Note 121 — Chapter I · ARCHBISHOP THOMAS. 1162–1164.
Reading edition
[118] Const. Clarend. c. 6 (Stubbs, Select Charters, pp. 138, 139).
[119] Const. Clarend. c. 9 (Stubbs, Select Charters, p. 139).
[120] It should be noticed that this was clearly understood, and full justice was done to Henry’s intentions, not only by the most impartial and philosophic historian of the time— William of Newburgh (l. ii. c. 16; Howlett, vol. i. p. 140) —but even by Thomas’s most ardent follower, Herbert of Bosham (Robertson, Becket, vol. iii. pp. 272, 273, 278, 280).
[121]
“Et Deus à sun servise nus a tuz apelez! Mielz valt filz à vilain qui est preuz et senez, Que ne fet gentilz hum failliz et debutez!”
Garnier (Hippeau), p. 89. This, variously expressed, was the grand argument of the clerical-democratic party, and the true source of their strength. And they were not altogether wrong in attributing the action of their opponents, in part at least, to aristocratic contempt and exclusiveness—if we may trust Gervase of Canterbury’s report of a complaint said to have been uttered at a later time by the king: “Hi quoque omnes” [i.e. the religious orders] “tales sibi fratres associant, pelliparios scilicet et sutores, quorum nec unus deberet instante necessitate in episcopum vel abbatem salvâ conscientiâ nostrâ promoveri.” Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 540.