in writ or letter form'.^^ This is indeed the case, and it is also true of Henry IPs charters, but why would the numerous chronicles of the reign choose to omit or fail to report general consultation in such cases? Henry I married Matilda in 1100, made an important treaty with in 1101, campaigned against Normandy in 1106, married off eight of his illegitimate daughters in 1107, carried financial reforms towards the creation of the Exchequer and resolved the in the 111 Os, married Matilda to the emperor of Germany in 1114, created his son William as Duke of Normandy in 1120, he married Adelaide in 1121 after Matilda's death, and remarried his daughter Matilda to Geoffrey Plantagenet in 1128, after the death of Henry V of Germany. These are listed as some of the most important events in Henry's reign, and yet there is hardly any clear connection between them and general consultation in any of the general histories covering this period. In contrast, the frequency with which Henry II summoned assemblies clearly indicates that issues such as these would not have been resolved without conciliar consultation. It is difficult to believe that earlier chroniclers simply failed to report or chose to omit from their accounts the meefing of large gatherings assembled. A royal council which fails to attract the attention of chroniclers can hardly be said to have the importance of any of Henry II's meetings.

Stephen's record of consultation begins early in his reign with a confirmation of a charter granted by Henry I to Launceston Priory, 'consilio episcopi ipsius (William of Exeter) et baronum meorum... It is hardly possible to associate

^^ Green, The Government of England, p. 23. ^^ Hudson, 'Henry I and Counsel', pp. 118, 120. 434. this confirmation with a general assembly, since none of the chronicles report a meeting at Gillingham (), where the charter was signed in 1136. The witness list, moreover, only has six names. On the contrary, a document drafted at Eye sometime between December 1137 and March 1138 is a general confirmation to Eye Priory, conceded by Stephen, ' consilio baronum meorum \ and witnessed by more than thirty nobles, including the archbishops of York and Canterbury.^^ This is most likely an indication of the meeting of an important assembly, which may have taken place in Eye. Furthermore, another contemporary charter confirms the royal and episcopal donations to in the following terms:

Stephan(us) dei gratia...Sciatis me, consilio baronum et aliorum fidelium meorum, pro salute anime mee et Henrici nobilissimi regis avinculi mei et omnium parentum meorum...concessisse et confirmasse priori et monachis Wigornensis ecclesie omnes tenuras... Concedo et confirmo cartam meam de libertate ii[...] hid(arum) de Cliva quam eis dedi petitione et consilio Rogerii cancellarii mei et Gualeranni comitis de Mellent et Rodb(er)ti comitis de Le(gre)cestra et aliorum baronum meorum... Testibus Rog(er)o episcopo Saresb(eriensi), Rodb(er)to episcopo Bathonie, Simone episcopo Wigorn(en)si, Rog(er)o cancellario, Gualeranno com(ite) de Meollent, Rodb(er)to comité de Legrec(estra), Rog(er)o comité de , Simone com(ite) de Norhamtona, Rog(er)o de Fesca(m)p, Milone constabulario.^^

The drafting of this charter was probably connected with an important assembly of nobles, but it is difficult to establish this since the document is not ascribed to any particular location. In the face of uncertainties, the chronicles may serve to establish a clear connection between consilium and concilium, but this is rarely the case before the reign of Henry IL The narrative of John of Worcester, for instance, reveals that while Stephen was in Winchester in 1140, 'on the advice of his magnates, (he) gave the see of Salisbury to his chancellor, Philip, and the abbacy of Fécamp to a monk Henry who was his kinsmanThe staged important councils also in 1139 and 1141, and Henry of Huntingdon's account of the legatine Council of Winchester in 1139 provides a typical illustration of assemblies in this period:

^^ RRAN, iii. 108-110, no. 288. See also John of Worcester, p. 54. ^^ RRAN, iii.357-8, no. 964. ^^ John of Worcester, p. 285, In Latin, p. 284: '...consilio baronum suorum, cancellario suo Phlippo Scaresberiensem prcsulatum et Henrico cuidam monacho cognate suo Fescammenscm abbatiam dedit '. Not long afterwards, when Henry, bishop of Winchester, the king's brother, held a council at Winchester, he and Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, and all the bishops present, fell at the royal feet, begging in most eager supplication, that to gain their free forgiveness of all his offences against the said bishops, he should restore their possessions to them. But the king, on the advice of evil men, scorned the awesome abasement of so many great ones, and granted them nothing. Because of this, the house of King Stephen was exposed to eventual ruin.^®

Royal consultation might be associated with evil men whenever the chronicler is a partisan of those affected by the resolutions, but Henry of Huntingdon's description of the Council of Winchester coincides with most descriptions of political gatherings in this period. In any case, whether royal consultations were dominated by evil men or not, they were rarely as general and clearly associated with councils as after 1154.

According to Thomas of 's The Life and Miracles of Saint , King Stephen consulted his barons again in London in 1146 to resolve a judicial dispute concerning the murder of some in Norwich.^' More importantly, the treaty which resulted from the negotiations between Stephen and Duke Henry of Normandy -the future Henry II- was also a subject discussed and assented to by the nobles. The pact was made towards the end of 1153 with the common counsel of Stephen and Henry, an agreement that paved the way for the duke to the throne of England. 'In negotiis autem regni ego consilio ducis operator', proclaims the charter, drafted at Westminster and witnessed by the archbishop of Canterbury, fourteen bishops and more than twenty nobles.^^ General consultations were certainly not a novelty of Henry IPs reign, but the unprecedented frequency with which the king brought matters to conciliar discussion between 1155 and 1188, effectively turned an extraordinary event into regular practice.

Assent and Consent

Huntingdon, pp. 722-3. The Life and Miracles of Saint William of Norwich by Thomas of Monmouth, ed. and trans. A. Jessop and M.R. James (London, 1896), pp. 108-110. The history was written in the early 1170s according to the editors (p. liii). ^^ RRAN, iii.97-8, no. 272. Having looked at some of the evidence for the approval of royal measures, our discussion may now benefit from considering some political theory. While a decision is preceded by consultation, it is subsequently sanctioned by consent or passively accepted by assent. Consent and assent represent different levels or degrees of approval, for whereas the former implies a requirement of legitimisation, the latter is a complement or an addition to it. In other words, if royal decisions are consented, this is an indication that the approval of the nobles was necessary, while if those measures are assented, legitimisation emanates from the king's will and not from the approval of the nobles, which becomes a contingency. In reference to royal consultation during the reign of Henry I, Hudson suggests that such process was occasionally sycophantic, which means that the 'agreement with the ruler's opinion was presented as counselIt is likely then that the concurrence of opinions was sometimes reported in the chronicles and the official records as consilium, when according to modem constitutional standards the appropriate term should have been assensus or consensus. 64

The distinction between consilium and consensus is thus fundamental to this debate. Some sources appear to use the terms interchangeably, but there are also several reasons to believe that in the later part of the twelfth century, there was some distinction between them, just as there clearly was one between consilum and concilium. In the second chapter of this study, it was concluded that the twelfth century is a period when institutional nomenclature becomes more specific, and when terms are distinctively employed by the sources. In this linguistic context, it is difficult to believe that words such as consensus and

^^ Hudson, 'Henry I and Counsel', p. 124. It might be useful at this point to remind ourselves of Kantorowicz's words in reference to the doctrine of : 'even the fact that legislation itself was to emanate from the council of magnates, at their advice and counsel, should again not be interpreted exclusively in the sense of royal restriction, since it was after all "by the authorisation of the king" {rege auctoritatem praestante) that a law became Law'. One way or the other, monarchs were never faced by such pristine and distinctive options of government (E. Kantorowicz, The King's Two Bodies (Princeton, 1957), pp. 154-5). This consideration should be balanced with a text associated with an imperial assembly at Worms, which enacted a statute in favour of the princes in 1231-32 after considering the following questions: 'if any of the princes of the land {domini terrae) can make constitutions or new laws without the consent of the better or more people of the land? With the consent of the princes, it was so defined concerning this question: that neither princes nor anyone else can make constitutions or new laws unless the better and more important people of the land have agreed first' (Mundy, Europe in the High Middle Ages, p. 408). consilium generally described the same political circumstances. Furthermore, the increase in the use of terms such as approbatio and roboratio from the 1150s may indicate, perhaps, a linguistic attempt to describe with more precision the process of baronial approval.^^

The precision with which consensus was employed in this period is often manifested in the description of monastic consent, and more generally, when referring to the collective will of religious houses, cathedral chapters and later in the century, the communal agreement of urban institutions. For example, the king was sometimes able to bind an entire monastic community to the decisions adopted at a council concerning such a group by summoning the abbot, the prior, and perhaps a few other monks to the assembly. The representatives would often carry a letter of common consent registering the will of the community. An example is provided by the Chronicle of Battle Abbey:

Having taken counsel together, they decided that the vacant monasteries should all receive written instructions to this effect: that the prior of each monastery, accompanied by four or five brothers of the community, should present themselves to them for inspection at Woodstock without excuses, so that they might, with God's help, elect worthy abbots there in their presence. In order to be sure of the consent of the whole monastery, they were to bring with them letters of the general opinion and consent of their convents {litteras de communi consilio et consensu conventuuni)^^

It is unlikely that the use of consilium, assensus or consensus in the sources was purely rhetorical, or simply a diplomatic convention befitting the political culture of the time. If a royal grant resulted from consultation, it may have also coincided with the king's will, and it is accordingly described as resulting from royal mood. But if consultative clauses are omitted in the text, then it is likely that the charter was not subject to conciliar approval, even if the royal will would have coincided with the judgment of the barons. Consensual clauses often legitimise documents - even to this day- and it is therefore unlikely that they would be omitted from documents which were actually vested with some form of baronial approval.^^

^^ An example is in Diceto, ii.21. ^^ Battle Chronicle, pp. 278-9. A similar example can be found in CJB, pp. 16-20. ^^ J.O. Prestwich has suggested, on the contrary, that 'it is certainly of great importance that Henry II so frequently invoked the consent of his tenant-in-chief though the formula was sometimes rather casually employed. The preamble to the Assize of Clarendon claimed the assent of the archbishops as well as that of the other tenants-in-chief. But the Archbishop of Canterbury was notoriously neither present nor assenting in 1166; and it is significant that many of the clauses of Military successes, territorial and financial gain, and the restoration of peace and order during the early years of Henry's reign had probably vested royal acts with a great deal of authority. But if Henry's desires were often met with approval, the king was by no means invulnerable to opposition, and when confronted with hostility, his plans often resulted in heated discussions. George Greenaway's study of the tempestuous proceedings of the Becket councils concludes:

At the council of Woodstock, held early in July, 1163, Becket further aggravated the tension between himself and the king by opposing Henry's will in a matter of taxation. In the course of a stormy debate Thomas refused to countenance a proposal to incorporate certain customary payments known as the sheriffs aid into the finances of the Exchequer...The importance of the debate, which William FitzStephen does not chronicle, transcends the actual question in dispute.^^

James Baldwin comments come to mind at this point: 'under Henry II, especially during the strife with Becket, the great councils became a truly debating ground between rival interests of church and stateOne should be careñil when making reference to church and state in this period, but Henry's assemblies have undoubtedly become occasions for real debating, as opposed to ceremonial consensus. Notwithstanding Greenaway's observation, William FitzStephen provides the most detailed account about an English assembly in the twelfth century, that which met at Northampton in 1164. He affirms that 'on the fourth day all ecclesiastics came to the archbishop's lodging. He had separate conversations [tractatum] with the bishops and the abbots, and took counsel on the matter with each in turn...' and the following day 'was wholly employed in consultations; scarcely could one find a breathing-space'.^^ When Henry gathered his nobles at the Council of Eynsham in 1186, 'he discussed for almost eight days continuously various matters of state with the bishops and nobles of his kingdom', according to the report of the Magna Vita Sancti HugonisJ^ We also encounter the Assize began with the blunt words "vuh dominus rex" (J.O. Prestwich, 'Anglo-Norman Feudalism and the Problem of Continuity', Past and Present, 26 (1963), p. 49). 68 Greenaway, The Life and Death of Thomas Becket, p. 61. In reference to the Council of Clarendon in 1164, he suggests that it 'lasted three or four days, and the debates were certainly heated' (p. 67). ^^ Baldwin, The King's Council, p. 10. MTB, iii.49-58. MVSH, i.92. Tractatum is a term that may have different translations but they are all related to a discussion, debate or conversation. See GFL, no. 161, pp. 213-4; a notification of a sentence at the numerous chronicle descriptions of English assemblies which give account of debates and discussions. In reference to the Council of Clerkenwell in 1185, Warren writes that the king and his nobles 'deliberated for a week', and he continues: 'In response to Henry's request for advice on whether he should take up the offer conveyed by the patriarch, the barons reminded the king of his coronation oath in which was set forth his duty to preserve the peace for his people both clergy and lay, to put down crime and wickedness, and to secure justice'. 72 Such discussions could hardly be described as ceremonial consensus.

Henry often found himself amidst unwanted debates, but G.L. Harriss has suggested that 'consent offered little effective barrier to the extension of the king's feudal levies'.^^ While it is difficult to contest such a view, it would be more appropriate to suggest, along with J.C. Holt, that 'obtaining (of) consent was never any real difficulty to the Angevin kingsHowever, it was difficult for King John, and particularly towards the end of his reign. What made then the relationship between Henry and his nobles so consensual and cooperative? Warren's masterly study of Henry's governance provides an explanation, which is very much in line with the suggestions of the present study:

It is indeed remarkable that the assent of those with a duty to give counsel and a right to be consulted was obtained for all the changes in custom and law which produced so marked an extension of the king's government into the shires; but what we do not know is how much bargaining, and what persuasions and concessions went into the securing of assent...King John knew how to bully or to buy to get his own way, but he conceded only when he had no option, and did not cultivate that bargaining skill which, we may believe, secured for his father a remarkable degree of baronial assent. ^^

By the end of the first decade of the thirteenth century, the political scenario in England had changed quite dramatically, though this was arguably not the product

king's court at Oxford (1166) 'super hoc tractatum'. See also Diceto, i.407-8; a passage describing the arrangement of Joan's marriage to the king of Sicily 'habito tractatu' at the Council of London in 1176. EEA, ii. 166-8, no. 194, provides a reference to a sentence possibly pronounced at the Council of Oxford in 1177 after 'diligenti tractatu' and another description of Ralph of Diceto affirms that the election of a new primate for Canterbury at the Council of Reading in 1184 was done after tractatus as well (Diceto, ii.22). ^^ Warren, Henry II, pp. 604-5. See also Diceto, ii.33-4, Gervase, i.325; and Gerald of Wales, Opera, viii.208-9. ^^ G.L. Harriss, King, Parliament, and Public Finance in Medieval England to 1369 (Oxford, 1975), pp. 19-20. J.C. Holt, The Northerners (Oxford, 1961), pp. 191-2. ^^ Warren, Governance, p. 157. of new political ideas, but primarily of John's transgressions. A different set of political circumstances also appears to have affected Henry's pre-conquest predecessors. Felix Liebermann's study of royal consultation and assemblies in the late Anglo-Saxon period concludes:

As a rule the witan simply consent to the bills proposed by government, and no trace exists that they ever tried to modify them. But they did not lack altogether the initiative power...The doctrine that a king by himself could give ordinances for his lifetime only, but required the consent of his nobles for permanent legislation, does not emerge indeed before the twelfth century; a royal exemption however, from the pubhc burdens during the donor's lifetime occurs as early as 749.^^

As general consultations became more regular in the reign of Henry II, chroniclers begin to employ a variety of forms to describe the approval of proposals. The term "deliberation" is occasionally used in England when describing the proceedings of important assemblies, such as the Council of London, which gathered in March 1177 to conduct a judicial arbitration and resolve the territorial dispute between the kings of Castile and Navarre. According to the description of Ralph of Diceto, King Henry IPs sentence emanated from the counsel and deliberation of his nobles, 'habito igitur cum episcopis, comitibus et baronibus nostris, cum deliberatione consilio, pacem inter vos ad fidem Christianorum propagandam... 'J'' When Henry summoned William of Scotland, his brother David, and the English bishops and magnates to Clerkenwell in March 1185 to discuss a monetary aid for the Holy Land and matters concerning the organisation of a crusade, it was the common view of those present that the king should proceed in accordance with the counsel and deliberation of all. In the words of Roger of Howden:

Ad quam Dominicain dominus rex, et patriarcha, et episcopi et abbates, et comités et barones regni Angliae; et Willelmus rex Scotiae, et David frater ejus, cum comitibus et baronibus terrae suae, convenerunt Lundoniis, et habito inde cum deliberatione consilio, placuit universis quod dominus rex consuleret inde dominum suum Philippum regem Franciae. Et sic soluto concilio dominus rex dedit universis hominibus suis, tam clericis quam laicis, licentiam capiendi crucem..J^

The approval of the barons is also reported in a notification which announces the granting of indulgences to those who contribute towards the relief of the Holy

^^ Lieberman, The National Assembly, p. 67. Butt adds more parliamentary attributes to the Witan {A History of Parliament, p. 13). See also Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 552-3. ^^ Diceto, i.419. ^^ Howden, Chronica, ii.301-2. Land, 'communi consilio episcoporum et com(itum) et baron(um) terrarum suarum approbata',^"^ approved by the common counsel of the bishops, counts and barons of the lands of Henry II and Philip Augustus of France. In the resolution of such general matters, a successful king like Henry II could not have ignored the opinions and wishes of the powerful men of the land. Financial, military and administrative studies of his reign have tended to concentrate on the decisions adopted at the Council of Clerkenwell as an important episode in the history of taxation and the . But perhaps more significant than the words of Roger of Howden is Ralph of Diceto's brief but relevant reference to another aid for the Holy Land, which was approved by the barons three years earlier at a royal council in Bishop's Waltham. Forty-two thousand pounds of silver and five hundred pounds of gold was the figure destined to protect Christian interests in Jerusalem, a decision reached not only after the king had taken general consultation, but also said to have been approved by all those present at the council:

Apud Waltham Episcopi Winterize regni convoking majores. It ague praesentibus illis et approbatibus, quandam pecuniae suae partem in causas pias erogare decrevit, necessitatibus Jerosolymitanorum in primis propensius providere procurans. Siquidem 42000 marcarum argenti, 500 marcas auri distribuit.^^

Deliberative and consensual clauses are occasionally used in English charters, and the size of witness lists can sometimes determine such consent to be general or 81 conciliar. The date of a royal notification to Pope Clement III is contemporary with the meeting of the Council of Geddington in February 1188. Amidst a variety of issues, the charter informs the Pope of the construction of the church of St Stephen and St Thomas, which was approved by papal authority, and by the king and his nobles, 'de consilio episcoporum et baronum totius regni nostri, propositum iamdicti arch(iepiscop)i approbauimus et opus faciendum 82 confirmauimus... \ The connection between the decision to build this church and the discussions at the Council of Geddington is by no means an obvious one, but the consultative clause indicates that such a measure is likely to have taken place ^^ Spelman, Concilia, ii.715-16. Diceto, ii.21. 81 Some examples are in Delisle, Recueil, no. 234; English Lawsuits, ii.378-9, no. 405; Monasticon, i.519; Memorials of the Abbey of St Mary of Fountains, 3 volumes, ed. J.R. Walbran (Durham, 1863-1918), ii. no. 7, pp. 7-8; and EYC, i. no. 78, pp. 74-5. See also our appendix 6. ^^ Letters of the Kings of England, 2 volumes, ed. J.O. Haliwell (London 1848), i.1-5. at an important gathering of nobles. Not only did conciliar consultation become a more prominent feature of royal governance after 1154, but clauses of baronial approval became more precise and explicit, and more clearly connected with great councils.^^

Conclusion

In sum, Henry sought baronial approval for his policies with such consistency that royal councils were summoned with unprecedented frequency during his reign. The sources indicate that the decision-making process is unlikely to have been a ceremonial performance, and that the king did consider the advice of his nobles on a variety of matters. This form of advice was also employed by Henry I and Stephen, but important decisions often resulted from private consultation and whenever policies were shaped by general counsel, such process is not always clearly linked to conciliar activity.

Consensual politics is more to the credit of Henry's abilities and the regularity of councils than it was a ritualistic manifestation of the coercive exercise of royal lordship. The regular meeting of councils facilitated consensus on a number of reforms and measures, but it must be noted that assemblies often witnessed heated debate. Such antagonism, however, should not be exaggerated to serve the quest for constitutional developments, and its absence from conciliar records should not be taken as evidence to suggest that royal assemblies were essentially apolitical meetings before the thirteenth century. Stenton has wisely warned that 'the political significance of an assembly should not be measured by the number of its

QA conflicts with its president'.

^^ Examples where clauses of consent are used between 1100 and 1154 can be found in RRAN, ii.l, no. 488, ii.372, no. 1687, ii.266, no. 1782, ii.40, no. 683; iii.337, no. 928, iii.224, no. 609; Eadmer HN, iv. 193-5, John of Worcester, p. 113. The association of some of these terms to the meeting of general assemblies is less than clear. As regards to the activity of the Witan, Stenton has argued that 'the line between counsel and consent cold never be firmly drawn, and in official documents Old English kings repeatedly use phrases which imply that their witan shared in the responsibility for their public acts' (Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p. 552). Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p. 554. More as a result of the extraordinary frequency of meetings than of new political phenomena, royal councils acquired a great deal of importance in this period. As far as the development of royal consultation goes, the general counsel and assent of the nobles meant that measures were regularly vested with wide approval and could, therefore, be more effectively enforced throughout the realm than ever before. Political interaction between Henry II and his nobles in a conciliar context and on a regular basis had very significant consequences for royal governance and the stability of the kingdom: apart from the advice of the increasingly learned members of the curia regis, policy making, as it were, was now regularly assisted by the regional expertise of a considerable number of magnates. At the same time, general assent to proposals discussed at councils meant that royal governance could more efficiently reach all comers of the realm, without having to rely almost entirely on itineration. The importance of some of these changes will be underlined in our chapter on composition, when we analyse the significance of having the political community of the kingdom assembled at once and of having issues decided in its presence. The Business of the Realm

General consultation was then the function of twelfth-century councils and the purpose for which they were summoned, because it was the business common to every single meeting. Just as there has been a tendency to play down the political importance of general consultations in the twelfth century, the business treated at royal councils has been sometimes regarded as too volatile and fluid a subject to be worthy of comprehensive enquiry. Such a view masks a number of misconceptions: by overlooking the distinction between functions and business, such an approach mistakes omnicompetence for volatility, while forgetting that the business of later assemblies was just as shifting.' In regards to the business transacted at the sessions of the witenagemot, Stenton has argued:

Old English kings repeatedly use phrases which imply that their witan shared in the responsibility for their public acts. There are very few matters of importance to the state on which an Anglo-Saxon king cannot be shown to have consulted is council. During the century before the Conquest its assent is recorded to the issue of laws and the imposition of taxes, to negotiations with foreign powers, and to measures undertaken for the defence of the land. It was in his council that a king would prosecute suspected traitors against whom he felt strong enough to take legal action.^

' See J.G. Edwards, Historians and the Medieval English Parliament (Oxford, 1960), pp. 22-3; Butt, A History of Parliament, p. 22; Pasquet, Essays, pp. 7, 38; Adams, CC, p. 108. ^ Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p. 552. On the legislative and judicial activity of the eleventh- century Witan see Oleson, The Witenagemot, pp. 75-82, 101-110. These sessions were often involved in ecclesiastical business (Oleson, The Witenagemot, pp. 91-101). After the Conquest, monarchs continued to summon many nobles to assemblies in order to carry out a variety of business, because some of these issues may have surpassed the dignity of the curia regis and/or would have claimed wider approval.^ The regularity of councils between 1155 and 1188 clearly indicates that Henry II fulfilled one of his royal obligations with extraordinary diligence, since it is clear from the evidence so far presented, that the magnates of the realm were consulted on matters concerning the state of the kingdom. To some extent, this had also been done by his Anglo-Norman predecessors, but the first Angevin to rule England had turned a customary duty into a regular and most useful device for royal government. The following study will look carefully at the available sources and attempt to list those matters discussed at councils, while trying to establish some order by grouping them under certain categories. Such a structured approach is not necessarily a mirror of conciliar proceedings in this period, but it will serve our analysis.

Legislation

One of the most important expectations of medieval kingship was the generation of laws and their enforcement, and whenever this undertaking somehow affected influential nobles or many inhabitants in the kingdom, it was normally performed in the public context of general assemblies. Significantly, John Hudson has argued that 'William [I] may have made various changes to law, but only those made by the counsel of his barons lasted beyond his deathWhile legislation emanated mostly from royal initiative, custom dictated that monarchs should promulgate general or territorial laws with some form of baronial consultation and assent. Councils provided the most adequate setting for such a process and the sources associate the discussion of royal edicts, assizes, ordinances and constitutions with the meeting of large assemblies in this period. This is perhaps one of the most

^ Langmuir defines the French concilium in this period as 'a large assembly of magnates, lay and spiritual, specially convoked by the king for the sole or primary purpose of taking counsel on important problems of general concern, particularly problems for which the king sought unusual aid from his barons. There are only sixteen instances that I have noticed of assemblies of this type between 1179 and 1230 that are referred to by the term concilium'' ('Concilia and Capetian Assemblies', p. 34). Hudson, 'Henry I and Counsel', p. 122. significant features of Henry's attitude towards councils, since the discussion of royal legislation at large assemblies during his reign is considerably more regular than ever before.

Perhaps the most revealing and well known episode concerning royal legislation in the twelfth century is incorporated in the narrative of Chronicon Monasterii de

Bello. In the , a boat loaded with goods out of Romney, a small port south of Canterbury, was destroyed by a storm. The crew barely escaped death and the wreck came ashore at Dengemarsh, within the lands of Battle Abbey, whose chronicle recorded the story. According to an ancient maritime custom, the abbot of Battle was entitled to claim possession over the goods left on the ship after a certain time. In doing so, he enraged the archbishop and the clergy of Canterbury.

An extensive passage of the account is worth citing:

However, King Henry [the first] was averse to this custom and promulgated an ordinance for his own time and throughout his empire, that if even one person should escape alive out of the wrecked ship he should have everything. But, new king, new law. For after his death the magnates of the realm did away with the new ordinance and exercised the ancient custom themselves. So it was that the men of Dengemarsh, following the maritime custom and royal liberties, took this wreck by force for the church of Battle. When he heard this the archbishop went to court and brought before the king a complaint against the abbot of Battle, that he had used force and hostility in this matter. The king [Stephen] at once commanded the abbot to appear before him. The matter was aired at the royal court before a gathering of nobles. The king himself was inclined towards the archbishop and, through the zealous and skillful William of , who at that time held the county of Kent, he accused the abbot of breaking the peace, since he had acted against a decree of King Henry. After much disputation, the abbot calmed the court with an argument planned ahead of time. For he pointed out that while King Henry could at will change the ancient rights of the country for his own time, that fact should not establish anything for posterity except with the common consent of the barons of the realm. So, if his equals in privilege, namely the barons who were present, would, with the , give up for themselves the point at issue, he would willingly give it up too. The magnates present unanimously refused to do this and it was finally decreed in common that this hearing be closed and that the abbot should, by royal privilege, convene his own court on the matter of Dengemarsh on a stated day, with the archbishop's men in attendance, and should have complete jurisdiction. Now at this assembly it happened that the abbot uttered with foresight a memorable phrase that much weakened the king's spirit. For when he was accused, he turned directly to the king and said, 'Not for long may you wear the crown of England, O King, so please it God, if you destroy even such a small given our church by King William and respected by your other predecessors'.^

^ Battle Chronicle, pp. 143-6. The ancient custom of shipwreck was finally abolished by Henry II, according to William of Newburgh. See Newburgh, p. 282: 'Antiquam atque mhumanam circa naufragos consuetudinem in ipsis regni sui initiis eximia pietate correxit'. The custom of wreckage is described by William of Newburgh as "savage" (Newburgh, p. 282). It seems that the abbot's argument agreed with an accepted principle rather than being a tendentious opinion. His warning prophecy was indeed fulfilled, and this passage shows how important was the assent of the barons for the modification of ancient customs, and the assembly of the kingdom for the discussion of legislative matters. Moreover, in referring not only to the promulgation of an ordinance but also to its immediate enforcement, this passage also reveals the judicial importance of councils. After the debate, King Stephen summoned the abbot and the archbishop to be present at the following council, and the chronicle continues:

The abbot kept to the arranged day, but no one arrived for the archbishop until the next day. Thus losing their say in the settlement of the offence, they went away disappointed, and once more a plaint reached the king from the archbishop. Once more the abbot was summoned and came. The points of difficulty were explained and by general consent it was adjudged that the abbot had proved his case and that he ought not to be challenged further on this by the archbishop. The hearing dissolved, and each returned home. The abbot, disposing as he wished of all the goods that have caused the trouble, pacified the archbishop and his men with some of the shipwrecked goods, but the important things he kept for himself and for his church of Battle. And so the quarrel over this matter ended.^

The resolution of the conflict clearly indicates that ancient custom could only be changed with the common assent of the barons, and that royal decisions which contravene such principle could be subject to lawful opposition. The passage cited above was probably written during the reign of Henry II and it seems, therefore, that the principle employed in the defence of the monastery -associated by Eleanor Searle with the rhetoric of conciliarism- only became established practice after the 1150s.^ In any case, it is clear that there was no more appropriate occasion for a monarch to obtain such common approval to change customary dispositions than a council. An important passage from the Leges Henrici Primi associates some legislative activity with the meeting of hundred courts and makes reference to laws approved at the great assembly of the whole kingdom:

For nothing shall be expected or taken by anyone except by the application of law and reason [iure et ratione], in accordance with the law of the land [per legem terre] and justice and the honest judgement of the court, as has been laid down after the most careful deliberation on the part of the barons and their worthy predecessors in

^ Battle Chronicle, p. 147. ^ Battle Chronicle, pp. 13-14. the whole realm, and approved by the great assembly of God's servants and wise men of the whole kingdom.^

During the reign of Henry II, England witnessed an unprecedented promulgation of assizes, most of them discussed at royal councils.^ The connection between the Assize of Clarendon of 1166 and a royal council, for example, is far from clear, but it is at least known that the king spent some time at the hunting lodge in Clarendon that year. An ecclesiastical council assembled in the same place mainly to resolve measures concerning the Cathar heresy. According to Stubbs' itinerary, Henry seems to have been present at a council in Clarendon before Lent.'^ Such a meeting is omitted by C.H. Parry's conciliar list, and we are informed of the king's departure to Normandy in March of 1166." Moreover, it is possible that a council met to deal with the feudal returns of the Cartae Baronum of 1166, which 1 0 the king received from his tenants before the first Sunday of Lent. By changing procedure within county courts, and by emphasizing the use of the presenting , this legislation eventually became one of the foundational pillars of the common law system. It is difficult to determine the origins of the jury of presentment, but Ralph V. Turner has convincingly demonstrated that it became a

^ Leges Henrici Primi, ed. L.J. Downer (Oxford, 1972), p. 103. This refers to the royal writ of 1108. ^ According to W.L. Warren, the assize was 'an alternative to customary law enforced by royal authority, differing from an edict in that it had baronial assent' (Warren, Governance, p. 108). See also J.W. Tubbs, The Common Law Mind (Baltimore, 2000), pp. 3-7. The Usatges of Barcelona provide an interesting parallel with Catalonia by clarifying the distinction between different forms of royal legislation in this period: 'Each nation chooses its own law from custom. Indeed, a long- established custom arises in place of law. Law, however, is a species of justice. Indeed, usage and long-established custom are equally derived from usages. However, custom is a certain right founded on usages which arise in place of law. Indeed, what a king or emperor decrees is therefore call a decree or edict. Moreover, all justice is established from laws and usages. Indeed, a usage is a custom approved by long duration. The establishment of is twofold: at times in the laws and at others in the usages.' {Usatges of Barcelona, p. 102) See also Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi, Etymologiarum Sive Originum Libri XX, ed. W.M. Lindsay, 3 volumes (Oxford, 1911), ii.lO:l, and v.3:2-3. See Appendix 1. " Appendix 1; Diceto, i.539; Parry, Parliaments, pp. 13-4. The Cartae Baronum is translated in EHD, ii.969-970. See also Warren, Henry II, pp. 275-81, and the introduction of I.J. Sanders, English Baronies. A Study of their Origin and Descent, 1086- 1327 (Oxford, 1960). A good overview and analysis of baronial returns is in T.K. Keefe, Feudal Assessments and Community under Henry II and His Sons (Berkeley, 1983). Basically, the Cartae Baronum was an assessment of the king's feudal tenants carried out in 1166. Henry II wanted information on the enfeoffment of knights to determine the amount of knight's service owed to the crown. According to the returns, Henry was able to determine the servitium debitum, the number of knights to be produced for the king's service by each tenant. regular instrument of justice under Henry 11.'^ During the reign of Stephen, magnates had gained a great deal of jurisdictional power by taking some control over local courts. The Assize of Clarendon reversed such a trend by seeking to establish a more centralised system, and consequently return some of that judicial power from the localities back to royal control."^ The measures must have affected the jurisdiction of some magnates, but according to Roger of Howden, the assize resulted from general consultation, thus implying the meeting of a general council: 'Haec est Assisa, quam dominus rex Henricus consilio archiepiscoporum, et episcoporum et abbatum caeterorumque baronum suorum statuit pro pace servanda et justitia tenenda^^

The Council of Northampton met in January 1176 to pacify the kingdom and to deal with the rebels of 1173-4. The subjection of the Scottish church to the archbishop of York unleashed a heated discussion which led to confrontations among the clergy and between the archbishops of York and Canterbury. Most importantly, however, the king divided his kingdom into six regions and appointed three itinerant justices to each of them, thus furthering the centralisation of justice and tightening his control over local courts.'^ After Henry had put down the rebellion of his sons in Normandy, the assize served to pacify the kingdom and sought to implement a settlement with the rebels. These reforms embodied the fundamental aspects of the Assize of Northampton, which was essentially a re- enactment of the Assize of Clarendon of 1166.'^ While this promulgation

R.V. Turner, 'The Origins of the Medieval English Jury: Prankish, English, or Scandinavian?', JBS, 1 (1968), pp. 1-10; 'Roman Law in England Before the Time of Bracton', JBS, 15 (1975), p. 18. The Assize of Clarendon dealt with the heresy in some of its clauses, like nos. 20 and 21 (Stubbs, Select Charters, pp. 170-3). The essential aspects of the judicial reforms are contained especially in clauses nos. 1, 5 and 9 (van Caenegem, The Birth of the English Common Law, pp. 20-21). See Stubbs, Select Charters, pp. 170-73. For an English translation see EHD, ii.440-3. Refer also to GFL, nos. 235, 306; Howden, Gesta, i.84; US, pp. 800-801; Howden, Chronica, ii.72-3; Diceto, i.399; Gervase, i.251-2. One of the many references to this phenomenon is in Butt, A History of Parliament, p. 42: 'Henry's legislative and political changes had the effect of shifting power and jurisdiction from feudal lords to the agents of an strengthened central monarchy'. See also R.V. Turner, Judges, Administrators and the Common Law in Angevin England (London, 1994), p. 11. Howden, Chronica, ii.89; Howden, Gesta, i. 107-111; Gervase, i.254-5. Details on the Assize of Northampton can be found in van Caenegem, The Birth of the English Common Law, pp. 21, 121; Warren, Henry II, pp. 93, 139-141; Dialogus de Scaccario, p. 77. Refer also to J. Biancalana, 'For Want of Justice: Legal Reforms of Henry 11', Columbia Law Review, 88 (1988), p. 508: 'That royal jurisdiction in mort d'ancestor was limited to fit the principle of jurisdiction by enforcing only the strongest and clearest norms of inheritance helps to explain why the archbishops, bishops. enhanced royal control over the judicial process and again encroached on the power of local magnates, the assize was also the result of baronial consultation. As the Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi reports, 'per consilium regis Henricifilii sui, et per consilium comitum et baronum et militum et hominum suorum, hanc subscriptam assisam fecit

The increasing popular discontent with troops probably led Henry II and his advisers to proclaim the Assize of Arms at Le Mans in 1181, thus providing regulations for a territorial army in the style of the Anglo-Saxon fyrd, which would mitigate the prominence of mercenary deployment.'^ It is difficult to associate this piece of legislation to any particular council for only the chronicle of Robert of Torigni lends detailed information of Henry's continental itinerary. But it is unlikely that such a general matter affecting all of Henry's dominions and many of its inhabitants would have escaped general consultation and some form of baronial approval.

earls, and barons gathered at Northampton in 1176 could agree to authorize the assize'. Further information on the assize of 1175 is provided in pp. 481, 488, 507-8. See also P. Brand, 'Multis Vigiliis Excogitatam et Inventam. Henry II and the Creation of the English Common Law', Haskins Society Journal, 2 (1990), pp. 197-222. Howden, Gesta, i.l07; ii.89. If the Assize of Northampton was not the starting point of the English Common Law, it established at least one of its most important foundations, which is embodied particularly in the seventh clause: 'Let the justices determine all suits and rights pertaining to the lord king and to his crown through the writ of the lord king, or of those who shall be acting for him, of half a knight's fee or under, unless the dispute is so great that it cannot be determine without the lord king, or is such as his justices shall refer to him or to those who are acting for him, by reason of their uncertainty in the case...' The Assize of Northampton was very popular, for it allowed all free subjects to bypass baronial justice and access the king's court by obtaining a royal writ. The judicial reforms at the Council of Northampton also enacted the assize of mort d'ancestor, which allowed very broad access to royal courts by means of paying a fee for a royal writ which initiated the judicial process. Three years later, in 1179, the Grand Assize was promulgated to modify and improve the administration of justice, and thus facilitate the growing demands on royal courts and cope with the proliferation of judicial writs. The Grand Assize also provided the defendant with an alternative to the customary trial by battle, and culminated in a series of judicial reforms. The Assize of Northampton is translated in EHD, ii.444-6. Further information on these assizes can be found in Lyon, Constitutional, p. 222; Maddicott, 'An Infinite Multitude of Nobles', pp. 23-4; Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, pp. 238-240; Nicholas, The Evolution of the Medieval World, p. 226; Holt, 'The Assizes of Henry IF, pp. 85-106; J.H. Round, 'The Date of the Grand Assize', EHR, 31 (1916), pp. 268-9. Mercenaries were becoming very unpopular among the English people due to their unruly behaviour. The Assize of Arms then aimed to create a militia of free peasants within the Angevin dominions (See Howden, Gesta, i.261). Of particular importance is clause number 4: 'Moreover, let each and every one of them swear that before the feast of St Hilary [Jan 13] he will possess these arms and will bear allegiance to the lord king, Henry, namely the son of the Empress Maud, and that he will bear these arms in his service according to his order in allegiance to the lord king and his realm...' See also Butt, A History of Parliament, pp. 39-40. Angevin kings were particularly protective of the royal forests, and regulations concerning their exploitation were ruthlessly enforced. The king's absence during the general uprising of 1173-4 seems to have prompted frequent infringements of forest law, which were subsequently rectified at Nottingham in August 1175.^^ Henry's efforts to protect royal lordship over the forests were received with resentment among his subjects, but Richard FitzNeal explains in the Dialogus de Scaccario, that 'the forest has its own laws, based, it is said, not on the Common Law of the realm, but on the arbitrary legislation of the king; so what is done in accordance with forest law is not called "just" without qualification, but "just, according to forest law'".^' It seems that the exception is included in the treatise precisely in order to stress the principle which bound the king to consult when considering legislation on all other matters. Henry II, however, not always made use of such a , for the most important piece of forest legislation was not an arbitrary measure, but was made 'with the advice and assent of the archbishops, barons, earis, and magnates of England'.^^ It was at the Council of Woodstock in August 1184, that the king divided the royal forests and sent justices to enforce the newly approved assize. In the words of Roger of Howden, 'dominus rex divisit forestas suas Angliae in diversas partes, et unicuique partium praefecit quatuor justitiarios...et misit eos placitare placita forestae secundum suprascriptam assisam forestae^^

Howden, Gesta, i.94: 'Et procedens inde venit usque Nothingham in festo Sancti Petri ad Vincula, et per aliquot dies ibi moram faciens, implacitavit omnes barones et milites illius patriae de forestis duis; et posuit omnes in misericordia sua pro capta venatione...' The was extended during the reign of Henry II according to the studies of David Crook and Charles R. Young (D. Crook, 'The Archbishop of York and the Forest in ', Law and Government in Medieval England and Normandy: Essays in Honor of Sir James Holt, ed. G. Gamett and J.G.H. Hudson (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 325-6, 337-8; Young, 'English Royal Forests', p. 4). Young points out that forest regulation was bitterly resented by most and that some rules were relaxed in Magna Carta and the Forest Charter of 1217 (pp. 3, 12-13). Regulations concerning the royal forests had also been unpopular during Stephen's reign (See N. Vincent, 'New Charters of King Stephen with Some Reflections upon the Royal Forests during the Anarchy', EHR, 114 (1999), p. 914). Dialogus de Scaccario, pp. 59-60; 'Legibus quidem propiis subsistit quas non communi regni iure sed voluntaria principum institutione subnixas dicunt, adeo ut quod per legem eius factum fuerit non iustum absolute sed iustum secundum legem foreste dicaturThis distinction is further explained in Young, 'English Royal Forests', pp. 1-2. ^^ An English translation is in EHD, ii.451-3. ^^ Howden, Chronica, ii.289. C.R. Young argues that this assize reconstituted the forest system which had been in place during the reign Henry I but discontinued during the anarchy (Young, 'English Royal Forests', p. 3). This is contrary to the findings of Nicholas Vincent, who has argued that King Stephen the granted licenses for assart, thus revealing that the system had remained in place during his reign. It must be noted, however, that such grants mostly concerned The narrative descriptions of momentous legislation at councils are by no means confined to the promulgation of assizes. The chronicle of Battle Abbey reports that only four months after Henry's coronation, the king and his nobles renewed the peace and restored the laws and customs of the kingdom at the Council of London in March 1155! the king congregavii generale conciliuifi Qpud Lundoniam, et renovavit pacem et leges et consuetudines per Angliam ab antiquis temporibus constitutas'The much debated Constitutions of Clarendon, which led to Becket's exile and eventually his murder, were also approved at a general council in January 1164.^^ The clauses were primarily a response to the growing complaints over the immunity of convicted clergy from royal justice. Herbert of Bosham, who may have been present at the Council of Westminster in October 1163, says that the king, 'relying on the advice of certain individuals...incontinently demanded that such guilty clerks should speedily be deprived of their orders and handed over to the civil court...Although this testimony appears to suggest that the king's decision was thoughtless, and rushed by the advice of "certain individuals", it is likely that the grudges against criminous clerks had become more generalised by the 1160s.^^ Ralph of Diceto described the business of the Council of Clarendon as Immensos tractatus and so it was, for Henry and his nobles were determined to establish peace throughout the kingdom. The drafting of the royal constitutions, however, entailed an encroachment on the jurisdictional power of ecclesiastical courts and would thus prompt an enduring dispute between the king and the head of the English church. ^^

Essex, where Stephen's authority was specially established (Vincent, 'New Charters of King Stephen',pp. 913,915, 919). Battle Chronicle, pp. 155-6. ^^ The royal constitutions were previously discussed at the Council of Westminster in October \\62>\'Convocatis episcopis apud Westmonasterium simul cum archiepiscopo de criminosis clericis contra canonum libertatem male tractandis usque in vesperam sermo pertinacior est protractus. Cui cum archiepiscopus ad vota non responderet, quaesivit ab episcopis an vellent suas avitas consuetudines observare' (Gervase, i. 174-5) ^^ MTB, iv.299-300. ^^ See Warren, Henry II, p. 460. ^^ Diceto, i.312. ^^ It is difficult to know whether the constitutions were written during the council or before it. David Carpenter says that 'by the time a council met at Clarendon in January 1164 these had been formulated in writing' {Struggle for Mastery, p. 206). According to Greenaway, they were prepared by Richard de Lucy and Jocelyn de Balliol (Greenaway, The Life and Death of Thomas Becket, pp. 66-7). More information is provided in CS, ii.8, 52-3; GFL, no. 170, pp. 233-4; and The legal advice that Henry must have received at councils introduced a certain measure of learned application to a political discourse, otherwise dominated by the landed and jurisdictional rights of magnates and barons, lay and ecclesiastical. Some of these changes are perhaps illustrated in a passage from the introduction of Glanvill's legal treatise, which proclaims:

For truly he [Henry II] does not scorn to be guided by the laws and customs of the realm which had their origin in reason and have long prevailed; and, what is more, he is even guided by those of his subjects most learned in the laws and customs of the realm whom he knows to excel all others in sobriety, wisdom and eloquence, and whom he has found to be most prompt and clear-sighted in deciding cases on the basis of justice and in settling disputes, acting now with severity and now with leniency as seems expedient to them.^®

The evidence therefore indicates that important legislative measures such as the Constitutions of Clarendon (1164), and the assizes of Clarendon (1166), Northampton (1176), Arms (1181) and Forest (1184), were all promulgated with the approval of the barons assembled at royal councils. In sum, it seems that during the reign of Henry II, royal councils became the ordinary channel for the discussion of legislation concerning the kingdom. Not only was there less general legislation promulgated during the reigns of Henry I and Stephen, but such an activity is very rarely connected with large royal assemblies.^' In reference to Henry IPs legal and administrative reforms, Warren has highlighted that while the king rarely failed to acknowledge the customary precedents of the time of his grandfather, 'within twenty years, possibly within twelve, Henry IPs government had moved far beyond anything attempted under Henry F. Furthermore, it is not an exaggeration to suggest, using J.C Holt's words, that 'Henry's legal measures

Mortimer, Angevin England, p. 116. The text of the constitutions is reproduced in EHD, ii.766-7, which is translated from the version given in Gervase, i.l78. Glanvill, pp. 1-2. According to Judith Green, legislative measures were probably discussed at earlier councils, but there is insufficient evidence to substantiate this case (Green, The Government of England, p. 22). ^^ Warren, Governance, p. 106. So much was this the case, that according to David Nicholas, 'by the end of the twelfth century, England had thus made the transition to the institutional-territorial state. A bureaucracy and judicial structure were permanently in place and could function effectively without the king necessarily being present. The king's revenue came mainly from taxation and the feudal aids and incidents, rather than from the royal domain. English government was nearly a century ahead of its French counterpart in institutional development' (Nicholas, The Evolution of the Medieval World, p. 227). See also Green, The Government of England, p. 23; and Hudson, 'Henry I and Counsel,' p. 120. pieced together the framework of English justiceThe frequency of general assemblies from 1155 to 1188 must have played a part in facilitating such an unprecedented promulgation of royal legislation in England.

Justice and Judicial Cases

'Since a land cannot live without justice, therefore it is granted to the rulers to render justiceThis maxim is taken from the Usatges of Barcelona, a code gathering legal custom and practice for Catalonia, and it seems to allude also to the common expectations of kingship across Europe. Medieval monarchs were not only legislators but they were also judges and, accordingly, they were not only expected to promulgate laws but also to preserve the peace of the realm by enforcing them. Just as royal assemblies had become the most efficient means for obtaining general consultation and assent for territorial legislation, they also became the most appropriate occasion for the appeasement of the kingdom and the resolution of important judicial cases.

Royal assemblies which met pro pace reformanda et pro stabilitate regni, that is to procure the peace and stability of the kingdom, abound in the twelfth century. While assembled with his nobles at the Council of London in March 1155, Henry II ordered the demolition of castles occupied by insubordinate barons, deposed fiscal earls, resumed crown lands and 'pacem stabilivit in regnoThis royal council resembled the Christmas court at Bermondsey, gathered immediately after Henry's coronation at Westminster in December 1154. On that occasion, the king 'ubi cum principibus suis de statu regni et pace reformanda tractans^^

^^ Holt, Magna Carta, p. 43. An article of more than 100 pages by Joseph Biancalana does justice to Henry's reforms (J. Biancalana, 'For Want of Justice', pp. 433-536; and van Caenegem, The Birth of the English Common Law, pp. 21-22, 40-48). Usatges of Barcelona, no. 73, p. 83. ^^ Howden, Chronica, i.215. ^^ Gervase, i.l60. In 1177, Henry convened a council which met in Geddington in the first week of May, 'de pace et stabilitate regni tractassent, per consilium episcoporum et comitum et baronum suorum\ to deal with the peace and stability of the kingdom with the counsel of his earls and barons. Judicial cases of importance were often scheduled for the meeting of a council, not only because the dispensation of justice was an important function of kingship, but also because disputes among the powerful and influential had to be settled before general peace could be established effectively. According to Sayles and Richardson, the parliaments of the thirteenth century 'are of one kind only and that, when we have stripped every non-essential away, the essence of them is the dispensation of justice by the king or by someone who in a very special sense represents the 38 king'. The settlement of judicial disputes at the highest level was certainly among the important and regular business of royal councils in this period, but it cannot be said to be an essential aspect.

At this point, it is useful to remember our previous discussion on the use of curia and concilium in the sources, and to establish that the royal court was always present at every council. As the administration of justice was one of the functions of the curia regis, councils often witnessed trials involving important magnates, and this explains why the business of some councils was primarily concerned with settling disputes that could potentially upset the stability and peace of the realm.

The abundance of chronicle sources for England provides ample detail of litigation at royal assemblies. In 1155, Hugh de Mortimer led a rebellion against Henry II that was quickly terminated by a royal victory. The king then used the Council of Bridgnorth, which assembled in July, to heal the rift and reach a settlement, quibus congregatis, pax inter regem et Hugonem facta est \ wrote the author of the chronicle of Battle Abbey.^^ The confrontation between the bishop of Chichester and the abbot of Battle in 1157 had been brought to the king's attention at the Council of Bury St Edmunds, but Henry was so preoccupied by

^^ Howden, Gesta, i. 160-1. ^^ Sayles and Richardson, Parliaments and Great Councils, p. 34. Battle Chronicle, pp. 160-1. See also Strickland, 'Réconciliation ou Humiliation?, p. 70. the rebellion of Hugh Bigod and William of Blois that he postponed litigation for a judicial session he was going to hold at Colchester. Thus the bishop and the abbot

...were assigned a day by that splendid prince's peremptory summons for the settlement of their old controversy over the privileges and dignities of their churches. Because he was occupied with other affairs, it was impossible for him to settle their case then, but he arranged for their appearance at Colchester, to which he would be going when he left St Edmunds. The following Thursday, all and even a larger number, arrived there.

Among several other courts which met to resolve disputes were those held at Woodstock in 1175 and Nottingham in 1181."^' The administration of justice at royal assemblies sometimes concerned the archbishops during the reign of Henry IL A dispute between the archbishop of Canterbury and the monks of St Augustine was resolved at the Council of Northampton in July 1157. At the Council of London in June 1170, the king was advised by his nobles to achieve peace with his archbishop in exile by seeking the mediation of the archbishop of Rouen and the bishop of Nevers, and the Council of Winchester in August 1176 was described by Roger of Howden as 'concilium de pace facienda inter Ricardum Cantuariensem archiepiscopum et Rogerum Eboracensem archiepiscopum'.^^ Other assemblies staged several concordiae or placita (settlements or lawsuits) involving a number of barons, such as those heard at the councils of Woodstock in 1163 and Northampton in 1177."^^

Furthermore, royal councils sometimes hosted an important iudicium with the king representing his interests and supposedly those of the realm, as it were. The most celebrated case during Henry's reign was, of course, the trial of Becket. The extraordinary evidence available for the Becket councils has revealed a great deal

^^ Battle Chronicle, pp. 177-6. The rebels of 1173-4 were forbidden from attending the king's court without special summons at Woodstock in July 1175. Roger of Howden writes that in that meeting, 'pracepit rex publico edicto, ne aliquis de terra sua, qui contra eum fuerat tempore werrae, veniret ad curiam suam nisi per mandatum ipsius'. A month later, Henry penalised those who had breached forest regulations during his absence, 'implacitavit omnes barones et milites illius patriae de forestis duis' at a court assembled at Nottingham. (Howden, Chronica, ii.78-9, 196; Howden, Gesta, i.92-3, 244). ^^ Howden, Gesta, i. 118-9. The sources for the other meetings are: Gervase, i.l63, 409, GFL, no. 293, EEA, i. no. 90; Howden, Chronica, i.216, 335-8; PR, 4 Hen.IL, p. 136; A^B, vii.300, no. 669; Howden, Gesta, ii.33, Diceto, ii.51. AfTB, ii.373; Calendar of Patent Rolls: Preserved in the Public Records Office (Edward II), 5 volumes (London, 1894-1904), v. 157; Curia Regis Rolls: Preserved in the Public Records Office, 20 volumes (London, 1922-), x.333-4, no. 81. about conciliar activity in the twelfth century, but perhaps the historiography has concentrated on these meetings at the expense of other assemblies of similar importance. As explained, the conflict arose at the Council of Woodstock in July 1163, when Becket confronted the king concerning the issue of the sheriffs' aid. Three months later, Henry retorted at the Council of Westminster by demanding the submission of convicted clergy to secular courts. Early in 1164, another council assembled at Clarendon to promulgate a set of constitutions curbing the judicial jurisdiction of the church and to scrutinise Becket's financial management during his chancellorship. The archbishop was finally condemned at the following council at Northampton in October 1164, 'the barons of the king's court thereupon sentenced him to be amerced by the king...in the sum of five hundred pounds, and found security for that sum', reports Roger of Howden.'^'^ Intense litigation had stretched throughout four general councils of the realm, prompting the king's fury, the archbishop's flight to France, and turmoil in England. The trial of the archbishop had left no one satisfied, but it is illustrative of the sophistication of the judicial process and the importance of royal councils as the most public forum for the administradon of justice."^^ After all, no other occasion would have befitted the judgment of an archbishop.

Becket was not the only magnate to endure a judicial process at a council. Hugh Mortimer was punished at the Council of Bridgnorth in 1155, and a territorial dispute between Hugh Bigod and William of Blois was settled at the Council of Bury St Edmunds in 1157.^^ The dignity of the nobles involved in these cases afforded a public hearing, and as councils met regularly in the reign of Henry II,

^^ Howden, Chronica, i.224. A small sample of primary accounts are Gervase, i.l74; GFL, no. 151; Howden, Chronica, i.219-220; PR, 9 Hen.IL, p. 48, Diceto, i.311; MTB, ii.373, for the Council of Woodstock (1163). For the Council of Westminster (1163) see Gervase, i. 174-5; GFL, no. 146; PR, 9 Hen.IL, p. 74. Information on the Council of Clarendon (1164) is included in GFL, no. 170; Diceto, i.312; EEA, i. no. 260; PR, 10 HenlL, pp. 10,14; Howden, Chronica, i.221; Gervase, i. 176-180, Newburgh, pp. 141-2; MTB, iii.46, 278-9; iv.305; v.218. Finally, the Council of Northampton (1164) is treated in the following primary accounts: GFL, no. 153, PR, 10 Hen.II., pp. 45-6; MTB, iii.49-58; Diceto, i.313-4; Howden, Chronica, i.224; Gervase, i. 182-3. The trial of Thomas Becket was a most extraordinary event, but just as important was perhaps the investiture conflict between Henry I and Archbishop Anselm at the beginning of the twelfth century. Undoubtedly, however, the treatment given by primary and secondary sources to the councils that witnessed the trial of Becket have no rival in this period. A more detailed study of the changes affecting the judicial activity of Henry's court is provided in A. Harding, The Law Courts of Medieval England (London 1973), pp. 49-63. Harding suggests that Henry's reforms amount to a revolution in royal justice. ^^ Battle Chronicle, pp. 160, 174-6. they became a convenient occasion for publicising the dispensation of royal justice at the highest level. Had councils continued to meet with the frequency of earlier decades, many of these cases would have been resolved by the king and his

court."^^

More examples can illustrate the judicial activity of Henry's court at councils, but two famous cases are particularly significant for demonstrating the sophistication reached in his reign concerning judicial procedure. One is the trial of Philip de Brois in July 1163, and the other is the resolution of the territorial dispute between Castile and Navarre in March 1177. Philip de Brois was a clerk who had abused the local sheriff after being accused of homicide. Philip was protected by the church after clearing himself at the bishop's court, but he was nevertheless summoned to face the charges before the royal judges, for according to Guemes' version of the trial, abusing one of the king's officials was just as criminal as offending the king himself Edward Grim continues the narration:

The judges after hearing his confession denying homicide but not the offence against the sheriff said 'we, they said, decree that your prebend shall remain in the king's hands for two years, and your possessions and all your income shall be distributed at his will and pleasure to the poor'. The judges added that he was to stand naked before the sheriff, just as a laymen might, and to offer him his arms for the injury he had done him and live in subjection to him."^^

Philip de Brois was lucky to escape death, a sentence that would have certainly pleased the king, who, on being informed of the judges' decision, 'said they had acted very wrongly towards him, in that they had been lenient because the man was a clerk. They had given, they answered, an entirely just decision'.^^ It appears

According to Pasquet, 'between the powers of this little curia and those of the great one there was no difference. Both the one and the other were the king's council. But when some particularly difficult question arose -such as the trial of some great lord accused of treason or the modification of ancient custom on an important point- the king usually reinforced, so to speak, his ordinary council by summoning a more or less considerable number of barons, who could not be always with him' (Pasquet, Essays, p. 6) Conversely, Wilkinson has warned that 'we must cease to regard it as a mere expansion of the council; and its functions are not to be confused with those of the king' (Wilkinson, Studies, p. 41) Guemes, 771-826, p. 22: Philip 'lost his temper and insulted him [the royal judge] grossly; the king said that in offending him, it was just the same as if he had insulted the king himself. ^^ MTB, ii.373 {EHD, ii.761-2). Guemes, 771-826, p. 23. An important work on the dispensation of justice at the king's court and the judicial role played by the tenants-in-chief as justices is Brand, 'Multis Vigiliis Excogitatam et Inventam', pp. 197-222. See also Tumer, Judges, Administrators and the Common Law, pp. 60-68, 76-87; and van Caenegem, The Birth of the English Common Law, pp. 21-3, 26-8, 41-3. that the trial had taken place at the very same council that witnessed the initial steps of the dispute between Becket and Henry. The king's desires to penalise the crimes committed by the clergy had coincided at this council with Philip de Brois' lawsuit and Becket's opposition to reforming the sheriffs' aid. Such combination of events was to trouble the king greatly and prove fatal for the archbishop.

When the kings of Castile and Navarre sent envoys to Henry's court in 1176 to have their territorial dispute heard by a judicious prince, the king of the English decided to summon a council to conduct his arbitration in the presence and with the advice of his nobles.^' The Spanish case provides perhaps the clearest illustration of the judicial importance of royal councils in this period. The bishops and nobles of England were then assembled with a handful of their Navarrese and Castilian counterparts in London in March 1177. Roger of Howden's account implies that Henry deemed this case worthy of careful consideration:

These having met together at Westminster, the king ordered the aforesaid envoys from the kingdom of Spain to reduce into writing their claims and charges, and afterwards give them to him; in order that, by means of a translation thereof, he himself and his barons might be able to understand their respective claims and charges; for neither the kings nor the barons of his court understood their language. For the purpose of reducing this to writing, there was a space of three days allowed.^^

It is difficult to associate Henry's modus operandi with coercive lordship in the light of such careful approach to judicial business. If William of Newburgh does any justice to Henry's character, there is a something to be said about the king's love of justice, since the monarch: fuit enim in illo regni fastigio tuendae et fovendae pads publicae studiosissimus: in portando gladio ad vindictam malefactorum, quietem vero bonorum, minister Dei multum idoneus: rerum et libertatum ecclesiasticarum, sicut post mortem ejus claruit, defensor et conservator praecipuus.^^

When Alfonso VIII of Castile married Eleanor at Tarazona in September 1170, the Anales of Jerónimo Zurita describe that the wedding party was very well attended by many princes, and that the king of Castile was well aware that Henry II, his father-in-law, 'was the most esteemed king in all Christendom and that he was lord of great estates in France'. Zurita was writing in the sixteenth century, but his account is based upon cotemporary records. See Jerónimo Zurita, Anales de la Corona de Aragón, 9 volumes, ed. Ángel Canellas López (Zaragoza, 1967-1986), i.258. This is my translation from the Spanish: 'era el más estimado rey que había en la cristiandad; y fue señor de muy grandes estados de Francia ^^ Howden, Chronica, ii. 120-1 (Howden, Annals, p. 440). Although Henry is praised by Walter Map for knowing many languages, the king was unable to understand the claims of the Iberian envoys (Walter Map, De Nugis Curialum, p. 477). ^^ Newburgh, p. 282. A minister of God, he was most studious in safeguarding the public peace. Significantly for our study, not only was Henry a much esteemed ruler among the princes of Europe, known for his love of justice and peace, but the Spanish petition reveals that the judgment of his nobles assembled at council must have also enjoyed some respect, or else, that the king held the judgment of his barons in high regard. Walter Map, another contemporary and member of the royal court, asserts that 'a strong proof and argument of the justice of our king is, that whoever has a good case is anxious to try it before him'.^^

Symptomatic of these judicial developments is the Tractatus de Legibus et Consuetudinibus Regni Angliae; a lawbook written during Henry's reign, once attributed to Rannulf Glanvill, one of the king's most successful officials. An unprecedented display of legal and judicial rationality in an English context, Glanvill's manual gathers the fundamental courtly practices of the newly- established common law system.^^ It is not surprising that such a manual is contemporary with the promulgation of unprecedented territorial legislation and with the development of judicial procedure.

In conclusion, councils were the most fitting events for the promulgation of legal and judicial measures of such importance, since the reform of the customs of the realm claimed some form of approval from the nobles. The evidence indicates that in the reign of Henry II, royal assemblies were favoured by the king as occasions for the dispensation of justice at the highest level, and when

Walter Map, De Nugis Curialum, p. 509. According to Walter, it had been the custom in Europe to bring important cases to the French king, but the king of England and his court had now gained more prestige. John Gillingham seems to have overlooked this reference and much of what is said by contemporaries of Henry's judicial undertakings, in arguing that the king spent all day hawking and had little time for the settlement of cases (Gillingham, 'Conquering Kings', p. 171-3). There can be no doubt that 'Henry II's system of writs and assizes vastly increased the number of legal proceedings coming before the curia regis' (Turner, 'The Origins of Common Pleas', p. 240; see also Turner, 'The Origins of the Medieval English Jury', pp. 1-10). ^^ See R.V. Turner, Men Raised from the Dust, Administrative Service and Upward Mobility in Angevin England (Philadelphia, 1998), p. 11. There have been some doubts as to the authorship of this treatise for a long time. The appearance of these manuals, however, bears witness to the emergence of a group of learned bureaucrats at the king's service in the late twelfth century (Turner, 'Changing Perceptions of the New Administrative Class', p. 113). A summary of the treatise and some personal information on Glanvill is offered in R.V. Turner, 'Who was the Author of Glanvill? Reflections on the Education of Henry II's Common Lawyers', Law and History Review, 8 (1990), pp. 99-102. arrangements were discussed to improve the enforcement of territorial statutes and constitutions. It seems that Henry's policy of maintaining peace and order throughout his kingdom may have enhanced the judicial profile of royal councils. The proclamation and enforcement of general edicts came to meet such priorities, for in the words of Glanvill 'not only must royal power be furnished with arms against rebels and nations which rise up against the king and the realm, but it is also fitting that it should be adorned with laws for the governance of subject and peaceful peoplesIf legal reforms of similar magnitude were promulgated before 1154, they were rarely the product of discussions at royal councils.

Finance and Administration

The assizes of Henry II not only forged a more sophisticated and efficient judicial system but also provided the royal purse with new profits from the administration of justice. As Henry's hold over the continental dominions and the British Isles consolidated, larger armies and constant military supplies became an imperative condition to sustain a successful government. Those resources stretched the king's expenditure far beyond the traditional means obtained from feudal levies. In order to match the difference, English kings sometimes abused traditional taxation prompting general disapproval and rebellion, and requested extraordinary aids, which normally entailed securing the assent of the nobles in exchange for royal concessions. Moreover, rulers sought to replenish their treasuries from a variety of other sources, namely the coinage, military service, tenurial rents, and taxes.

The English danegeld was a tribute which the Anglo-Saxons paid to the Vikings to keep them off their lands. Also known as "the tribute of the Danes", it was an emergency tax originally raised to pay Danish mercenaries without prior consultation of the nobles.^^ Liebermann argues that the Anglo-Saxon Witan was

^^ Glanvill, pp. 1-2: 'Regiam potestatem non solum armis contgra rebelles et gentes sibi regnoque insurgentes oportet esse decoratam, sed et legibus ad subditos et populos pacifwos regendos decet esse ornatam.' See also John of Salisbury, Policraticus, in Medieval Political Theory, p. 30; and Turner, 'Roman Law in England Before the Time of Bracton', p. 21. ^^ Warren subscribes to English particularism in suggesting that 'there was nothing comparable in other European realms. There was no recognised principle in the Early Middle Ages by which a ruler could levy a general tax from his subjects; its absence is a reflection of the lack of any real heavily involved in the financial management of the kingdom; 'king and Witan decreed the heavy Danegeld, no doubt on all occasions, though we are expressly told so only seven times

Henry IPs campaigns on the continent and the British Isles also demanded the deployment of mercenaries and thus exercised constant pressures on the royal treasury, which was forced to fmd alternative resources in other forms of taxation and the increasing profits obtained from the administration of justice.^^ According to G.L. Harriss, when imposing these tributes the king exercised an authority 'beyond that of a feudal suzerain; he levied them as a public authority, claiming responsibility for the safety of the kingdom and obliging subjects to support him in defence of the common good'. According to Harriss, 'these concepts became discernible in the last quarter of the twelfth centuryand, predictably, as 'customary taxes were not considered a matter for discussion',^' they only rarely formed part of the business of royal councils in this period.

The imposition of the danegeld was a royal prerogative exclusively legitimised by the emergency of war and the king's will. The geld was not raised after 1162 conception of "the state'" (Warren, Governance, p. 145). More details on the nature and evolution of this levy and its collection since the Norman Conquest until 1162 can be found in J. A. Green, 'The Last Century of Danegeld', EHR, 96 (1981), p. 246-7, 251-2; and Warren, 'The Myth', pp. 128-31. CO Liebermann, The National Assembly, p. 66. ^^ Like J.O. Prestwich, C.W. Hollister has stressed that 'money was a vital factor in Anglo- Norman warfare and that military success in this period often depended not so much upon the loyalty of feudal vassals as upon the availability of money for hiring mercenaries' (Hollister, 'The Significance of Scutage Rates', p. 587. See also J.O. Prestwich, 'War and Finance in the Anglo- Norman State', TRHS, Fifth Series, 4 (1954), pp. 19-43). W.L. Warren has indicated that 'for the whole of the twelfth century danegeld and its substitutes were an inadequate supplement to normal revenues to sustain the king's defence budget. For specific campaigns 'aids' or 'gifts' and 'scutage' might be taken; but specific campaigns were infrequent' {Governance, p. 151) Gerald Harriss' study of the financial circumstances of Henry's reign has pointed out that 'the decay of the danegeld also prompted the Crown to secure casual levies under the name of auxilium and donum from which there eventually emerged the more defined tallagium' (Harriss, King, Parliament, and Public Finance, p. 12) Then was a 'tax which took shape from 1168 as a manorial levy was at first kept distinct from the aids of the cities and boroughs on the Pipe Rolls, but it soon came to embrace all the tenants of the royal demesne, urban and rural, and to acquire the name of tallage...It was taken only when the king had urgent need of additional money, and although it was imposed at the king's will and could not be reftised, the amount to be paid was not determined arbitrarily but was open to negotiation' (Warren, Governance, p. 154). In reference to the collection of scutage during the reign of King John, Harriss argues that this tribute 'was never a highly remunerative tax' {King, Parliament, and Public Finance, p. 12). See also Reynolds, Kingdoms, p. 305; and Amt, The Accession of Henry II, p. 184. Harriss, King, Parliament, and Public Finance, p. 8. Lyon, Constitutional, p. 248. and this is difficult to explain: in the face of constant military demands, why would an ambitious monarch like Henry II release the revenue provided by a tax which involved no negotiation with the nobles? The analysis of Judith Green concluded that 'the likeliest explanation for the decline of danegeld is that it had become impolitic to make it a regular feature of royal finance. Its very name recalled its origin as a tax to meet threatened invasionStubbs linked the demise of this form of taxation with Becket's opposition to the collection of sheriffs' aid, which he identified as the geld.^^ There is certainly not enough evidence to associate the discussions at the Council of Woodstock in 1163 with the last recorded collection of danegeled. Significantly, however, David Carpenter has suggested that such measures may have played an important part in the evolution of parliament: 'since the geld required no consent, parliamentary taxation and parliament itself might have never developed!New financial pressures forced Richard I to introduce camcage in 1194; a new imposition similar to the danegeld.^^ The civil wars of Stephen, the crusades and ransom of Richard contributed to the impoverishment of the English treasury. In contrast, Henry IPs financial administration was so successful that he was not only able to rescue the kingdom from bankruptcy in the 1150s, but he could also manage without the danegeld in the following the decade.^^ The approval of extraordinary levies in the 1180s signals that taxation was not an exception to Henry's ability to obtain the assent of his nobles for financial measures.

Scutage was another form of taxation which entailed an amount paid in commutation for military service, exacted from each knight's It appears to be associated with Henry's campaigns in the continent and it is not unlikely that some form of military taxation was discussed at the Council of Worcester in April

^^ Green, 'The Last Century of Danegeld', p. 258. Prior to Green's explanation, it had been suggested that the collection of danegeld was discontinued under Henry II because it was not worth the administrative effort and because the king could rely on other forms of taxation (see pp. 242-3, 256-7). According to Green, although the last receipt of dangeld in royal accounts corresponds to that of 161-2, the king attempted to collect it again in the 1170s. ^^ Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, vol. 1, pp. 499-500. See also Green, 'The Last Century of Danegeld', pp. 256-8. ^ Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, p. 202. Important contemporary references to this tax are in Leges Henrici Primi, p. 120; and Dialogus de Scaccario, p. 56. ^^ Harriss, King, Parliament, and Public Finance, p. 9. ^^ An insightful discussion of Henry's financial situation is in Holt's second chapter of his book Magna Carta (1992). 1158 before the king's departure in August. The first documented request of scutage is registered for 1159, raising funds to attack the County of Toulouse.^^ Military taxation was probably part of the business of councils which preceded campaigns, such as the assemblies of Westminster in 1155, Oxford and Clarendon in 1166, London in 1170, Winchester in 1177, Windsor in 1179, Bishops' Waltham in 1182, Clerkenwell in 1185, and Marlborough in 1186. But if such levies were discussed at these gatherings, the scutagium was rarely connected to baronial consultation and general assent.

Financial matters, however, were usually a source of antagonism between kings and their nobles. Two decades after Henry's death, clause number 14 of Magna Carta stated that 'to obtain the common counsel of the realm for the assessment of an aid (except in the three cases aforesaid) or a scutage, we will have archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls and greater barons {majores barones) summoned individually by our letters...G.L. Harriss has made clear that 'Magna Carta elaborated the means by which the common counsel of the realm might be given in the King's court for the assessment of an aid; but it nowhere spoke of a right of consent. For the obligation of King or lord to proceed by way of consent (or more properly consultation and agreement) did not imply the right of the free vassal to refuseBut the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls and greater barons of England were regularly summoned to councils between 1155 and 1188, and thus the mechanism for obtaining general counsel for taxation had already been established, even if such a process is not identified as constitutional. In England, scutage was levied on eight occasions during the thirty five years of Henry's reign, four in ten years of Richard's reign, and eleven during the seventeen-year

^^ According to Gervase of Canterbury, '...hoc anno [1159] rex Henricus scotagium sive scuagium de Anglia accepit, cujus summa fuit centum milia et quarter viginti milia librarum argenti' (Gervase, i.l67; and the same date is given in Torigni, iv.202). The Dialogus de Scaccario explains that 'occasionally it comes to pass that by the machinations of enemies the country is thrown into confusion and there is rebellion in the country. Then the king decrees that a certain sum be paid from each knight's fief, namely, a mark or a pound, whence come the pay and gratuities for the soldiers. For the prince prefers to thrust into the vortex of war mercenary troops rather than domestic forces. And so this sum is paid in the name of shields and is therefore called scutage. Moreover, they who sit at the exchequer are quit of this' {Dialogus de Scaccario pp. 52- 3). See also Hollister, 'The Significance of Scutage Rates', pp. 577-87; Stubbs Select Charters, pp. 152, 218; The Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. H. Hall (London, 1896), pp. 79, 83; Amt, The Accession of Henry II, p. 183. ^^ Holt, Magna Carta, pp. 454-5. See also Pollard, Evolution of Parliament, pp. 46-7. ^^ Harriss, King, Parliament, and Public Finance, p. 21. reign of John7^ It seems, therefore, that the clauses of Magna Carta condemned not so much the method employed by the Angevins to obtain taxation as much as its increasing frequency. Clause fourteen of the charter seems, therefore, to address abuses of a system which had already been accepted by the barons and considered as the standard tributary practice. In the words of Warren, 'Angevin government, directed by the will of imperious kings, could be arbitrary, unreasonable unjust and harsh; but Magna Carta's acceptance of it, with royal willfulness curbed, should remind us that there was much to be said in its favour'.^' The words of William of Newburgh concerning Henry's financial measures, also come to mind: 'Nullum grave regno Anglorum vel terris suis transmarinis onus unquam imposuit, usque ad illam novissimam decimationem... 72

Edward Miller has rightly pointed out that consent to taxation was a requirement which predates the clauses of the charter, and was 'a feudal principle which was written into Magna Carta'.^^ The sources provide solid ground for such a claim in revealing that in the twelfth century, some tributes were levied with the counsel and approval of the nobles, particularly during the 1180s. Ralph of Diceto reports that Henry had summoned his nobles to the Council of Bishop's Waltham early in 1182 to seek approval for an aid of forty-two thousand pounds of silver and five hundred pounds of gold for the Holy Land, praesentibus illis et approbantibus, quandam pecunia suae partem in causas pias erogare decrevit, necessitatibus

See Keefe, Feudal Assessments, p. 30. These figures differ from those given in Mortimer, Angevin England, p. 47. See also Lyon, Constitutional, p. 245. Warren, Governance, p. 169. He also states that 'it may then be argued that Magna Carta, so far from being the radical demands of rebels, reflects what reasonable men thought was amiss with Angevin government' (p. 165) and furthermore, that 'it should be observed that Magna Carta tacitly accepts the transformation of royal government since 1166. It did not seek to overturn any of the judicial or administrative developments which made the crown a compelling force throughout the realm' (p. 168) According to Sayles the charter 'did not undo the work of centralisation achieved by the twelfth century kings, though it did make clear that the king's authority was limited by law' (Sayles, Functions, p. 192). See also Swanson, The Twelfth-Century Renaissance, p. 92. Warren has also suggested that much of the discontent embodied in Magna Carta was the product of royal policies which had, in fact, originated under Henry I, who was unable to manage procedures and structures inherited from Anglo-Saxon practice and resorted, as a consequence, to harsh measures (Warren, 'The Myth', pp. 131-2). J.C. Holt, on the other hand, believes that some of the clauses embodied discontent which had been brewing since the days of Henry II (Holt, 'The Barons and the Great Charter', pp. 2-4). ^^ Newburgh, p. 282. ^^ Miller, The Origins of Parliament, p. 16. Jerosolymitarorum in primis propensius providere procurans'.^^ A similar purpose was intended for a tax promulgated at a council in Clerkenwell, which according to Roger of Howden had assembled in March 1185, 'ad providendum auxilium quod facere vellent ad defensionem terrae Jerosolimitanae According to Ralph of Diceto, the king desired to participate in the crusade himself but first consulted the nobles, who in citing the coronation promises of 1154, advised him to remain in England and preserve the peace and stability of his own kingdom:

Ad vocationem regis, Cantuariensis electus et Cantuariensis ecclesiae suffraganei, Dunelmensis episcopus, abbates conventualium locorum praelati, comités et barones, Lundoniae convenenrunt apud Fontem Clehcorum xv kalendas Aprilis. Rex itaque, patriarcha, magistro sanctae domus Hospitalis Jerusalem audientibus, omnes suos fideles qui convenerant adjurationibus multis astrinxit, ut quod animae suae saluti crederent expedire proferrent in medium...datum est igitur sub deliberatione quid esset consultius, vel quod rex in propria sua persona Jerosolimitanis succurreret, vel Anglorum regno, cujus gubernationem in facie matris ecclesiae dudum susceperat , adhuc praeesse nulla ratione desisteret. Ad ilia siquidem tria quae rex quilibet consecrandus promittit aliqui recurrebant. Promittit namque se praecepturum et opem pro viribus impensurum, ut ecclesia Dei populusque Christianus veram pacem in omni tempore servet. Promittit etiam quod rapacitates et omnes iniquitates omnibus gradibus interdicet. Promittit adhuc quod in omnibus judiciis aequitatem et misericordiam praecepiet. Satius ergo visum est universes, et animae regis multo salubrious, quod regnum suum débita cum moderatione gubernet, et a barbarorum irruptionibus et a gentibus exteris tueatur, quam saluti consulat Orientalium in propria sua personaJ^

Most evidently, the king did listen to his nobles at councils, and if such an advice was sometimes in accordance with royal wishes, the later chronicle of Roger of Wendover confirms what contemporary accounts reported in regards to the discussions at Clerkenwell. The king

...was strongly disposed in his own mind to abide by the advice which they should offer. The whole council then, considering on what they had just heard, deemed it more sound and salutary to the king's soul that he should govern his whole kingdom

^^ Diceto, ii.21. ^^ Howden, Gesta, i.335-6. ^^ Diceto, ii.33. A reference in the Pipe Roll for 1185 appears to be related to the Council of Clerkenwell: PR, 31 Hen.II., p. 45: 'Et in procuratione Eraclii patriarche de Jerusalem .c. et .xiij.s. et .iiij.d. per breve regis'. Other references to this council are in Gervase, i.325; Gerald of Wales, Opera, viii.208-9; and Warren, Henry II, pp. 604-5. Warren translates Ralph of Diceto's passage as follows: 'it seemed better to all of them, and much for the safety of the king's soul, that he should govern his kingdom with due care and protect from the intrusion of foreigners and from external enemies, than that he should in his own person seek the preservation of the easterners'. See also Cazel, 'The Tax of 1185', pp. 385-92. Henry taxed his people in 1166, 1184-5 and 1188 to aid the Holy Land. The 1188 tax is especially significant because it was issued at a council which included magnates from the continent as well {CS, ii. 1022-5). with proper moderation, and defend it from the irruption of the barbarians, than attend in his own person to the welfare of the people of the east7^ Three years later, a council of the realm was summoned to discuss another aid for the Holy Land. In January 1188, Henry had assembled with his continental magnates at Le Mans, where he promulgated a series of ordinances establishing the collection of a tax to assist the Christian enterprise against Saladin. The ordinances were renewed and enforced in England by the counsel and approval of the nobles, gathered at the Council of Geddington in February 1188. The first clause of the text commands: 'this year each man shall give in alms a tenth of his revenues and movables, with the exception of the arms...'.^^ The Saladin tithe was the very first tariff on movables ever imposed in England, and although it was essentially an ecclesiastical levy destined to contribute financially to the Third Crusade and collected, according to one of the clauses, 'in each parish in the presence of the parish priest',^^ it became an important precedent for future secular taxation. In effect, the inhabitants of the kingdom were requested to pay a tribute calculated as a tenth of their property, recorded in the Pipe Rolls as 'decima ad auxilium terre Iherosolom\ and collected also in Scotland by the bishop of Durham, according to the chronicle of Roger of Howden. on

^^ This is an English translation in Roger of Wendover, Flowers of History, 2 volumes, trans. J. A. Giles (Felinfach, 1994), ii.56-7 (Refer to Chronica Rogeri de Wendover qui Dicitur Flores Historiarum, ed. H.G. Hewlett, 3 volumes (London, 1886-9), i. 135-6). Wendover was writing after the events, but his testimony is confirmed in Howden, Gesta, i.336; Gerald of Wales, Opera, viii.208-9; Gervase, i.325; Diceto, ii.33-4. In analysing Ralph of Diceto's account of the Council of Clerkenwell, Stubbs argues that 'the description of the Council of Clerkenwell in 1185 is an invaluable proof that, powerful as Henry II was at the time, and despotic as were his instincts, he did bona fide consuh his people, ask their advice and listen to their arguments' (Stubbs, Historical Introductions, pp. xlviii-xlix). J.O. Prestwich contradicts the views of Powicke and lessens the importance of baronial consultation at the Council of Clerkenwell when he suggests that 'it seems that Henry had made up his mind at the outset but delayed making his refusal known until he could share the responsibility with as many others as possible'. He adds that the kings of England were never more "constitutional" than when confronted with the demands from the church as unwelcome to their leading lay subjects as to themselves' (Prestwich, 'Anglo-Norman Feudalism', pp. 49-50). Indeed, there was nothing constitutional about the proceedings of the council at Clerkenwell, but royal consultation in the twelfth century was not significant because it was constitutional, but because it was made at councils. John Gillingham, on the other hand, has described Henry's attitude to crusading as a serious failure 'to live up to men's expectations at a time when the crusade was virtually universally perceived as a just and holy war.' This view seems to have overlooked the fact that Henry was an ageing monarch who, moreover, acted on the general and common advice of his barons and who had raised a great deal of resources in aid of the crusading enterprise (Gillingham, 'Conquering Kings', pp. 176-7). ^^ EHD, ii.453-4. The ordinances of 1188 are also known as the Saladin Tithe, and are incorporated in the edition of Howden, Gesta, ii.30-2 and in Stubbs, Select Charters, pp. 188-9. ^^ EHD, pp. 453-4. See also CS, pp. 1024-5. PR, 34 Hen.II., p. 11; Howden, Chronica, ii.338-9. The collection of this tax in Scotland actually failed as it had in France. Very similar ordinances had been discussed by Philip Augustus and his French nobles the same year, although they had generated general dissent which eventually brought such proclamations to an end. The discussion of cooperative measures to finance crusading efforts appears to have been a European phenomenon of the late 1180s, just as the crusades themselves were. Almost coinciding with the meetings at Le Mans and Geddington were the plenary courts at Carrion de los Condes, León, Huesca and Gerona, in the Christian kingdoms of 81 Spain. The business of these gatherings was as varied as any of the important assemblies of the period and it is likely to have included the collection of aids for the Holy Land, a duty that, given the desperate circumstances of the kingdom of Jerusalem, no Christian ruler could afford to ignore. Efforts to find contemporary evidence for such measures are again frustrated by the absence of chronicle descriptions, leaving us partly satisfied with a later account of De Rebus Hispanic, which after reporting the Curia of Carrion affirms that Alfonso VIII 'Hierosolymitani regni ad tempus negocia ministrauit' Just as legislative, judicial and financial measures of importance were invariably discussed at assemblies, tasks and reforms of administrative nature also pertained to the business of councils in this period, the most crucial of which sought to preserve the peace and protect the king's lands, a well as procuring the functioning of governmental machinery. A significant portion of such business concerned the administration of land belonging to the king. Accordingly, royal grants were approved or confirmed to influential individuals, as well as communities such as monasteries, towns, military orders and cathedral chapters.

Information on these Spanish courts can be found in Alfonso II Rey de Aragón, Conde de Barcelona y Marqués de Provenza. Documentos (1162-1196), ed. A. Sánchez Casabón (Zaragoza, 1995), nos. 455-6, pp. 602-5; Zurita, Anales, i.291; J. Caruana, itinerario de Alfonso II de Aragón', Estudios de Edad Media de la Corona de Aragón, 1 (1962), pp. 167, 239; Textos Jurídics Catalans, Liéis i Costumes, II/3, 'Les Constitucions de Pau i Treva a Catalunya' (segles XI-XIII), pp. 92-98; T.N. Bisson, 'The Origins of the Corts of Catalonia', Parliaments, Estates and Representation, 17 (1997), p. 41; T.N. Bisson, The Medieval Crown of Aragón: A Short History (Oxford, 1986), p. 56; El Reino de Castilla Durante el Reinado de Alfonso VIII, ed. J. González, 3 volumes (Madrid, 1960), ii.857-63, 868-73, nos. 499, 505-6; Historia de Rebus Hispaniae sive Historia Gothica, ed. J. Fernández Valverde (Tumhout, 1987), vii.246; G. Martínez Diez, 'Curia y Cortes en el Reino de Castilla', Las Cortes de Castilla y León en la Edad Media (Valladolid, 1988), p. 143. ^^ De Rebus Hispaniae, vii.247. A French general council summoned by Philip Augustus in March 1185 had also discussed crusading matters. See Langmuir, 'Concilia and Capetian Assemblies', p. 35. As we have suggested, large witness lists attached to royal charters make the connection between the meeting of assemblies and the granting of property and privileges a logical deduction. Grants given to the Order of the Hospital of Jerusalem and to Longueville Priory were signed by nearly twenty English nobles, and the dating corresponds to the meeting of a council at Winchester in September 1155. In cases such as these, a deductive connection is not necessary for the charters explicitly reveal that the grants were given 'in concilioand such is also the case of the royal benefits received by Wix and Montacute priories, where the clause 'in concilio' is significantly inscribed along witness lists that, nevertheless, fail to reach ten names. o T

It was at the Council of London in March 1155, for instance, that Henry II deposed some of Stephen's earls, in the words of Robert of Torigni, 'deponendo quosdam imaginarios et pseudo-comites, quibus rex Stephanus omnia paene ad QA fiscum pertinentia minus caute distribuerat'. Further reforms concerning the administration of land were discussed at the Council of Windsor in April 1179, when the king divided the kingdom into four parts, appointing royal judges to each sector, 'divisit in quatuor partes Angliam; o etc unicuique parti praefecit viros sapientes de regno \ wrote Roger of Howden. These measures resulted from consultation and were legitimised by some form of baronial assent, but perhaps the most important administrative measure taken by Henry was a general inquiry into the sheriffs' conduct at the Council of London in June 1170. In order to rectify the transgressions of his officials and the mistreatment of his subjects, Henry summoned his nobles to a council, which witnessed the coronation of the king's eldest son and the proclamation of a general enquiry known as the Inquest of Sheriffs, which was a series of articles commanding the reeve administrators to present themselves at the king's court for interrogation. According to Gervase of Canterbury, this was done for the purpose of doing right and redressing to him and his men what they ought to redress... Afterward they shall take an oath from all the barons and knights and free men of the county that they will tell the truth concerning that which shall be asked of them on behalf of the lord king; and that they will not conceal the truth for love of

^^ Delisle, Recueil, nos. 6, 7; Monasticon, iv.515; CCR, ii. 136-7; iv.379-80. ^^ Torigni, iv.l83. ^^ Howden, Gesta, i.238; Howden, Chronica, ii.l90. any one or for hatred or for money or reward or for fear or promise or for anything else.''

The inquiry threw eighteen of a total of twenty-five sheriffs out of office, a measure as uncompromising as Henry's determination to put an end to the abuses. But as drastic as they may appear, the dismissals are said to have been effected with the cooperation of the nobles assembled at council and justified, according to Roger of Howden, for the sheriffs 'had maltreated the men of his realm...by reason of which the land and the people have been oppressed...unjustly accused

87 in that assize for reward or promise or from hatred or other unjust cause...The enquiry may be interpreted as yet another severe resolution by a ruthless king, but such a view ignores the context of the inquiry. A remarkable undertaking for its time, the inquiry also targeted abuses in the administration of justice, for it was concerned with whether 'anyone has been unjustly accused in that assize for 88 reward or promise or from hatred or other unjust cause'. The measure must have been popular, at least for the many who had suffered the sheriffs' doings, and for OQ those longing for peace and justice. According to the study of Julia Boorman, moreover, the inquest of 1170 was not as unprecedented a measure as traditionally thought, since important replacements of shrieval personnel had previously been undertaken in 1159-60 and 1163-4.^®

War and Diplomacy

In the New Testament, Saint Luke the evangelist wonders 'what king, going to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty

^^EHD, ii.470 (Gervase, 1.217-8). ^^ EHD, ii.470 (Howden, Gesta, i.4-5). EHD, ii.470. Moreover, 'if the court is convicted, the lord of the court shall be liable to by the lord king' (Glanvill, p. 101). See Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, p. 197. ^^ Emily Amt has pointed out in reference to Henry's first regnal years that 'order and stability after a period of civil strife, improved conditions for trade, and the renaissance of royal justice were the important benefits of peace and of the restoration of strong royal government' (Amt, The Accession of Henry //, p. 187). J. Boorman, 'The Sheriffs of Henry II and the Significance of 1170', Law and Government in Medieval England and Normandy: Essays in Honor of Sir James Holt, ed. G. Gamett and J.G.H. Hudson (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 267-8, 274-5. See also Jolliffe, 'The Camera Regis under Henry ir,pp. 14-15. thousand?'.^' No medieval monarch could afford to ignore the apostle's warning, not only because war ought to be justified and financed, but most importantly, because the nobles and their hosts always constituted the backbone of a royal army. Again, it is difficult to think of an occasion more appropriate than a royal assembly to procure the participation of the nobles in a military campaign.

At the Council of Winchester in September 1155, Henry discussed with his nobles the future conquest of Ireland, and military expeditions to Wales were most probably prepared at the councils of Bury St Edmunds in May and Northampton in July of 1157. Another royal council was assembled to Gloucester in June 1175 to treat issues concerning a crusade against the Albigensian heretics in the continent.^^ Several crossings of the king to his continental dominions were preceded by the discussion of military business at councils, and usually described by the chronicles rather vaguely as 'negotia Normanniae

The lordship of the English monarchy over Britain seemed well established in the reign of Henry II. The king had consolidated this situation perhaps as much by military undertakings as by "coercive diplomacy", which was one of the prominent issues treated at councils. The princes Rees and Adouen of Wales, and King Malcolm of Scotland paid homage to Henry as early as 1163 at a council assembled in Woodstock, shortly before the Becket conflict. The subordination of Scotland was renewed at the Council of London in 1170, attended by King William and his brother David. The king of England had summoned them to the council as his subjects, for had Henry regarded the king of Scots an equal, the meeting would have perhaps been identified by the sources as a colloquium. Just as many English lords had taken advantage of the king's absence during the 1173-

St Luke, 14: 31-32, The New Testament, Revised Standard Version (London, 1964), p. 72. See also Prestwich, 'Anglo-Norman Feudalism', pp. 49-50. ^^ Brief descriptions of these meetings are in Torigni, iv.l86, 192-3; Newburgh, pp. 203-5; Battle Chronicle, pp. 174-6; Gervase, i.l63. In reference to the Council of Gloucester of 1175 see Howden, Gesta, i.92: Tn festo vero Sanctorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, dominus rex et rex filius suus magnum tenuerunt concilium apud Gloucestriam, cum Reso filio Grifini et aliis regibus Walliae. Et praecepit ibi rex omnibus hominibus suis Walliae, Francis et Anglis, quod si aliquis Walensium contra aliquem illorum werram moveret in terra regis; omnes unanimiter et constant! animo cum eo contra Valenses tenerent'. ^^ Royal councils that preceded Henry's military campaigns in Normandy and Ireland were: Westminster in 1155, Worcester in 1158, Oxford in 1166, London in 1170, Winchester in 1177, Waltham in 1182, Clerkenwell in 1185 and Marlborough in 1186. Only some of these meeting are clearly associated to military business by the narrative descriptions. 4 rebellion to violate some royal dispositions, the Scots conducted a series of invasions, which brutally devastated the north of England. The Scottish insurrection was brought to an end by the Treaty of Falaise, made in 1174, and renewed at the Council of York in 1175. Henry's lordship over Scotland is also illustrated in the marriage of King William to Ermengard of Beaumont, an arrangement orchestrated by the English king and materialised after a court held at Woodstock in 1186. The subordinate presence of the Scottish king is also reported for a royal court at Nottingham in 1181 and the Council of London in 1184. In the meantime, Henry's control over Wales was assured at the Council of Oxford in 1177, when the princes were sworn to maintain the peace.^^

The diplomatic business of royal assemblies was perhaps the most effective guarantee of Henry's interests beyond the confines of his kingdom. But political bullying was not always an available method, and as powerful as the Angevin ruler was, the circumstances occasionally forced him to compromise. The Treaty of Falaise had secured Henry's stronghold over Scotland, but the of the earldom of Huntingdon to the king of Scots was deemed a necessary concession at the Council of Clerkenwell in 1185.^^

The importance of diplomatic business at royal assemblies is perhaps most clearly signaled by the strategies adopted by Henry and his nobles for the consolidation of the fragile ties that kept the Angevin Empire together. While military efforts were not spared for such a purpose, his vast dominions could not have held together had it not been for Henry's marriage arrangements and conciliatory alliances. A portion of the empire can best described as "Henry's wedding cake", since the dowries of his sons and daughters contributed to the enlargement and maintenance of his dominions. Land was often accompanied by support and loyalty. Eleanor's betrothal to Alfonso VIII of Castile in 1169, for example, won the king of England another ally against the ,

Gervase, i.l74, 321; Diceto, i.311; Torigni, iv.218, 267, Annales Monastici, ed. H.R. Luard, 5 volumes (London, 1864-9), iii.18; Guemes, pp. 76-80; MTB, ii.373; Howden, Gesta, i.94-5, 162-3, 280, 320-1,335-6, 347-351; 21 Hen.IL, p. 182; 32 Hen.IL, pp. 43,49, 111, 168; 27 Hen.IL, p. 11; Newburgh, p. 198; CM, pp. 87-8, 91, 94 ('The Chronicle of Melrose', pp. 19, 21, 24); Howden, Chronica, ii.82, 133-4, 259, 309-310, 335-8; EEA, ii. no. 194; vii. no. 124; xv. no. 137; Diceto, ii.31; GFL, no. 379. ^^ Howden, Gesta, ii.33; PR, 34, pp. 106, 132, 206; EEA, ii. no. 255; vii. no. 183; Gervase, i.409; Diceto, ii.51. For the Treaty of Falaise (1174), see Howden, Chronica, ii.79-82. who had already been cornered by the alliance between the English monarch and another Spanish ruler, Alfonso II of Aragón. 96

After the Council of London in 1175, Henry sent an embassy to the Sicilian court led by his daughter Joan, who was to marry King William, to secure a useful Mediterranean friendship, perhaps already nurtured by a common Norman ancestry. The same year, he renewed a treaty with the Irish king, Roderic of Connaught, at the Council of Windsor in 1175, and with the Flemish count at another assembly, also at Windsor in 1163. An embassy sent to Rome after the Council of Northampton in 1164 was commanded to defend the king's position in the papal curia from the accusations of Thomas Becket, and thus relieve a possible impasse with Alexander IIL^^

Diplomatic agreements, military pacts and alliances were often discussed at councils in this period. This signals how important royal councils were, not only in treating the state of the realm, but also in advancing Henry's interests abroad. Diplomacy and warfare were not exclusively initiated and resolved at diplomatic colloquia, but were also treated at the assemblies of the realm, for no medieval monarch could afford to attend a diplomatic session unprepared or to undertake military action before general consultation.

^^ Henry II's marriage to Eleanor had given the king control over Aquitaine. Although he allowed Eleanor to hold her own court -something that would prove politically costly for Henry in the civil war of 1173-4-, he gave to Alfonso VIII as dowry for the marriage of his daughter Eleanor, but the king of Castile never exercised effective control over this territory. Count Raymond V of Toulouse was a close ally of his brother-in-law Louis VII of France. Henry was determined to claim his wife's ancestral claims over the county, even if it meant open military action. The campaigns began in 1159 and extended until 1173, when Raymond finally gave up and a settlement was reached at a court held in Limoges. The very well fortified city gave way to the constant pressures placed not only by Henry's forces but also by his allies, the counts of Barcelona and now kings of Aragón, old enemies of the house of Toulouse. In addition, Henry had also arranged the marriage of his son John to the daughter of the count Humbert of Maurienne, another of Raymond's enemies, although the marriage never took place. On the formation of the "empire", see C.W. Hollister and T.K. Keefe, 'The Making of the Angevin Empire', JBS, 12 (1973), pp. 1- 25. '' LPB, i. nos. 22, 108; PR, 16 Hen.IL, p. 16; 10 Hen.II, pp. 45-6; EEA, xv. no. 129; CM, p. 82 ('The Chronicle of Melrose', p. 15); Howden, Gesta, i.4-5; Torigni, iv.244-5; Gervase, i.182-3, 218-9; Diceto, i.313-4, 338; Howden, Chronica, i.224; ii.4-5; Jordan of Fantosme, pp. 2-3; GFL, no. 143, 153, EEA, i. no. 23; ii. nos. 34, 37; The Registrum Antiquissimum of the Cathedral Church of Lincoln, ed. C.W. Foster and K. Major, 8 volumes (Lincoln Record Society, 1931-58), i.64-6, no. 104; US, pp. 468-9; The Correspondence of Thomas Becket, i. no. 109; ii.32, 95; English Lawsuits, ii.433-57; MTB, iii.49-58; Newburgh, p. 142; Guemes, pp. 104-110. Ecclesiastical business and church councils

While it is sometimes difficult to distinguish the meeting of a royal council from a church assembly in the first half of the twelfth century, this is no longer the case in the reign of Henry II. At Westminster in May 1175, for example, the clergy discussed various matters concerning the church of God, especially to condemn and take action on the proliferation of secular practices among the English clergy. The assembly was summoned and presided over by Richard, archbishop of Canterbury in his condition as papal legate to England. As Gervase of Canterbury reports, 'Ricardus vero Cantuariensis archiepiscopus, totius Angliae primas est apostolicae sedis legatus, convocato clero Angliae celebravit concilium in ecclesia beati Petri ad Westmonasterium Most of the kingdom's higher clergy appears to have been summoned, including the abbots, archdeacons and priors, who gathered 'secundum antiquam patrum consuetiudinem concilia congreganturaccording to the Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi^^ Once assembled, the English clergy resolved a variety of ecclesiastical issues, among them an appeal to the people of the for funds to restore the buildings of St Paul's Cathedral. The assembly renewed the canons promulgated in 1166, and resolved several judicial disputes involving clerics. Shortly after the council, the bishop of Salisbury ordered the abbot of Reading to pay the tithes to the church of Blewbury in accordance with the established at the Westminster assembly, 'secundum constitutionem generalis concila apud Westm(onasterium) novissime celebrati...

This council was unlike any of the assemblies we have so far considered and thus contributes to our understanding of features which were peculiar to royal

^^ Gervase, i.251-2. See also Diceto, i.399: 'Habitum est concilium regionale Lundoniis apud Westmustier xv. kalendas Julii, praesidente Ricardo Cantuariensi archiepiscopo et apostolicae sedis legato '. It was probably identified as a regional council because, although it was an assembly of the universal church, it dealt with the issues concerning the kingdom of England. ^^ Howden, Gesta, i.84. Summons sent to the province of Canterbury by Gilbert, bishop of London, are registered in GFL, pp. 227-9: 'Ipsius etiam vobis auctoritate iniungimus ut diocesis vestre abbatibus, archidiaconis, prioribus, et eos ut designato loco et tempore in concilio domino legato presentiam exhibeant ipsius auctoritate citetis '. The letter of the bishop of London appealing to the members of his diocese for funds is in GFL, no. 235, pp. 306-8 (probably c. May 1175). The bishop of Salisbury's letter to the abbot of Reading is in EEA, xviii.83-4, no. 111 (c. mid-May, 1175). assemblies. Although the king may have been present at the meeting, it was essentially an ecclesiastical gathering given that it was summoned by the archbishop and apostolic legate, to discuss and resolve a variety of issues relating to the governance of the church, the regulation of clerical conduct and the pastoral care of souls, and accordingly to promulgate canonical constitutions accordingly, in the words of Gervase of Canterbury, 'ad emendationem Anglicanae ecclesiae'}^^ The business of these councils was the status ecclesie as distinctive from the status regni, which concerned those meetings summoned and presided over by the king.

If the distinction between ceremony and politics -sometimes overstressed in modem scholarship- was hardly perceived by medieval communities, it is likely then that they never thought of the issues discussed at assemblies as being either exclusively clerical or secular. It could be said, for example, that the Becket conflict was an ecclesiastical issue as much as it was a political affair, and so were the discussions concerning the Third Crusade in the 1180s. The bishops and abbots of England were pastors of their sees and communities, as well as territorial lords or royal officials, thus empowered with secular jurisdiction. Monarchs and lay magnates, on the other hand, were often endowed with the authority to decide or manipulate clerical appointments, and exercised a considerable influence over ecclesiastical affairs. Accordingly, just as the display of ceremonial politics was not necessarily indicative of apolitical proceedings, the discussion of ecclesiastical matters was not exclusive of church councils and synods. As the state of the church was an integral aspect of the affairs of the kingdom as a whole, the business of most assemblies of the realm naturally incorporated issues as clerical as those discussed at the legatine assembly at Westminster in 1175, just as royal councils often discussed diplomatic issues, which were more characteristic of colloquia.

Gervase, i.251-2. The heading used by Roger of Howden to describe this council is indicative of its ecclesiastical nature: 'Concilium Ricardi Cantuariensis archiepiscopi Lundoniis celebratum ' (Howden, Chronica, ii.72-3; Howden, Annals, pp. 391-6). Other sources linked to the meeting of this council are: GFL, nos. 235, 306; Howden, Gesta, i.84; US, pp. 800-801; Diceto, i.399; HWM, p. 98. See also CS, pp. 965-82; and Eyton, Court, p. 190. At Henry's coronation in 1154, the property and liberties of the church were confirmed, as the Chronicle of Battle Abbey reports, 'possessiones et dignitates 102 ab antecessoribus suis concessas sua auctoritate confirmavit'. The following year, the clergy secured the confirmation of several royal charters at a royal council gathered in London. As previously indicated, business at the councils of Woodstock and Westminster in 1163, as well as at Clarendon and Northampton in 1164, was charged with ecclesiastical matters, particularly in regards to the jurisdiction of church courts and the secular impunity of convicted clergy.The dispute between the archbishop and the king was at its height during the Council of London (1163), which had originally been called to establish the primacy of Canterbury over York, and possibly to translate the relics of King Edward the Confessor to Westminster Abbey.If the gathering at Clarendon in 1166 was not an ecclesiastical council, then its business was above all spiritual and ecclesiastical. Likewise, the protection of the English kingdom from the Albigensian heresy and a possible crusade against the heretics, are the only matters reported for the Council of Gloucester in 1175. Similarly, attempts to subject the Scottish clergy to the archiépiscopal authority of York dominated the

Battle Chronicle, pp. 152-3. In regards to the Council of London in 1155, the monk of Battle affirms: 'Ibi quoque nonnulli ex episcopis et abbatibus cartas et privilegia ecclesiarum suarum presentis regis scripto et sigillo confirmaverunt' {Battle Chronicle, pp. 155-6). Gervase of Canterbury writes that at the Council of Woodstock in 1163, 'Rex autem propria feritate et maliloquorum ut dictum est acerbitate seductus, jura ecclesiastica quaerebat conterere, et quoslibet clericos ad saecularia judicia contorquere', and that after the meeting he summoned the nobles to another council at Westminster, 'convocatis episcopis apud Westmonasterium simul cum archiepiscopo de criminosis clericis contra canonum libertatem male tractandis usque in vesperam sermo pertinacior estprotractus' (Gervase, i. 174-5). The royal council of Westminster which opened on 1 October was summoned solely to establish the archbishop of Canterbury as primate of all England.. .the king took the opportunity to make a formal protest against the activities of archdeacons in church courts, and the activity of felonous clerks. He urged Becket to state formally his acceptance of a royal statement of customs which the archbishop refused to do...No conclusion was reached at Westminster, nor at the meeting of king and the archbishop at Northampton soon after, and the next few weeks were filled with diplomatic activity...it is a curious fact that, although this council was apparently held at the opening of October, and ended, if Herbert of Bosham's account is correct, in the king's rapid departure on the second day, on Sunday 13 October the king and the archbishop presided over the translation of the relics of St. Edward the Confessor in Westminster Abbey, in the presence of fourteen bishops, five abbots (including Laurence of Westminster), and a number of secular notables...It would be natural to think that the council and the translation were connected, and it is possible that our only authority, the Summa Causae, has misdated the council: that it really began on or soon after 13 October. But it is also possible that the translation had been planned as a denouement to the council, and that, in fact, king and archbishop met again on the thirteenth for the event' {CS, ii.848-9; F. Barlow, Edward the Confessor (London, 1979), pp. 325-7). discussions at the councils of York in May 1175 and Northampton in 1176, but were finally frustrated by papal intervention.'^^

Royal appointments of clergy to secular and ecclesiastical offices kept several assemblies occupied in this period, such as the councils of Windsor (1175), Northampton (1177), Winchester (1177), Bishop's Waltham (1182), Reading (1184), Eynsham (1186), Marlborough (1186) and Geddington (1188).'^^ Naturally, the most important ecclesiastical elections concerned the archiépiscopal sees of Canterbury and York, an event too significant to take place anywhere else but in a general council. Such elections were as political an issue as they were an ecclesiastical matter. A new archbishop for Canterbury was chosen at the Council of Reading in 1184, as Roger of Howden notes, 'venit dominus rex usque Redingges, et celehrato ibi concilio de pastore Cantuariensis ecclesiae eligendo and the sees of York, Salisbury and Exeter were filled two years later after the discussions held at the Council of Marlborough, a report of which is in the Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi:

Rex vero Angliae, congregata clericorum et laicorum copiosa multitudine in villa quae dicitur Merleberga, concilium ibi celebravit xviii kalendas Octobris, festo Exaltationis Sanctae Crucis, de eligendo archiepiscopo ad ecclesiam Eboracensem, et ad eligendos episcopos ad ecclesiam Salesbiriensem, et Exoniensem.

Perhaps the most detailed description of an ecclesiastical election in the twelfth century comes from the Chronica Jocelini de Brakelonda, which reports the discussions at the Council of Bishop's Waltham in 1182 that brought Samson to the highest seat at Bury St Edmunds:

Our lord the King received them kindly and, declaring that he wished to act according to God's will and for the honour of the Church, he commanded the brethren by the mouth of his intermediaries, Richard Bishop of Winchester and Geoffrey the Chancellor, afterwards Archbishop of York, that they should nominate three of our Convent... the King, after first enquiring whether those nominated were bom in his realm and within whose domain, said that he did not know them and

Diceto, i.318; Newburgh, p. 198, 203-4; Howden, Chronica, i.248; ii.82; ERA, vi. no. 135; xvi. no. 26; xi. no. 110; x. no. 35; xx. no. 113; GEL, nos. 67, 157-9, 161; Howden, Gesta, i.92, 94-5; PR, 21 Hen.II., p. 63, 182; CM, pp. 87-8 ('The Chronicle of Melrose', pp. 19-20); Torigni, iv.267. Howden, Chronica, ii.83, 118, 135, 286, 335-8; EEA, ii. no. 78, 255; Howden, Gesta, i.lOl, 177-8, 132-3, 317, 351-352, ii.33; PR, 23 Hen.II., pp. 94, 201, 205; 34 Hen.II., pp. 106, 132, 206; 30 Hen.II., pp. 137, 150-1; 32 Hen.II., pp. 158; CJB, pp. 15-23, Gervase, i.297, 409; Diceto, ii.21- 2, 5\-,EEA, i. no. 323; xviii. no. 150; vii. no. 183; Curia Regis Rolls, i.394; x.333-4, no. 81. Howden, Chronica, ii.286; Howden, Gesta, i. 351-2. ordered that three others of the Convent should be nominated as well as those three... Afterwards the King demanded that for the honour of his realm they should nominate three more from other houses... At length they agreed to name three, but on this condition that they should accept none of them without the counsel of those of the Convent who remained at home... This done, the King thanked them and gave orders that three out of the nine should be struck off the list, whereupon the three aliens were at once removed...Finally the intermediaries of our lord the King whom I have mentioned above, were called in to take counsel with the brethren...Samson then having been nominated in the presence of the King, and the latter having taken brief counsel with his advisers, all the rest were summoned, and the King said, 'You have presented Samson to me: I do not know him. If you had presented your Prior, I should have accepted him; for I have seen him and know him. But, as it is, I will do what you desire...'.'««

This passage provides perhaps the most detailed account of an ecclesiastical election in the reign of Henry II, and if it is not representative of common practice, it offers at least a unique insight into conciliar proceedings. It also refers to the procuratorial condition sometimes embodied by monks when participating in the election of vacant offices, and the prominence of royal and monastic consultation in such a process.For the purpose of our study, this passage is particularly significant because it makes reference to the place occupied by ecclesiastical business within royal assemblies.

Religious matters such as the filling of vacant ecclesiastical offices were often considered within conciliar activity because these assemblies were also attended by bishops and abbots, and because such matters often affected the state of the realm and were generally discussed alongside royal policies. However, these were royal assemblies, summoned by the monarch to discuss matters primarily concerning the king and kingdom, and thus clearly distinctive from church councils or synods, which were summoned by the legate, the archbishop or a bishop to discuss spiritual affairs, ecclesiastical governance, and the state of the church or a particular diocese.

The discussion of ecclesiastical matters was equally prominent within royal assemblies before the 1150s, but these meetings are not always distinctive from ecclesiastical councils. At Westminster in 1102, a church synod appears to have

pp. 21-3. Refer to M.T. Clanchy, 'Moderni in Education and Government in England', Speculum, 50 (1975), pp. 680, 682. taken place within the meeting of a royal council, which was entirely concerned with ecclesiastical matters, such as the resolution of clerical disputes, the discussion of the Gregorian reforms, as well as the filling of vacant episcopal sees and the promulgation of disciplinary measures for the clergy. John of Worcester tells us that the council was attended by the king and his nobles to resolve the appointment of vacant bishoprics. But this chronicle, along with the testimonies of Henry Huntingdon and Eadmer, informs that in the same place, Archbishop Anselm held a council with the clergy to enforce disciplinary measures."^ As already shown, many of Henry IPs councils discussed similar matters, but only rarely were they involved in the enactment of spiritual and pastoral measures, or the promulgation of ecclesiastical canons. Orderic Vitalis reports that at the Council of Lisieux in 1106, Henry I 'summoned all the magnates of Normandy, and held a council of great benefit to the Church of God'.'" The business of the Council of London in 1108 was again centred on the Gregorian reforms and the regulation of clerical marriage, but the nobles also discussed the betrothal of Henry's eldest daughter, an issue concerning the entire kingdom. However, the meeting seems to have been presided over by Archbishop Anselm and treated also the state of the church. The chronicle of John of Worcester affirms that the decrees of this council were issued 'concerning archdeacons, priests, deacons, subdeacons, and canons of whatever grade, which in the year of the Lord 1108, Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, together with Thomas, archbishop-elect of York, and all the other English bishops, established in the glorious King Henry's presence and with the nobles' assent..

Similarly, the business of the Council of Westminster in 1115 was described as status regni, but we are only informed of the discussion of clerical issues while there is, moreover, a reference to the meeting of a church council. Furthermore, nobles and bishops assembled at a royal council at Gloucester in 1123 to elect a new archbishop of Canterbury in what appears to be an ecclesiastical occasion, and while important political matters were treated at the Council of Windsor in

John of Worcester, pp. 102-3; Huntingdon, pp. 450-51; Eadmer, History, p. 141. 'Anselmus archiepiscopus tenuit magnum concilium...' (John of Worcester). 'Concilio multa ecclesiasticae disciplinae necessaria servari Anselmus instituit.' (Eadmer). Orderic, v.92-4. John of Worcester, p. 113. See also Huntingdon, who tells us that the marriage of Henry's eldest daughter was also a matter treated by that council (Huntingdon, pp. 450-51). 1126, this gathering was flanked by two legatine councils at Westminster in 1125 and 1127.''^

It is no coincidence that in the reign of Stephen many assemblies were summoned by the papal legate, an office entrusted first to the bishop of Winchester and then to the archbishop of Canterbury. In fact, at least a third of the gatherings that took place during Stephen's reign were legatine councils, a very large proportion if compared to the following reign.The nature of Stephen's kingship and the problems he encountered in managing his realm might have prompted the predominance of legatine assemblies, and motivated the initiative of prelates to hold the reins of governance. It is not surprising, for example, that the legatine Council of Winchester in 1139 is the best reported assembly between 1135 and 1154."^ The prominence of ecclesiastical business at large gatherings is so characteristic a feature of conciliar activity in this period, that it is sometimes difficult to draw a clear line between royal and church councils.

As indicated, ecclesiastical business also occupied an important place in the proceedings of councils during the reign of Henry II, but not as much as before 1154. The decline of legatine and church councils in the second half of the twelfth century may not be indicative of a process of secularisation, but of the increasing role of royal councils as occasions of effective governance. It is significant that a number of councils were called by the legates to deal with the sorry state of the kingdom from 1139 to 1141, because this shows, perhaps, that large assemblies were in the process of finding a crucial place within the governmental scheme before the accession of Henry II.

The royal councils are referred to in Hugh the Chanter, History of the Church of York, pp. 37-8, 182, 184, 217; Eadmer, HN, iv.231; RRAN, ii. nos. 1091, 1092, 1094, 1442; ASC, pp. 122, 127; Florence of Worcester, ii.84; Malmesbury, HN, pp. 20-22; Huntingdon, pp. 476-7. On the legatine councils see John of Worcester, p. 168, and Book ofLlandaff p. 49. These were the councils of Winchester in 1139 and 1141, Westminster in 1141 and London in 1143 and 1151. John of Worcester, pp. 284-5. Malmesbury describes the proceedings at this assembly with unusual detail (Malmesbury, HN, pp. 91-101). Another legatine council which receives a great deal of attention by chroniclers was the assembly of London in 1141. William of Malmesbury also offers a description of the events (See Malmesbury, HN, pp. 109-111). Liebermann tells us that the clerical predominance at royal assemblies was also a feature of the Anglo-Saxon Witan (Liebermann, The National Assembly, p. 30.) This is complemented in Reynolds, Kingdoms, p. 304; Green, The Government, p. 22-3; Hudson, 'Henry I and Counsel,' p. 125; and M.F. Giandrea, Episcopal Culture in Late Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 59-60. On the assimilation of church and royal councils in this period, see Reuter, Assembly Polities', pp. 437-8. The increasing separation and distinction between clerical and secular gatherings deserves further study. Perhaps Ronald Butt is right in suggesting that Henry IPs efforts to protect and separate secular from clerical laws, 'provide the clearest illumination we have of the emergence of the greater council as a political body foreshadowing the main functions of the future Parliament'.

Conclusion

The matters treated at the councils of Henry II are appropriately summarised by contemporary sources in reporting that the king summoned his nobles to treat the status et stabilitate regni; the state and stability of the realm. It is perhaps misleading to define the business of councils as omnicompetent for this would perhaps imply that gatherings had gained faculties beyond those which emanated from the royal presence and presidency. But after studying the variety and importance of the issues treated at these assemblies, it seems that the king was empowered to discuss and implement measures and policies that were deemed too significant to be resolved by the regular advisors of the court. Accordingly, a very special moment for the governance of the kingdom was prompted whenever the king was in the presence of his nobles at councils. There was no other occasion or place where the monarch could take consultation of a truly general or territorial nature, and have his policies approved by the political community of the kingdom.

From the granting of royal privileges to the organisation of military campaigns, and from the appointment of officials and ecclesiastics to the betrothal of heirs, there seems to be no matter of importance for England which was not discussed at a council of Henry II. Peter of Blois wrote a letter to the archbishop of Palermo in 1177, part of which makes reference to the business of the councils of Henry II, who in 'aiming to the peace of his people (that he) calls councils, that he makes laws, (that he) makes friendships, (that he) brings low the proud, (that he)

Butt, A History of Parliament, p. 30. Refer also to Swanson, The Twelfth-Century Renaissance, p. 67. threatens battles, (that he) launches terror to the princes'."^ This was the business of the realm.

LPB, i.195: 'Rex nosier pacificus, victoriosus in bellis, gloriosus in pace...Adpacem populi sui spectat quod concilia vocat, quodfirmat foedera, quod amicitias Jungit, quod superóos humilitate, quod praelia minatur, quod principibus terrores imittit. Ad pacem quoque populi spectat immensitas ilia pecuniarum, quam donat, quam recipit, quam congregai, quam dispergit'. In reference to the Council of Windsor 1179, Ralph of Diceto makes the following important remarks about Henry's governance, which support Peter of Blois' views: 'Rex pater Anglorum his plurimum quaerens prodesse qui minimum possunt, vicecomites publicis functionibus et ratiociniis involutos commodes propriis invigilantes invenit. Quare de communi salute magis et magis solicitus, certis in locis jurisdictiones aliis fidelibus suis in regno commisit, ut cognitus per provincias publicae potestatis adventus terrorem incuterei delinquentibus; fiscalia supprimentes, et quae principis laederent majestatem, regiam indignationem incurrerent; feramm cubilia temerariis ausibus incursantes, vel muleta reprimerei vel carcelaris custodia maceraret diutius; metus poenae profugos absterreret, animadversiones gravis percellerei intercepios; homicidae suspendió punirentur, proditores damnarentur exilio, levioribus inßagitiis deprehensi tnmcatione membrorum notabiles redderentur; invasores locorum vigor compescerat judiciares, enormitatem damni satifactio maturate sarciret' (Diceto, i.434). See also our appendix 7; and Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, p. 205. Assembled as One Man

The subject of attendance is perhaps one the most debated aspects of royal assemblies, one that since the nineteenth century, has fuelled scholarly quarrels concerning the development of a constitutional monarchy in the medieval period. The following study will deal with two groups: those that were expected to be at assemblies because they belong to the political community of the kingdom and were the king's powerful vassals and, on the other hand, those who were in attendance at each one of these meetings. The following analysis will also attempt to determine who formed part of that community, and the changes that affected its composition and thus the attendance at councils during the reign of Henry II.

Just as colloquia were generally identified by the transaction of diplomatic business and the presence of two or more rulers, and church councils were singled out by ecclesiastical business and the predominant presence of the clergy, the assemblies of the realm treated the business concerning the king and the kingdom, and were accordingly attended by the political community of the realm.

Chronicle descriptions often complement the information offered by the charters in regard to the attendance at councils, but not all those who had assembled with the king at a council were required to ratify the king's decisions as witnesses since, in fact, many of these royal grants would have concerned only a segment of those present. It is not surprising, then, to find that the royal constitutions enacted at Clarendon in 1164, an edict that certainly concerned the entire kingdom, were testified to by most nobles and possibly by all those present at the council, while most royal charters were witnessed only by those who were somehow affected by the granting of privileges or property, or simply by those who happened to participate in the particular discussion concerning the grant.'

Moreover, when the chronicles report that all the nobles came to meet the king at a council, they probably referred to those who had been summoned, some of whom were unable to attend. This factor distinguishes the composition of assemblies, which comprised all those who were expected to provide counsel, from their attendance, which is concerned instead with those who actually came to the meeting. This distinction may further clarify, as we have indicated, the mismatch that often occurs between the information provided in the narrative sources and the witness lists of the official records.

Our study will commence with the royal court, the core of every conciliar gathering, and the king's entourage: his family, regular courtiers, and some of the members of the household who would have attended assemblies. Secondly, we will offer some thoughts on the development of the communitas regni, and then on the attendance of ecclesiastical and lay magnates at assemblies. Finally, the occasional presence of knights and townsmen will be treated to explain some changes which will gain importance in the composition of royal assemblies in the thirteenth century.

The Royal Court and Entourage

A royal council was by definition an assembly summoned and presided over by the monarch. The royal presence at councils is cleariy attested by the chronicle descriptions of English councils, as well as by the witness lists of charters. The ruler summons, attends and orchestrates the meeting of general assemblies as well

See Gervase, i.l78 {EHD, ii.766-70). as being the protagonist of ceremonies and rituals, the promulgator and moderator of debates and discussions, all these roles varying from one assembly to another.

Twelfth-century monarchs were sometimes accompanied by members of the royal family, most notably the queen and the heir to the throne, who honourably occupied the places closest to the ruler at these meeting. Henry II and his wife were often at odds with each other and the queen's long imprisonment on the continent deprived English assemblies of her presence, which is rarely mentioned in the chronicles and only occasionally incorporated in the charters. The duchess of Aquitaine was certainly present at the general Council of Worcester in 1158, when she was crowned together with Henry 'being the fifth year of the reign of king Henry, son of the empress Matilda, the said king caused himself, a third time, together with his wife Eleanor, to be crowned at Worcester, at the festival of Easter'.^ She is likely to have also attended Henry's coronations the previous year at Bury St Edmunds in May and the Christmas court at Lincoln in December. Her presence was also requested at a Christmas court held at Windsor in 1184, 'cui festo per mandatum ipsius interfuerunt Alienor regina Angliae, uxor ipsius', in the words of Roger of Howden.^ The bearer of Henry's unruly sons and the prime instigator of the 1173-4 rebellion, Eleanor spent much of her life confined to a continental exile in the midst of courtly pleasures, but set apart from the island where she was conveniently summoned by her husband on the occasion of festive courts and important ceremonies. As much biographical research has revealed, the queen's influence was undoubtedly immense, but a difficult matrimonial relationship excluded her from conciliar involvement in England for much of Henry's reign. Most of her political maneuvering was thus restricted to courtly celebrations and scheming.

At councils, Henry II was sometimes accompanied by his first son Henry, who received the homage of the Scots and the Welsh, for example, at the councils of Westminster in 1163 and York in 1175, and was crowned by the archbishop of

^ Howden, Chronica, i.216 (Howden, Annals, p. 256): 'Anno gratiae M C L IX., qui erat annus Vtus. regni regis Henrici filii Matildis imperatricis, idem rex Henricus tertio fecit se, et Alienor uxorem suam coronari, in solemnitate Paschali apud Wirecestre: ubi cum ad oblationem venirent, desposuerunt coronas suas, et eas super altare obtulerunt; voventes Deo, quod nunquam in vita sua de caetero coronaretur ^ Howden, Gesta, i.335-6. York at the Council of Westminster in 1170, also in the company of his mother and his brothers, Richard and John. Henry the Younger was also present among the nobles assembled at the councils of Gloucester and Windsor in 1175, London in 1176 and Windsor in 1179."^ At the Council of Northampton which gathered in 1176 to promulgate a series of important legal reforms, the Young King was not only present, but according to Roger of Howden, he participated actively by providing counsel:

Et ante Purificationem Sanctae Mahae, circa festum Conversionis Sancti Pauli, venit dominus rex usque Northamtoniam, et magnum ibi celebravit concilium de statutis regni sui, coram episcopis et comitibus et baronibus terrae suae; et coram eis per consilium regis Henrici filii sui, et per consilium comitum et baronum et militum et hominum suorum, hanc subscriptam assisam fecit.^

The presence of heirs at councils must have constituted an important component of the training of future monarchs in the art of kingship since, as we have indicated, these assemblies were important occasions for asserting royal authority, for controlling baronial politics, and for the governance of the realm. Henry the Younger was thus present at several councils for these were occasions at which the old king could rear the future monarch in the art of kingship, notably at London in 1170 and the assemblies of 1175. The presence of rulers other than the territorial monarch, or their representative embassies, was indeed a prominent feature of Henry's councils as well. The count of Flanders, a traditional ally of the English monarchs, is reported by the chronicles to have been present at Henry's coronation in 1154 and quite possibly attended the Council of Windsor in 1163. He was later represented by a Flemish embassy at the Council of Northampton in 1177. Sicilian ambassadors were present at the Council of London in May 1176 to claim Henry IPs daughter, Joan, who was to marry William of Sicily. Also present were Navarrese and Castilian embassies sent to seek an arbitration to resolve the territorial disputes between Sancho VI and Alfonso VIIL^ Undoubtedly, however, it was the participation of the kings of the Scots and the

Evidence of the presence of the young king at councils can be found in: Diceto, i.311; Howden, Chronica, i.82; ii.4-5; 83; Torigni, iv.245; Howden, Gesta, i.4-5, 92, 238, 335-6; and Gervase, i.258. It is likely, however, that the heir to the English throne was present at several other assemblies. See also Strickland, 'Warfare and Baronial Rebellion', p. 78. ^ Howden, Gesta, i.l07. Howden, Chronica, ii.87: 'Post Natale Domini, in festo Conversionis Sancti Pauli, venit dominus rex pater usque Notingham [should be Northamtoniam], et ibi magnum celebravit concilium de statutis regni sui, et coram regefilio suo ^ See Howden, Chronica, ii.94; Gervase, i.258; Diceto, i.407-8. Welsh princes which was the most prominent diplomatic feature of English councils in this period. It seems that their presence primarily responded to some or all of these factors: the vassalic ties that bound them to the king of England; the political hierarchy assumed within the British Isles; and the discussion of matters concerning Wales and Scotland. The first instance seems to be the Council of Woodstock in 1163, attended by Malcolm of Scotland and the princes Rees of South Wales and Adouen of North Wales, all of whom performed homage to the king of England. King William of Scotland and his brother David were again present and knighted at the coronation of Henry's first son at Westminster in 1170 and at the Council of York in 1175, an assembly that met to discuss the subjection of the Scottish clergy to the archiépiscopal jurisdiction of York. William was again present at the Council of Nottingham in 1179, possibly to discuss with Henry matters relating to Scotland, and was present at the same venue in 1181, on this occasion with his brother David to resolve the dispute concerning the vacant see of St Andrews. Both of them were subsequently present at the councils of London in 1184 and at a royal court celebrated in Woodstock in 1186, after which the wedding of King William and Ermengard of Beaumont took place. Some Scottish representatives must have attended the very important discussion concerning the Saladin tithe at the Council of Geddington early in 1188. The presence of the Welsh princes at English assemblies, on the other hand, is reported for the councils of Gloucester and Woodstock in 1175, and Oxford in 1177, where they were sworn to maintain the peace.^

Henry IPs councils were sometimes attended by his sons other than the heir, namely the counts of Brittany and Poitou, or other European princes of similar stature. As suggested in our first section, whenever the English king assembled with Louis VII of France or his son Phillip Augustus, the diplomatic business took place in the context of an inter-regnal colloquium. Both Richard and Geoffrey were present at colloquia convened by Henry and Louis after the 1173-4 rebellion.

^ The presence of Scottish and Welsh rulers at these meetings is reported in Gervase, i.l74, 321, 409; Howden, Chronica, i.219, ii.4-5, 82, 196, 259, 309-310, 335-8; Diceto, i.311; ii.31, 51, 338; Torigni, iv.218, 267, 289, 244-5; Guemes, pp. 76-80; MTB, ii.373; Annates Monastici, iii.l8; CM, pp. 82, 87-8, 91, 94 ('The Chronicle of Melrose', pp. 15, 19-20, 21, 24); Howden, Gesta, i.4-5, 94- 5, 244, 280, 320, 335-6, 347-351; ii.33; Jordan of Fantosme, pp. 2-3; HWM, p. 98. The relationship between the curia regis and councils is perhaps one of the most convoluted aspects in the development of political assemblies in the twelfth century. An understanding of this institutional phenomenon has already been facilitated by our analysis of the terminology. This study concluded that from the Norman Conquest to the beginning of Henry I's reign, most gathering were enlargements of the king's court and were accordingly identifed by most sources as curiae, instead of concilia. Depending on the importance of the business discussed and the attendance, these enlargements of the curia regis are often identified in the historiography as sessions of a "great council", which is seen as an institution which meets with some regularity to offer advice to the monarch on matters of great importance. Whether "great council" is an approriate term or not, it is difficult to set these meetings apart from enlargements of the curia regis for judicial purposes, and there is little distinction between festal courts -such as those meeting to celebrate Christmas- and great councils meeting for political discussion. It is still difficult to distinguish enlarged courts from great councils in the reign of Henry I, but after 1155 this is no longer the case. Henry II still enlarged his court with several other nobles to celebrate Christmas or Easter, or to conduct judicial business which superseded the dignity of his curia regis, but his councils were not enlarged sessions of the court or meetings of a great council, they were all general councils. There has been a reluctance in the historiography to suggest a distinction between an enlarged session of the court or "courts", and a council, probably in the belief there was no such distinction. It is important to insist that this approach may be appropriate if applied to royal gatherings before the 1150s, but it is no longer applicable to the councils of Henry II. Our analysis of nomenclature has concluded that curia and concilium were distinctively employed in the sources, and that the use of curia in connection with concilia only recognises that the king's court was always present at councils.^

It is evident from Anglo-Saxon diplomas that sessions of the witenagemot were regularly attended by several thegns (ministri), some of whom may have fulfilled

^ Refer to this discussion in the chapter 'Nomenclature'. roles similar to those of royal officials in the Angevin period.^ During the reign of Henry II, the presence of the curia regis at large assemblies is also evident from the sources, which often include the names of its members in charters granted at councils or in chronicle passages describing these meetings. English assemblies in this period were normally attended by the iusticiarius, the chief justiciar of the land, head of the Exchequer and the judicial bench at Westminster, a similar office to that of the senescallus in Catalonia and Normandy.'^ The justiciar was also the head of the king's court and in the twelfth century, it was an office occupied by prominent royal officials with legal expertise, most notably Rannulf Glanvill, an important contributor to the English legal system.'' Another important role was ftilfilled by the cancellarius or chancellor; the king's right hand, head of the royal chancery and always present at assemblies, an office most notably occupied for some years by Thomas Becket. It would be difficult to conceive a royal council without the attendance of the justiciar and the chancellor, unless extraordinary circumstances forced their absence.

Royal administration in the territorial was delegated to the sheriffs, some of whom were occasionally summoned to the meeting of councils to report on county affairs, but who were not members of the curia regis. In 1170, a council in London assembled to carry out an inquiry into alleged abuses committed by the king's sheriffs, who were either present at the assembly or were interrogated independently by a court of judges before the council. But whether they were present at the council or not, it is clear that if the summoning of vicecomites to royal assemblies was a rare event during the reign of Henry II, it must have been a most extraordinary one before the 1150s.

The councils of Henry II were also attended by members of the domestic household, some of whom participated in the ordinary meetings of the king's court. Offices such as camerarius or chamberlain, constabularius or constable.

^ For examples of diplomatic wimess lists see Spelman, Concilia, i. 189-90, 230-1, 317, 324; Pierquin, Conciles, pp. 445-7, 460, 468-71, 482-4, 443-4, 492-4; Kelly, Anglo-Saxon Charters, Abingdon, nos. 124, 129; Oleson, The Witenagemot, pp. 48-61. See Warren, Governance, p. 10; Warren, Henry II, p. 307; and about the Catalonian seneschal, refer to I. Alvarez Borge, La Plena E dad Media, (Madrid, 2003), p. 250. " According to Bryce Lyon the 'left a profound imprint upon administration, law, and finance' (Lyon, Constitutional, p. 252). See also Clanchy, England, p. 107; Turner, 'Who was the Author of Glanvill?', pp. 102-5. dapifer or steward and the royal chaplain or capellanus, occasionally appear among the lists of witnesses associated with the meeting of important assemblies in this period, especially from the 1160s.'^ As some of the central offices became increasingly sedentary, the presence of royal servants in the localities supplied some of the regional information at assemblies and ordinary sessions of the king's court, as well as keeping local bodies subsidiary to central administration, all of which had been inefficiently accomplished by an itinerant court.

Ralph V. Turner has pointed out that 'the Angevin monarchs relied less on men with military resources to staff their councils and offices and more on graduates of the schools or men with practical administrative experience, men with financial, legal, and record-keeping skills'.'^ The presence of bureaucrats and administrators at royal assemblies not only allowed an informed consideration of peripheral matters but, especially from the reign of Henry II, their professional expertise must have greatly enhanced and enriched the discussion of royal policies and measures. Henry implemented a series of important legal, administrative and financial reforms, most of which were devised at assemblies with the more specialised assistance of officials and professionals, whose attendance as experts at assemblies in the twelfth century must have fluctuated in accordance with the business treated. It seems that the emergence of training schools and the revival of Roman Law in the later part of the century made professional advice more readily available than hitherto. Glanvill's legal expertise probably contributed to the discussions at the court of Henry II as well as at his councils, since 'the lord king owes it as of right to his barons to allow them in such circumstances to adjourn

Lyon, Constitutional, p. 250. Occasional references are made to the armiger or squire, signifier or member of the chancery, who look after the royal signum. On the development of ftinctions and offices of the royal chamber, see Jolliffe, 'The Camera Regis under Henry IF pp. 1-21. Jolliffe argues that y 1163 the camera regis 'had already become an beyond the circle of the king's private life (p. 18). According to H.G. Richardson, 'the staff of the chamber, as of the household generally, increased during the reign of Henry 11. This was the consequence of the greater resources and widening activities of the king. One result was the creation of new, but subordinate, offices' (Richardson, 'The Chamber under Henry ir, p. 601). Turner, 'Changing Perceptions of the New Administrative Class', p. 113. Turner has also pointed out that 'an important part of the process of professionalization of government under Henry II and his sons was an increasing use of written records' (R.V. Turner, 'The Judges of King John: Their Background and Training', Speculum, 51 (1976), p. 454; 'The Miles Literatus', p. 929). See also R.M. Thomson, 'England and the Twelfth-Century Renaissance', Past and Present, 101 (1983), pp. 19-20; and D.E. Luscombe and G.R. Evans, 'The Twelfth Century Renaissance', The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c.350-c.l450, ed. J.H. Bums (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 306-341. their courts in this way into his court, so as to enable them to take advice in his court from his learned men', declares his famous legal treatise.'^ Precisely this sort of advice seems to have encouraged the king to pursue a course of action which was finalised with the promulgation of the royal constitutions at Clarendon in 1164. Herbert of Bosham suggests that at the Council of London in October 1163, 'the king, relying on the advice of certain individuals, who made a show of their learning and skill in both branches of the law, incontinently demanded that such guilty clerks should speedily be deprived of their orders and handed over to the civil court'.^^

The administrative and judicial reforms, as well as the legislation that was formulated at royal assemblies, are perhaps manifestations of a wider social and political transformation, one which brought professionals into the royal court and the meeting of councils. If these men had not quite been "raised from the dusf, many were not tenants-in-chief, and were thus socially distinct from those traditionally summoned to these gatherings.'^ Such a process was in part facilitated by Henry's reforms and the unprecedented regularity of conciliar discussions, which must have required expert advice. The royal constitutions at the Council of Clarendon in 1164, the assizes promulgated at the councils of Clarendon in 1166 and Northampton in 1176, the Spanish arbitration at the Council of London 1177, as well as the taxes established at the councils of Clerkenwell in 1185 and Geddington in 1188, are examples of conciliar measures, the complexity of which probably reveals the participation of advisors learned in law, finance, and administration. Rannulf Glanvill, for example, is praised by

Glanvill, p. 103. See also S. Reynolds, 'Law and Communities in Western Christendom, c.900- 1140', The American Journal of Legal History, 25 (1981), p. 223; Clanchy, 'Modemi in Education and Government in England', p. 678; Turner, 'Who was the Author of Glanvill?', pp. 110-111. On the influence and study of Roman law among English jurists and courtiers during the 1170s and 1180s, see pp. 105-109. Turner has indicated that 'a number of Henry IPs servants were familiar with the Digest and the Institutes either through journeys to Bologna or through manuscripts sent to England' (Turner, 'The Judges of King John', p. 457. See also Turner 'Miles Literatus', pp. 943-4; and 'Roman Law in England Before the Time of Bracton', pp. 7-11, 14). ^^ MTB, iv.299. Orderic Vitalis famously critcised Henry I for appointing "men raised from the dust" to royal offices. (Orderic, vi.16-7). See also Lally, 'Secular Patronage at the Court of Henry 11', pp. 172-3, 184: 'Henry's use of low-bom men of no great wealth made the patronage relationships of the court essential to the proper ftinctioning of government...The expansion of royal justice and administration increased the political significance of the curiales immeasurably'. See also Turner, Judges, Administrators and the Common Law, p. 13; and Turner 'Changing Perceptions of the New Administrative Class', pp. 94, 107-8. Roger of Howden for the being the man, 'whose wisdom established the laws which we call English'.'^

Such advisors must have found in Henry II an able monarch, who might be willing to undermine the power of his dominant subjects with a view to establishing peace and order in his kingdom and have local aristocratic power checked by royal officials. According to William of Newburgh, the king was 'pads publicae studiosissimus'}^ and he is 'guided by those of his subjects most learned in the laws and customs of the realm'.

A contemporary explanation of the Grand Assize of 1179, provided in the second book of Glanvill's treatise, best exemplifies the introduction of more rational discourses which may have shaped conciliar discussions in the reign of Henry II. It reads as follows:

The assize is a royal benefit granted to the people by the goodness of the king acting on the advice of his magnates. It takes account so effectively of both human life and civil condition that all men may preserve the rights which they have in any free tenement, while avoiding the doubtful outcome of battle...This legal constitution is based above all on equity; and justice, which is seldom arrived at by battle even after many and long delays, is more easily and quickly attained through its use. Fewer essoins are allowed in the assize than in battle, as will appear below, and so people generally are saved trouble and the poor are saved money. Moreover, in proportion as the testimony of several suitable witnesses in judicial proceedings outweighs that of one man, so this constitution relies more on equity than does battle; for whereas battle is fought on the testimony of one witness, this constitution requires the oaths of at least twelve men.^'

Howden, Chronica, ii.215. Newburgh, p. 282. As suggested by Ronald Butt, 'the crown was withdrawing from reliance on governing through the baronage, and was developing its inner council of professional ministers in the interests of centralized government' (Butt, A History of Parliament, p. 26; see also Turner, 'Roman Law in England Before the Time of Bracton', pp. 15-16, 23-4). Glanvill, pp. 1-2. Refer also to Turner, 'Who was the Author of Glanvill?', pp. 110-111. Glanvill, p. 28. See also Nicholas, The Evolution of the Medieval World, p. 226; Lyon, Constitutional, p. 222; Swanson, The Twelfth-Century Renaissance, p. 81. In reference to the possessory assizes, Michael Clanchy has pointed out, that one its consequences was 'that an obscure freeman, provided he could pay the fees and the bribes demanded by officials, could obtain a portentous document against his lord...Henry II had not probably intended to undermine relations between lords and tenants but this was an inevitable result of making it easier to litigate in the king's court' (Clanchy, England, p. 108). It is difficult to explain why assemblies, attended by magnates and barons, would have seemingly legislated against aristocratic jurisdiction and autonomy. But as Warren explains in reference to the Grand Assize, 'the advantages to all free landholders of the new processes of royal justice were too great for the barons to resist' (Warren, Governance, p. 120 and Carpenter, Struggle for Mastery, p. 240). Another passage which powerfully illustrates these changes is given by Edward Grim concerning a judicial case resolved at the Council of Woodstock in July 1163 (See MTB, ii.373; EHD, ii.761-2; and Mortimer, Angevin England, p. 58). The writing of the Dialogue of the Exchequer, the cited treatise On the Laws and Customs of England, and John of Sahsbury's Policraticus in this period, bear witness to changes in the poUtical ; a transformation that may have played a role in the development of royal assemblies. It appears not to be a coincidence that such administrative manuals, important legal and judicial treatises, and influential political essays, are all products of an age which saw the consolidation of councils as the public occasions for general consultation and territorial politics.^^

The Political Community

At the Council of Woodstock in 1163, the archbishop of Canterbury challenged the king's proposal to raise a new tribute called the sheriffs aid, probably on the basis that such payment was likely to fill the royal coffers instead of assisting county administration. Becket's defiance was not simply a setback for Henry's financial strategies, but more gravely perhaps, it was a public humiliation in front

"" Richard FitzNeal, the author of the Dialogue of the Exchequer, was for sometime the bishop of London and the king's treasurer for almost forty years. See H.G. Richardson, 'Richard FitzNeal and the Dialogus de Scaccario', EHR, 43 (1928), pp. 161-6. See also Lyon, Constitutional, p. 223. The Policraticus was written in this period by John of Salisbury, a political treatise which complements the administrative and legal content of De Legibus and of the Dialogus with political insight. Glanvill and FitzNeal were close to the king and most certainly attended some councils. Roger of Howden's description of conciliar activity is the most detailed among the chronicles, which leads us to think that he was present at some councils at least from the 1170s, when his reports begin to reveal more detail. Glanvill appears in several witness lists, and the Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi tells us that in 1184, 'illi vero congregati Lundoniis coram Ranulfo de Glanvil, justitiario regis, de communi eorum consilio mandaverunt domini regi, quod in consuetudinem verti posset ad detrimentum regni, si permitteret nuncios domini papae in Angliam venire ad collectam faciendam' (Howden, Gesta, i.311). Men like Roger of Howden and Glanvill may call to mind the figure of Roger of Salisbury, the administrator-in-chief of King Henry L Orderic Vitalis says that Henry I 'raised to high rank all these and many others of low birth whom it would be tedious to name individually, lifted them out of insignificance by his royal authority, set them on the summit of power, and made them formidable even to the greatest magnates of the kingdom' (Orderic, vi.l7). While this is certainly descriptive of Henry IPs officials, recent historiography has put Orderic's insights into question by suggesting that power in the Anglo- Norman period resided almost exclusively in the hands of a very small magnate elite (D. Bates, 'Kingship, Government, and Political Life to c.1160'. The Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, ed. B. Harvey (New York, 2001), p. 79). See also Hudson, 'Henry I and Counsel'; and Green, The Government of England, pp. 2-4. The author of The Dialogue of the Exchequer suggests that Henry II, 'is always striving to augment the dignity of those who serve him' {Dialogus de Scaccario, p. 61: \ ..in augendis dignitatibus sibi militantium simper aspirat...'). Although no less rhetorical, FitzNeal's assertion seems less emotional than Orderic's indignant accusation. of the king's nobles assembled in council. According to the vernacular verses of Guemes de Pont-Sainte-Maxence, the archbishop was persuaded to comply with the king's demands and accept the customs by a papal letter brought by an abbot named Philippe de I'Aumone, who also convinced the primate to meet the king at Woodstock.

There they made him make his promise to the king, and concede that he would keep his customs in good faith, loyally; for he did not expect to hear them mentioned again. The king answered him: 'If you wish to consent, you must demonstrate the fact in the presence of all my barons. They have all heard how you have opposed me. If you intend to stand by the agreement you have made, summon all the clergy and I will summon my barons; there shall be no delay. There, in the presence of all of them, declare what you have granted to me'."^

The passage most clearly illustrates the public significance acquired by royal councils in this period. Had Becket's opposition been simply a matter of policy, a private settlement would have perhaps satisfied the king, but since the dispute had been aired to the political community of the kingdom at a council, Henry's insulted pride would settle for nothing less than a formal submission in front of tuz mes barons, according to Guemes, in the presence of all his barons assembled. In fact, the Icelandic prose of the Thomas Saga Erkibyskups explains that as the king and the archbishop 'happened to dissent in a public "parliamenf, so their peace must come about in the same manner'.As indicated in previous chapters, royal councils gradually ceased to be an occasional enlargement of the curia regis and developed towards becoming assemblies of the realm. Several of these meetings were accordingly identified by the sources as "general", not only because they were public occasions for kingdom-wide consultation and the discussion of matters concerning the king and the kingdom, but also because they were attended by the universitas regni or the political community of the realm, without which neither the counsel given nor the business discussed could claim to

Guemes, 911-920, p. 80: 'La a unt fet pramettre al rei e grëanter Que ses custumes volt en bone fei guarde?' E lëalment, -car mes n 'en guide oïr parler. Ce li respunt li reis: "Sel volez agrëer, Vëant tuz mes barons le vus estuet mustrer: Tuit unt 01 cornent m'avez contrallé. E se volez tenir qu 'avez covenancié, Fetes de vostre part asembler le clergié E jeo tuz mes barons, ja n 'i avra targié: La dites oiant tuz kel m'avez otreié '. ^^ Thomas Saga Erkibyskups, ed. and trans. E. Magnússon, 2 volumes (London, 1875), i. 161. be truly general or territorial.^^ These were still royal assemblies and the king's court continued to be the heart of every conciliar occasion, but likewise the parliaments of the following century too were royal assemblies where the king's court played a predominant role in the proceedings.^^

Since it was an issue that concerned the entire political community of England and required, therefore, the counsel and audience of all the nobles, the Becket dispute could not have been resolved anywhere but in a general council of the realm. An ecclesiastical council or a private meeting with the king and his court were not public enough to treat a matter of such importance, for neither gathering would have assembled the community of the realm. This community is beginning to take shape in this period, and it is only in the thirteenth century that it reaches some legal and political recognition. The communitas regni was often associated by constitutional historians with the three estates of society, but in the twelfth century it is likely that commune consilium would have normally referred to consultation and agreement between the king and the baronage.^^

On the presence of the universitas regni at assemblies see appendix 8. Bryce Lyon has argued that the king considered the trial of an archbishop to be such a serious matter that in 1164, 'a feudal court representative of the realm was handing down the judgment' (Lyon, Constitutional, p. 246). It is certainly more appropriate to refer to the meeting at Northampton as a general council than a feudal court, the meaning of which contradicts what has been suggested in this thesis so far. The relationship between the royal court and the meeting of councils has already been discussed in the sections which studied the nomenclature and business of royal assemblies. ^^ See Henry de Bracton, De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae, On the Laws and Customs of England, ed. G.E. Woodbine and trans. S.E. Thome, 4 volumes (Cambridge, MA, 1968-77), iii.43. Bracton indicates that the universitas regni and the baronagium may restrain the actions of a tyrannical monarch: 'si autem princeps vel rex vel alius qui superiorem non habuerit nisi deum, contra ipsum nuon habebitur remedium per assisam, immo tantum locus erit supplicattioni ut factum suum corrigat et emendet, quod si non fecerit, sufficiat ei pro poena quod deum expectet ultorem, qui dicit, mihi vindictam etego retribuam, nisi sit qui dicit quod universitas regni et baronagium suum hoc facere posit et debeat in curia ipsius regis'. In regards to the election of King John, for instance, Hubert Walter said, according to Mathew Paris, 'noverit discretio vestra, quod nullus praevia ratione alii succedere habet in regum, nisi ab universitate regni unanimiter, invocate Spiritus gratia, electus...' (Matthew Paris, Matthaei Parisiensis Chronica Majora, ed. H.R Luard, 7 volumes (London, 1872-84), ii.454-5). See also S.T.J. Miller, The Position of the King in Bracton and Beaumanoir', Speculum, 31 (1956), pp. 265-6; H.G. Richardson, 'The Commons in Medieval Polities', TRHS, Fourth Series, 28 (1946), p. 22; Sayles and Richardson, Parliaments and Great Councils, p. 8; C. Radding, 'The Origins of Bracton's Addicio de Cartis', Speculum, 44 (1969), p. 239; B. Tiemey, 'Bracton on Government', Speculum, 38 (1963), pp. 303, 309, 314; F.W. Maitland, Bracton's Notebook: A Collection of Cases Decided in the King's Courts During the Reign of Henry the Third, volume 1 (London, 1887), pp. 32-3; Richardson, 'The Commons and Medieval Polities', pp. 24-5. In reference to the nature of representation at the first pariiaments. Alec Myers has indicated that 'juridical theory ordinarily conceived of the nobles as representing, in their capacity as territorial lords, the whole population of what was still a predominantly agrarian society' (Myers, Parliaments and Estates, p. 26). The lay and ecclesiastical nobles were not summoned to assemblies as representatives of their dioceses, counties, shires, and their baronies, nor did they speak on behalf of their faithful or vassals. Such misconception would imply the prevalence of proto-democratic representation and would thus assume that all free inhabitants of the kingdom were entitled to participate in the political discussions concerning the monarchy and the kingdom, either in person or by proxy. The praesules and proceres of the kingdom were summoned by the monarchs to attend royal assemblies not as representatives, but as potentiores, a functional expression of their political and religious influence, military and economic power, as well as their social status. They had the duty of providing counsel and the right of discussing the general affairs of the kingdom at assemblies, not because they represented the community of the realm, but because they were the community of the realm. The dispute between the bishops and the barons at the Council of Northampton concerning the conviction of Thomas Becket groups lay and ecclesiastical nobles into one community, when they were assembled at councils. William FitzStephen records the following dialogue between the nobles when the king demanded the pronouncement of a sentence:

The barons said, 'You bishops ought to pronounce sentence. This does not concern us. We are laymen, you are ecclesiastics like him, his fellow priests and fellow bishops'. To this one of the bishops replied, 'No, this is your duty, not ours, for this is a secular judgment, not an ecclesiastical one. We sit here not as bishops but as barons. Here we are barons just like you'. ^^

It could be suggested that many meetings of the Anglo-Saxon royal assembly looked rather like ecclesiastical gatherings because churchmen and church business often predominated. The preponderance of ecclesiastical presence at the sessions of the Witan is also revealed in charters and diplomas linked to the meetings, many of which qualified these councils as "synodal" and often witnessed by several bishops and abbots.^^ Earls were summoned mainly because

^^ Hody, Councils, p. 221. According to Hody, the term proceres used in connection with the parliaments of the thirteenth century, 'must be understood as the chief of the commonalty, since the earls and barons were at that time the whole nobility'. According to Sayles, the "commune" was 'the group of conspiratorial prelates, earls and barons who regarded themselves as representing the "community" of England' {The Functions, pp. 69-70). ^^ MTB, iii.52 {The Lives of Thomas Becket, pp. 102-3). The importance of ecclesiastical business discussed at the Witan is laid out in Oleson, The Witenagemot, pp. 91-101. Examples of diplomatic sources connected to meetings of the Witan from C.700 to c.lOOO are printed in Spelman, Concilia, i. 189-90, 230-1, 317, 324; Pierquin, Conciles, pp. 445-7, 460, 468-71, 482-4, 443-4, 492-4; Kelly, Anglo-Saxon Charters, Abingdon, they were royal appointees and the prelates attended the meetings in lieu of their spiritual status.^' After the Norman invasion, all of England became royal property and those entrusted with the administration of land accordingly became the king's tenants. This tenurial relationship came with a number of mutual obligations, one of which is believed to be the duty of tenants to provide counsel to the king at assemblies. According to Ronald Butt, therefore, the main difference between the composition of the Witan and the Norman council is that the latter 'was a baronial assembly of tenants-in-chief, even prelates now being present principally in their capacity as tenants'.^^ This might explain why the episcopal participation at Northampton in 1164 was not to be singled out, and why the bishops claimed to have been present at the council by virtue of their property rather than their office.

According to Bryce Lyon, 'the Angevins preferred to convoke special great councils to consider issues pertinent to the whole realm...composed of all the royal vassals, that is, the baronage'.^^ Henry certainly wanted the archbishop of Canterbury to apologise in the presence of "all the barons", as Guemes records, but it is altogether improbable that every single one of the king's barons was present at the councils convened for the trial. It is also difficult to determine exactly what the term "barons" entails. It is therefore relevant to determine who expected to be summoned and who was actually present at royal councils between 1155 and 1188 with a view to establishing a correspondence between the increasingly public character of assemblies and general or territorial attendance. This information can only be sought in an analysis of chronicle passages and the witness lists of charters connected with conciliar activity.

English assemblies which met before the 1150s were well attended, and thus the changes in the composition of councils throughout the twelfth century are not substantial. Interestingly, however, while the attendance at most English councils nos. 124, 129. See also Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, nos. 22, 90, 168, 876, 937, 1428b, 1430a, 1431a, 1436, 1438, 1439. The most detailed study of the composition of the late Anglo-Saxon Witan is offered in Oleson, The Witenagemot, pp. 48-61. See Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p. 553: The bishops, abbots, and earls attended in virtue of offices which they held by a royal grant; the priests belonged to the king's household; the thegns were present in obedience to a royal summons'. ^^ Butt, A History of Parliament, p. 21. ^^ Lyon, Constitutional, p. 246. after the 1150s is explicitly identified by the chronicles as general or as gathering the entire kingdom, such descriptions are rarely employed by the narrative sources for the assemblies of Henry I and Stephen. Phrases such omnes nobiles, universis or omnibus in regni and nobiles totius Anglie, are used by English chronicles to describe those summoned and congregated at more than half of Henry IPs assemblies, while only a handful of councils before the 1150s are identified by the sources as territorial or general.

Diplomatic evidence for the Anglo-Saxon period clearly indicates that many of the sessions of the witenagemot must have gathered crowds comparable to Angevin councils.^^ The councils of Henry I which assembled at Nottingham in 1109, Westminster in 1115, Gloucester in 1123, Windsor in 1126, Northampton in 1131, and Winchester in 1133, all gathered groups of bishops and magnates that come close to the size of the largest councils of Henry II. Equally impressive were the multitudes gathered at councils of Oxford and Westminster in 1136, Winchester in 1141 and Westminster in 1153. Only a few assemblies, however, are reported by contemporary sources as having gathered the entire nobility of the kingdom.^^

Terms such as universitas regni and communitas regni rarely appear in the accounts for the reign of Henry II, but there are at least some references to a group which could be identified as the political community of the kingdom.^^ The trial of Becket, for example, contains references to this group. Not satisfied with a private submission, Henry required the archbishop to assent to the royal constitutions in public at the Council of Clarendon in 1164, a gathering to which the king summoned the entire kingdom with all its prelates and magnates. According to the description in Herbert of Bosham's account, the king 'regnum

See appendices 2 and 8. ^^ See Spelman, Concilia, i.189-90, 230-1, 317, 324; Pierquin, Conciles, pp. 445-7, 460, 468-71, 482-4, 443-4, 492-4; Kelly, Anglo-Saxon Charters, Abingdon, nos. 124, 129. See also Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, nos. 22, 90, 168, 876, 937, 1428b, 1430a, 1431a, 1436, 1438, 1439. ^^ Some clauses which signify the presence of all the nobles at assemblies between 1100 and 1154 can be found in John of Worcester, pp. 102, 138, 168; Eadmer, HN, iv.231, 237; Malmesbury, HN, p. 6; RRAN, ii. no. 918; iii. no. 928. Some Anglo-Saxon documents linked to concilia and with large witness lists can be found printed in Spelman, Concilia, i.189-90, 230-1, 317, 324; Pierquin, Conciles, pp. 445-7, 460, 468-71, 482-4, 443-4, 492-4; Kelly, Anglo-Saxon Charters, Abingdon, nos. 124,'129. ^^ See appendix 8 for examples. convocat universum, presules regni et proceres. Et infra dies paucos conveniunt universi, ubi in omnium conspectu et primus ante omnes archipresul in pretacta forma se obligat, quod videlicet regias consuetudines foret observaturus bona

"S Q fide... Interestingly, the biographer of Thomas Becket here associates the nobles of England with the entire kingdom, an association which is similarly made by William of Newburgh in reference to the Scottish presence at the Council of York in 1175. Accordingly, the royal summons are described as "universal" for this gathering and also for the Council of Bridgnorth in 1155, all of which appear to have been attended by the political community, meaning here the nobility of the kingdom.^^

The phrases totius Anglie and omnes in Anglia were frequently employed in the sources after the 1150s, and appear to be alternatives for universus in the description of the composition of royal councils. It is suggested that these concepts best described those who expected to be summoned rather than those actually in attendance at assemblies. According to Gervase of Canterbury, the princes of the entire kingdom {praesulum et principum totius Angliae) were called to assemble at a council in Wallingford in order to restore peace after Hugh de Mortimer's rebellion, early in 1155."^® Irritated by Becket's defiance at the Council of Clarendon early in 1164, Henry II called another council to meet in October at Northampton, where according to the account of Ralph of Diceto, 'convenerunt illuc episcopi, comités, barones, totius regni, mandato regis urgenteThe term

^^ MTB, iii.278-9. See also CS, p. 885. ^^ Newburgh, p. 198: 'Veniensque in Angliam, apud Eboracam metropolim eorundem celebrationem pactorum instituit. Quo cum venisset optimatum suorum vallatus frequentia, prout condictum erat, occurrit ei rex Scottorum cum universis regni sui nobilìbus. Qui omnes in ecclesia beatissimi Apostoìorum principis, regi Angìorum tanquam principali domino, hominum cum ligantia, id est, sollemni cautione standi cum eo et pro eo contra hominess, rege proprio praecipiente fecerunt. Ipse quoque rex Scottorum coram universa multitudine nobilium utriusque regni regem Anglorum modis sollemnibus dominum suum seque hominem et fidelem ejus declaravit; eique tria praecipua regni sui munimina, scilicet Rokesburg, Berewic, Castellum Puellarum, loco obsidum tradidit'. The term is also employed in Battle Chronicle (pp. 161-2), in reference to the nobles participating at the Council of Bridgnorth in 1155: 'Haut multo postmodum tempore rex ipsum Hugonem ad deditionem coegit, mandans per Angliam universam archiepiscopos, episcopos et abbatum plurimos, comites et barones universos, quarto die precedente festum sancti Benedicti estivi temporis ibidem convenire. Quibus congregatis, pax inter regem et Hugonem facta est'. Susan Reynolds explains that in the thirteenth century, the 'communitas and its derivates could mean either the whole community, including great men (and in some contexts the king himself), or only the "common people'" {Kingdoms, p. 318). Gervase, i.l62. Diceto, i.313-4. is again used by Gervase when describing those summoned for the Council of London in 1170 and by the monk of Battle in reference to those present at the coronation of Henry II in 11It may be of some significance that the description of the attendance at a most public event, namely a royal coronation, is similar to that referring to those present at councils.

The Council of Northampton in 1164 is described in the account of William FitzStephen, who reports that 'on the second day, when the bishops, earls and all the barons of England ( 'episcopi, comités, barones Anglie omnes '), as well as many from Normandy, had taken their seats...the archbishop was accused of contempt of the Crown'.^^ According to Roger of Howden, in August 1176 the nobles of England all congregated in the city of Winchester ('congregatis omnibus...in urbe Wintonia') for a council which put an end to a dispute between the archbishops of Canterbury and York. The following year another assembly gathered in London a multitude so large that it could hardly be counted, 'venerunt etiam illuc tot abbates, tot decani, tot archidiaconi, quo sub numéro non cadebant. Venerunt etiam illuc comités et barones regni, quorum non est numerus. Et congregatis omnibus in regia apud Lundonias just as two months later they all assembled at Geddington and then Windsor to celebrate yet another council, 'venerunt autem ibi ad eum fere omnes comités et barones et milites regni These chronicle passages are not simply reporting that assemblies were attended by a great number of nobles, but they intend to assert that all the important magnates of the kingdom had been summoned.

The witness lists of English charters granted at assemblies are relatively short and can hardly be a clear indication of the total number of those present at a council, since the names would normally correspond to those particularly concerned with the privilege or donation conceded or close to the king when the

Gervase, i.219: 'Convenerunt interim die statuto ex mandato Regis adLondoniam totius Angliae episcopi, abbates, comités, barones vicecomites, praepositi, aldermanni cum fidejussoribus suis, timentes valde omnes'. Battle Chronicle, p. 152: 'Adveniente itaque domino nostro Henrico duce, atque apud Westmonasterium anno incarnationis dominice eodem, xiii kalendas lanuarii in regem elevato, et a venerabili Teodbaldo Cantuariensi archiepiscopo et totius Anglie primate necnon et apostolice sedis legato ibidem coronato, totius Anglie primoribus ad eum confluentibus, iuste Consilio eorum omnia disponebat '. MTB, iii.49-58. '' Howden, Gesta, i.118-9, 144-5, 160-1. charter was drafted.^^ There are, however, a few exceptions, like those hsts of witnesses incorporated into a treaty with the count of Flanders and grants to the bishop of Lincoln and St Albans Abbey. No such lists are available for the Council of Wallingford in 1155, attended by praesulum et principum totius Angliae according to Gervase of Canterbury.^^ The large number of witnesses to the royal constitutions approved at the Council of Clarendon corroborates the general character of the assembly of 1164, which according to Gervase of Canterbury and Ralph of Diceto, was attended by the two archbishops, twelve bishops and nearly forty nobles, including no less than ten earls."^^ Like the gathering at Clarendon, the Council of Northampton in 1164 was also a general assembly, described in the sources as a generale concilium and attended by 48 'episcopis, comitibus, baronibus Anglie omnibus \ It is clear that witness lists of charters may sometimes help towards deciphering the attendance at councils, but are never a definite indication of how many were actually present at assemblies. The attendance at the Council of London in 1170, for example, is hardly given a territorial character by the very few witnesses in royal charters notifying the settlement between the archbishop of Rouen and the bishop of Nevers, and granting an award to Robert Mantel, both of which appear to be connected with the meeting."^^ It is evident, on the contrary, that this council was attended by a large gathering described by Gervase as 'totius Angliae episcopi, abbates, comités, barones vicecomites, praepositi, aldermanni cum fidejussoribus'^^ Henry's arbitration between the kings of Castile and Navarre was witnessed by twenty-seven nobles at the Council of London in March 1177. This assembly, however, is described by Roger of Howden as a generale concilium and those present as omnibus in regia, thus indicating that the witness list represents but a portion of those in attendance at the council.^' Similarly, Roger also reports that a

Appendix 6 reveals the possible connection between royal grants and concilar activity, as well as to the size of witness lists. Gervase, i.l62. Gervase, i.l78; Diceto, i.313-4. MTB, i.44; iii.49-58; v. 134, no. 71; v. 135 no. 72; CCR, ii.97, no. 4. However, two letters sent to the king of France -one of which peculiarly describes the meeting as a "plenary council"-, and a charter granted to Sibton Abbey, are contemporary with the meeting of this council, but are nevertheless witnessed by only two testes\ hardly an indication of general attendance. MTB, vii.300, no. 669. Gervase, i.219. Howden, Gesta, i. 144-5; Delisle, Recueil, no. 505; El Reino de Castilla, ii.267-9. royal council to establish peace and stability in the kingdom brought 'omnes comités et bar ones et milites regni', to the town of Geddington in May 1177. 52

According to the chronicler of Battle Abbey, the king 'sent throughout England to the archbishops, bishops, and many abbots, and to all the earls and barons' to meet him at the Council of Bridgnorth in 1155.^^ In order to be in the presence of his barons at Clarendon in 1164, the king 'regnum convocat universum, presules regni et proceres as stated in the account of Herbert of Bosham, which is also corroborated by Roger of Howden in suggesting that Henry commanded 'universis comitibus et baronibus regni' to draft the royal constitutions to be approved at the council. Roger's narrative also gives notice of the presence of 'omnibus archiepiscopis et episcopis Angliae ' at the Council of Westminster in 1163, a gathering that resembles that at the Council of London in 1170, which according to the Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, was attended by 'omnibus comitibus et baronibus et nobilioribus regni', and that at the Council of London in 1177, which congregated 'omnibus in regia'. Likewise, the Council of Northampton in 1164 was attended, according to William FitzStephen, by the 'episcopis, comitibus, baronibus Anglic omnibus ', a multitude similarly described by Ralph of Diceto as 'episcopi, comités, barones, totius regni

Like the use of générale concilium, the recurrence of such descriptions should not be reduced to a change in terminology, for the terms used to identify universal attendance were also employed before the 1150s, just as générale concilium was also used to designate gatherings prior to the reign of Henry IL According to the narrative sources, the royal councils at London in 1102, 1107, 1115, 1136, and 1153, Salisbury in 1116, Gloucester in 1123, Windsor in 1126, and Northampton in 1138, were all attended by the entire body of nobles. Change in terminology then can hardly provide a comprehensive explanation for the multiplication of such descriptions after the 1150s, and nor can the rhetoric of medieval chronicles.

^^ Howden, Gesta, i. 160-1. Royal charters to Christ Church Cathedral and St Augustine's Abbey may have been connected with the discussions at this council, but were drafted at Windsor, and testified only by twelve nobles (L. Delisle, Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes, 49 (Paris, 1908), no. 98, pp. 569-70). ^^ Battle Chronicle, pp. 160-1 : 'mandansper Angliam universam archiepiscopos, episcopos et abbatum plurimos, comités et barones universos ^^ Refer to MTB, iii.49-58, 278-9; CS, p. 885; Howden, Chronica, i.220, 221; Howden, Gesta, i.4- 5, 144; Diceto, i.313-4. This is not to suggest that all the king's tenants were always in attendance at royal councils, but that all of those who belonged to the political community of the kingdom were invariably summoned, whether by personal letters or by royal messengers. The template address which often initiates Henry IPs charters provides a hint as to who was called to assemblies: 'Henricus rex Anglorum et Normannorum et Aquitanorum et comes Andegauorum archiepiscopis, episcopis, abbatibus, comitibus, iusticiis, vicecomitibus, baronibus, ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis totius Anglie salutem It is clear that not "all the faithful" of the king were summoned to general consultations, but the archbishops, bishops, earls, barons, as well as the important royal officials were the regular attenders at these gatherings. And although many charters were also addressed to the nobility of Normandy, Aquitaine, Brittany and Anjou, these magnates were rarely in attendance at councils held in England. This is an important consideration, because it is possible that the unprecedented frequency reached by royal councils in this period meant that the nobles residing in England could get together on a regular basis and thus gradually develop a esprit de corp that was accelerated with the loss of Normandy in 1204, and that facilitated corporative action against royal abuses in 1205 and 1215.

A royal council offered perhaps the most appropriate setting for large-scale political and social interaction between the nobles of the kingdom. Just as church councils contributed towards maintaining not only doctrinal but also social cohesion among the prelates, royal assemblies not only served to obtain the adherence of the magnates to royal policy, but they must have also strengthened a sense of community among those present. The concept of a community of the realm may not have been entirely foreign to chroniclers before the reign of Henry II, but the unprecedented regularity with which nobles met each other at councils between 1155 and 1188, effectively turned a concept of political theory into a social reality. It is difficult to believe, therefore, that the same group of barons interacting so regularly in political activity might altogether fail to develop some measure of corporative sentiment. A letter sent by Gilbert Foliot to Becket in

^^ CCR, ii.438-9. This was possibly discussed at the Council of Winchester in 1155. 1166 powerfully illustrates the social phenomenon prompted by conciliar activity in this period. The bishop of London reminded the archbishop in exile of the difficult proceedings at the Council of Northampton in October 1164, when 'the people assembled as one man, and when all had taken their seats according to

their dignity and rank' ( 'conuenitpopulus ut uir unus

Large assemblies fulfilled an important social role in a world fragmented by local power and by the primitive state of central government. To this point, monarchical governance was exercised primarily by means of itineration, but the enlargement of the Angevin dominions in the second half of the twelfth century and the increase of royal intervention in the localities, were among the factors which contributed towards making councils a regular complement to visitations.^^ Pressing administrative and financial demands prompted by expanding territories and the new complexities generated by distant dominions, economic and demographic explosions, eventually effected the sédentarisation of the royal court, the treasury and the Exchequer. In the twelfth century, rulers and their courts kept on the move, but an institutional alternative to governing by visitation was provided by the consolidation of territorial assemblies. Robert Bartlett, in his recent study of the government of the Norman and Angevin kings in England, explains that for the household court 'an alternative to visiting every comer of the kingdom was to bring men from every comer of the kingdom to a great assemblyIn reference to the first parliamentary assemblies in the thirteenth

^^ The Correspondence of Thomas Becket, i.515, no. 109. ^^ The relationship between assemblies and royal itineration can be seen in appendix 1. The Plantagenets in England from Henry II to John, devoted a great deal of economic and human resources to various military quests which aimed at the dominance of what is now Britain and France. By the end of the reign of Henry II, the Angevin dominions stretched from the Scottish border to the French Pyrenees. David Herlihy has suggested that 'nearly all historians are agreed that an underlying phenomenon of the second feudal age was a substantial and continuing growth in population' (D. Herlihy, The History of Feudalism (London, 1970), p. 34) See also E. Mason, 'Britain 1200', History Today, 50 (2000), pp. 39-45. She has suggested that 'England's population doubled between c.1086 and c.1300', p. 39. J.C. Russell has estimated that the population of England grew from 1.1 million in 1086 to 3.75 millions in 1348 (J.C. Russell, British Medieval Population (Albuquerque, 1948), p. 72). ^^ Bartlett, England, p. 143; Miller, The Origins of Parliament, p. 10. Désiré Pasquet argues that this political transformation is evidently manifested in the king's efforts to bring all his subjects under his direct authority, a desire that went as far as initiating the déstabilisation of the entire feudal framework. In his essays on the origins of the House of Commons, Pasquet explains that this déstabilisation was concretised by royal policies which practically abolished the distinction between tenants-in-chief and sub-vassals. In other words, the king's attempt to centralise government was transforming feudal vassals into subjects of the crown. century, Edward Miller has suggested, moreover, that 'among the features which characterise early parliaments we may not ignore the habit of bringing the whole governmental force of England into a focus, the habit of concentrating intense administrative activity on the part of all the officials and offices of the king's government in one place and at the same time'.^^ In a period when governance was entangled between the growth of institutional structures and the strengthening of territorial kingship, the consolidation of conciliar consultation and the presence of the universitas regni at assemblies, dramatically reversed traditional methods and ceased to take the monarch to the kingdom by bringing the kingdom to the monarch. Councils facilitated centrifugal and centripetal governance: the participation of the nobles kept the king in touch with and sensible to regional affairs, and the nobles aligned with the measures of central government. In addition, these meetings prompted social contact between people separated by distance and difficult communications, and thus probably assisted the consolidation of a community of the realm.

The reign of Henry II witnessed nothing like Magna Carta, not because of the inexistence of a communitas regni or a baronagium which could have reacted corporatively against royal abuses, but mainly because unlike his son, Henry had not given them enough reasons for doing so. The extent to which consensual politics and cooperative governance developed in this period is not characteristic of a community obliged by ceremonial compliance, but it is a phenomenon mainly associated with the regularity of conciliar activity and a credit to Henry's ability in managing the barons.

Archbishops, Bishops, and Abbots

In the social hierarchy of the twelfth century, the members of the royal family and foreign rulers were closely followed by the archbishops of the realm, whose presence was fundamental in the composition of great assemblies. The primates of England must have been summoned to royal assemblies individually by means of

^^ Miller, The Origins of Parliament, p. 10. See also Holt, 'The Prehistory of Parliament', pp. 4-6. personal writs, the recipients of which could only be excused from attendance by extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, the absence of archbishops at the meeting of general councils was a most unusual phenomenon, prompted by the vacancy of sees, frailty of health, or the animosities of political conflict.

The Church in England was governed by two archiépiscopal sees. The relationship between the archbishops of York and Canterbury in the twelfth century was sometimes shaped by pastoral rivalry and jurisdictional disputes, but when the community of the realm was assembled at royal councils, the northern primate was not only subordinated to the primacy of Canterbury, whose prelate was totius Anglie primatus and sometimes also apostolice sedis legatus, but often handicapped by the peripheral nature of his see, so distant from the meeting places. Most assemblies were attended only by archbishop Theobald of Canterbury throughout the 1150s, and rarely were councils deprived of archiépiscopal presence thereafter. It is difficult to find meetings where neither of the archbishops is present, although it must have been rather more arduous for the archbishop of York to travel south and attend councils which had become considerably more regular. Archbishop Thomas Becket was present at most gatherings until his quarrel with the king erupted in 1163, forcing the prelate to escape from the Council of Northampton in October 1164, and spend the next five years in exile. The two archbishops had been present at Henry's coronation in 1154 and at the councils of London and Woodstock in 1163, and Clarendon in 1164. Becket returned to England in 1170 only to be murdered a few months later, leaving the see of Canterbury empty for more than two years before the election of Richard of Dover in 1173.^^ Becket's exile and the vacancy at Canterbury had elevated the position of the archbishop of York, who had managed to infuriate the English primate by crowning Henry's eldest son at Westminster in June 1170. According to the narrative sources, after the election of a new archbishop for Canterbury, the two archbishops attended royal councils together at Northampton,

Gervase, i.l60, 163, 174, 176-180; Diceto, i.298-9, 311-312; Battle Chronicle, pp. 152, 208; Torigni, iv.l82, 218; GFL, no. 143; EEA, ii. nos. 34, 37; Registrum Antiquissimum (Lincoln), i.64- 6, no. 104; Howden, Chronica, i.2\9-22\; MTB, ii.373; Guemes, pp. 80-84; Newburgh, pp. 141-2. London and Winchester in 1176, and Geddington in 1188.^' The Norman archbishop of Rouen was also present at Henry's coronation, the archbishop of Dublin attended the Council of Windsor in 1175, and the patriarch of Jerusalem was probably present at the discussions concerning the organisation of a crusade at the Council of Clerkenwell in 1185.^"

The significant involvement and initiative taken by archbishops at the meeting of assemblies in England is a theme that recurs in chronicle passages and diplomatic clauses, since they were not only spiritual mentors of the kingdom and administrators the English church, but they were also landed lords. After the monarch and the royal family, they were the most influential members of the political community of the realm and they often played dominant roles at royal gatherings.^^

The number of bishops attending councils in this period varied because Henry maintained some sees vacant -sometimes for many years- so as to receive the episcopal revenue. No bishoprics were created during the reign of Henry II, Ely and Carlisle being the last sees created during the reign of his grandfather. Although the chronicles often describe assemblies as gathering omnes episcopi regni or praesules totius Anglie, it is improbable that such a clause actually reveals the presence of the entire English episcopate at a council.^

The nobles who witnessed the coronation of Henry are named by Robert of Torigni, including all the bishops of the English kingdom, and several Norman magnates:

Henricus dux Normannorum...die Dominica ante Nativitatem Domini, apud Westmonastehum ab omnibus electus et in regem unctus est a Theobaldo

Howdea Gesta. i.4-5. 94. 107-111, 118-9, 280, ii.33; Torigni, iv.244-5; Gervase, i.218-8, 254-5, 409; Diceto, i.338, 407-8; ii.51; Howden, Chronica, ii.4-5, 79, 87-92, 94, 259, 335-8; CM p. 91 ('The Chronicle of Melrose', p. 21). Howdea Chronica, ii.83, 301-2; Howdea Gesta, i.lOl, 336; Diceto, ii.33; Gervase, i.325. ^^ See appendices 7 and 8. The participation of the archbishops is most notably reported for the councils of Northampton in 1157 and in 1176, London in 1170, York in 1175, Winchester in 1176 Reading in 1184, Geddington 1188, and the assemblies of 1163-4. ^ Refer to Handbook of British Chronology, third edition, ed. E.B. Fryde et a! (Cambridge, 1996). pp. 205, 210, 216, 220-29, 233-9, 242-51, 258-60. Some sees remained vacant for long periods, thus unable to provide a prelate for council meetings. There were fifteen bishoprics in England during Henry's reign, but there were normally three or four sees vacant at any one time. archiepiscopo Cantuahensi. Affuerunt etiam episcopi omnes Anglici regni, Rogehus archiepiscopus Eboracensis, Ricardus episcopus Lundoniensis, Henricus Wintoniensis, Robertus Lincolniensis, Gualterius Cestrensis, Gislebertus Herefordensis, Robertus Exoniensis, Hilarius Cestrensis (Cicestrensis), Goscelinus Salesberiensis, Galterius Roffensis, Nigellus Heliensis, Willelmus Nothvicensis (Nordwicensis), Hugo Dunelmensis, Adalulfus Carlivensis. Affuerunt et de Normannia vir religiosus ac timens Deum venerabilis Hugo, archiepiscopus Rothomagensis, Philippus Baiocensis, Arnulfus Lexoviensis (Luxovienses), Herbertus Abrincensis (Abrincatensis) episcope. Affuerunt comités regni illius, et de regno Francorum Theodericus, comes Flandrensis, et alii plures.^^

Large gatherings were typical of such public ceremonies, but the decades that followed Henry's accession witnessed several royal councils also attended by many bishops, particularly those assembled at Westminster in 1163, Clarendon and Northampton in 1164 and London in 1177, all of which gathered more than ten prelates.^^ Gervase of Canterbury included in his narrative the clauses of the royal constitutions promulgated at the Council of Clarendon in 1164, which were witnessed by twelve bishops, including the bishop of Saint David's. The events at Clarendon were indeed extraordinary and we might expect, therefore, that such large congregation of bishops was unusual for a royal council. The witness list approving Henry's arbitration between the kings of Navarre and Castile reveals those who were present at the Council of London in 1177, among them, ten English bishops, and a few other prelates representing four Welsh dioceses.^^ The archbishop of York is not on the list of witnesses, but Roger of Howden explains that he was unable to attend due to sickness, and this also appears to be the case of the bishops of Chester and Salisbury, who were also excused. There was no bishop of Lincoln, since the see was vacant. Li the words of the Gesta Henrici

^^ Torigni, iv.l82. This list is not unique among chronicle accounts, but it is by no means an ordinary description. A similar example is found in the Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, which describes the Council of London in 1170 as follows: 'In praedicto autem concilio, rex fecit summonere Rogerium Eboracensem archiepiscopum, et Hugonem Dunelmensem episcopum, et alios episcopos regni sui, quod essent apud Londonias festo Sancii Barnabae apostolic, ad coronandum Henricum filium suum majorem. Ipsi vero, sicut eis praeceptum fuerat, convenerunt apud Londonias statuto tempore, et Dominica seguenti, quae evenit octavo decimo kalendas Julii, scilicet vigilia Sanctorum Viti et Modesti martyrum et Sanctae Crescentiae virginis, fecit rex Henricus filium suum Henricum majorem coronari, et in regem consecrari apud Westmonasterium, ab Rogero Eboracensi archiepiscopo et apostolicae sedis legato, ministrantibus ei in ilio officio Hugone Dunelmensi episcopo et Gilleberto Lundoniensi episcopo, et Joscelino Salesbiriensi episcopo, et Walterio Rofensi episcopo, astantibus etiam fere omnibus comitibus et baronibus et nobilioribus regwz" (Howden, Gesta, i.4-5). ^^ GEL, no. 143; EEA, ii. nos. 34, 37; Registrum Antiquissimum (Lincoln), i.64-6, no. 104; Diceto, i.312-4', 419; Howden, Chronica, i.221, 224, ii.l33; Gervase, i.176-180, 182-3; US, pp. 468-9; The Correspondence of Thomas Becket, ii.32, 95; Howden, Gesta, i.143-151; Delisle, Recueil, no. 505. ^^ Gervase, i. 178-181 ; ^//A ii.766-70; English Lawsuits, ii.546-7, no. 494. Secundi, 'Rogerus vero Eboracensis archiepiscopus venire non poterat, quia detentus erat infirmitate. Neque illuc venire poterant Joscelinus Saresbiriensis episcopus, neque episcopus Cestriae. Episcopatus autem Lincolniae adhuc vacabat'.^^ Roger of Howden's explanation is indeed significant because it reveals that the entire episcopate of England was expected to attend assemblies.

Several other meetings would have certainly assembled a similar multitude of bishops, but the absence of witness lists or detailed narrative descriptions associated with conciliar activity hinders any definite conclusions. It is important to consider, however, that charters connected to the same meeting often have different witnesses, and that individual witness lists would normally reveal the minimum number of bishops present. At the Council of York in August 1175, while a royal charter to Fountains Abbey was testified by eight witnesses (among them the bishop of Durham), another grant to St Clement's Priory was witnessed by thirteen nobles including the bishops of Durham and Ely.^^

The abbots also formed part of the political community, and were accordingly summoned by the monarch to provide counsel at the large assemblies of the kingdom. Many controlled large territories and their presence at assemblies was, therefore, an important source of information. The position and power of some monasteries also constituted an outpost of allegiance for monarchical governance, otherwise unable to reach unpopulated areas and maintain loyalties across the realm. Importantly then, just as the archbishops were summoned to royal assemblies as a result of their status and power, and not as representatives of the kingdom's clerics, and just as the bishops had attended gatherings not just as representatives of their dioceses but as nobles with lands and influence, the abbots regularly went to royal councils, not because the monarchs wanted their religious communifies represented, but because they were distinguished members within the kingdom's nobility in their own right, who could fulfil a crucial task of regional governance.^^

^^ Howden, Gesta, i. 144-5; Howden, Chronica, ii. 120-1. ^^ EYC, i.74-5, no. 78; Monasticon, iv.325, no. 5. Further information on the presence of abbots at assemblies may be found in Chew, The English Ecclesiastical Tenants-in-Chief and Knight Service; and A.M. Reich, The Parliamentary^ Abbots to 1470: A Study in English Constitutional History (Berkeley, 1941); and H.M. Cam, Law-finders The presence of abbots at English councils must have been a regular event, but this is only rarely mentioned in the diplomatic and chronicle sources. Gervase of Canterbury reports the presence of abbots at Northampton in 1157 and London in 1170, an assembly that gathered 'totius Angliae episcopi, abbates, comités, barones vicecomites, praepositi, aldermanni cum fidejussoribus suis',^^ while the Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi affirms that abbots attended the councils of 72 Woodstock and York in 1175, Westminster in 1176 and London in 1177. Furthermore, the chronicle of Battle Abbey reports that many abbots were summoned to the Council of Bridgnorth in 1155, and that a dispute between the bishop of Chichester and the abbot of Battle was brought to the king's attention at the Council of Bury St Edmunds in May 1157, and resolved a week later at another meeting in Colchester, which was also attended by the abbot of St Augustine (Canterbury).^^ The letters of bishop Gilbert of Foliot and the episcopal acta of Lincoln reveal the presence of abbots at the Council of Northampton which assembled in July 1157 to settle a dispute between the archbishop of Canterbury, and the abbot of St Augustine. Similarly, the bishop of Lincoln and the abbot of St Albans resolved their controversy at the Council of Westminster in 1163, as revealed by a notification from the archbishop of Canterbury and a charter to St Albans witnessed by six abbots, all of whom must have been present at the council.^"^ There is further mention of the names of abbots as witnesses to charters and diplomas granted at assemblies in this period, as well as participating in the process of consultation. Longueville Priory was the beneficiary of a royal charter testified by three abbots in concilio as the charter proclaims, for example, at the Council of Winchester in 1155, while one abbot witnessed a grant to

and Law-makers in Medieval England: Collected Studies in Legal and Constitutional History (London, 1962), p. 89. Gervase, 1.219. The Council of Northampton was probably attended by some twelve abbots. See Gervase, 1.163, Parry, Parliaments, p. 12. ^^ According to these accounts, the Council of Woodstock was attended by all the abbots of the Archdiocese of Canterbury {omnes abbates totius Angliae Cantuariensis diócesis), while the Council of York was attended by all the Scottish abbots {omnes abbates terrae suae). Importantly, both the Council of Westminster and London were attended by all the abbots of the kingdom {omnes episcopos et abbates et priores tocius Anglie; and tot abbates). See Howden, Chronica, ii.78-9; Howden, Gesta, i.92-3, 94-5, 112-114, 144-5. ^^ Battle Chronicle, pp. 160, 175-7; The Cartulary of Shrewsbury Abbey, i.48-9, no. 41. The notifications of such settlement can be found in GFL, no. 293, pp. 356-7; EEA, i.61; ii.22-4; English Lawsuits, ii.378-9, no. 405. Fountains Abbey at the Council of York in 11757^ Furthermore, some abbots congregated along the earls and barons of England at the Council of Clerkenwell to discuss issues concerning a crusade to Jerusalem, according to the account of Ralph of Diceto. Furthermore, a settlement reached between Baldwin, archbishop of Canterbury, and the monks of St Augustine, was prompted after general consultation with the bishops and abbots, 'consilio omnium episcoporum atque abb(at)um terre', as stated in the notifications made to Pope Clement

Although the are rarely specifically mentioned in the charters linked to the meeting of councils, it is likely that the term abbatum -so often employed in the documents and chronicles- not only referred to the abbots, and that the abbesses may have also been summoned to attend assemblies as influential members of the universitas regni. Similarly, royal charters conceded to abbeys and associated with the meeting of English councils may also be an indication of the presence of abbots, who would have normally been the petitioners of such . For instance, several abbeys were the beneficiaries of charters, possibly discussed and granted at the councils of Woodstock in 1163, Northampton in 1164 and 1176, Bishop's Waltham in 1182 and London in 1184, besides those gatherings previously considered/^

Those presiding over communities established by the military orders in England were sometimes summoned to attend royal gatherings, especially those meetings involving the transaction of their property and privileges, and those concerned with crusading issues, like the Council of Clerkenwell in 1185/^ Along with the bishops and abbots, very occasionally came some priors, monks, archdeacons, deacons and canons. To the Council of London in 1177, for example, venerunt etian illuc tot abates, tot decani, tot arcchidiaconi, quo sub numero non cadebant\ according to Roger of Howden, who also reports the presence of several priors. The councils of Bishop's Waltham in 1182 and Reading in 1184

^^ Delisle, Recueil, no. 7; EYC, i. 74-5, no. 78. ^^ Diceto, ii.33; 'Epistolae Cantuarienses', pp. 160-2, 172-3, nos. 182, 190. ^^ Monasticon, v.248-9; CCR, ii.97, no. 4; Delisle, Recueil, no. 502; Feudal Documents from the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds, ed. D.C. Douglas (London, 1932), pp. 104-5, no. 100; Leiston Abbey Cartulary and Butley Priory Charters, pp. 73-4, no. 24. ^^ Howden, Gesta, ii.33; Diceto, ii.51; Howden, Chronica, ii.335-8; Gervase, i.409. also congregated a number of monks7^ These comprised the lesser clergy of the kingdom, but as their intermittent presence in assemblies was not so much regulated by the duty to provide counsel or the rights peculiar to magnates, their participation at royal councils was probably as limited as that of hosts escorting lay magnates at assemblies.

Earls and Barons

Usually identified in the narrative and official sources as comités, English earls were the most important lay nobles summoned to general assemblies, their presence was as essential a factor in the constimtion of the councils of the land as the attendance of the episcopate. The ruler's immediate subordinates and inferior in power and status only to foreign princes, dukes and counts, some comités were the kingdom's most powerful landed lords, some of them the rulers of vast dominions with authority over a multimde of vassals. They were followed in rank by the barones or barons, who also formed part of the political community, and were accordingly called to assemblies. The place of this lay contingent in the social hierarchy of twelfth-cenmry England could be said to broadly analogous to that of the bishops, and thus no gathering in this period could have claimed to be truly general or territorial without their presence.

In January 1164, the stormy Council of Clarendon assembled the two archbishops of England, twelve bishops and nearly forty nobles, among them some ten earls {comités), an attendance that w^as appropriately described by 80 Herbert of Bosham as 'reg?nmi...universwn, presides regni et proceres'. According to Roger of Howden, the Council of London which met in March 1177 to proclaim a judicial resolution to the territorial dispute bets^ een the kings of

Navarre and Castile, congregated the 'comités 81et barones regni, quorum non est numerus...Et congregatis omnibus in regia\ The chronicle only names the bishops present at the assembly, but the official notification of Henry's arbitration

Howden, Gesta. i.l44; Howden. Chronica, ii. 120-1. 286: CJB. pp. 15-23. MTB, iii.278-9. See also CS. p. 885. Howden. Gesta, i. 144-5. was testified by his son Geoffrey and six earls, incorporated in a list that counts nearly thirty lay and ecclesiastical nobles altogether.^^ Large witness list such as these are not typical for English charters in this period, and royal grants associated with the councils of Bridgnorth in 1155, Northampton in 1176 and London in 1184, were witnessed by less than five earls. Again, those testifying charters never coincided with the total number of nobles present at assemblies.

It is interesting that the term barones is sometimes used in reference to the 83 entire nobility of the kingdom thus including also the earls and the bishops. As indicated earlier, the bishops refused to be entrusted with the judgement of Thomas Becket, because they had been summoned to the council in their condition as "barons". Furthermore, when Becket decided in 1163 to oppose the king no longer, Henry asked the archbishop to declare his submission in the presence of all the king's "barons". The Great Charter is often described as a "baronial" document and, as pointed out, Bracton wrote about the powers of the baronagium as representing the communitas regni in opposing the abuses of a tyrant. It seems, therefore, that the term was employed both in reference to the entire nobility and, more specifically, to describe those who held baronies from the king and who were placed between the earls and the knights in the social hierarchy. This latter sense can be assumed when the chroniclers recurrently report that all the episcopi, comités, barones et abbates were present at councils. When baronial presence is not specified, the lay nobles are described with a variety of general terms. The attendance of the nobles at several assemblies is generally described with terms such as principes, optimates, proceres and nobiles^^ It would not be reasonable to conclude that these councils were not attended by barons, for the presence of the comités and the episcopi is not specified either when all the nobles are described in chronicles as a single group.

It must be noted that in the reign of Henry II, clauses which specify the presence of barons are indeed commonplace. However, it is difficult to determine the exact number of barons in attendance at a council because when the number oi comités

^^ English Lawsuits, ii.546-7, no. 494. ^^ See appendix 8. See appendix 8. is specified in chronicle accounts and charters, the names of the barones are often mingled with those of royal officials, some of whom were not barons.

The witness lists of the Constitutions of Clarendon and the Henry's arbitration between the Spanish monarchs, provide information on the presence of nobles present at the councils of Clarendon in 1164 and London in 1177. Such lists are unlikely to include everyone present, but they are certainly more detailed than narrative descriptions. The earls included in the witness list of the royal constitutions are singled out as comités, thus facilitating the identification of the other nobles as barones. After mentioning the names of ten earls, the list includes another twenty-two names, most of which can be assumed to be those of influential barons, including two royal officials. This list reveals the minimum number of nobles present at the council, since Gervase indicates that there were many others apart from those named.^^ Again, it may be assumed that these numbers were extraordinary for a council and that only a few of Henry's assemblies would have gathered as many nobles as the Clarendon meeting did. The narrative and charter information linked to the Council of London which assembled in 1177 to deal with the settlement of the Spanish dispute reveals, perhaps, that the attendance at Clarendon should not be assumed to be that extraordinary. The notification of Henry's judgement was testified by eight barons, as distinct from comités and the bishops.^^ As indicated, Roger of Howden excused the absence of the archbishop of York and three bishops. His accounts also provide the names of the Spanish envoys, and the Gesta Henrici Secundi assures that the gathering of notables was so large that they could hardly fit in the hall. ^^

The sources which provide information on the attendance at councils do not allow one to determine with accuracy the names of those barons who were regularly summoned to royal assemblies. From the evidence considered, it may be assumed that a core of bishops and earls was normally in attendance and that most of them would have been present at important councils. Baronial attendance, on

'' Gervase, i. 178-181 {EHD, ii.766-70). ^^ English Lawsuits, ii.546-7, no. 494. ^^ Howden, Gesta, i. 144-5; Howden, Chronica, ii. 120-1. the other hand, seems to have been subject to substantial variations, not only because of the greater number of barons but also because the term barones is often used without much specification and might well refer to the king's officials, as well as to those holding baronies, or more generally, the nobles of the kingdom. It is clear from the chronicle descriptions of councils, however, that the praesules and proceres of the kingdom were expected at assemblies and that a large proportion of them must have been present.

Knights and Townsmen

The changing attendance of royal assemblies in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries has perhaps received more treatment by historians than any other conciliar aspect. However, it has not been the gathering of the universitas regni that has attracted the attention of these studies but the unprecedented convocation of town representatives and knights of the shire to participate in the meeting of councils, a group thought within the old constitutional approaches to have embodied the third estate of medieval society and to have provided the final and most constitutive ingredient in the making of parliamentary assemblies in England. The following section will be a prelude to our chapter on the relationship between parliaments and councils, evaluating the premises of such approaches and briefly assessing the significance of the incorporation of knights and townsmen into English royal assemblies in the twelfth century. At first, it should be clear that the few instances where knights and citizens were present at the councils of Henry II, they had not been summoned as representatives and were not vested with procuratorial powers of any sort. It is only well advanced into the thirteenth century that county representation at royal assemblies appears to have gained some "constitutional" significance.

Up to the middle of the twelfth century, the presence of citizens at gatherings was probably restricted to royal coronations, and more than anything else, this must have ñilfilled a ceremonial precept that turned such gatherings into public occasions of popular festivity. The presence of milites or knights at councils was an extraordinary feature in the reign of Henry II, while none of the accounts report their presence at any assembly prior to this period.

In the middle of 1170, Henry II and his judges carried out an investigation into the behaviour of royal sheriffs, likely to have taken place during the Council of London in June. But while Roger of Howden observes that the milites of England were also interrogated along with the vicecomites or sheriffs, their presence at the council remains only a possibility. It was possibly at a judicial court held at Nottingham in 1175, that knights were interrogated over the violation of laws regulating the royal forest and particularly the hunting of deer; an inquiry that according to the Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, involved 'omnes barones et milites \ The same chronicler informs us of the presence of knights at the Council of Northampton in January 1176, when the king promulgated the royal assizes 'per consilium comitum et baronum et militum et hominum suorum, hanc subscriptam assisam fecit'. Henry II assembled a council in April 1177 at Geddington to seek baronial approval for the removal of antagonising castellans and for the distribution of important patronage. Such measures were probably adopted in the presence of some knights, if the account of Roger of Howden is to be trusted: \enerunt omnes comités et barones et milites regni, parati equis et armis ad eundum quo rex praeciperet It is not unlikely that their presence at Geddington in 1177 responded more to military summons than to conciliar activity, just as they gathered with the earls and the barons of England after the Council of Winchester in July 1177, summoned by the king to cross the channel and embark on military undertakings.^^ But their presence at the council should not be disregarded entirely for they had already been at other assemblies. Admittedly, they had been to Nottingham to answer accusations, but Roger of Howden makes it clear that they had participated in the discussions that led to the promulgation of the Assize of Northampton at the council of 1176. The king

celebravit concilium de statutis regni sui, coram episcopis et comitibus et barombus terrae suae; et coram eis per consilium regis Henrici filii sui, et per consilium

^^ Howden, Gesta, i.5, 94-5, 107, 160, 177-8; Howden, Chronica, ii.120-1. On all these occasions, the knights are clearly described as milites. This term is also employed in reference to the knights sent by the kings of Castile and Navarre as they envisaged that the judgment of Henry II and his barons at the Council of London in 1177 may be resolved by battle. comitum et baronum et militum et hominum suorum, hanc subscriptam assisam fecit, et earn teneri pracepit?^

Perhaps we can also assume that some knights could have been in attendance at councils when a chronicler informs us that apart from the magnates and barons, the assembly was also attended by aliorum multorum regni or some nobilioribus regni.^^ These terms were used in the Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi to describe a section of the assembled at the councils of London in 1163 and 1170. Those assemblies were primarily concerned with the Becket dispute and the Inquests of Sheriffs, both issues which would have mattered to the knights. In the same light, it is likely that they were also present at the councils of Clerkenwell in March 1185, and Geddington in February 1188, summoned by Henry to discuss military issues.^* In addition, like the experts who were occasionally summoned to offer advice on conciliar legislation, knights attended a few of Henry II councils mainly because they would have contributed to the discussion of military matters. As John Hudson has pointed out, 'in times of war, the opinion of fighting men of lesser rank, the type of men referred to simply as milites, may have had an influence absent in other circumstances'.^^

It is also possible that they were gradually being incorporated into the political community of England as the gained some social status, and accordingly earned a

^^ Howden, Gesta, i.l07. This was the case of the councils of London in 1163 and Clarendon in 1164. These two assemblies and the Council of Northampton in 1164, dealt with very important matters of general concern and it is, therefore, reasonable to suggest that nobles other than magnates and barons were also present (Gervase, i.174-82; Howden, Annals, pp. 259-62; Diceto, i.312-4; MTB, iv.299-300; iii.46-58; Newburgh, pp. 141-2). John Maddicott has written insightfully on the presence of knights at assemblies in this period. See Maddicott, 'An Infinite Multitude of Nobles', pp. 17-46. He argues that the term milites was employed not in lieu of its technicality, but simply because the chroniclers had no other way of describing these men. References to knights attending judicial courts in Catalonia are incorporated into the Usatges of Barcelona, no. 7, p. 66: Tt is sufficient for one to lose knighthood if he does not have a horse and weapons, does not hold a knight's fee, and does not take part in hosts and cavalcades or come to tribunals and courts as a knight unless old age prevents him' (See also Usatges of Barcelona, no. 21, p. 69). The History of William Marshal makes reference to the attendance of 7/ conte, li baron e li vavador', 'the earls, the barons and the lesser nobility', to the Council of Westminster in 1170 {HWM, 1918-9, pp. 98-9). See also Reynolds, Kingdoms, p. 310. These councils dealt with crusading issues, and it is likely that the knights were present, although the sources are silent about it (Diceto, ii.33; Howden, Gesta, i.336; Gervase, i.325; Gerald of Wales, Opera, viii.208-9; Howden, Chronica, ii.82; Warren, Henry II, pp. 604-5) It is possible that some knights might have been present at the assemblies which deliberated on Welsh and Irish campaigns. ^^ Hudson, 'Henry I and Counsel', p. 113. place in assemblies.^^ Typically, if some Scottish knights attended the Council of York in 1175, it was not because they were summoned by Henry II, but possibly because they were important tenants of the comités and barones of Scotland. In the words of Roger of Howden, Henry had assembled at York with King William of Scotland 'qui secum adduxerat omnes episcopos et comités et barones et milites et francos tenentes terrae suae a máximo usque ad minimum

Knights were not present at assemblies often enough for us to determine with certainty whether they had been summoned by reason of personal right, as newly- incorporated members of the communitas regni, or simply because they were part of an entourage. It can be ascertained, however, that they were not the representatives of the counties, nor did they participate in councils as members of a defined social class in any way distinct from other nobles below the rank of the baronage.^^ The milites were not representatives of a third estate, as was often assumed by constitutional studies; they enjoyed lesser dignity and status than the earls and barons, but they were nobles after all. Their participation at early parliaments may provide some illumination to further establish this point.^^

If milites attended English councils during the reigns of Henry I and Stephen, their presence is not acknowledged by the sources. The gradual incorporation of knights into the political meetings of the realm in the second half of the twelfth must surely entail some social or political significance, but the approaches to the composition of assemblies have tended to overlook their presence until they were summoned as elected representatives of the counties and were identified as

^^ According to R.V. Turner, the social status of knights was uncertain before the middle of the twelfth century, but they begun to gain some recognition as lesser nobility thereafter (Turner, 'Changing Perceptions of the New Administrative Class', pp. 95-8, 103). Howden, Gesta, i.94-5. See also Howden, Chronica, ii.82: 'His itaque recitatis in ecclesia Sancti Petri Eboraci coram praedictis regibus Angliae, et coram rege Scotiae et David fratre suo, et universo populo, episcopi, et comités et barones, et milites de terra regis Scotiae juraverunt domino régi Angliae, et Henrico filio suo, et haeredibus eorum, fidelitatem contra omnem hominem sicut ligiis dominis suis '. ^^ A more uniform terminology to indicate the presence of knights at Henry IPs assemblies may signal some degree of social recognition, although Peter Coss has recently argued that while the involvement of knights in local affairs increased with Henry's judicial and legislative reforms, their involvement was not that of a knightly class as a whole or "gentry". See P.R. Coss, The Origins of the English Gentry (Cambridge, 2003). The term milites may have been employed by twelfth-century chroniclers in a general sense to refer to anyone who was a noble below the rank of baronage, and not specifically assigned to the knights. ^^ Cam, Law-finders and Law-makers, p. 88. See also Bartlett, England, p. 146; and Reynolds, Kingdoms, p. 310. knights of the shire in the thirteenth century; in the words of J.C. Holt, when 'they, along with the burgesses, came to speak for 'ie commun'".^^ The importance of such change in the evolution of royal gatherings should not be exaggerated, for it must be noted that 'no one in the early thirteenth century pretended that an assembly of knights of the shire represented the community as a whole. This was not simply because of the obvious objection that the knights could not represent other orders, the townsfolk or the clergy, but because there was another more ancient view, namely that the magnates could speak for the communityhideed, the knights may have been incorporated into this community, but this ancient view was already being realised every time the king summoned his nobles to councils. In the reign of Henry II, they were the commuitas regni, and the essential component of general councils.

Before the 1220s, the presence of milites at assemblies may be a rare extension of royal summons to the emerging gentry in the counties. They were not empowered to bind the shire communities -or any community- by the decisions taken at councils.^^ Attendance which may be identified as procuratorial in this period was that of monks, who were sometimes entitled to speak on behalf of their religious communities. But knights may have been present as members of the royal household or came to assemblies as companions of greater men.

^^ Holt, 'The Prehistory of Parliament', p. 28. ^^ Holt, 'The Prehistory of Parliament', p. 25. J.C. Holt has rightly pointed out 'the summoning of knights of the shire has come to be treated as part of the history of popular representation. It was so only in a strictly limited sense. The knights represented the shire and the . They came pro toto comitatu or ex parte communitatum comitatum. There was no difference in this from bearing witness of the shire before the king's court. They did not come as representatives of the community of the realm' (Holt, 'The Prehistory of Parliament', p. 21). Reynolds has suggested that 'communalte, commun, and commune all meant the same, but whether they yet in this context meant the elected knights and burgesses who later ages would call the House of Commons is unclear. The point at issue was that parliaments discussing important affairs should be big, public, and full enough to seem to represent the whole community of the kingdom' (Reynolds, Kingdoms, p. 309). ^^ Peter Coss has recently suggested that 'it was the Angevin polity, with its institutional growth, its substantially increased liaison between localities and central government and the sharp increase in its development of local men...which provided the seedbed from which the gentry grew...' (P.R. Coss, 'The Formation of the English Gentry', Past and Present, 147(1995), p. 51). According to John Gillingham, the gentry had become a distinctive group within the English nobility from as early as the 1130s (Gillingham, 'Thegns and Knights in Eleventh-Century England', pp. 134-5. A royal mandate directed to the county of in 1227 commands its sheriff to 'tell the knights and good men of your bailiwick to elect from their own number four of the more lawful and discreet knights, who are to come before us at Westminster... there to set forth on behalf of the whole county their quarrel with you'.'^° In the course of the thirteenth century, the English milites were incorporated into the community of the realm and as John Maddicott states 'to summon them was no innovation; to have ceased to do so would have been'.'^' But if the knights were frequently summoned to attend royal assemblies in the thirteenth century, it was only because they had already begun to attend councils in the second half of the twelfth century.

Among the important changes affecting the evolution of royal assemblies in twelfth-century Europe was the unprecedented participation of citizens in the political life of kingdoms. Citizens had been present at coronations, but only a handful of influential Londoners are explicitly counted among those ever present at a royal council. A plea from the Roman legate to wait for the citizens to commence the discussions at the Council of Winchester in 1141 embodies the most fundamental explanation for this peculiar summons. King Stephen was captured and imprisoned as a result of the civil strife in the kingdom, so the gathering was summoned by the bishop of Winchester, who according to the account of William of Malmesbury, said to the nobles assembled:

'The Londoners who are in effect magnates {quasi optimates) because of the greatness of their city in England, we have summoned by messengers, and sent them safe conduct. As I am sure they will not be later than today, with your kind permission let us wait until tomorrow'.

The participation of some Londoners at this council is not indicative of a general practice by which king were expected to summon citizens to assemblies, not the least, because this was not a royal council, but a legatine assembly. In any case, William of Malmesbury reports that they were "introduced" to the council.

RotuliLitterarum Clausarum, ii.213. Maddicott, 'An Infinite Multitude of Nobles', p. 25. Malmesbury, HN, p. 95: "Londonienses, qui sunt quasi optimates, pro magnitude ciuitatis, in Anglia nunciis nostris conuenimus, et conductum ut tuto ueniant misimus, eosque confide non ultra hunc diem moraturos: bona uenia usque eras sustineamus"See also M. McKisack, 'London and the Succession to the Crown during the Middle Ages', Studies in Medieval History Presented to Frederick Maurice Powicke, ed. R.W. Hunt, W.A. Pantin and R.W. Southern (Oxford, 1948), p. 79. meaning that they were foreign to the community regularly in attendance. Although they claimed to have been sent by 'what they call the commune of London', they were probably treated not as urban representatives but as quasi optimates, influential enough to have the discussions halted until their arrival. ^^^ Like the knights of the shire, the citizens were present not as urban representatives, but because they were deemed important for the discussions at hand. In fact, according to May McKisack, the Londoners were probably the only laymen in this legatine council and they were summoned mainly because they had previously 'claimed to take the initiative when the succession was in doubt'.

Conclusion

While the attendance at English assemblies varied throughout the twelfth century with the incorporation of influential subjects other than the lay and ecclesiastical magnates and the officials of the curia regis, the composition of royal assemblies remained practically unchanged, for they all intended to assemble the political community or the universitas regni. The unprecedented regularity with which this group assembled from 1155 to 1188 assisted the development and consolidation of communal feeling and corporate action, either in cooperation with royal government -a characteristic feature during the reign of Henry II- or against the king, as happened a few decades later. Royal councils often witnessed fierce disputes and antagonism between the monarch and his powerful vassals, but Henry skillfully exercised his authority to lead the proceedings to his advantage and turn these meetings into occasions characterised by consensual politics and cooperative governance.

Assembled as one man, the entire kingdom was brought to Henry's presence at royal councils, thus offering the monarch a unique opportunity to have his policies

Malmesbury, HN, p. 96: 'Feria quarta uenerunt Londonienses, et, in concilium introducti, causam suam eatenus egerunt ut dicerent, missos se a communione quam uocant Londoniarum...' McKisack, 'London and the Succession', p. 79. According to McKisack, their claim to participate in the royal election goes back to the late Anglo-Saxon period, but tere is no evidence of such custom from 1066 to 1135. As soon as they arrived to Winchester, however, 'they made it clear that they were not prepared to enter into disputes on the succession question' ('London and the Succession', p. 79). and measures discussed and consented to by the nobles, and subsequently enforced throughout England by a body of loyal and able officials, many of whom were also present at these meetings. The king thus summoned councils with considerable frequency for he seems to have realised the administrative, financial and political benefits offered by the assemblage of the universitas regni and the new professionals, the advice of whom greatly enriched conciliar discussions as well as developing the competence to deal with a variety of matters. Councils and Parliaments

The study of royal councils has often been a subsidiary subject to the history of medieval parliaments, and so it has received scholarly attention mainly in so far as councils are seen as parliament's immediate predecessors, the last vestiges of a pre-parliamentary era brought to an end by a succession of constitutional landmarks which restricted monarchical power in the thirteenth century. Unlike all previous chapters, the following study is in the format of an essay which confronts some of our findings with the historiography on early parliaments. It will review the subject of parliamentary origins in order to indicate the distinctions that the historiography has established to tell councils from parliaments, and evaluate the significance of such demarcation in the light of conciliar developments in the reign of Henry II.

Historians and the Origins of Pariiament

It is imperative to know first what a pariiament is prior to asking when do pariiaments emerge, and thus we ought to ask ourselves what are the essential ingredients of a parliamentary session, what are those institutional features which make parliament distinctive from other medieval assemblies.' This is, however, a most difficult question, one that has been at the epicentre of a historical debate ever since the subject of parliamentary origins was seriously treated by William Stubbs in the later decades of the nineteenth century, a debate that has largely been shaped by anachronistic conceptions of the parliamentary essence and by the nature of the medieval sources considered.

Some approaches have suggested that certain changes in the social composition of royal assemblies caused the emergence of parliaments in Western Europe. The first parliamentary session in the Spanish kingdoms, for example, is said to be an assembly which met in León in July 1188; the first official gathering of King Alfonso IX and, according to the prevailing historiography, the first one in Europe to have assembled not only the nobles of the kingdom, but also some citizens. This meeting is often treated as the very first parliament, the first one to have incorporated the citizens or the third estate into the polifical life of the kingdom, a primitive institutional manifestation of medieval and the most emblematic historical precedent for constitutional reform in the nineteenth century.^ It is not surprising to find similar patterns among the first approaches to

' In the words of Edward Miller, 'that discussion, so far as the beginnings of parliament are concerned, has had to face the preliminary question of what sort of institution we are looking for' (Miller and Fryde, Historical Studies of the English Parliament, vol. 1, p. 1). ~ The scholarly work of Francisco Martinez Marina, who was also involved in the discussions at Cádiz, established that the assembly at León in 1188 was the first royal curia in Europe to have incorporated elected representatives from the cities, thus assuming the popular acquisition of a "right" that had been traditionally reserved for the kingdom's nobility. Texts associated with the important sessions of the Spanish medieval cortes were first collected by Manuel Colmeiro. His compilation and edition of the ordinances of the medieval councils and cortes is contained in Cortes de los Antiguos Reinos de León v de Castilla, (Madrid, 1861-84), and has been an essential source for the historian of parliament since 1861. Refer to Cortes de los Antiguos Reinos, p. 39: 'Decreta que Dominus Aldephonsus Rex Legionis et Galletie constituit in curia apud Legionem cum archiepiscopo compostelano, et cum omnibus episcopis, magnatibus et cum electis civibus regni sui It is surprising to find that more recent approaches to the subject of parliamentary origins in Spain have not entirely departed irom this popular misconception. See, for example, J. Valdeón Baruque, Feudalismo v Consolidación de los Pueblos Hispanos (Barcelona, 1980), p. 73; L. Garcia de Valdeavellano, Historia de Espanna de los Orígenes a la Baja Edad Media (Madrid, 1980), p. 574; Marongiu, Medieval Parliaments, p. xxi; E. Fuentes Ganzo, Las Cortes de Benavente, (Benavente, 2002), p. 83; F. De Arvizu y Galárraga, Regnum: Corona v Cortes en Benavente, 1202-2002 (Benavente, 2002), p. 37; De las Cortes Históricas, ed. Fuentes and Martin, p. 32; J. Ó'Callaghan, The Cortes of Castile-León 1188-1350 (Philadelphia, 1989), p. 14; E.S. Procter, Curia and Cortes in León and Castile 1072-1295 (Cambridge, 1980), p. 4; Martínez Diez, 'Curia y Cortes en el Reino de Castilla', p. 147. Without enfirely departing entirely from the traditional paradigm, more sophisticated views have been offered in C. Estepa Diez, 'La Curia de León en 1188 y los Origenes de las Cortes', Las Cortes de Castilla y León en la Edad Media, volume 3 (Valladolid, 1990), p. 37; V. Álvarez Palenzuela and L. Suárez Fernández, Historia de España (Madrid, 1991), p. 25; and J.M. Pérez-Prendes, Las Cortes de Castilla, pp. 49-51. English constitutional history, for a long time the equivalent to English parliamentary history. Some agreement was reached among nineteenth-century scholars that parliamentary assemblies did not meet in England until the baronial revolt led by Simon de Montfort, who summoned the third estate represented by the knights of the shire to an assembly in 1264, and the chosen representatives of cities to a meeting the following year. These assemblies brought together at least three of the four parliamentary essentials outlined by William Stubbs in his constitutional history:

First, the existence of a central or national assembly, a 'commune consilium regni second, the representation in that assembly of all classes of the people, regularly summoned; third, the reality of the representation of the whole people, secured either by its presence in the council, or by free election of the persons who are to represent it or any portion of it; and fourth, the assembly so summoned and elected must possess definite powers of taxation, legislation, and general political deliberation.^

Election, representation and social change became the demarcating criteria between parliaments and their predecessors, and constituted the pillars of the constitutional paradigm, but in varying tones, these approaches all assumed a most fundamental political principle: a parliament was essentially an institutional restriction of monarchical prerogatives, prompted by the rather sudden and inevitable incorporation of the emerging social classes into the enlarged meetings of the royal court or councils, and whose consent came to be a sine qua non of royal legislation and taxation.

The liberal tradition -understood here as the confinement of royal rights to the democradc order- had entered British parliamentary polifics in the nineteenth century, and in the study of medieval institutions its influence was perhaps most manifest, for the search of historical precedents to justify constitutional reform became paramount. Also known as Whig history, the liberal interpretation of the past provided a peculiar interpretation of the history of science and human

^ Stubbs, The Constitutional History of England, vol. 2, pp. 173-4. Stubbs believes, therefore, that 'a national council of clergy and barons is not an assembly of estates, because it does not include the body of the people, 'the plebs,' the simple freemen of commons, who on all constitutional theories have a right to be consulted as to their own taxation, if on nothing else' {Constitutional History of England, volume 2, p. 171). For Frederic Maitland, the parliament of Edward I in 1295 'was a full parliament in our sense of that term. The three met the king and his council' (F.W. Maitland, The Constitutional History of England {C^mhMgt, 1893), p. 24). knowledge as well."^ The history curricula at Oxford and Cambridge between 1850 and 1950 were accordingly loaded with constitutional history, which became almost synonymous to English history. The English Parliament was made an icon of national identity and a source of national pride.

The identification of parliament as a peculiarly English institution required historical distortion. The promulgation of Magna Carta in 1215 and the documents of the baronial revolt -especially the Provisions of Oxford of 1258- were singled out as parliamentary documents which comprised the first constitutional challenge to the monarchy and advocated representative rights. This medieval legislation provided a precedent and a model for constitutional reform in Victorian Britain, as well as an assurance of the perennial character of popular liberties and representation in England, all of which were embodied by the emergence of parliamentary assemblies.^ Within the mental walls of liberal interpretations, the barons of 1215 had accordingly advanced humanity's path to democracy by opposing an absolute and arbitrary monarchy, just as the discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo and many others had advanced scientific knowledge against the archaic views of the Church and the Aristotelians.

hi the promulgation of these English texts, the essential parliamentary ingredients were set in stone in accordance with the premises of politically-loaded approaches, more concerned with the justification of current reform than with the nature of medieval assemblies. A "true" parliament was to meet a set of criteria befitting the constitutional imagination, and thus the institution was rendered in shapes familiar to the polifician and the scholar of the nineteenth century. Firstly, a gathering worthy of this name was precisely identified in the sources with the term parliamentum, and not only assembled regularly, but at set times. Accordingly, its function aimed at the restriction of monarchical power and its

^ See H. Butterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History (London, 1931). When approaching the subject of parliamentary origins, constitutional historians were 'not so much interested in what had happened in the past as in what they themselves considered to matter' (Sayles, The King's Parliament, p. 6). See also Miller, The Origins of Parliament, pp. 3-4; Baldwin, The King's Council, p.'l; Cam, 'Parliamentary Origins', pp. 2-3. Illustrative of this are the Reports Touching the Dignity of a Peer From the Lord's Committees, 5 volumes (London, 1820-29). ^ See Stubbs, Constitutional History of England', Maitland, Constitutional History of England-, F. Pollock and F.W. Maitland, History of , second edition, 2 volumes (Cambridge, 1898); Cam, 'Parliamentary Origins', pp. 2-3. composition was only constituted in the assemblage of the three social estates. In other words, a parliament was a periodical meeting, normally an enlarged session of the king's council or curia, which gathered the nobility of the kingdom and the representatives of the third estate or the "people", and shared governing powers with the monarch, whilst guarding and procuring the observance of the proto- democratic rights of the nation.

However imperative this view was, the social approaches to the origins of parliamentary assemblies were later challenged by interpretations which regarded the changing composition of assemblies as a contingent aspect, and focused instead on the business and functions of these meetings. In other words, this revision set out to define a parliamentary session according to its activity instead of determining the parliamentary nature according to social composition.

What was or what were then the functions peculiar to a parliamentary session? How was the business of a parliament distinctive from that of a great council? As already indicated, the conclusion will almost entirely depend on the type of source considered. Peter Spufford has synthesised this historiographical reality by suggesting that:

If the historian had only the writs of summons to parliaments, he would conclude that early parliaments were concerned exclusively with the great business of the realm. If he had only the rolls of parliament, he would conclude that, up to 1316, parliaments were concerned almost exclusively with judicial business. If he had only the statute roll, he would see parliament as one of the occasions for the promulgation of legislation. If he had to rely solely on the narrative chronicles, he would be presented with a combination of politics, legislation and taxation, with politics predominating, and without any mention of justice.

William Stubbs, the first scholar to consider the subject rigorously, argued that a pariiamentary session was essentially a political occasion, where the interests of different groups or people were presented to and discussed by those assembled. Thus, pariiaments emerged when royal councils ceased to be ceremonial meetings and became occasions for political discussion and the advancement of constitufional balances between the monarchy and the estates, which in turn came

^ P. Spufford, Origins of the English Parliatnent (London, 1967), p. 15. to represent the communitas regniJ After Stubbs, Frederic Maitland brought our attention to the Lenten Parliament of 1305 to suggest that it was a "full parliament", when the estates not only met the king, but also his council, whose multiple and clearly defined functions marked the difference between the feudal meetings and the new parliaments, and the most prominent of which was that of administering justice.^

According to those who adhered to the corporatist understanding of the emergence of parliament, the three estates of medieval society; the bellatores (those who fight), the oratores (those who pray) and the laboratores (those who work) ought to be represented in royal councils for these to be truly parliamentary. The presence of the third estate, however, was normally satisfied in the royal summons of burgesses, citizens, and knights of the shire. Emile Lousse argued that the social makeup of every parliamentary session was a faithful reflection of the structure of medieval society, which was itself divided into états. Ernest Barker's views on early parliaments also aligned with the theory of the estates, but indicated the importance of ecclesiastical assemblies as institutional models for the development of parliamentary representation in thirteenth-century England, contrary to the views of Antonio Marongiu and Desirè Pasquet, who saw representative principles developing parallel to clerical practice. Pasquet also qualified the theory of the estates in arguing that the third estate or commons were summoned not because without them a parliamentary session could not be constituted, but because their presence was useful for the monarchy.

^ For Stubbs the universitas regni grouped the three estates (Stubbs, The Constitutional History of England, vol. 2, pp. 169, 171, 175, 203-4; see also Maitland, Constitutional History of England, p. 24). Similar views were made in relation to the composition Spanish cortes, 'since the three estates constitute the kingdom, the cortes are identified with the kingdom, or kingdom expresses itself through the cortes' (A. Garcia Gallo, 'La Historiografía Sobre las Cortes de Castilla y León', Las Cortes de Castilla y León en la Edad Media, volume 3 (Valladolid, 1990), p. 140; P. Porras Arboleda et al. Historia de España VII, La Epoca Medieval: Administración y Gobierno (Madrid, 2003), p. 115). Reynolds argues that 'if there were only three orders, and they were envisaged as those who pray, those who fight, and those who work, then the bourgeois formed an odd and inadequate representation of the third order. Orders did not evolve naturally into estates' {Kingdoms, p. 317). For similar views, see also R. DeMolen, One Thousand Years (Boston, 1974), p. 149; and W. Ferguson, Europe in Transition (Boston, 1962), p. 196. ^ F.W.'Maitland, Memoranda de Parliamento 1305 (London 1893), pp. xxv-xxxviii. According to Edward Miller, 'modem age of scholarly discussion about medieval English parliaments begins with Maitland's Memoranda de Parliamento' {Historical Studies of the English Parliament, ed. Miller and Fryde, vol. 1, p. 1). Miller contradicts Stubbs in suggesting that the first parliaments were not essentially political, but bureaucratic assemblies (Miller, The Origins of Parliament, p. 7). Refer also to Cam, 'Parliamentary Origins', pp. 2-3. often in need of financial aid and political support. Contrary to the fundamental ideas of the constitutional interpretation of parliamentary origins, such summons were a burdensome duty for the citizens and burgesses, often excused, rather than a constitutional right, zealously claimed.^

For Carl Stephenson, on the contrary, the origins of parliament cannot be properly understood without analysing the presence of the third estate. In the thirteenth century, English kings were badly in need of money, which could be obtained by imposing extraordinary taxes. These tributes lay outside the feudal dues that monarchs had traditionally perceived and thus required general consent, which could be materialised more efficiently by calling large meetings, and summoning those able to provide the subsidies as well as significantly enlarging the social base of assent. F.M. Powicke, Eileen Power, Carl Stephenson and G.L. Harriss also identified the importance of consensual taxation in understanding the functions and purpose of the first parliamentary sessions, and Thomas Bisson followed a similar line of thought in linking the new financial needs for increasing military activity with the emergence of parliamentary assemblies. ^^

As the financial needs of the crown substantially increased in the thirteenth century, new forms of taxation came to take advantage of the emerging urban economy. Thus if the monarchy was to obtain some of its income from those inhabiting the cities and towns of the kingdom, it was then obliged to provide

^ E. Barker, The and Convocation (Oxford, 1913), pp. 73-6; E. Lousse, La Société d'Ancien Régime, second edition (Louvain, 1952), pp. 41-4; A. Marongiu, // Parlamento in Italia (Milan, 1962), pp. 52, 56; Pasquet, Essays, pp. 234-5; R. Fawtier, Parlement d'Anglaterre et Etats Généraux de France au Moyen Age (Paris, 1953), p. 80; May McKisack, The Parliamentary Representation of the English Boroughs During the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1932), p. 1; Jenkinson, 'The First Parliament of Edward V, pp. 231-42. Sayles has observed that the 'early evidence indisputably showed that most parliaments, so termed by contemporaries, had no popular representatives in them' (Sayles, The King's Parliament of England, p. 12) Moreover, it is only from 1327 that the commons are summoned to all parliaments (See Richardson, 'The Commons and Medieval Polities', p. 27). Much of the historiography of medieval parliaments has revolved around the role played by the commons (G.P. Cuttino, 'The Mediaeval Parliament Reinterpreted', Speculum, 41 (1966), pp. 681-7). C. Stephenson, 'Taxation and Representation in the Middle Ages', Anniversary Essays in Medieval History by Students of Charles Homer Haskins (New York, 1929), pp. 304-5, 307-12; T.N. Bisson, Medieval Representative Institutions, their Origins and Nature (Hinsdale, 1973), see introduction; and 'The Military Origins of Medieval Representation', AHR, 71 (1966), pp. 1199- 1218; F.M. Powicke, The Thirteenth Century (Oxford, 1953), pp. 523-7; and King Hemy III and the Lord Edward, volume 1 (Oxford, 1947), pp. 340-2; E. Power, The Wool Trade in English Medieval History (Oxford, 1941), pp. 65-7, 80-2; G.L. Harriss, King Parliament, and Public Finance, pp. 8-21. them with a voice in parliament, for according to the legal maxim developed in the thirteenth century, quod omnes tangit ab omnibus comprobetur. This maxim, studied primarily by Gaines Post, places a great deal of importance on the development of legal theory and explains -according to Post- the process which prompted the origin of parliamentary assemblies, not only in England but also in Europe.''

R.W. and AJ. Carlyle, while focusing also in the role played by legal theory in the emergence of parliamentary institutions, explained nevertheless, that political power was peculiar to the communitas regni, and that the monarchy was only an administrator, obliged to facilitate the participation of its subjects in the decision- making process, particularly at the meeting of pariiament. In contrast, the development of legal theory as the foundation for the emergence of new types of assemblies features very promptly in the thought of Walter Ullmann, who argued that in this period, political power resided in the populus and that the exercise of such faculties was delegated to the monarch, who was divinely invested with authority from above. He proposed then a mixture between the ascending and descending theories of power legitimisation and suggested that this balance shaped in part the development of parliamentary representation in the thirteenth century.'^

Alternative approaches have studied the original nature of parliamentary meetings by analysing their functions and business. William Stubbs was to set the trend by identifying parliamentary activity as predominantly political, in other words, monarchs summoned their parliaments for the estates to discuss and debate issues concerning the kingdom and affecting the entire community. More recently, the approaches of Gavin Langmuir and Thomas Bisson have revived the centrality of politicised debate as the comer stone of parliamentary activity. Maitland's work, on the other hand, downplayed the role played by the estates in parliamentary politics, and focused instead on the omnicompetence displayed by

" G. Post, 'A Roman Legal Theory of Consent, Quod Omnes Tangit, in Medieval Representation', Wisconsin Law Review (1950), pp. 66, 76-8. W. Ullmann, Principles of Government and Politics in the Middle Ages (London, 1961), pp. 20, 150, 234, 254; R.W. and A.J. Carlyle, A History of Medieval Political Theory in the West (Edinburgh, 1928), pp. 471-4. the king's council in each parliamentary session, and its ability and faculty of holding the reins on a wide variety of issues. This interpretation was revised in the work of Bertie Wilkinson, who has mitigated the importance of the council within parliamentary meetings and argued that the main purpose of these meetings was the discussion, conversation or parley between the king and the universitas regniP Alternatively, the studies of H.G. Richardson and G.O. Sayles suggested that the records clearly establish that the very first parliaments were primarily concerned with the administration of justice, and accordingly, the origins of this institution ought to be placed within that period when royal councils evidently adopted the features of a high court, and when the enlarged meetings of the king's council became a recognisable institution within the machinery of government - according to these authors- a point 'reached as a result of the eventful proceedings at Oxford in June 1258'.'^ Their work was in agreement with the ideas of A.F. Pollard, but J.G. Edwards argued that parliamentary business could not be reduced to the dispensation of justice, which was only one of the several activities included in the omnicompetence of thirteenth-century parliaments.'^

As we have mentioned, for Carl Stephenson, Eileen Power and P.M. Powicke the genesis of parliamentary assemblies is mainly the result of an economic phenomenon, and consequently, their function was identified predominantly with the discussion and grating of extraordinary taxation, an increasingly necessary supplement to royal expenditure.'^ Helen Cam's study of medieval legislation indicated that when looking at the output of royal assemblies in this period we are mostly faced by a large number of statutes, ordinances, assizes and provisions of

Stubbs, Constitutional History England, vol. 2, pp. 5, 169, 175-6; G. Langmuir 'Politics and Parliaments', pp. 49-53, and T.N. Bisson, 'The Politicizing of West European Societies, c.1175- 1225', in Georges Duby: L' Escriture de L' Histoire, ed. C. Duhamel-Amado and G. Lobrichon (Brussels, 1996), pp. 245-8, 253; 'Celebration and Persuasion', pp. 181-9; P.M. Maitland, Memoranda de Parliamento, pp. xxxv-xxxviii; Wilkinson, Studies, pp. 41-2. J.C. Holt agrees with both Stubbs and Maitland in saying that meetings were primarily political and administrative (Holt, 'The Prehistory of Parliament', p. 19). Richardson and Sayles, The Functions, p. 15. From 1258, 'the English parliament has ceased to be an occasion and is established as an organised institution which henceforth has a continuous and coherent history' (p. 17). G.P. Cuttino provided a brief summary on the historiography of medieval parliaments up to the 1960s and explained Richardson's and Sayles' reaction to the Stubbsian model (Cuttino, 'The Mediaeval Parliament Reinterpreted', pp. 681-7). Richardson and Sayles, Parliaments and Great Councils, pp. 6-11, 30-3, 49, and The Functions, pp. XV, 17; A.F. Pollard, The Evolution of Parliament, pp. 42-3; J.G. Edwards, Historians and the Medieval English Parliament, pp. 23-4, 41. Stephenson, 'Taxation and Representation in the Middle Ages', pp. 304-5, 307-12. all kinds, and that therefore, these parliaments were essentially legislative assemblies.'^

Royal councils, whether called a witenagemot or a magnum concilium, were political occasions when general or territorial consultation took place, and as such, they have also been the passing object of studies concerned with counsel and consent in the Middle Ages. For J.S. Roskell and many others, the emergence of parliament is a phenomenon intimately related with the feudal aspects of royal consultation. Providing the monarch with counsel was in this period a service and a duty owed by all great nobles of the kingdom by virtue of the homage which resulted from the tenure of land.'^ In summoning councils, English monarchs were thus requesting the advice of their tenants-in-chief in matters of governance and the royal household, as well as obtaining general assent to policies and measures. It is not surprising then to find general councils often defined in the literature as "royal consultations". The feudal nature of consultation, however, has been questioned by historians, and more recently, even the explanatory validity of the term feudalism has been subjected to scrutiny.

All these approaches to the original nature of parliamentary assemblies have contributed a great deal to the understanding of parliament's early history, but while some of them suffer from applying modem political conceptions and frameworks to assemblies which gathered centuries ago, others have allowed the partiality of the sources to obscure their conclusions. Some can be accused of both tendencies. Thus if the surviving records connected with these meetings are primarily of judicial nature, then it is concluded that early parliaments were essentially meetings for the dispensation of justice at the highest level. In contrast, if these records are deemed financial or tributary, then these assemblies must have been mostly concerned with the approval of extraordinary taxation. More significantly, all of these approaches seem to have identified the origins of parliament as a chapter in either the history of the struggle for civil rights and

H.M. Cam, 'The Legislators of Medieval England', Proceedings of the British Academy, 31 (1945), pp. 127-37. J.S. Roskell, 'The Problem of the Attendance of the Lords in Medieval Parliaments', Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 49 (1956), p. 198; and Parliament and Politics in Late Medieval England {London, 1981-3), pp. 448-52. Refer also to Maddicott, 'An Infinite Multitude of Nobles', p. 18. liberties, the history of representation or the history of constitutionaHsm, all of which has masked the institutional nature of these assemblies with anachronistic features.

If recent decades have seen more sophisticated approaches and more rigorous scholarship, it is still difficult to find studies that have departed entirely from the constitutional paradigms or from views exclusively concerned with the functional aspects of parliaments. Most studies have unconsciously adhered to narratives of the inevitability of constitutional advancement, thus simplifying the dynamics of institutional change and turning its complexities into a recognisable phenomenon, easily within the grasp of the modem mind. This is perhaps because, as G.O. Sayles once suggested, 'we like to believe that our thoughts, our liberties, our beliefs, were also those of our fathers and have come to us in their original integrity'.'^

The views here listed have presented alternative definitions of parliament and accordingly, a variety of interpretations concerning its origins. However, they are all united by the same chronological demarcation: whatever features constituted a parliamentary session, England saw no parliaments before the first half of the thirteenth century, and certainly none before the reign of Henry III.'® Since the genesis of parliament has been treated as a historical subject, the general councils of Henry II, his grandfather, have been accordingly stored close to the end the pre-parliamentary era or, for the more enthusiastic and perhaps more incisive studies, as part of the prehistory of parliament. This view was offered in the latest comprehensive study of the English Parliament in the medieval period, written by Ronald Butt in 1989. His work has arguably brought a new evolutionary perspective into the field, but in identifying the institutional changes of the twelfth

Sayles, The King's Parliament, p. 5. These views are perhaps best summarised in the ideas offered by Bertie Wilkinson, who suggested that the thirteenth century brought changes which amount to a political revolution. Parliamentim was an institutional novelty which adapted the functions of the curia and magnum concilium to meet new demands, and helped to harmonise the interest of the monarch and the community through political debate (B. Wilkinson, 'The "Political Revolution^' of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries in England', Speculum, 24 (1949). pp. 502-9). century as the prelude to parliament, he posed no substantial challenge to the traditional demarcation.^'

Bertie Wilkinson has argued that 'there is, it seems probable, no evidence of a transformation of the essential nature of parliament before the reign of Edward III,' and J.C. Holt has pointed out that the changes leading to the emergence of the English Parliament were not completed until the third quarter of the fourteenth century.^^ A more radical reaction against the anachronism of Victorian interpretations may lead one to argue that there was nothing parliamentary about the assemblies of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and that any resemblance to modem parliamentary features was simply the product of distorted assumptions. In denying the evolutionary nature of all institutions, the logic of this view necessarily leads to the conclusion that "true" parliaments only appeared after the Ancien Régime had collapsed in the eighteenth century, or perhaps even later, when women could be elected as members of parliament.

The search for particular dates and constitutional landmarks has been superseded more recently by approaches that view the genesis of parliamentary assemblies as a gradual institutional transformation; a long process of evolution comprising numerous changes, extending over centuries. This sensible approach was epitomised by the Ford Lectures delivered in January 2004 at Oxford by John Maddicott, who suggested that parliamentary features began to take hold of the late Anglo-Saxon Witan; a view that seems to have resurrected some of the ideas 91 introduced by Stubbs' constitutional studies. Within this paradigm, it is concluded that the first assemblies to reveal parliamentary symptoms were those summoned in the early tenth century, when the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms reached political unity under the leadership of the West Saxon monarchy. A united kingdom meant that the new ruler could hardly exercise efficient governance by visitations, thus opting instead to summon his nobles to large assemblies. Anglo-

Butt, A History of Parliament, pp. 21-30. See also Reynolds, 'The Historiography of the Medieval State', p. 121. Even a recent piece by the late Timothy Reuter singles out the beginning of the thirteenth century as a period 'marked by the shift from assemblies to proto-parliaments and other kind of representative institutions' (Reuter, 'Assembly Polities', p. 433). ^^ Wilkinson, Studies, p. 48; Holt 'The Prehistory of Parliament,' p. 2. ^^ Stubbs also granted the Witan some parliamentary attributes (Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, vol l,pp. 133-150). Saxon kings had met their nobles at assembhes before this period, but royal government was primarily exercised by itineration. The Witan then experienced a number of developments up to the Norman Conquest: meetings became larger and gained more competence. According to Maddicott, these assemblies had become a national gathering before the Normans came to England. Some of these views had already been formulated by Stubbs and more recently by Ronald Butt, who argued in 1989 that 'the deepest parliamentary roots lay in the consultative customs of the Anglo-Saxon people from the time of their first settlement in England'. Furthermore, when it comes to analysing the transformation of royal assemblies in the thirteenth century, Maddicott's views agree with much of what has already been said, for he believes that consent for extraordinary taxation was the main catalyst for parliamentary development.

Few historians -if any- would insist today that the first English Parliament assembled during the crisis of 1258-65, and not many would altogether sympathise with a search for particular dates, an approach now seen as a vestige of historical modernism. But if such constitutional narratives are widely considered redundant, should the parliamentary chronology remain unchanged? If the genesis and emergence of parliamentary assemblies is the result of a gradual transformation and not the instant product of a constitutional landmark, should historians continue to insist upon the institutional demarcation between the twelfth and the thirteenth centuries and the significance of consensual taxation?

Any attempt to re-evaluate the early history of parliament ought to be divorced from the history of constitutionalism and representation, and should not be led astray by the nature of the sources available. New approaches may also benefit a great deal from comparative analysis; after all, parliamentary assemblies are not peculiar to England in this period. The present study has occasionally referred to parallel developments in other European kingdoms, particularly those experienced

Butt, A History of Parliament, p. 1. He points out, moreover, that 'the witenagemot was not, then, a corporate body with clearly defined composition. Yet to assert on that account that it had no sort of parliamentary function would be to take a pedantic view of what constitutes parliamentary activity. For the early Plantagenet Parliaments were equally fluid in composition. It would be equally illogical to take a dismissive view of the Witan's 'parliamentary' attributes on the grounds that only political exigencies and never constitutional obligation led to their meeting' (p. 13). Refer also to Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, vol. 1, pp. 138-140. by Spanish assemblies in the twelfth century.^^ Only the work of R.H. Lord, Antonio Marongiu, Thomas Bisson and Alec Myers provide broader European perspectives on the earliest history of medieval parliaments.^^

Ronald Butt has suggested that 'Parliament had no sudden genesis. It arose gradually from the medieval court and council where Plantagenet kings consulted great men of their realm to secure support and offered their people justiceIn the light of this and everything suggested in this chapter, any attempt to draw a line between councils and parliaments can only result from exaggerating the importance of constitutional developments or from privileging a particular set of sources. However, if we agree that parliaments "emerged" from councils, then we assume that parliament did have a beginning, even if such process involved years or decades of evolution. Richardson and Sayles have argued that 'since parliament was not the creation of a legislative act or, so far as we can tell, a conscious 28 creation at all, we cannot give a date to its conception'. No study of early parliaments would now challenge this obvious yet important consideration, but we are still left with a fundamental problem, for any reference to parliament - whether it is in relation to its origins or development- assumes that we all know what parliament is. Indeed, the most ftindamental difficulty which precludes any discussion of parliamentary origins lies on the fact that parliament is an ever evolving institution and, as such, it seems to refuse definition. Can we suggest, for example, that the Parliament of 1295 is the same institution as any of the parliaments which assembled during the revolution of the , or any of the parliamentary sessions held at Westminster in the nineteenth century? It is perhaps appropriate to suggest that a number of common institutional features across centuries have made the evolution of parliament a cohesive subject of historical enquiry, but it would be very difficult indeed to have all scholars agreeing on those pariiamentary essentials. In fact, the historiography we have The twelfth-century territorial assemblies of the Christian kingdoms of Spain have also been the subject of several pariiamentary studies. Spanish and English assemblies reveal interesting parallels in this period, but those few institutional studies which have endeavored to look beyond a single kingdom, have traditionally compared England with France or, more rarely, with Germany. ^^ R.H. Lord, 'The Pariiaments of the Middle Ages and Early Modem Period', Catholic Historical Review, 16 (1930); Marongiu, Medieval Parliaments; Bisson, Medieval Representative Institutions', Myers, 'Representation as a European Tradition'; and Parliaments and Estates. ^^ Butt, A History of Parliament, p. 1. ^^ Richardson and Sayles, Parliaments and Great Councils, p. 35. considered in this chapter clearly indicates that such concordance could hardly be achieved. It is even more frustrating to consider that if parliament was to be defined, the poverty of the sources is likely to preclude the historian from establishing when such a definition could safely be applied to a medieval assembly or a session of the royal court, 'nor can we impose our own categories upon medieval institutions and give and refuse the name parliament because some assembly fulfils or fails to fulfil some fancied requirement imagined by a later age'.^'

None of the chronicles of the period indicate how a parliamentary session was distinctive from a conciliar one, other than choosing to identify some by the word parliamentum. F.M. Powicke rightly observed that 'the mystery which attends on the beginnings of parliament is not peculiar to these particular happenings. It is the mystery which attends on all beginnings, when men are doing things because they are convenient and do not attach conscious significance to them, still less consider what the distant outcome of their acts may be'.^^

At first, it appears that the use of parliamentum may hold the clue for determining what contemporaries thought a parliamentary session was. According to Gavin Langmuir, 'if we approach Parlement from the beginning rather than from its end, its telos, we cannot but be struck by the fact that a new kind of assembly was developing and that men felt the need to attach a new term, parliamentum, to it', while 'the tendency of concilium to retreat before the new term parliamentum may be an indication that the ecclesiastical model was seen as increasingly inappropriate to the reality of secular assemblies'.^' In England, the term first appears in the records in 1236, but it is incorporated 'alongside older words -'magnum concilium', 'colloquium', 'tractatus' -traditionally employed in records and chronicles to describe the great periodic meetings of king, barons and ministers for the doing of justice, the making of law, the discussion of national

Richardson, 'The Origins of Parliament,' p. 149. F.M. Powicke, King Henry III and the Lord Edward: the Community of the Realm in the Thirteenth Century (Oxford, 1947), p. 44. Langmuir, 'Politics and Parliaments', pp. 53-4. affairs, and now for taxation as well'.^^ Chroniclers employed these words to refer to the same sort of assemblies in the thirteenth century and the word parliamentum is said to have cohabited with other institutional denominations until the first half of the fourteenth century.^^ Furthermore, Pollard has warned 'we must not, however, when vagueness attaches to curia and concilium, look for defmiteness in the use of parliamentum' A careful terminological analysis like the one offered in our chapter on nomenclature may render Pollard's view inadequate and conclude that parliamentum was attached to a distinctive type of assembly. But in the absence of such a study, it is safe to suggest that 'parliament is a new name for an old habit: the practice of kings to surround themselves from time to time with their great subjects in order to discuss and decide about important public matters'.^^ The chapters of the present study have demonstrated that such a practice became a regular habit in the reign of Henry II.

In sum, it seems sensible to suggest that historians have not come to an agreement as to a working definition of parliament, and if a definition was to be tested, the sources could hardly assist in determining when assemblies do in fact gather all features identified as parliamentary. The use of parliamentum in the thirteenth century provides no further clarification for it seems to be applied to assemblies which are not substantially different from meetings which are not called parliaments. According to Sayles, moreover, 'these councils and assemblies had no definite constitution and formed no regular organ of government', until the Council of Oxford in 1258, 'when parliament is made a recognised and organised part of the machinery of government'.^^ Sayles suggests that this was the landmark which drew the line between enlarged meetings of the king's court and

Maddicott, 'An Infinite Multitude of Nobles', p. 17. Refer also to Richardson and Sayles, The Earliest Known Official Use of the Term "Parliament"', pp. 747-50. According to A.B. White, the term is first employed in 1239 (Refer to White, 'Was There a "Common Council'", p. 17; and 'Early Uses of "Parliamentum"', The Modern Language Review, 9 (1914), pp. 92-3). " Sayles, The King's Parliament, p. 16. Parlement 'slowly made its way in England into formal and official documents, though for a long time many clerks regarded it as a vulgar word, even after it had become latinised a parliamentum: it is a word that a fastidious stylist will avoid, for which he will substitute in preference the classical colloquium' (p. 33). Pollard, The Evolution of Parliament, p. 32. ^^ Miller, The Origins of Parliament, p. 12. It must be acknowledged that some of the studies cited come close to providing a conclusive study of parliamentary terminology in the thirteenth century, but they are not comprehensive enough to determine the correspondence between parliamentum and a set of institutional features clearly distinctive from those which had characterised great councils. ^^ Sayles, The Functions, pp. 12, 15. the first parliamentary sessions, but such a view needs qualification since, as we have indicated, the dispositions of 1258 which established the periodicity of parliamentary meetings were quickly abandoned.

Parliamentary Assemblies in the Making?

In this context, we can only measure up the changes experienced by royal councils in the reign of Henry 11 against the thirteenth-century developments which historians have identified as parliamentary. The chronological narrative in the first chapter of this study has revealed how central a role was played by councils in the governance of the realm and the maintenance of peace and stability. It has also provided an idea as to the changes experienced by royal assemblies in this period and how they can be grouped into sections which illustrate identifiable stages in Henry's reign. A similar role was played in the thirteenth century by royal assemblies, which some chroniclers and historians call parliaments. After all, the king's court continued to be the core of every parliamentary session and the business treated as general councils in the twelfth century is later adopted at parliamentary proceedings. Contrary to the constitutional premises which have generally set the development of parliamentary activity in opposition to monarchical designs, a parliament in this period may well be described -using the words of Edward Miller- as 'the child of the monarchy reared by the civil service as an instrument of the king's

administrative authority'. 37

As suggested in our chapter on the time and space of meetings, royal assemblies were summoned in this period at least as frequently as the parliaments of the thirteenth century, an unprecedented rhythm which might have also prompted the development of sophisticated methods of summons. Such frequency, however, was not envisaged for assemblies before 1154, which met at a rate that could hardly be identified as parliamentary. In addition, while the calendar of assemblies in the first half of the twelfth century was predominantly determined

^^ Miller, The Origins of Parliament, p. 7. by the sequence of religious feast days, the growing importance of councils in the governance of the realm meant that such meetings were often assembled outside religious feast days and their frequency was instead dictated by the urgency or importance of business. This change of course may have contributed to the demise of crown-wearings and the fading of some of the festive components of royal councils, all of which must have enhanced the more political and administrative aspects of assemblies. On the other hand, it must be noted that the councils of the twelfth century were as geographically diverse as the parliaments of the thirteenth century. Like the councils of Henry II, early parliaments remained an occasion, summoned according to royal design, as yet not an institution meeting with

•JO periodicity and always at the same venue.

Accordingly, all these geographical and temporal considerations point to the conclusion that if the term parliament is to be granted some meaningful distinction, there was nothing pre-parliamentary about the frequency and the calendar of royal assemblies in the second half of the twelfth century, just as no substantial changes concerning the space and location of gatherings was experienced in the following fifty years. Again, if parliamentum embodies an institutional recognition, all these features in councils could at least be regarded as "parliamentary symptoms", only a few of which are actually innovations in the reign of Henry II.

The conclusions in our chapter on general consultations remind us that like councils, the first European parliaments were monarchical assemblies, summoned and presided over by the ruler, primarily to meet goals concerning royal governance. Their function was, therefore, to facilitate general consultation between the monarch and the nobles, for this was the only aspect common to all meetings and without which a gathering could hardly be called a parliamentum. The gathering of the realm, embodied in the presence of the nobles, set the necessary political conditions for obtaining counsel and consent to monarchical

^^ I have also looked at the frequency of Spanish assemblies in this period and offered some comparative thoughts in J.M. Cerda, 'The Parliamentary Calendar of Spanish and English Assemblies in the Twelfth Century', Parliaments, Estates, and Representation, 26 (2006), pp. 1- programmes. These constituted the business of assemblies, which varied from one meeting to the other, and ranged from those issues concerning the monarch and the crown to those affecting particular regions or the entire kingdom. It is difficult to identify major differences between these matters and those treated by parliaments in the following century. These general issues concerned a variety of aspects of monarchical governance, such as the granting of patronage, the organisation of military campaigns, dynastic marriages, treaties and diplomatic arrangements, the imposition of tributes, the filling of important ecclesiastical vacancies, and a series of judicial, legal and administrative reforms, among many other matters discussed at royal assemblies.^^ This was the very same business of the realm, the negotia regis et regni which concerned parliamentary business, not only in the thirteenth century, but thereafter.

As we have pointed out, the matters discussed varied from one council to another, but there is no reason to believe that the assemblies of the twelfth century were because of this any less important for the governance of the realm than early parliaments. In studying the function and business of gatherings before the thirteenth century, institutional studies have tended to see fluidity or ambiguity where there is really something like omnicompetence. The Patent Rolls for 1258 describe the business of a parliament of Henry III at London in 1258 as follows:

Whereas we had caused the nobles and loyal subjects of our realm to be summoned to us at London a Fortnight after Easter last (May 1258) on account of pressing business concerning us and our realm...if we would consider reforming the state of our realm with the advice of our royal subjects... they themselves would loyally exert their influence upon the community of our realm so that a general aid for this purpose would be paid us, we have conceded to them that we will put the state of our realm in order by next Christmas with the counsel of the good and faithful subjects of our realm of England..

Towards the end of the thirteenth century, Edward I was calling pariiaments to seek 'extra-feudal revenues, to tax the clergy, to oppose the excessive claims of Boniface VIII, to expand the scope of central government and the jurisdiction of the royal courts, to mobilize the military force of the state, and to seek support for his policies by summoning representative assemblies for consultation and

^^ Refer to appendices 6 and 7. See Calendar of Patent Rolls: Preserved in the Public Records Office (Henry III), 6 volumes (London, 1901-13), iv.626. consent'."^' Were all such matters so radically different to the issues discussed at general councils a century before? How was the business of the 1258 assembly at London more parliamentary than that considered at Geddington in 1188? Were such deliberations any more significant in the long term than those reached at the assemblies of the realm at Clarendon and Northampton in 1164? If John Goronwy Edwards and Bertie Wilkinson are right in suggesting that the essential business of every medieval parliament was to view the negotia regis et regni or in the vernacular 'pur treter de bosoignes le rei et del reaume', that is to treat the common business of king and kingdom,then only accidental variations can be established between the business of twelfth and thirteenth-century assemblies. Furthermore, Wilkinson cites the text of the Modus Tenendi Parliamentum explaining that 'Parliaments are summoned firstly for war; secondly, for the common business of the realm; thirdly, there ought to be remembered the business of individualsIf, according to constitutional historians, such matters were substantially different from those discussed at the so-called pre-parliamentary assemblies of the twelfth century, the sources refuse to establish such distinction.^"^

Our conclusions on the composition of councils indicate that the proliferation of phrases such as omnes in Anglia and totius Anglie, or universi presules et proceres in the chronicles describing the attendance to councils, and the proportional enlargement of the group consulted, are probably illustrations of the territorial or general -to avoid using "national"- nature of these gatherings. Moreover, the sources also illustrate the increasing participation of officials and bureaucrats, experts, county knights and townsmen in royal assemblies. These institutional developments are in perfect concurrence with a wider political transformation which would eventually enhance monarchical governance with a more centralised bureaucracy, professional expertise, and the mechanisms to

Sayles, The Functions, p. 193. ^^ Edwards, Historians, p. 42; Wilkinson, Studies, pp. 42, 44. Wilkinson, Studies, p. 47. Wilkinson, Studies, p. 43. Richardson and Sayles criticise the work of Plucknett, suggesting that 'it is quite incredible that there should be two distinct institutions consisting of the same people unless there was a substantial difference in powers or function to justify the technicality' {Parliaments and Great Councils, p. 4). As previously mentioned, for Richardson and Sayles, the fundamental parliamentary function was the administration of justice, one that is prominently present in the assemblies of the twelfth century as well. implement royal administration and enforce territorial policies. The widening of the social base for royal consultation and the specialisation of offices and administrative functions would all be processes admitted by historians to be part of the early history of parliament. In reference to the judicial activity at the councils of Henry II, Pollard has argued that 'in this sense the origin of parliaments must be traced back to Henry II rather than to Simon de Montfort or Edward 1. If Henry had not made the king's court the matrix of England's common law, neither Simon nor Edward could have made it the matrix of England's common politics; for the foundation of a common law was indispensable to a house of common polities'.

Moreover, while the attendance at councils varied from one meeting to the other in the twelfth century, this inconsistency must have also affected the parliaments of the following century. As Ronald Butt has indicated, 'the composition of Parliament initially was essentially that of the great council gathered together in certain occasionsIn any case, if the attendance to assemblies experienced regular changes throughout the medieval period, the composition of these gatherings remained the same: the ruler was expected to summon all those who belong to the political community of the kingdom to the assembly of the realm. The universitas regni was not a static community, and the knights and some citizens seemed to have gained regular entry to it in the thirteenth century. Such a process probably finds its roots in the later part of the twelfth century, and their occasional presence at royal councils may have played a part. Richardson and Sayles have pointed out that from 1258 to 1327, 'parliaments to which representatives of shires or towns were summoned, for one purpose or another, alternated with parliaments to which there was no such summons

More importantly, however, the unprecedented regularity of royal gatherings must have consolidated a sense of community among those who were traditionally summoned to provide the king with advice and assent. It seems, therefore, that the principle which allowed cooperative governance and consensual politics at royal

Pollard, The Evolution of Parliament, p. 32. ^^ Butt, A History of Parliament, p. 65. Richardson and Sayles, Parliaments and Great Councils, p. 38. councils between 1155 and 1188, was probably not unlike that which enabled the barons to react with some cohesion against royal abuses in the reign of John and then at parliaments under Henry III.

At the same time, the increasing appearance of magnum and generale concilium in the records from the 1150s may also amount to a terminological precedent of one of the most fundamental aspects of parliamentary meetings, even to this day: they were the assemblies of the realm, public and territorial. The word parliamentum, on the other hand, represents another essential, yet less technical or distinctive element of every parliamentary session, for the nobles met the king and his court to parley or talk. Our study of the use of colloquium, curia and concilium, indicates that the terminology employed in the sources of the twelfth century is not as imprecise as might be assumed. It must be pointed out, moreover, that the term parliamentum was far from achieving technical significance in the thirteenth century.

Timothy Reuter has suggested that feudal courts took place 'whenever the ruler had in his presence a substantial number of people who were not permanent members of his entourageThis observation was not specifically made in reference to the councils of Henry II, but this is the description traditionally assigned to royal assemblies before the thirteenth century, precisely to establish a contrast with the politicised sessions of parliaments. The evidence we have studied, however, indicates that neither "feudal" nor "courts" are the most appropriate terms to describe the councils held in England between 1155 and 1188, while earlier assemblies are perhaps more suitably described by such concepts. As G.B. Adams concludes, 'during the first half of the twelfth century no change in councils or curia appears to be anything more than the natural growth which would take place under the pressure of increasing business'.A suitable definition of pariiament could perhaps have the features of Henry IPs councils branded as "pariiamentary", but even if such a case could not be established, the analysis offered in the present study leads to the conclusion that the nature of these meetings seems closer to that of assemblies called parliaments

Reuter, 'Assembly Polities', p. 435. ^^ Adams, CC p. 99. in the first half of the thirteenth century than to the councils of Henry I and his Norman predecessors.

Conclusion

If Europe witnessed a new and distinctive phenomenon comprising a number of important political and institutional developments affecting the evolution of royal assemblies, and if such a process is to be called "parliamentary", then it should be understood by observing the adaptation of consultative modes employed by monarchs to the new political, social and economic circumstances. It has been argued in accordance with this premise that English councils embodied the changing tactics developed by monarchs to obtain counsel and consent for their policies and for the peaceful ruling of the kingdom. James Baldwin's words perhaps encapsulate this perspective on the origins of parliamentary assemblies:

With all the facts at our disposal -and these are many- it seems impossible to suppose that any new institution, equivalent to a privy council or a council of regency, at this time was created. There was, indeed, nothing more than the quickening and adaptation of the consilium, as already understood, to the needs of new conditions.^®

When the history of parliament is stripped of its traditional association with constitutionalism and representation, a parliament could be said to be essentially a royal assembly which gathers the political community of the realm, regularly summoned to discuss matters of importance, and especially those concerning the entire kingdom. These features may even bridge the distance between medieval and modem parliaments, for if the constitutional reforms of the nineteenth century prompted the demise of the monarchical character of European parliaments, the monarch has remained at least the symbolic head of this institution, which equally assembles the political community of the nation, and discusses regional and national affairs alike. It seems that these are the only institutional ingredients that make the evolution of parliament a cohesive subject of historical inquiry, and if a parliamentary demarcation serves any valid purpose, it must be observed that

Baldwin, The King's Council, p. 21. some of these features characterised royal assemblies as early as the late Anglo- Saxon period.

Parliament is today a universal icon of political stability, a central organ of government and the institutional embodiment of modem , and yet the complexities of its history refuse to be tamed by the scholarship, not only because the past is a "foreign country," but perhaps more importantly, because we have not come to a full understanding of our own political institutions. As Edward Miller writes, 'parliament has for so long been a central institution in our polity that scholars have been apt to envisage past parliaments in the mirror of parliaments of their own time or parliaments they would like for their own time'.^' The councils of Henry II were parliamentary assemblies in the making only if parliamentum represented a distinctive institutional reality for those summoned to attend these meetings. Otherwise, it seems that the history of medieval parliaments can hardly enjoy any cohesion whatsoever.

Miller, The Origins of Parliament, p. 3. Conclusion

Medieval monarchs summoned councils primarily to widen the basis of consultation and secure general assent in the exercise of governance. The most noticeable and significant feature of royal councils in England during the reign of Henry II was their extraordinary frequency. Not only did conciliar activity increase after 1154 but, in fact, it nearly tripled that registered for the reigns of Henry I and Stephen, as well as that of his sons and successors, Richard and John.

At first, the frequency at which assemblies met appears to be no more than a contingency, and if royal councils have attracted insufficient attention from scholarship, their circumstantial features have been entirely left to oblivion. Reasonably, studies have instead concentrated on political controversy at assemblies and in those meetings best served by the sources, an approach not surprising considering that more was written by contemporaries on the four councils which met in 1163-4 than on the other thirty-two in the reign of Henry II. These meetings, however, have never been studied as samples of conciliar activity in twelfth-century England, but only in the context of the famous Becket controversy. Nobody would question the significance of the events at Clarendon and Northampton, but neither should our natural inclination to focus on controversy compel us to overlook the importance of other gatherings. Becket's hagiographers were naturally concerned with the outcome of these meetings and made sure that their versions of the proceedings would be left for posterity. However, not all contemporaries would have credited these councils with the same significance granted to them by historians. Although the king paid some political price for the dispute, he seems to have moved onto more important business shortly after Becket's escape from Northampton and if Henry visited the shrine at Canterbury, it seems that the controversy was rapidly overshadowed by other business after 1170.' The confrontation between the king and the archbishop was to have far- reaching consequences, but for contemporaries, the councils which met from 1175 to 1177 to discuss important reforms, and those assembled in 1185 and 1188 to treat crusading matters, must have been as important occasions as the stormy gatherings of 1163-4.

It is in this context that royal assemblies must be understood and where their frequency gains significance. The Becket controversy has been cited to exemplify royal coercion in the face of opposition, an attitude sometimes regarded as typical of Angevin kingship. Such an approach overlooks the fact that the councils of 1163-4 were summoned by Henry not only to force the royal customs upon the archbishop and restore royal authority but also, and perhaps more importantly, because it seems that there was nothing more important for the king than to achieve reconciliation with his former friend and chancellor, and to procure the stability of the realm. 'Know that I do not wish nor do I have the power to withdraw from the counsel of my kingdom, lest I be seen to nourish schism and discord in the kingdom', once said Henry 11.^ The phrase recorded by Gervase of Canterbury in his chronicle perfectly encapsulates the king's attitude towards general consultation and establishes an important connection between conciliar activity and the stability of the realm. This was the main purpose for summoning

' Henry was reconciled with the papacy at a legatine council which gathered at Avranches in 1172 (See Duggan, 'Ne in Dubium', pp. 643-58). ^ Gervase, i.319. councils by which the king could gather the counsel of his kingdom and procure peace and justice for his people.

Peace and stability were often achieved by means of quashing rebellion and this was particularly the case during the years that followed Henry's accession. At councils, the king 'brings low the proud, threatens battles, launches terror to the princes,' explains Peter of Blois.^ Violent measures were initially justified by the king as forming part of a restoration plan to take England out of chaos and back to the orderly days of his grandfather, a disclaimer which proliferates in chronicle passages and charters. But as Glanvill indicates in his legal treatise, 'not only must royal power be furnished with arms against rebels and nations which rise up against the king and the realm, but it is also fitting that it should be adorned with laws for the governance of subject and peaceful peoples'.'^ For Peter of Blois, a council was also an occasion when the king 'makes laws (and) friendships', and the unprecedented amount of legislation promulgated at councils signals that Henry II had effectively moved far beyond the days of his grandfather.^

The connection between conciliar activity and royal legislation in England is clearer in the reign of Henry II than ever before. Not only did the king take advantage of large gatherings to promulgate laws, but it seems that some councils were especially summoned to discuss and approve important reforms. According to the monk who wrote the chronicle of Battle Abbey, although kings 'could at will change the ancient rights of the country for his own time, that fact should not establish anything for posterity except with the common consent of the barons of the realm'.^ Many of Henry's reforms enjoyed such permanence precisely because they were discussed at councils in the presence and with the common counsel of the barons.

The unprecedented regularity of conciliar meetings not only meant that Henry could legislate with the approval of his barons, but councils also annulled the difficulties and inconveniences normally associated with royal government by

^ LPB, i.l95. '^Glanvill, pp. 1-2. ^LPB, i.l95. ^ Battle Chronicle, pp. 145-6. itineration. These assemblies brought local affairs to the king, and then delivered royal government to the localities. The gathering of the nobles was, therefore, a unique phenomenon in a world where local power mattered, since it enabled centrifugal and centripetal channels between central and regional politics: royal assemblies brought the kingdom to the king's presence and the king's presence to the kingdom.

The dichotomy of regional and central governance, and the distance between the king and his barons should not be exaggerated. The king and his regular advisors at court belong to the political community of the kingdom as much as the barons did, and although some councils witnessed a measure of antagonism, it should not be implied, as those making constitutional approaches often have, that conflict between the king and the barons was endemic and that interests inevitably clashed. In fact, it should not be assumed that either the barons always reacted as a block against -or in favour- of royal policy, nor that the king and his court always harboured apprehension about baronial opposition. It should be remembered, for example, that at the councils of 1164, the archbishop was not only confronted by the king and his learned men, but his cause was also opposed by many of the barons, among them, his very own bishops.

Assemblies were more often an occasion for cooperative governance and consensual politics. These features are indications of Henry's skill in managing his barons and enacting reform to secure peace, stability and order in his kingdom. It seems therefore, that the barons generally approved much of what was promulgated in this period and this may have facilitated political cohesion. Moreover, councils such as the one assembled at Clerkenwell in 1185, clearly reveal that the king was willing to consider, and sometimes even accept, the advice of the barons. Coincidence between royal and baronial opinion -though the latter was hardly uniform- should not be interpreted as a peculiar feature of ceremonial, or apolitical, consultation.

The intensity of conciliar activity added to consensual politics and cooperative governance in assisting the gradual development of a sense of community among the powerful and influential in England. As the bishop of London records, the nobles were 'assembled as one man' {conuenitpopulus ut uir unus) at the Council of Northampton in 11647 Henry called his nobles to councils with such frequency, that social interaction and collective discussion were made a regular event from 1155 to 1188, thus contributing significantly to the development of a communitas regni in England. We can only speculate in thinking that the abuses of King John could have met more compliance had the nobles not engaged in politicised conciliar activity as regularly as they did during the reign of Henry IL We are, of course, referring to a different set of barons, but communal feelings and the ability of reacting collectively to royal lordship was not an unprecedented

o development in 1215.

The reign of Henry II was probably one of the most successful displays of kingship in medieval England, and much of the failure of English monarchs in the early decades of the thirteenth century -especially in maintaining control over Angevin lands- is really a credit to his governance.^ It is no coincidence that this successful reign was contemporaneous with the increase of conciliar activity, not only because the regularity of councils enhanced monarchical power and contributed to the centralisation of government, but also because behind every successful monarch there was a body of wise counsellors and courtiers.

All these considerations point to the increasingly public nature of royal councils. Much of the business transacted at the curia regis -ordinary or enlarged- was now discussed at councils, only because they met with such an extraordinary frequency that most of the business of the realm could now be regularly dealt with at councils. In consequence, frequent meetings not only enabled the king to obtain general assent for legislation, but for a variety of reforms and measures. The king demolished the strongholds of rebels and organised military campaigns in the 1150s, he enacted important reforms concerning judicial processes and the jurisdiction of the church in the following decade, he restored royal authority after

^ The Correspondence of Thomas Becket, no. 109, p. 514. ^ J.C. Holt has argued that some of the barons must have gained some experience in law and government in the decades leading to Magna Carta, and that 'laymen were slowly moving towards the position occupied in 1215' (Holt, 'The Barons and the Great Charter', pp. 11, 13-15). ^ According to C.W. Hollister and T.K. Keefe, the king of England 'now ruled an empire that his more cautious predecessors had neither desired nor clearly imagined...It was Henry Plantagenet's own creation, bom of his youthful ambition and achieved through his skill and good fortune' (Hollister and Keefe, 'The Making of the Angevin Empire', p. 25). the continental rebellion and promulgated a series of administrative measure in the 1170s, and collected extraordinary taxes in aid of the Holy Land in the 1180s. Significantly, all this was done with the counsel and assent of the prelates and barons of England, while assembled at councils.

The proliferation of chronicle terms such as magnum and general concilium and the description of conciliar attendance as totius Anglic or omnes in Anglia may be a terminological manifestation of the public character of councils in this period. It is unlikely that councils were regularly attended by every single one of Henry's tenants, but the evidence suggests that their presence was expected and that all of them must have been summoned, probably by means of individual writs. When reporting that Henry expected Becket's submission to be performed in the presence of all his barons (tuz mes barons), the vernacular passage from Guemes de Pont-Sainte-Maxence seems to indicate that a royal council was not simply an enlargement of the curia regis, but an assembly of the realm and the most public occasion for political interaction.''

In the twelfth century, the pace of these changes was not simply, nor primarily dictated by semantic evolution, nor did the incipient specification of institutional terms simply followed prevailing literary styles. These changes are instead a window into the institutional world of twelfth-century England, one that is considerably more sophisticated than sometimes assumed. In understanding the institutional peculiarities of royal councils, diplomatic conferences, festive courts, and ecclesiastical gatherings, the present study has profited immensely from the analysis of terms employed in the sources to describe political assemblies.

This has been an introductory approach to the councils of Henry II, for it seems difficult to venture much further into their physiognomy considering the sources at our disposal. The present work has given some attention to earlier assemblies to grasp the peculiarities of Henry's councils, but following the development of conciliar activity to the reigns of Richard and John is also likely to prove a fruitful exercise. More ambitious approaches may shed further light on the nature of these

See appendix 7 on the main business of councils. " Guemes, p. 80. meetings by observing the character of royal assemblies elsewhere in Europe, particularly that of the French concile, the Spanish curia and the German imperial diet.

The sources of twelfth-century England are indeed concerned with political phenomena, but not as much with the nuances of institutional realities. Walter Map wrote an entire treatise on the court of Henry II, and yet in the end he admits himself unable to grasp its very nature. '"In time I exist, and of time I speak", said Augustine: and added, "what time is I know not". In a like spirit of perplexity I may say that in the court I exist and of the court I speak, and what the court is, God knows, I know not'.'^ If Walter's frustration does not exonerate the shortcomings of our study, it shows at least how complicated and fascinating a subject this is and how much further research is needed.

Walter Map, De Nugis Curialum, p. 4: '"In tempore sum et de tempore loquor", ait Augustinus, et adiecit: "nescio quid sit tempus". Ego simili possum admiracione dicere quod in curiam sum, et de curia loquor, et nescio. Deus scit, quid sit curia Appendices

1 Councils in the context of an outline royal itinerary. 2 Terms used to identify royal assemblies. 3a The geographical distribution of royal councils. 3b Royal itinerary and councils in 1155. 3c Royal itinerary and councils in 1175. 4 Buildings and royal assemblies. 5 Four charters linked to royal councils. 6 Royal charters and conciliar activity. 7 The main business discussed at councils. 8 The community of the kingdom at councils. 9 The main primary sources. APPENDIX 1 Councils in the Context of an Outline Royal Itinerary Based on W. Stubbs (1867) Councils indicated in bold

1154 Woodstock Aug 14 Portsmouth Oct 25 Stephen dies Nov-Dec 6 Barfleur Continental lands Dec 19 London (coronation) Dec 25 Bermondsey (curia) 1163 1155 Jan 25 Cherbourg-Southampton Jan York Mar 3-8 London Scarborough Mar 17 Canterbury Feb Nottingham Mar 24-31 Windsor Feb 28 Birth of Henry the Reading Younger(London) Wallingford Mar London Wales Wallingford Woodstock Mar 15-May Cleobury Octl London Wigmore Northampton -11 Bridgnorth Gloucester Sept 29 Winchester Woodstock Dec 25 London 1164 1156 Jan 25-27 Clarendon Jan 10 Dover to Witsand Porchester Woodstock Continental lands April 19-21 Reading Woodstock 1157 Oct 6-13 Northampton Dec 25 Marlborough Southampton London 1165 Ongar May 19 Bury St Edmunds Continental lands May 23-28 Colchester Northampton Expedition to Wales (April) Expedition to Wales Chester 1166 Basing werk Coleshulle Jan-Feb Oxford Cennadlog Clarendon RJiuddlan April 24 Tamworth Sept 8 Birth of Richard (Oxford) Continental lands Sept-Dec Nottinghamshire Dec 25 Lincoln (curia) 1170

1158 March 3 Portsmouth Windsor (Easter curia) Worcester May-June London Carlisle June 24 Portsmouth to Barfleur Gloucester Clarendon Continental lands until Aug 1171 Ireland until April 1172 April 21 Canterbury Continental lands untilJuly 1174 (revolt) Dover -24 Wye 1174 London St Edmunds Julys Barfleur-Southampton May 2 Ely Canterbury Geddington -18 London Windsor July 19-21 Huntingdon May Oxford July 24-25 Seleham July 31 Northampton Winchester Aug? Portsmouth-Porchester June 3 Winchester Aug 8 Barfleur Marlborough London Continental lands June 11 Waltham June 12 London 1175 Woodstock Julyl Winchester May 8 Barfleur-Portsmouth July 9 Stokes London (church council) July 10 -17 Stanstead Canterbury July 17 Winchester June 1 Reading (curia) Aug Winchester Gloucester Aug 17 Portsmouth July 1-9 Woodstock (church council) Continental lands Lichfield Aug 1-2 Nottingham (placitum) 1178 Aug 10 York Sept Windsor July 15 Dighesmuta Oct 6 Windsor Canterbury Oct 31 Winchester Aug 6 Woodstock Windsor Winchester Nov 26 Eynsham Dec 25 Winchester Dec 25 Windsor 1179 1176 Jan Winchester Jan Windsor Windsor Jan 25-26 Northampton April 1 Winchester Mar 10 London (church council) Windsor Winchester Aug 22 Dover May 25 London Aug 23 Canterbury Aug 15-21 Winchester Aug 26 Dover Sept 28-29 Windsor Aug 27 London Oct 9 Feckenham Dec 25 Nottingham (( Oct 17 Nov 12 London (curia) 1180 Dec 24-25 Nottingham Jan Nottingham 1177 April 1 Reading Portsmouth Jan Nottingham Alen9on Jan 13 Northampton Jan 20 Windsor 1181 Feb 2 Marlborough (curia) Feb 22 Winchester Cherbourg Mar 9 Windsor Portsmouth Mar 13-16 London Canterbury Marlborough Nottingham Reading Sept 6 Evesham Winchester Jan 1 London Dec 25 Winchester Feb 10 Chilham Feb 11 Canterbury 1182 Feb 17 Dover to Witsand Jan Winchester 1188 Jan 6 Marlborough Mar Bishop's Waltham Jan 30 Dieppe to Winchelsea Mar 3 Portsmouth Feb Otford Feb 11 Geddington Continental lands Feb 29-Mar 1 Clarendon Cirencester 1184 April 24 London July 10-11 Portsea to Barfleur June Witsand Dover 1189 Waltham Worcester July 5-6 Chinon Winchester Gloucester Aug 5 Reading Aug 16 Woodstock Dover Canterbury London Oct 21-23 Windsor Nov 30 London Dec 2-10 London Dec 14 Canterbury Dec 15-16 London Dec 25 Windsor (curia) Guildford 1185 Jan 1 Winchester Feb 2 Winchester Nottingham Reading Mar 17 Clerkenwell Mar 31 Windsor April 16 Dover to Witsand

1186 April 27 Barfleur to Southampton Merewell Winchester May 25-31 Eynsham June 1 Woodstock Carlisle Sept 5-8 Woodstock (marriage curia) Sept 9-14 Marlborough Reading Nov 30 Amesbury Dec 25 Guildford APPENDIX 2 Terms Used to Identify Royal Assemblies

The purpose of this table is to provide a summary of the terms employed by chroniclers to identify or designate large meetings between the king and the barons between 1155 and 1188. Most of these references are taken from narrative sources, and many of them from Howden's chronicles. They provide a sense of proportion in relation to the use of generale and magnum concilium, and thus clarify some of the points made in the chapter on nomenclature in regards to the changes affecting conciliar terminology in this period. Only the sources which explicitly identified assemblies with a term are included in this table.

Location Date Nomenclature References 1 London March 1155 generale concilium Battle Chronicle, 154 2 Wallingford April 1155 conventus Gervase, i.l62 generalis 3 Bridgnorth July 1155 4 Winchester Sept 1155 concilium Torigni, iv.l86; Recueil, nos. 6,7 5 London Dec 1155 concilium Battle Chronicle, 160 6 St Edmunds May 1157 7 Northampton July 1157 concilium Monasticon, iv.515 CCR, ii. 136-7 concilium 8 Worcester April 1158 9 London March 1163 GFL, 185-6 concilium 10 Woodstock July 1163 11 London Oct 1163 Howden, Chronica, i.220 magnum concilium 12 Clarendon Jan 1164 Gervase, i.l76 concilium Diceto, i.312 tractatus MTB, iii.46 13 Northampton Oct 1164 generale concilium MTB, iii.49 generale concilium Howden, Chronica, i.224 magnum concilium Howden, Chronica, i.224 colloquium Becket Correspondence, i.515 concilium MTB, V.134 plenari concilium Guemes, i.l04 14 Clarendon March 1166 concile 15 London June 1170 magnum concilium Howden, Gesta, i.4; Howden, Chronica, HA 16 Gloucester June 1175 magnum concilium 17 York Aug 1175 Howden, Gesta, i.92 18 Windsor Oct 1175 magnum concilium Howden, Chronica, ii.83 19 Northampton Jan 1176 magnum concilium Howden, Chronica, ii.87; Howden, Gesta, i.107 concilium Howden, Gesta, i. 111 ; Howden, Chronica, ii.91 20 London May 1176 concilium Howden, Chronica, ii.94 tractatus Diceto, i.407-8 21 Winchester Aug 1176 concilium Howden, Gesta, i. 118 22 Windsor Sept 1176 concilium Howden, Gesta, i.l24 23 Northampton Jan 1177 generale concilium Howden, Chronica, ii.ll8 magnum concilium Howden, Gesta, i.l32 24 London March 1177 concilium generale Howden, Chronica, ii.l20 25 Geddington May 1177 26 Oxford May 1177 colloquium Howden, Gesta, i.l62 generale concilium Howden, Chronica, ii.l33 27 Winchester July 1177 concilium Howden, Chronica, ii.l35 28 Windsor April 1179 magnum concilium Howden, Chronica, ii.l90 29 B. Waltham March 1182 30 Reading Aug 1184 concilium Howden, Chronica, ii.286 31 Woodstock Aug 1184 32 London Dec 1184 33 Clerkenwell March 1185 concilium Howden, Chronica, ii.301; Howden, Gesta, i.336 colloquium Howden, Gesta, i.335 34 Eynsham May 1186 tractatus MVSH, i.92 colloquium MVSH, i.92 concilium Howden, Gesta, i.345 35 Marlborough Sept 1186 concilium Howden, Gesta, i.351 36 Geddington Feb 1188 magnum concilium Howden, Chronica, ii.338 APPENDIX 3a The Geographical Distribution of Royal Councils

This map clearly reveals that most royal councils between 1155 and 1188 met in southern England and practically all of them south of Nottingham. This geographical pattern had also been dominant for the councils summoned by Norman kings (London and Westminster are here included in one group).

The geography of English councils (1155-1188) APPENDIX 3b Royal Itinerary and Councils in 1155

1155 is a year of intense conciliar activity in England. The king was busy keeping rebellious barons under control and asserting his authority over a kingdom that had experienced civil strife. Councils (here underlined) played a crucial role in bringing the royal plans about since they were occasions where the monarch could gather general support. (This itinerary is based on appendix 1). APPENDIX 3 c Royal Itinerary and Councils in 1175

This map shows the royal itinerary in 1175 (refer to appendix 1) and shows the places where councils met (here underlined). The king had returned from the continent after appeasing the rebellion of his sons and spent much of 1175 restoring order and stability throughout his English kingdom. With such a purpose, he met his nobles at courts in Woodstock and Nottingham and at councils in Gloucester, York and Windsor. The map provides an interesting parallel with 1155.

Durham

York* August'

Lichfield." Nottingham July Augu&l

ENGLAND Worcester

\ Northampton

Woodstock \ July .Oxford

Wallingford London May

September , Winchester,-',.-' October Salisbury« Portsmouth Clarendon APPENDIX 4 Buildings and Royal Assemblies (1155-1188)

Building Location Dates Westminster Hall/Abbey London 1155(2),1163(2), 1170,1176,1177,1184 Wallingford 1155 Bridgnorth Castle Bridgnorth 1155 /Royal Palace Winchester 1155,1176,1177 Abbey of Bury St Edmunds Bury St Edmunds 1157 Northampton Castle Northampton 1157,1164,1176 Woodstock Palace Woodstock 1163,1184 Clarendon Palace Clarendon 1164,1166 Windsor Castle Windsor 1175,1176,1179 Bishop's Waltham Castle Bishops Waltham 1182 House of Knights Hospitallers Clerkenwell 1185 Marlborough Castle Marlborough 1186 Church of St Mary Magdalene Geddington 1177,1188 lit-» List of Pictures

1. Ruins of Bury St Edmunds Abbey (Suffolk). 2. Ruins of the episcopal residence at Bishop's Waltham (Hampshire). 3. St Mary Magdalene Church, Geddington (Northamptonshire). 4. Motte of Marlborough Castle (Wiltshire). 5. Ruins of the north gate of Northampton Castle in the Victorian period. 6. The Tudor palace at Woodstock (Oxfordshire) 7. Ruins of Clarendon Palace (Wiltshire). 8. Ruins of Bridgnorth Castle (Shropshire). 9. The House of the Knights Hospitallers in Clerkenwell (London). 10. Windsor Castle. 11. Ruins of Wolvesey Castle in Winchester. 12. Ruins of Wallingford Castle (Oxfordshire). 13. Westminster Hall in Westminster Palace (London). APPENDIX 5 Four Charters linked to Royal Councils

These charters have been included here to further illustrate the relationship between the terms curia and concilium, and to show how baronial consultation and approval is reported in officials records. I have been given access to the text of these charters by Prof. Nicholas Vincent and those working in the Angevin Acta Project currently funded by the British Academy. This new edition has not been published as yet, so references to printed texts of these documents correspond to earlier sources.

I

Recipient: Louis VII King of France. Notification of the judgment of Thomas Becket. Location and date: Northampton, October/November 1164. MS: B = Rome, Vatican, MS. Reg.Lat.179. Printed: MTB, v.l34, no.71.

Domino et amico suo L(udouico) illustri Francorum regi, H(enricus) rex Angl(orum) et dux Norm(annorum) et Aquit(anorum) et comes And(egauorum) salutem et dilectionem. Sciatis quod Thomas, qui Cant' fuit archiepiscopus, in curia mea a plenario baronum regni mei concilio ut iniq(uus) et proditor meus et periurus publice iudicatus est et sub manifesto proditoris nomine iniq(uus) discessit sicut nuntii mei plenius vob(is) dicent, hide est quod precor vos diligenter ne hominem tantorum scelerum et proditionum infamem in regno vestro nec homines suos esse permittatis nec a v(o)b(is) vel a vestris aliquod consilium vel auxilium tantus inimicus meus si placet percipiat, quia inimicis vestris et regno vestro nec a me nec a terra mea ullatenus exhiberem nec exhiberi permitterem. Immo si placet efficacit(er) me iuuetis ad dedecus meum ulciscendum de tanto inimico meo et ad honorem meum perquirendum sicut velletis quod vob(is) facerem si opus esset. T(este) R. com(ite) Legr' apud Northamt'.

II

Declaration that the bishops of Normandy have issued an indulgence to those contributing to the aid to the Holy Land. Location and date: Clerkenwell?, c. April/May 1185. MS: B = London, BL, MS. Cotton Claudius D ii (Statutes) fo.74r (71r, 80r). Printed: H. Spelman Concilia, ii.715-16.

Auctoritate litterarum domini pape subnixi presente et approbante illustri Anglorum rege Henrico cum baronibus suis et A(lberto) de Summa legato summi pontificis, episcopi Norm' in suis ep(isop)atibus hoc instituerunt, ut quicumque elemosinam que ordinata est ad subuentionem terre lerosolomitane transmiserunt talem de iniuncta penitentia veniam consequatur. Si in penitentia fuerit que septem annos excedat, trium annorum venia gaudebunt, si in p(enite)n(t)ia vel minori fuerint pro criminali duorum annorum veniam habebunt. Peccata vero de quibus homo recordari non poterit omnia relaxant dummodo de contemptu penituerit, venalia quoque omnia sub tali penitentia condonent ut unusquisque qui elemosinam istam soluerit ter in die vel in nocte pater noster dicat, pro salute viuorum semel, pro pace semel, et semel pro requie defunctorum, tres quoque elemosinas unusquisque tenetur ut banc indulgentiam consequatur si facere poterit. Si vero ea paupertate laborat ut elemosinas illas facere non possit, ter itemm pater noster pro consequenda remissione dicere tenentur. Talis est dispositio ad subueniendum terre Irlm' a domino Ph(illip)o rege Francie et H(enrico) r(ege) Angl(omm), communi Consilio episcoporum et com(itum) et baron(um) terrarum suarum approbata, scilicet quod unusquisque tam clericorum quam laicorum qui plusquam centum sol(idos) non h(ab)u(er)it, de unaquaque domo quam habu(er)it ubi singulis diebus ignis consuetudinarie accendetur, ii. d(enarios) singulis annis usque ad tres annos persoluet. Si vero in mobilibus plusquam centum sol(idos) habu(er)it, de unaquaque libra in tota terra r(egis) Francie ii. d(enarios) Proueniensis monete vel equipollens, et in terra regis Angl(omm) cismarino ii. d(enarios) Andegauensis monete et in Angl(ia) unus sterlingus persoluetur usque ad predictum terminum. Qui vero centum li(bras) in terris vel in redditibus habuerit vel eo amplius, de centum li(bris) xx. s(olidos) annuatim dabit. Qui vero in redditibus minus quam centum libr(as) habu(er)it, de xx. li(bris) dabit quatuor sol(idos) et de xl. li(bris) viii. s(olidos) et ita deinceps vel rationem predictam. Habentes vero mobilia ultra centum solid(os) iurabunt quod de singul(is) xx. s(olidis) fideliter duos den(arios) dabunt de parte mortui que spectat ad eum secundum consuetudinem terre et unum post, et deb(et) elemosinam pro anima sua facere. Decima debetur ad defensionem terre Mm' a natiuitate sancti Ioh(ann)is Baptiste anno incamationis domini millesimo c°lxxx°iiii°. in decem annos saluo iure dominomm et ecclesiarum. Excipiuntur ab ista estimatione in clericis thesauri et omament(a) ecclesiarum et libri et equi et vasa et vestimenta et gemme et utensilia que cotidianis usibus et sibi necc(essar)ia sunt, et in militibus equi et arma et vasa et indumenta que usibus eorum deputantur. Ad hanc elemosinam colligendam instituentur in singulis episcopatibus duo fratres, unus de Tempio et alter de Hospitali, et singulis parochianis illi duo et dominus presbiter ville et duo de legalioribus parochianis elemosinam constitutam fideliter colligant et conseruabunt.

Ili

Recipient: Pope Clement III. Notification of the dispute between Archbishop Baldwin and the monks of Canterbury. The king requests papal protection for the archbishop. Location and date: Geddington?, c.February 1188/1189? MS: B = London, Palace Library MS.415, fos.45v-46r. Printed: Epistolae Cant., pp. 172-3, no. 190.

Clem(enti) Henr(icus), pape rex Angl(orum). Ex quo per gratiam Dei ac(c)epimus signum crucis, operam dedimus diligentem, pacem in omnibus terris nostris statuere in firmam. Unde cum in ecclesia Cant', que est capud et gl(ori)a regni nostri, Consilio episcoporum et magnatum terre, pacem vellemus inter sanctissimum patrem nostrum B(aldewinum) Cant' arch(iepiscopu)m et monachos eiusdem ecclesie procurare, prefatus arch(iepis)c(opus) firmiter proponens velie se his esse contentum que usque ad tempora Ric(ardi) Cant' arch(iepiscop)i, qui nouissime ibi sedit, o(mne)s sui antecessores habuerant, de omnibus controuersiis inter eos habitis, iudicio s(iu)e Consilio omnium episcoporum atque abb(at)um terre humiliter ac deuote se obtulit, et eorum se stare arbitrio tanquam pacis amicus et filius promisit. Porro monachi, eos solos timentes qui rei veritatem plenius cognouer(un)t, atque per varios et frequentes excursus virum sanctum diffamare vestramque religionem fictis contra eum mendaciis corr(um)pere maliciose attemptantes, nec arbitrio religiosorum nec nostro aut episcoporum vel abb(at)um Consilio adquiescere voluerunt. B(aldewinus) sane prefatus arch(iepiscopu)s ad gloriam et honorem Dei et solatium populi sui signum crucis accep(it), cui facto plurimum congaudemus, nam in societate ipsius laborem pro quiete, pericula pro securitate, peregrinationem pro patria reputamus. Si ergo nostrani nostrique regni pacem et quietam diligitis, patemitatem vestram rogamus humiliter et deuote ut prefatum arch(iepiscopu)m per contumaciam et rebellionem monachorum suorum nequaquam turbari decetero permittatis. Turbatio (e)n(im) eius redundat in omnes. Cumque hodie omnia pacificet crux Cristi, crucem eius gratanter ferre non poterimus quamdiu viderimus hominem innocentem et iustum per contumaciam et mendaciam talium hominum molestari. Confidunt siquidem in mendaciis suis et in thesauris ecclesie quos ibi posuerunt progenitores nostri, quorum partem maximam absportasse, et insuper ecclesiam pregrauasse d(icu)n(tu)r. Sed cum ad nos illius ecclesie aduocatio et tutela pertineat, ita, dante Domino, manus eorum studebimus cohibere, ut necc(essar)iis habundent et ecclesie thesauros eisdem ulterius non liceat dissipare.

IV

Beneficiary: Knights Hospitallers of Jerusalem. Notification of the King's confirmation of possession and award of liberties. Location and date: Winchester, c. September 1155. MS: B = London, PRO C52/27. Printed: Delisle, Recueil, no. 6.

H(enricus) rex Angl(orum) et dux Norm(annorum) et Aquit(anorum) et comes And(egauorum) archiepiscopis, episcopis, abbatibus, com(itibus), iustic(iis), vicec(omitibus), bar(onibus), ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis Franc(is) et Angl(is) totius Angl(ie) salutem. Sciatis me concessisse et confirmasse Deo et fratribus sancti hospital(is) lerlm' omnes donationes terrarum et hominum et elemosinarum que eis rationabiliter facte sunt tam in ecclesiis quam in rebus et possessionibus mundanis. Quare volo et firmiter precipio quod predicti fratres et eorum ministri omnes possessiones et ecclesias suas habeant et teneant cum soca et saca et toll et theam et infangeneth(ef) et cum aliis libertatibus et liberis consuetudinibus et quietanc(iis) suis in bosco et plano, in pratis et pasturis, in aquis et molend(inis), in viis et semitis, in stagnis et viuariis et mariscis et piscariis et grangiis et virgultis, infra burgum et extra et in omnibus locis et in omnibus rebus solutas et liberas et quietas de scir(is) et hundr(edis) et plac(itis) et querel(is) et murdr(is) et wapent(aciis) et scutag(iis) et geld(is) et danegeld(is) et hydag(iis) et assisis et de operationibus castellorum et pontium et de ferdwita et de hengewita et de flemenefremthe et de warpeni et aurepeni et de blodwita et de fihetwita et de hundrepeni et de tethincpeni et quietas de omni thelon(eo) et passagio et pontag(io) et lestag(io) et stallag(io) et de omni seculari seruicio et opere seruili et exactione et de omnibus aliis occasionibus et consuetud(inibus) secularibus excepta sola iusticia mortis et menbrorum. Hec omnia eis concessi in perpetuam elemosinam pro Dei amore et pro anima regis H(enrici) aui mei et pro anima patris mei et pro salute mea et matris mee imperatricis et A(lienore) regine et puerorum. T(estibus) Tom(a) cancell(ario), R. Eborac' archiepiscopo, Ric(ardo) Lund' episcopo, R. Line', G. Hereford', W(illelmo) fratre reg(is), R. com(ite) Leg'rc', R. com(ite) Com', W(illelmo) com(ite) Waren', W(illelmo) com(ite) Gloec', H(ugone) com(ite) Norfolc', com(ite) Patricio, R(oberto) de Nouo Burgo, H(enrico) de Essex' const(abulario), Ric(ardo) de Humez const(abulario), Guar(ino) filio Ger(oldi) camerar(io), Man(assero) Biset dap(ifero), W(illelmo) filio Ham(onis), Ric(ardo) de Luci, Ric(ardo) de Campiuill' apud Wintoniam in concilio. APPENDIX 6 Royal Charters and Conciliar Activity

This table lists royal charters which may have been contemporary to councils and possibly connected to the discussions at these meetings. When this is actually the case, the witness lists clearly reveal that not everyone present at these gatherings testifies to royal acts, as we have suggested in the chapter dealing with the composition of assemblies. The information on this table also adds to our analysis of the business of councils.

Assembly Beneficiary Witnesses Source Winchester 1155 Knights Hospitallers 20 Delisle, Recueil, no.6 Longueville Priory 18 Delisle, Recueil, no.7 Northampton 1157 Wix Priory (2) 9 Monasticon, iv.515 CCR, iv.379-80 Montacute Priory 7 CCR, ii.136-7 Westminster 1163 Bishop of Hereford 1 GFL, no. 147 Bishop of Lincoln 24 English Lawsuits, ii.378-9, no.405 St Albans Abbey 24 English Lawsuits, ii.378-9, no.405 Woodstock 1163 Fumess Abbey 14 Monasticon, v.248-9 Nuneaton Priory 20 Dugdale,i.(1655) 519 Northampton 1164 Sibton Abbey 2 CCR, ±91, no.4 Woodstock 1175 Roger Fitz Reinfred 10 Eyton, Itinerary, 192 Alexander de Barentin 14 Westm Charters, 73, no. 134 Wormegay Priory 10 Vincent, 'Wormegay Priory', 310-11 Nottingham 1175 St Mary ' s Cathedral Priory 15 Monasticon, vi. 144 Walter the goldsmith 10 Delisle, BEC, lxix.567, no.88 York 1175 Foimtains Abbey 8 EYC, i.74-5, no.78 Wilbefoss Priory 9 Monasticon, iv.355, no.2 Kirkham Priory 9 Eyton, Itinerary, 242 St Clements Priory 13 Monasticon, iv.325, no.5 Gokewell Priory 12 £rC,vi.204-5,no.l06 Windsor 1175 Greenfield Priory 9 Holt and Mortimer, 73, no. 104 Roger Fitz Everard 10 Hoh and Mortimer, 88, no. 137. Northampton 1176 14 Delisle, Recueil, no.502 Walthamll82 Bury St Edmunds Abbey 3 Douglas, Feudal Documents, 104-5, no. 100 Gilbert of Norfolk 18 HMC, Wells, i.352-3 Westminster 1184 Butley Priory 15 Eyton, Itinerary, 262 Leiston Abbey 7 Leiston Cartulary, 73-4, no.24 Marlborough 1186 Witham Charterhouse 16 CCi?, i.116 Dodford Priory 7 Monasticon, vi.944 Geddington 1188 Christ Church Cathedral 1 Gervase, i.412 Priory APPENDIX 7 The Main Business discussed at Councils

This list only shows the main purpose for summoning each one of Henry's councils and the important events that took place in these meetings according to the sources. An exhaustive and more detailed study of the matters treated at royal assemblies between 1155 and 1188 is offered in the chapter 'The King and his Councils'. This appendix provides a general outline which shows the relationship between conciliar activity, royal governance, and the main political events in Henry's reign.

Location Date Main business and events according to the sources London March 1155 Demolition of castles; confirmation of laws and charters; peace and stability in the kingdom; revocation of Stephen's measures Wallingford March 1155 Revolt of Hugh de Mortimer; declaration of heirs; peace and stability Bridgnorth July 1155 Peace between the king and Hugh de Mortimer Winchester Sept 1155 Conquest of Ireland London Dec 1155 King's crossing to Normandy and continental matters St Edmunds May 1157 Crown-wearing; conflict between Hugh Bigod and William of Blois; Campaign against the Welsh Northampton July 1157 Welsh expedition; dispute between archbishop of Canterbury and the monks of St Augustine Worcester April 1158 Crown-wearing; scutage discussed for Toulouse campaign? London March 1163 Settlements Geoffrey of Essex/Ramsey Abbey and bishop of Lincoln/St Albans; Treaty with the Count of Flanders Woodstock July 1163 Danegeld discussed?; Homage of Malcolm of Scotland; Becket opposes the king concerning the sheriffs' aid London Oct 1163 Peace and stability in the kingdom; punishment for clerics; observation of royal customs; primacy of Becket as English primate discussed Clarendon Jan 1164 Recording of royal constitutions; Becket is interrogated Northampton Oct 1164 Trial and escape of Becket; embassy for Rome and letters to the king of France Clarendon March 1166 Assize of Clarendon; Cathars in England; baronial assessments? London June 1170 Coronation of Henry the Younger; Inquest of Sheriffs; settlement with Becket; issues related to Normandy; homage and knighting of Scottish king and his brother David Gloucester June 1175 Albigensian crusade?; settlement with the king's sons? York Aug 1175 Homage of William and Scottish nobles; renewal of Treaty of Falaise; dispute between the Scottish clergy and York Windsor Oct 1175 Ecclesiastical appointments for Ireland; Treaty with Roderic of Connaught Northampton Jan 1176 Assize of Northampton; Assize of Clarendon confmned; dispute bt archbishops of York and Canterbury; subjection of Scottish church to York discussed London May 1176 Peace bt the archbishops; Joan betrothed and embassy sent to William of Sicily Winchester Aug 1176 Final reconciliation bt the archbishops Windsor Sept 1176 Castles taken from barons and appointment of justiciar for Normandy Northampton Jan 1177 Ecclesiastical appointments; Flemish embassy; settlement of baronial disputes; return of lands to earls of Leicester and Chester; earldom of Sussex to WiUiam de Albini; aid to the Holy Land? London March 1177 Arbitration in Spanish dispute (Castile/Navarre) Geddington May 1177 Peace and stability in the kingdom; administration of castles Oxford May 1177 Homage of the Welsh; John made king of Ireland; distribution of Irish lands to nobles; ecclesiastical business and patronage Winchester July 1177 Henry's crossing and continental matters; appointment of abbots Windsor April 1179 Grand Assize B. Waltham Feb 1182 Aid to the Holy Land; Henry's will drafted?; appointment of an abbot for Bury St Edmunds Reading Aug 1184 Election of an archbishop for Canterbury Woodstock Aug 1184 Assize of the Forest London Dec 1184 Reconciliation and settlement bt the king and sons; marriage of William of Scotland discussed Clerkenwell March 1185 Petition of the Patriarch of Jerusalem; Huntingdon restored to William; crusading issues: tithe approved, and nobles take the cross Eynsham May 1186 Election of a bishop for Lincoln; variae regni negotia Marlborough Sept 1186 An archbishop for York, and bishops for Exeter and Salisbury are elected Geddington Feb 1188 Crusading matters: Saladin tithe and ordinances; dispute bt the archbishop of Canterbury and the monks of St Augustine; ecclesiastical appointments; restoration of castles to William of Scotland; letters to the pope and several European rulers concerning the crusade APPENDIX 8 The Community of the Kingdom at Councils This table groups some of the clauses used by contemporary chroniclers to describe those assembled at councils between 1155 and 1188. The spaces correspond to meetings where the attendance is not deary described in the sources. This evidence complements and underlines our conclusions by indicating that royal councils were regularly seen as general or public. The sources for these descriptions are indicated in appendix 9 and in the chapter 'Assembled as One Man'.

Location Date Description of attendance in chronicles London March 1155 universi regni primores Wallingford March 1155 praesules et principes totius Anglie Bridgnorth July 1155 universi archiepiscopi, episcopi, et abbates; universi comités et barones Winchester Sept 1155 optimates London Dec 1155 St Edmunds May 1157 archiepiscopi, episcopi, abbates, comités, barones Northampton July 1157 praesules et principes regni Worcester April 1158 London March 1163 archiepiscopi, episcopi, abbates, comités, barones Woodstock July 1163 archiepiscopi, episcopi, abbates; praesules et barones omnes London Oct 1163 universi archiepiscopi, episcopi; optimates regni Clarendon Jan 1164 universi praesules regni et proceres; universi magnates regni Northampton Oct 1164 archiepiscopi, episcopi, et barones totius regni; omnes qui de rege tenuerunt in capite Clarendon March 1166 London June 1170 totius Anglie episcopi, abbates, comités, barones, vicecomites, milites Gloucester June 1175 omnes homines sui Anglie York Aug 1175 omnes episcopi, comités, barones et milites et franci tenentes Windsor Oct 1175 episcopi, comités, barones terrae Nortiiampton Jan 1176 archiepiscopi, episcopi, comités, barones, et homines regni London May 1176 archiepiscopi, episcopi, comités, barones, sapientiores generaliter Winchester Aug 1176 archiepiscopi, comités et barones regni; episcopi et regni magnates Windsor Sept 1176 Northampton Jan 1177 episcopi, comités et barones regni London March 1177 omnes in regia; archiepiscopi, episcopi, abbates, priores, decani, archidecani, comités et barones Geddington May 1177 archiepiscopi, episcopi, comités et barones Oxford May 1177 omnes homines regis Angliae Winchester July 1177 archiepiscopi, episcopi, comités, barones et milites regni sui Windsor April 1179 comités et proceres regis; archiepiscopi, episcopi, comités et barones B. Waltham Feb 1182 Reading Aug 1184 omnes episcopi Angliae; comités et barones Angliae Woodstock Aug 1184 London Dec 1184 multi comités et barones Angliae Clerkenwell March 1185 universitatis nobiles regni; episcopi, abbates, comités et barones Eynsham May 1186 episcopi et magnates terrae Marlborough Sept 1186 archiepiscopi, episcopi, cánones, decani, priores et copiosa multitudo Geddington Feb 1188 archiepiscopi, episcopi, comités, barones, abbates Angliae APPENDIX 9 The Main Primary Sources Location Date Some Primary References London March 1155 Battle Chronicle, 154; Howden, Chronica, i.215; Torigni, iv.l83; US, no.l4 Wallingford March 1155 Gervase, i.l62; Battle Chronicle, 75 Bridgnorth July 1155 Battle Chronicle, 160; GFL, nos. 128-130 Winchester Sept 1155 Torigni, iv. 186 London Dec 1155 Battle Chronicle, 160 St Edmunds May 1157 Battle Chronicle, 174-6; Torigni, iv. 192-3 Northampton July 1157 Gervase, i.l63; GFL, no.293 Worcester April 1158 Diceto, i.302; Gervase,i.l67; Torigni, iv.202; Howden, Chronica, i.216 London March 1163 GFL, no. 143; Thomas Saga Erkibyskups, i. 146,148 Woodstock July 1163 Gervase, i.l74; GFL, no. 151; Howden, Chronica, i.219-220; PR, 9 Hen.II, 48; Guemes, i.76-80; MTB, ii.373 London Oct 1163 Gervase, i. 174-5; GFL, no. 146; US, ii.4-5; Becket Correspondence, i.l09; PR, 9 Hen.II, 74; MTB, iv.299-300 Clarendon Jan 1164 Becket Correspondence, i.l09; GFL, no. 170; Diceto, i.312; PR, 10 Hen.II, 10, 14; Gervase, i. 176-180; Guemes, i.80-84; Howden, Chronica, i.221; Newburgh, 141-2; MTB, iii.46, 278-9; iv.305; v.218 Northampton Oct 1164 GFL, no. 153; US, ii.468-9; Gervase, i.182-3; Newburgh, 142; MTB, iii.49-58 Becket Correspondence, i.l09; ii.32,95; English Lawsuits, ii.433-57; PR, 10 Hen.II, 45-6; Diceto, i.313-4; Guemes, i. 104-110; Howden, Chronica, i.224 Clarendon March 1166 Diceto, i.318; Howden, Chronica, i.248; GFL, nos.67,157-9,161 London June 1170 PR, 16 Hen.II, 16; Gervase, i.218-9; Diceto, i.338; Howden, Chronica, ii.4-5; Howden, Gesta, i.4-5; Torigni, iv.244-5; LPB, i.nos.22,108; HWM, 98 Gloucester June 1175 Howden, Gesta, i.92; PR, 21 Hen.II, 63 York Aug 1175 Howden, Gesta, i.94-5; PR, 21 Hen.II, 182; Torigni, iv.267; Howden, Chronica, ii.82 Windsor Oct 1175 Howden, Chronica, ii.83; Howden, Gesta, i.lOl Northampton Jan 1176 Howden, Gesta, i.107-111; Gervase, i.254-5; PR, 22 Hen.II, 15; Howden, Chronica, ii.87-92 London May 1176 LPB, i.no.41; Howden, Chronica, ii.94; Gervase, i.258; Diceto, i.407-8 Winchester Aug 1176 Howden, Gesta, i. 118-9 Windsor Sept 1176 Howden, Gesta, i.l24; PR, 22 Hen.II, 136 Northampton Jan 1177 Howden, Gesta, i. 132-3; PR,22> Hen.II, 94,205; Howden, Chronica, ii. 118 London March 1177 Howden, Gesta, i.143-151; Howden, Chronica, ii.120-1; PR, 23 Hen.II, 188; Diceto, i.419 Geddington May 1177 Howden, Gesta, i.l60; Howden, Chronica, ii.l33 Oxford May 1177 Howden, Gesta, i. 162-3; Howden, Chronica, ii. 133-4; Winchester July 1177 Howden, Gesta, i.177-8; PR, 23 Hen.II, 201; Howden, Chronica, ii.l35 Windsor April 1179 Howden, Gesta, i.238; PR, 25 Hen.II, 39; Howden, Chronica, ii.l90; Diceto, i.434 B. Waltìiam Feb 1182 CJB, 15-23; Gervase, i.297; Diceto, ii.21 Reading Aug 1184 Howden, Gesta, i.317; PR, 30 Hen.II, 137,150-1; Diceto, ii.22; Howden, Chronica, ii.286 Woodstock Aug 1184 Howden, Chronica, ii.289; Gervase, i.313 ; Howden, Gesta, i.318 London Dec 1184 Howden, Gesta, i.320-1,335-6; Diceto, ii.31; Gervase, i.321; GFL, no.379; Howden, Chronica, ii.287 Clerkenwell March 1185 Howden, Gesta, i.336; Diceto, ii.33; Gervase, i.325; LPB, i.no.98; Gervase, i.325; PR, 31 Hen.II, 5-7,45,143,150,217; Gerald, vii.202; Howden, Chronica, ii.301-2 Eynsham May 1186 MVSH, i.92; Howden, Chronica, ii.309; Howden, Gesta, i.345; Marlborough Sept 1186 Howden, Ge^to,/.557-552; PR,2>2 Hen.II,158,160 Geddington Feb 1188 Howden, Gesta, ii.33; PR, 34 Hen.II, 106,132,206; Diceto, ii.51; Howden, Chronica, ii.335-8; Gervase, i.409 Bibliography

Manuscripts

London, British Library, BL Additional Charters, 5719, 7761, 28658, 33646. London, British Library, BL Harley Charters 43.C.24, 43.C.26. London, British Library, BL Cotton Charters VII. 14, II.5. London, British Library, BL Topham Charter 26. London, National Archives, E40/13947. London, National Archives, E40/14901. London, National Archives, DLlO/27. London, National Archives, DLlO/29. London, National Archives, E42/115. London, National Archives, E30/3. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Yorkshire Charters a.l, no. 1. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Essex Charters a.4, no. 85. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Oxfordshire Charters a.l, no. 2. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Shropshire Charters a.2, no. 86. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Charters a.l, no. 1. Primary Sources (printed)

Adam of Eynsham, Magna Vita Sancii Hugonis, The Life of St Hugh of Lincoln, 2 volumes, ed. D.L. Douie and D.H. Farmer (Oxford, 1985). Acta of Henry II and Richard I: Hand-List of Documents Surviving in the Original in Repositories in the United Kingdom, ed. J.C. Holt and R. Mortimer (London, 1986). Ancient Charters, Royal and Private, prior to A.D. 1200, ed. J.H. Round, volume 10 (London, 1888). Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, vol. 7, MS. E, ed. S. Irvine (Cambridge, 2004). English translation: D. WhìtQÌock et al. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (l^ondon, 1961). Annales Monastici, ed. H.R. Luard, 5 volumes (London, 1864-9). Annals of the Reigns of Malcolm and William, ed. A.C. Lawrie (Glasgow, 1910). The Beauchamp Cartulary Charters, 1100-1268, ed. E. Mason (London, 1980). Benoit de Saint Maure, Chroniques de Dues de Normandie, ed. C. Fahlin, 2 volumes (Lund, 1951). Beneit de Saint Albans, La Vie de Thomas Becketpar Beneit, ed. B. Schlyter (Lund, 1941). Calendar of the Charter Rolls: Preserved in the Public Record Office, 6 volumes (London, 1903-27). Calendar of Patent Rolls: Preserved in the Public Record Office (Henry III), 6 volumes (London, 1901-13); (EdwardII), 5 volumes (London, 1894-1904). The Cartulary of Shrewsbury Abbey, ed. U. Rees (Aberystwyth, 1975). Chronica de Mailros, ed. J. Stevenson (Edinburgh, 1835). In English translation: 'The Chronicle of Melrose', Mediaeval Chronicles of Scotland, trans. J. Stevenson (Lampeter, 1998). Chronicon Monasterii de Bello: The Chronicle of Battle Abbey, ed. and trans. E. Searle (Oxford, 1980). Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard /, ed. R. Hewlett, 4 volumes (London, 1884-5). The Correspondence of Thomas Becket, ed. A. Duggan, 2 volumes (Oxford, 2000). Councils and Synods with Other Documents Relating to the English Church, 2 volumes, ed. D. Whitelock, M. Brett and C.N.L. Brooke (Oxford, 1981). Curia Regis Rolls: Preserved in the Public Record Office, 20 volumes (London, 1922-). Dialogus de Scaccario. The Course of the Exchequer by Richard, Fitz Nigel, and Constitutio Domus Regis. The Establishment of the Royal Household, ed. C. Johnson, corrected by F.E.L. Carter and D.E. Greenaway (Oxford, 1983). Diplomatic Documents (1100-1272) ed. P. Chaplais, 2 volumes (London, 1964). Documents of the Baronial Movement and Reform, 1258-1267, ed. R.F. Trehame, LJ. Sanders (Oxford, 1973). Dugdale, W. et al, Monasticon Anglicanum: A History of the Abbeys and other Monasteries, Hospitals, Frieries, and Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, with their Dependencies, in England and Wales, 6 volumes (London, 1817- 30). Eadmer, Historia Novorum in Anglia, ed. M. Rule (London, 1884). In English translation: Eadmer's History of Recent Events in England, trans. Geoffrey Bosanquet (London, 1964). Early Yorkshire Charters, volumes 1-3, ed. W. Farrer (London, 1914-16). English Constitutional Sources, ed. C. Stephenson and F. Marcham (London, 1937). English Historical Documents, volume 2, ed. D. Douglas and G. Greenaway, second edition (London, 1981). English Episcopal Acta I, Lincoln, 1067-1185, ed. D. Smith (Oxford, 1980) English Episcopal Acta II, Canterbury, 1162-1190, ed. C.R. Cheney and B.E.A. Jones (Oxford, 1986). English Episcopal Acta VI, Norwich, 1070-1214, ed. C. Harper-Bill (Oxford, 1990). English Episcopal Acta VII, Hereford, 1079-1234, ed. J. Barrow (Oxford, 1993). English Episcopal Acta VIII, Winchester, 1070-1204, ed. M.J. Franklin (Oxford, 1993). English Episcopal Acta X, Bath and Wells, 1061-1205, ed. F.M.R. Ramsey (Oxford, 1995). English Episcopal Acta XI, Exeter, 1046-1184, ed. F. Barlow (Oxford, 1996). English Episcopal Acta XV, London, 1076-1187, ed. F. Neininger (Oxford, 1999). English Episcopal Acta XVI, Coventry and Lichfield, 1160-1182, ed. M.J. Franklin (Oxford, 1998). English Episcopal Acta XXV, Durham, 1196-1237, ed. M.G. Snape (Oxford, 2002). English Episcopal Acta XVIII, Salisbury, 1078-1217, ed. B.R. Kemp (Oxford, 1999). English Episcopal Acta XX, York, 1154-1181, ed. M. Lovatt (Oxford, 2000). 'Epistolae Cantuarienses: the Letters of the Prior and Convent of Christ Church, Canterbury, from A.D. 1187 to A.D. 1199', Chronicles and Memorials of the Reign of Richard I, ed. W. Stubbs (London, 1865). Eye Priory Cartulary and Charters, 2 volumes, ed. V. Brown (Woodbridge, 1992-4). Feudal Documents from the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds, ed. D.C. Douglas (London, 1932). Geoffrey Gaimar, L Estoire des Engles, ed. T.D. Hardy and C.T. Martin, 2 volumes (London, 1889). Gervase of Canterbury, Gervasii Monachi Cantuariensis Opera Histórica, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 volumes (London, 1879-80). Gesta Stephani, ed. and trans. K.R. Potter, revised edition by R.H.C. Davies (Oxford, 1976). Geta Abbatum Monasterii Sancti Albani, ed. H.T. Riley, 3 volumes (London, 1867- 9). Geste des Engleis en Yrlande: The Deeds of the Normans in Ireland, ed. E. Mullally (Dublin, 2002). Gerald of Wales, Giraldus Cambrensis Opera Omnia, ed. J.S. Brewer, J.F. Dimock, and G.F. Warner, 8 volumes (London, 1861-91). See also The Autobiography of Gerald of Wales, ed. and trans. H.E. Butler (Woodbridge, 2005). González, J., El Reino de Castilla en la Epoca de Alfonso VIII, volume 2: Documentos 1145-1190 (Madrid 1960). Guemes de Pont-Sainte-Maxence, La Vie de Saint Thomas de Canterbury, volume 1, ed. and trans. J.T.E. Thomas (Louvain, 2002). Henry de Bracton, De Legibus et Consuetudini bus Angliae: On the Laws and Customs of England, ed. G.E. Woodbine and trans. S.E. Thome, 4 volumes (Cambridge, MA, 1968-77). Herbert of Bosham, 'Vita Sancti Thomae, Archiepiscopis et Martyris', MTB, volume 3, ed. J.C. Robertson (London, 1875-85). Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum: The History of the English People, ed. and trans. D. Greenway (Oxford, 1996). The Hexham Historians and the Chronicle of Jordan of Fantosme, ed. and trans. J. Stevenson (Felinfach, 2000). Hugh the Chanter, History of the Church of York, 1066-1127, ed. C.H. Johnson et al. (Oxford, 1990). Jocelin of Brackelond, Chronica Jocelini de Brakelonda, De Rebus Gestis Samsonis Abbatis Monasterii Sancti Edmundi: The Chronicle of Jocelin of Brackelond, ed. H.E. Butler (London, 1949). John of Fordun, Johannis de Fordun Chronica Gentis Scotorum, ed. W.F. Skeene (Edinburgh, 1871). In English translation: John Fordun's Chronicle of the Scottish Nation, trans. F. Skeene and ed. W.F. Skene, volume 2 (Felinfach, 1993). John of Worcester, Chronicon Johannis Wigornensis: Chronicle of John of Worcester, ed. P. McGurk, volume 2 (Oxford, 1998). John of Hexham, 'Historia', Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia, ed. T. Arnold, 2 volumes (London, 1885). John of Salisbury, Policraticus, Medieval Political Theory: a Reader, ed. C. Nederman and K. Langdon, (London, 1993). Jordan Fantosme, The Chronicle of Jordan Fantosme, ed. and trans. R.C. Johnston (Oxford, 1981). L'Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchah The History of William Marshal, ed. A.J. Holden, trans. S. Gregory, volume 1 (London, 2002). Leges Henrici Primi, ed. L.J. Downer (Oxford, 1972). Leiston Abbey Cartulary and Butley Priory Charters, ed. R, Mortimer (Ipswich, 1979). Letters of the Kings of England, 2 volumes, ed. J.O. Haliwell (London 1848). The Letters and Charters of Gilbert of Foliot, ed. A. Morey and C.N.L. Brooke (Cambridge, 1967). The Letters of John of Salisbury, II, 1163-1180, ed. W.J. Millor and C.N.L. Brooke (Oxford, 1986). The Life and Death of Thomas Becket According to William FitzStephen, ed. G. Greenaway (London, 1961). The Lives of Thomas Becket, ed. M. Staunton (Manchester, 2001). Matthew Paris, Matthaei Parisiensis Chronica Majora, ed. H.R Luard, 7 volumes (London, 1872-84). Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, ed. J.C. Robertson, 7 volumes (London, 1875-85). Memoranda de Parliamento, ed. F.W. Maitland (London, 1893). Memorials of the Abbey of St Mary of Fountains, 3 volumes, ed. J.R. Walbran (Durham, 1863-1918). Orderic Vitalis, Historia Ecclesiastica: The Ecclesiastical History, ed. and trans. M. Chibnall, 6 volumes (Oxford, 1969-80). Pipe Rolls, The Great Rolls of the Pipe of the Reign of Henry the Second (London, 1884-1925), 30 volumes (London, 1884-1925). Pedes Finium. 1182-96 (London, 1894). Petri Blesensis Opera Omnia, ed. J.A. Giles, 4 volumes (Oxford, 1846-7). The Plantagenet Chronicles, ed. E. Hallam (London, 2002). Ralph of Diceto, 'Ymagines Historiarum', Radulfl de Diceto Opera Histórica, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 volumes (London, 1876). Rannulf Glanvill, Tractatus de Legibus et Consuetudinibus Anglie qui Glanville Vocatur: The Treatise on the Laws and Customs of England Commonly Called Glanvill, ed. and trans. G.D.G. Hall, revised edition (Oxford, 1993). Recueil des Actes de Henri II Roi dAnglaterre et Duc de Normandie Concernant les Provinces Françaises et les Affaires de France, ed. L. Delisle (Paris, 1919). Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. H. Hall, 3 volumes (London, 1896). Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, The Acta of William I, 1066-1087, ed. D. Bates (Oxford, 1998). Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, II, Regesta Henrici Primi, 1110-1135, ed. C. Johnson and H.A. Cronne (Oxford, 1956). Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, III, Regesta Regis Stephani ac Mathildis Imperatricis ac Gaufridi et Henrici Ducum Normannorum, 1135-1154, ed. H.A. Cronne and R.H.C. Davis (Oxford, 1968). Regesta Regum Scottorum, I, Malcolm IV, 1153-1165, ed. G.W.S. Barrow (Edinburgh, 1960). Regesta Regum Scottorum, II, William, 1165-1214, ed. G.W.S. Barrow (Edinburgh, 1971). Richardson, H.G., 'The Letters and Charters of Eleanor of Aquitaine', EHR, 74 (1959), pp. 193-213. Robert of Torigni, 'Chronica Roberti de Torigneio', Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, ed. R. Howlett, 4 volumes (London, 1884- 9). Robinson, J. A., Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster (Cambridge, 1911). Roger of Howden, Chronica Rogeri de Hovedene, ed. W. Stubbs, 4 volumes (London, 1868-71). In English translation: H.T. Riley, The Annals of Roger de Hoveden, 3 volumes (Felinfach, 1996). - Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbati, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 volumes (London, 1867). Roger of Wendover, Chronica Rogeri de Wendover qui Dicitur Flores Historiarum, ed. H.G. Hewlett, 3 volumes (London, 1886-9). In English translation: Roger of Wendover, Flowers of History, ed. and trans. J. A. Giles (Felinfach, 1994). Round, J.H., 'Early Charters of St John's Abbey, Colchester', EHR, 16 (1901), pp. 721-30. Royal and Other Historical Letters Illustrative of the Reign of Henry III: From the Originals in the Public Record Office, 2 volumes, ed. W.W. Shirley (London, 1862-6). Royal Writs in England from the Conquest to Glanvill: Studies in the Early History of the Common Law, ed. R.C. van Caenegem (London, 1959). Select Charters and Other Illustrations of English Constitutional History, ed. W. Stubbs, ninth edition (Oxford, 1913). StBenet of Holme, 1020-1210, ed. J.R. West (Norfolk Record Society, 1932). Spelman, H., Concilia, Decreta, Leges, Constitutiones in Re Ecclesiarum Or bis Britannici, 2 volumes (London 1639-64). Thomas Saga Erkibyskups, ed. and trans. E. Magnùsson, 2 volumes (London, 1875). Thomas of Monmouth, The Life and Miracles of St William of Norwich by Thomas of Monmouth, ed. and trans. A. Jessop and M.R. James (London, 1896). Thomas Aquinas, De Regimine Principum: On Princely Government to the King of , ed. and trans. G. Phelan (Toronto, 1949). Wace, The Roman de Rou, trans, and ed. G. Burgess et al. (Jersey, 2002) Walter Map, De Nugis Curialum: Courtier's Trifles, ed. and trans. M.R. James (Oxford, 1983). William FitzStephen, 'Vita Sancti Thomae, Cantuariensis Archiepiscopis et Martyris', MTB, volume 3, ed. J.C. Robertson, (London, 1875-85). William of Malmesbury, Historia Novella, ed. E. King (Oxford, 1998). - Gesta Regum Anglorum: The History of the English Kings, ed. and trans, by R.A.B. Mynors, completed by R.M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom (Oxford, 1998). - 'Vita Wulfstani', in William of Malmesbury, Saints' Lives: Lives of SS. Wulfstan, Dunstan, Patrick, Benignus and Indract, ed. and trans. M. Winterbottom nd R.M. Thomson (Oxford, 2002). William of Newburgh, 'Historia Rerum Anglicarum', Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, ed. R. Howlett, 4 volumes (London, 1884- 9).

Secondary Sources Adams, G.B., Councils and Courts in Anglo-Norman England {Oxiordi, 1926). Amt, E., The Accession of Henry II in England, Royal Government Restored 1149- 1159 (Rochester, 1993). Anglo-Norman Dictionary, ed. W. Rothwell, L.W. Stone and T.B.W. Reid (London, 1992). Baldwin, J.F., The King's Council in England during the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1913). Barber, R., Henry Plantagenet, third edition (Woodbridge, 2001). Barlow, F., 'Roger of Howden', EHR, 65 (1950), pp. 352-60. - Thomas Becket (London, 1986). - The Feudal Kingdom of England 1042-1216, fifth edition (Harlow, 1999). Bartlett, R., Gerald of Wales, 1146-1223 (Oxford, 1982). - England under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 1075-1225 (Oxford, 2000). Bates, D., 'Kingship, Government, and Political Life to c.l 160', The Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, ed. B. Harvey (New York, 2001), pp. 69-98. Beeler, J.H., 'Castle and Strategy in Norman and Early Angevin England', Speculum, 31 (1956), pp. 581-601. Berki, R.N., The History of Political Thought (London, 1977). Biancalana, J., 'For Want of Justice: Legal Reforms of Henry 11', Columbia Law Review, 88 (1988), pp. 433-536. Biddle, M., 'Seasonal Festivals and Residence: Winchester, Westminster, and Gloucester from the Tenth to the Twelfth Centuries,' ANS, 8 (1986). Binski, P., Westminster Abbey and the Plantagenets. Kingship and the Representation of Power 1200-1400 (London, 1995). Bisson, T.N., 'The Military Origins of Medieval Representation', AHR, 71 (1966), pp. 1199-1218. - Medieval Representative Institutions, their Origins and Nature (Hinsdale, 1973). - 'Celebration and Persuasion: Reflections on the Cultural Evolution of Medieval Consultation', Legislative Studies Quarterly, 1 (1982), pp. 181-204. - 'The Problem of the Feudal Monarchy: Aragon, Catalonia, and France', Medieval France and her Pyrenean Neighbours, Studies in Early Institutional History (London, 1989), pp. 237-256. - 'The Politicizing of West European Societies, c.l 175-1225', Georges Duby: L'Escriture de V Histoire, ed. C. Duhamel-Amado and G. Lobrichon (Brussels, 1996), pp. 245-255. - 'The General Court of Agenais: A Reconsideration', Parliaments, Estates and Representation, 20 (2000), pp. 23-30. - 'The Problem of Medieval Parliamentarism', Parliaments, Estates and Representation, 21 (2001), pp. 1-14. Black, A., Political Thought In Europe, 1250-1450 (Cambridge, 1992). Bloch, M., Feudal Society (London, 1961). Blockmans, W.P., 'A Typology of Representative Institutions in Late Medieval Europe', Journal of Medieval History, 4 (1978), pp. 189-217. Bodet, G., Early English Parliaments (Boston, 1968). Bolton, J., The Medieval English Economy (London, 1980). Boorman, J., 'The Sheriffs of Henry II and the Significance of 1170', Law and Government in Medieval England and Normandy: Essays in Honor of Sir James Holt, ed. G. Gamett and J.G.H. Hudson (Cambridge, 1994). Brand, P., 'Multis Vigiliis Excogitatam et Inventam. Henry II and the Creation of the English Common Law', Haskins Society Journal, 2 (1990), pp. 197-222. - The Making of the Common Law (London, 1993). Boussard, J., Le Governement dHenri II Plantagenet (Paris, 1956). Bridges, J., The History and Antiquities of Northamptonshire (Oxford, 1791). Brooke, C.N.L., 'Episcopal Charters for Wix Priory', A Medieval Miscellany for Doris Mary Stenton, ed. P. Barnes and C.F. Slade (London, 1962). Brown, A.L., The Governance of Late Medieval England (London, 1989). Brown, R.A., 'Royal Castle-Building in England, 1154-1216', EHR, 70 (1955), pp. 353-398. - 'A List of Castles, 1154-1216', EHR, 74 (1959), pp. 249-280. Butt, R., A History of Parliament: The Middle Ages (London, 1989). Butterfield, H., The Whig interpretation of History (London, 1931). Cam, H.M. and Turberville, A.S. (eds), A Short Bibliography of English Constitutional History (London, 1929). Cam, H.M, 'The Legislators of Medieval England', Proceedings of the British Academy, 31 (1945), pp. 127-37. - 'Parliamentary Origins in the Light of Recent Discussion', Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 4 (1951), pp. 2-3. - Law-finders and Law-makers in Medieval England: Collected Studies in Legal and Constitutional History {honàon, 1962). Canning, J.P. 'Politics, Institutions and Ideas', The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c.350-c.l450, ed. J.H. Bums (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 341- 367. Carpenter, D., The Struggle for Mastery (London, 2003). Carlyle, A. J., A History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West (London, 1950). Cazel, F.A., 'The Tax of 1185 in Aid of the Holy Land', Speculum, 30 (1955), pp. 385-92. Cerda, J.M., 'The Parliamentary Calendar of Spanish and English Assemblies in the Twelfth Century', Parliaments, Estates, and Representation, 26 (2006), pp. 1- 17. Cheney, C.R. (ed), A Handbook of Dates, new edition revised by M. Jones (Cambridge, 2000). Chenon, E., Histoire Générale du Droit Français (Paris, 1926-9). Chew, H.M., The English Ecclesiastical Tenants-in-Chief and Knight Service, Especially in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (London, 1932). Chodorow, S., Christian Political Theory and Church Politics in the Mid-Twelfth Century: the Ecclesiology of Gratian 's Decretum (London, 1972). Clanchy, M.T., 'Modemi in Education and Government in England', Speculum, 50 (1975), pp. 671-88. - From Memory to Written Record, England 1066-1307, second edition (Oxford, 1993). - England and its Rulers, 1066-1272, second edition (Oxford, 1998). Clarke, M.V., Medieval Representation and Consent (New York, 1964). dementi, D.R., 'A Twelfth-Century Account of the Parliaments of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily in the Liher de Regno Sicilie, 1154-1169', Parliaments, Estates and Representation, 19 (1999), pp. 23-55. Colvin, H.M. et al. History of the King's Works, volume 1 (London, 1963). Comer, D., 'The Texts of Henry IFs Assizes', Law-making and Law-makers in British History, ed. A. Harding (London, 1980), pp. 7-20. - 'The Earliest Surviving Manuscripts of Roger of Howden's Chronica', EHR, 98 (1983), pp. 297-310. - 'The Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi and Chronica of Roger, Parson of Howden', Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 56 (1983), pp. 126- 44. Coss, P.R., 'The Fomiation of the Enghsh Gentry', Past and Present, 147 (1995), pp. 38-64. - The Origins of the English Gentry (Cambridge, 2003). Crowley, D.A. (ed), 'Marlborough Castle', VCH Wiltshire, 12 (Oxford, 1983). Cuttino, G.P., 'The Mediaeval Parliament Reinterpreted', Speculum, 41 (1966), pp. 681-7. Davies, R.G. and Denton, J.H. (eds). The English Parliament in the Middle Ages, (Manchester, 1984). Davies, R.R., The First English Empire: Power and Identities in the British Isles, 1093-1343 (Oxford, 2000). Davies, R.W., (ed.) The Origins of Modern Freedom in the West (Stanford, 1995). DeMolen, R., One Thousand Years (Boston, 1974). Duby, G., The Three Orders, Feudal Society Imagined (Chicsigo, 1980). - France in the Middle Ages, 987-1460 (Oxford, 1987). Duggan, A., 'Diplomacy, Status, and Conscience: Henry II's Penance for Becket's Murder', Forschungen zur Reichs-, Papst- und Landesgeschichte. Peter Herde zum 65. Geburtstag von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen Dargebracht, ed. K. Borchardt and E. Bünz, 2 volumes (Stuttgart, 1998), volume 1, pp. 265-90. - 'Ne in Dubium: The Official Record of Henry IPs Reconciliation at Avranches, 21 May 1172', EHR, 115 (2000), pp. 643-58. - Thomas Becket (London, 2004). Duverger, M., Instituciones Políticas y Derecho Constitucional (Barcelona, 1962). Edwards, J.G., Historians and the Medieval English Parliament (Oxford, 1960). Estepa Diez, C., 'Curia y Cortes en el Reino de León', Las Cortes de Castilla y León en la Edad Media, Cortes de Castilla y León (Valladolid, 1988), pp. 36-69. Eyton, W.R., Court, Household, and Itinerary of Henry II {London, 1878). Farrer, W., Outline Itinerary of King Henry I (Oxford, 1919). Fawtier, R., Parlement d'Anglaterre et Etats Généraux de France au Moyen Age (Paris, 1953). Fawtier, R. and Lot, F., Histoire des Institutions Françaises au Moyen Age, 2 volumes (Paris, 1953). Ferguson, W., Europe in Transition (Boston, 1962). Frame, R., The Political Development of the British Isles, 1100-1400 {Oxíoxá, 1990). Froidevaux, H., De Regiis Conciliis, Philippo II Augusto Regnante, Habitis (Paris, 1891). Fryde E.B., et al (eds), Handbook of British Chronology, third edition (Cambridge, 1996). Gillingham, J., 'Conquering Kings: Some Twelfth-Century Reflections on Henry II and Richard I', Warriors and Churchmen in the High Middle Ages: Essays presented to Karl Leyser, ed. T. Reuter (London, 1992), pp. 163-78. - 'Thegns and Knights in Eleventh-Century England: Who Was Then the Gentlemen?', TRHS, Sixth Series, 5 (1995), pp. 129-53. - The English in the Twelfth Century (Woodbridge, 2000). - The Angevin Empire (London, 2001). Gransden, A., Historical Writing in England, volume 1, c.550-c.l307 (London, 1974). Green, J.A., 'The Last Century of Danegeld', EHR, 96 (1981), pp. 241-58. - The Government of England under Henry I (Cambridge, 1986). - 'Henry I and the Origins of the Court Culture of the Plantagenets', Plantagenêts et Capétiens: Confrontations et Héritages, ed. M. Aurell and N. Tonnerre (Poitiers, 2006), pp. 485-95. Guglielmi, N., 'La Curia Regia en León y Castilla (I)' Cuadernos de Historia de España, 23-24 (1955), pp. 116-267. Haliwell, J.O., Letters of the Kings of England (London 1848). Hallam, E., Four Gothic Kings: the Turbulent History of Medieval England and the Plantagenet Kings (1216-1377) (New York, 1987). Harding, A., The Law Courts of Medieval England {London 1973). Harriss, G.L., King, Parliament, and Public Finance in Medieval England to 1369 (Oxford, 1975). Hastings, A., The Construction of Nationhood {Cdimhv'iágQ, 1997). Haskins, C.H., Norman Institutions (London, 1960). Hays, L., and Jones, D., 'Policy on the Run: Henry II and Irish Sea Diplomacy', JBS, 29 (1990), pp. 293-316. Herlihy, D., The History of Feudalism (London, 1970). Hicks, M., Bastard Feudalism (London, 1995). Hody, H., A History of English Councils and Convocations (London, 1701). Holmes, G., The Later Middle Ages, 1272-1485 (London, 1974). Hollister, C.W., 'The Significance of Scutage Rates in Eleventh- and Twelfth- Century England', EHR, 75 (1960), pp. 577-88. - Medieval Europe, second edition (New York, 1968). - Henry /, ed. and completed by A. Clark (New Haven, 2001). Hollister, C.W. and Baldwin, J.W., 'The Rise of Administrative Kingship: Henry I and Philip Augustus', AHR, 83 (1978), pp. 867-905. Hollister, C.W. and Keefe, T.K., 'The Making of the Angevin Empire', JES, 12 (1973), pp. 1-25. Holt, J.C., 'The Barons and the Great Charter', EHR, 70 (1955), pp. 1-24. - The Northerners (Oxford, 1961 ). - 'The Assizes of Henry II: the Texts', The Study of Medieval Records: Essays in honour of Kathleen Major (Oxford, 1971), pp. 85-106. 'The Prehistory of Parliament', The English Parliament in the Middle Ages, ed. R.G. Davies and J.H. Denton (Manchester, 1981). - Magna Carta and Medieval Government (London, 1985). - Magna Carta (Cambridge, 1992). Hudson, J.G.H., 'Henry I and Counsel', The Medieval State. Essays presented to James Campbell, ed. J.R. Maddicott and D.M. Palliser (London, 2000), pp. 109-126. - 'Court Cases and Legal Arguments in England, c. 1066-1166', TRHS, Sixth Series, 10(2000), pp. 91-115. James, T.B. and Robinson, A.M., Clarendon Palace: the History and Archaeology of a Medieval Palace and Hunting Lodge near Salisbury, Wiltshire (London, 1988). Jamison, E., 'Alliance of England and Sicily in the Second Half of the 12^*" Century', Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 6 (1943), pp. 20-32. Jedin, H., Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: An Historical Survey (New York, 1961). Jenkinson, C.H., 'The First Parliament of Edward I', EHR, 25 (1910), pp. 231-42, 416. Jenks, E., 'The Alleged Oxford Council of \2n\AHR, 22 (1916), pp. 87-90. Johnson, C., 'The Reconciliation of Henry II with the Papacy. A Missing Document', EHR, 52 (1937), pp. 465-7. Jolliffe, J.E.A., 'The Camera Regis under Henry IF, EHR, 68 (1953), pp. 1-21. - Angevin Kingship (London, 1955). Kantorowicz, E., The King's Two Bodies (Princeton, 1957). Keefe, T.K., Feudal Assessments and Community under Henry II and His Sons (Berkeley, 1983). Kern, F., Kingship and Law in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1939). Knowles, M.D., Duggan, A.J., and Brooke, C.N.L., 'Henry II's Supplement to the Constitutions of Clarendon', EHR, 87 (1972), pp. 757-771. Koenigsberger, H.G., 'Parliaments and Estates', The Origins of Modern Freedom in the West, ed. R.W. Davies (Stanford, 1995), pp. 135-177. Lander, J.R., The Limitations of the English Monarchy in the Later Middle Ages (Toronto, 1989). Lally, J., 'Secular Patronage at the Court of King Henry IP, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 49 (1976), pp. 159-184. Langmuir, G.L, 'Counsel and Capetian Assemblies' Studies presented to the International Commission for the Study of Parliamentary Institutions, 24 (Paris, 1958), pp. 19- 34. - 'Concilia and Capetian Assemblies, 1179-1230', Album Helen Maud Cam (Louvain-Paris, 1961), pp. 27-63. - 'Politics and Parliaments in the Early Thirteenth Century', Etudes sur I'Histoire des Assemblees d' Etats (Paris, 1966), pp. 47-62. Latham, R.E., Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, 10 fascicules (London, 1975-). - Revised Medieval Latin Word-List {Oxíoxá, 1980). Lapsley, G.T., 'The Flemings in Eastern England in the Reign of Henry IF, EHR, 21 (1906), pp. 509-13. Leyser, K., 'Frederick Barbarossa, Henry II and the Hand of St James', EHR, 90 (1975), pp. 481-506. - Medieval Germany and its Neighbours, 900-1250 (London, 1982). Liebermann, F., The National Assembly in the Anglo-Saxon Period (London, 1913). López, R., The Commercial Revolution of the Middle Ages (Princeton, 1971). Luchaire, A., Histoire des Institutions Monarchiques (Paris, 1891). Luis Corral, F., 'Alfonso VIII of Castile's Judicial Process at the Court of Henry II of England: an Effective and Valid Arbitration?', Nottingham Medieval Studies, 50 (2006), pp. 22-42. Luscombe D.E., and Evans, G.R. 'The Twelfth Century Renaissance', The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c.350-c.l450, ed. J.H. Bums (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 306-341. Lynch, W., ^ View of the Legal Institutions, Honorary Hereditary Offices and Feudal Baronies Established in Ireland during the Reign of Henry the Second (London, 1830). Lyon, B., ^ Constitutional and Legal History of Medieval England (New York, 1960). Madox, T., The History and Antiquities of the Exchequer in England, 2 volumes (London, 1769). Maddicott, J.R., Simon de Montfort (Cambridge, 1994). - 'An Infinite Multitude of Nobles: Quality, Quantity and Politics in the Pre- Reform Pariiaments of Henry III', Thirteenth Century England, 1 (Woodbridge, 1999), pp. 17-46. Maitland, F.W., The Constitutional History of England {C^mhñágQ, 1908). Mason, E., 'Britain 1200', History Today, 50 (2000), pp. 39-45. Martinez Diez, G., 'Curia y Cortes en el Reino de Castilla', Las Cortes de Castilla y León en la Edad Media, Cortes de Castilla y León (Valladolid, 1988), pp. 105-52. Martindale, J., 'Between Law and Politics: the Judicial Duel under the Angevin Kings (Mid-Twelfth Century to 1204)' Law, Laity and Solidarities, Essays in honour of Susan Reynolds (Manchester, 2001), pp. 116-150. Marongiu, A., Medieval Parliaments: A Comparative Study (London, 1968). Mayer, H.E., 'Henry II of England and the Holy Land', EHR, 97 (1982), pp. 721-39. McKisack, M., The Parliamentary Representation of the English Boroughs during the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1932). - 'London and the Succession to the Crown during the Middle Ages', Studies in Medieval History presented to Frederick Maurice Powicke, ed. R.W. Hunt, W.A. Pantin and R.W. Southern (Oxford, 1948), pp. 76-89. The Fourteenth Century (Oxford, 1959). Miller, E., The Origins of Parliament (London, 1967).

- 'Medieval English Pariiaments', Parliamentary History, 1 (1982), pp. 217-

21. Miller, E. and Fryde, E.B. (eds), Historical Studies of the English Parliament, volume 1 (Cambridge, 1970). Mortimer, K., Angevin England, 1154-1258 (Oxford, 1994). Mundy, J.H., Europe in the High Middle Ages (London, 1973). Myers, A.R., 'Representation as a European Tradition', History Today, 5 (1955), pp. 383-90. - Parliaments and Estates in Europe to 1789 (London, 1975). Nederman, C.J., 'Aristotelianism and the Origins of "Political Science" in the Twelfth Century', Journal of the History of Ideas, 52 (1991), pp. 179-94. Nicholas, D., The Evolution of the Medieval World (New York, 1992). Norgate, K, England under the Angevin Kings (New York, 1969, first published in 1887). Norton, P. (ed.). Parliaments in Western Europe (New York, 1985). Oleson, T., The Witenagemot in the Reign of Edward the Confessor (1955). Parry, C.H., Parliaments and Great Councils of Britain and Ireland (London, 1839). Pasquet, D., Essays on the Origins of the House of Commons (Cambridge, 1925). Pérez-Prendes, J.M., Las Cortes de Castilla (Barcelona, 1974). Petit-Dutaillis, C., The Feudal Monarchy in France and England from the Tenth to the Thirteenth Century (London, 1936). Pierquin, H., Les Annales et Conciles de VEglise d'Angleterre pendant la Periode Anglo- Saxonne (Paris, 1913). Pollard, A.F., Evolution of Parliament {London, 1934). Pollock, F. and Maitland, F.W., History of English Law, 2 volumes, second edition (Cambridge, 1898). Post, G., 'Roman Law and Eariy Representation in Spain and Italy, 1150-1250', Speculum, 18 (1943), pp. 211-32. - 'Plena Potestas and Consent in Medieval Assemblies: A Study in Romano- Canonical Procedure and the Rise of Representation, 1150-1325', Traditio, 1 (1943), pp. 355-408. - 'A Romano-Canonical Maxim, "Quod Omnes Tangit," in Bracton', Traditio,

4 (1946), pp. 197-252. - Studies in Medieval Legal Thought: Public Law and the State 1100-1322 (Princeton, 1964). Powicke, F.M., King Henry III and the Lord Edward: the Community of the Realm in the Thirteenth Century (Oxford, 1947). - The Thirteenth Century (Oxford, 1953). Prestwich, J.O., 'War and Finance in the Anglo-Norman State', TRHS, Fifth Series, 4 (1954), pp. 19-43. - 'Anglo-Norman Feudalism and the Problem of Continuity', Past and Present, 26 (1963), pp. 38-57. Procter, E.S., Curia and Cortes in León and Castile 1072-1295 (Cambridge, 1980). Queller, D., 'Political Institutions', One Thousand Years, ed. R. DeMolen (Boston, 1974), pp. 141-51. Reuter, T., 'Assembly Politics in Western Europe from the Eight Century to the Twelfth', The Medieval World, ed. P. Linehan and J.L. Nelson (London, 2001), pp. 432-51. Reynolds, S., 'Law and Communities in Western Christendom, c.900-1140'. The American Journal of Legal History, 25 (1981), pp. 205-224. - Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe (Oxford, 1984). - Fiefs and Vassals, the Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (Oxford, 1996). - 'The Historiography of the Medieval State', Companion to Historiography, ed. M. Bentley (London, 1997), pp. 117-38. Richardson, H.G., 'The Origins of Pariiament', TRHS, Fourth Series, 11 (1928), pp. 137-85. - 'Richard FitzNeal and the Dialogus de Scaccario', EHR, 43 (1928), pp. 161-

71.

- 'The Commons and Medieval Polities', TRHS, Fourth Series, 28 (1946), pp.

21-45. - 'The English Coronation Oath', Speculum, 1 (1949), pp. 44-75. - 'The Chamber under Henry IF, EHR, 69 (1954), pp. 596-611. - 'The Coronation in Medieval England', Traditio, 16 (1960), pp. 112-202. Richardson, H.G. and Sayles, G.O., Parliaments and Great Councils in Medieval England {honáon, 1961). -'Earliest Known Official Use of the Term'Tarliamenf", EHR, 82 (1967), pp. 747-50. - The Functions of the Medieval Parliament of England (London, 1989). Roskell, J.S., Parliament and Politics in Late Medieval England (London, 1981 -3). Round, J.H., 'The Date of the Grand Assize', 31 (1916), pp. 268-9. - Feudal England: Historical Studies on the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (London, 1895). Salter, H.E., 'Two Forged Charters of Henry IF, EHR, 34 (1919), pp. 65-8. Saltman, A., Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbwy (New York, 1969). Salzmann, L.F.,//e/7n'//(London, 1917). Sanders, LJ., English Baronies. A Study of Their Origin and Descent, 1086-1327 (Oxford, 1960). Sayles, G.O., 'Representation of Cities and Boroughs in 1268', EHR, 40 (1925), pp. 580-85. - The Medieval Foundations of England (London, 1953). - The King's Parliament of England (London, 1975). Sawyer, P.H., Anglo-Saxon Charters (London, 1968). Smith, R.J., 'Henry IFs Heir: the Acta and Seal of Henry the Young King, 1170-83', EHR, 116(2001), pp. 297-326. Staunton, M., Thomas Becket and his Biographers (Woodbridge, 2006). Stenton, D.M., 'Roger of Howden and Benedict', EHR, 68 (1953), pp. 574-82. Stenton, F.M., The First Centwy of English Feudalism (Oxford, 1932). - Anglo-Saxon England, third edition (Oxford, 1971). Stephenson, C., 'The Beginnings of Representative Government in England', The Constitution Reconsidered {VúncQXon, 1938), pp. 25-36. Strickland, M., 'Warfare and Baronial Rebellion', La\v and Government in Medieval England and Normandy: Essays in Honour of Sir James Holt, ed. G. Gamett and J.G.H. Hudson (Cambridge, 1994). 'Réconciliation ou Humiliation? La Supression de la Rébellion Aristocratique dans les Royaumes Anglo-Normand et Angevin', Images de la Contestation du Pouvoir dans le Monde Normand (Caen, 2007), pp. 65-78. Stubbs, W., Historical Introductions to the Rolls Series, collected and edited by A. Hassall (London, 1902). - The Constitutional History of England, in its Origin and Development, 3 volumes, sixth edition (London, 1903). Summerson, H., 'Kingship, Government, and Political Life, c.l 160-C.1280', The Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, ed. B. Harvey (New York, 2001), pp. 201- 43. Swanson, R.N., The Twelfth-Century Renaissance (Manchester, 1999). Thomson, R.M., 'England and the Twelfth-Century Renaissance', Past and Present, 101 (1983), pp. 3-21. Tiemey, B., 'Bracton on Government', Speculum, 38 (1963), pp. 295-317. - 'Freedom and the Medieval Church', The Origins of Modern Freedom in the West, ed. R.W. Davies (Stanford, 1995), pp. 64-100. Tout, T.F., Chapters in the Administrative History of Medieval England (Manchester, 1920). Trehame, R.F., The Constitutional History of England {l^ondon, 1938). - The Baronial Plan of Reform (Manchester, 1971). - Simon De Montfort and the Baronial Reform: Thirteenth-Century Essays, ed. E.B. Fryde (London, 1986). Tubbs, J.W., The Common Law MW (Baltimore, 2000). Tunmore, H., 'The Dominican Order and Parliament', Catholic Historical Review, 26 (1941), pp. 479-88. Turner, R.V., 'The Origins of the Medieval English Jury: Frankish, English, or Scandinavian?', JBS, 1 (1968), pp. 1-10.

- 'Roman Law in England Before the Time of Bracton', JBS, 15 (1975), pp. 1-

25.

- 'The Judges of King John: Their Background and Training', Speculum, 51

(1976), pp. 447-61. - 'The Origins of Common Pleas and King's Bench', The American Journal of Legal History, 21 (1977), pp. 238-54. - 'The Miles Literatus in Twelfth- and Thirteenth-Century England: How Rare a Phenomenon?', AHR, 83 (1978), pp. 928-45. - 'Who was the Author of Glanvill? Reflections on the Education of Henry IPs Common Lawyers, Law and History Review, 8 (1990), pp. 97-127. - 'Changing Perceptions of the New Administrative Class in Anglo-Norman and Angevin England: the Curiales and their Conservative Critics', JBS, 29 (1990), pp. 93-117. - Judges, administrators and the Common Law in Angevin England (London, 1994). - 'The Problem of Survival for the Angevin "Empire": Henry IPs and his Sons' Vision versus Late Twelfth-Century Realities', AHR, 100 (1995), pp. 78-96. - Men Raised from the Dust, Administrative Service and Upward Mobility in Angevin (Philadelphia, 1998). Ullmann, W., Principles of Government and Politics in the Middle Ages (London, 1961). - Medieval Political Thought (Baltimore, 1975). van Caenegem, R.C., The Birth of the English Common Law (Cambridge, 1973). Vincent, N., 'The Origins of the Chancellorship of the Exchequer', EHR, 108 (1993), pp. 105-21. -'New Charters of King Stephen with Some Reflections upon the Royal Forests during the Anarchy', EHR, 114 (1999), pp. 899-928. - 'William Marshal, King Henry II and the Honour of Châteauroux', Archives, 25 (2000), pp. 1-16. - 'King Henry II and the Monks of Battle: the Battle Chronicle Unmasked', Belief and Culture in the Middle Ages: Studies presented to Henry Mayr- Harting, ed. R. Gameson and H. Leyser (Oxford, 2001), pp. 264-87. - 'Henry IF, History Today, 54 (2004), pp. 46-51. Ward, P.L., 'The Coronation Ceremony in Medieaval England', Speculum, 14 (1939), pp. 160-78. Warren, W.L., //e^o'//(Berkeley, 1973). - 'The Myth of Norman Administrative Efficiency: the Prothero Lecture', TRHS, Fifth Series, 34 (1984), pp. 113-32. - The Governance of Norman and Angevin England, 1086-1272 (London, 1987). White, A.B., 'Early Uses of "Parliamentum"', The Modern Language Review, 9 (1914), pp. 92-3. - 'Was There a "Common Council" Before Pariiament?', AHR, 25 (1917), pp. 1-17. White, G.J., Restoration and Reform 1153-1165: Recovery from Civil War in England (New York, 2000). Wilkinson, B., 'The "Political Revolution" of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries in England', Speculum, 24 (1949), pp. 502-9. - Studies in the Constitutional History of the 13'^ and Centuries, (Manchester, 1952). - Constitutional History of Medieval England, 727 6-739P (London, 1958). Young, C.R., 'English Royal Forests under the Angevin Kings', JBS, 12 (1972), pp. 1-14. Zurita, J., Anales de la Corona de Aragon, 9 volumes, ed. A. Canellas López (Zaragoza, 1967-86). Laus Deo t\rN V V:P