His attitude, we are told, proved fatal to the scheme, compelling the king and his ministers to abandon it in impotent wrath. But perhaps his biographer exaggerates the defeat, for the Bishop of Salisbury, we know, had to purchase the king's pardon for his action by a heavy fine, while the Abbot of St Edmund's had to compromise the matter by the payment of a large sum.[18] It seems probable that similar compromises would be arranged in other cases where the request was not complied with.
If, then, I am right in the solution I offer, St Hugh must have taken the narrowest ground, and have acted on behalf of ecclesiastical privilege, and only incidentally even for that, his protest being limited to his own church.[19] And, further, it follows that, like St Thomas, he was acting strictly on the defensive. To say that his action affords 'the first clear case of the refusal of a money grant demanded directly by the crown, and a most valuable precedent, for later times',[20] is, I submit with all respect, to set it in a quite erroneous light. In 1197, as in 1163, the crown was trying to infringe on well-established rights, and St Hugh like St Thomas, resisted that infringement, so far as his own rights were concerned, just as he would have resisted an attempt of the crown to deprive his see of a Manor, of feudal services, or of goods. The crown might take its pound of flesh, but more than that it should not have; never, through any action of his, should his church be deprived of its prescriptive rights.[21]
Here this article originally closed; but I am tempted to refer to one touching on the same subject which appeared a year later in the pages of the same review.[22] Alluding to 'the question of foreign service' as a prominent grievance under John,[23] I wrote:
Ralf of Coggeshall, and Walter of Coventry, assert that the northern barons denied their liability to foreign service in respect of lands held in England. John retorted that the principle had been admitted in the days of his father and his brother, and therefore claimed it tanquam debitum. This justifies the fears expressed sixteen years before by St Hugh of Lincoln, and explains what I termed, in examining his action, the mediaeval dread of creating a precedent.[24]
The final loss of Normandy had, of course, altered the case, but even while it still formed part of an English King's possessions, there must always have been scope for argument as to feudal obligations. To quote once more from the same article:
The question must have been complicated by the growth of the king's dominions. Did the feudatories owe service to the king, as their lord, in whatever war he was engaged? Or were they only bound to follow him as King of England? Or were they, as holding a conquestu, only bound to serve in the dominions of the Conqueror who enfeoffed them, i.e. in England and Normandy?[25]
On the death of the Conqueror, the question would arise for the King of the English and the Duke of the Normans were no longer one and the same. It comes to the front accordingly in a gathering of the barons at Winchester, which Mr Freeman assigns to Easter, 1090.[26] Orderic, here his authority, places it under 1089, and although his chronology is not to be always blindly followed, there is no ground for supposing here that the date is wrong. When he is following out a story or carried on by allusion, Orderic, like other chroniclers, anticipates or wanders in his dates; but this gathering has no connection with what precedes or follows; there is, therefore, nothing to account for his placing it under 1089, if it really belonged to 1090.
But the point to which I would call attention is the nature and intention of this gathering. Orderic writes:
Confirmatus itaque in regno, turmas optimatum ascivit, et Guentoniæ congregatis, quæ intrinsecus ruminabat sic ore deprompsit.