[75] See e.g. Matt. Paris, Chron. Maj., vol. iii, pp. 191-2, for the case of a priest who, for refusing to give Christian burial to an excommunicate usurer, is seized by order of the Count of Brittany and buried alive, bound to the dead man. See also Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, vol. v, p. 38.
[76] Harduin, Acta Conciliorum, vol. vii, pp. 1017-20; “Anno prædicto [1485], diebus Mercurii et Jovis prædictis, scilicet ante Ramos Palmarum, ibidem apud Vicanum, in claustro ecclesiæ de Vicano; coram domino archiepiscopo, et mandato suo, personæ infrascriptæ, parochiani de Guorgonio, qui super usuraria pravitate erant quam plurimum diffamati; coram domino propter hoc vocati abjuraverunt: et per mandatum domini summas infrascriptas, quas se confessi fuerunt habuisse per usurariam pravitatem, per juramentum suum restituere promiserunt, et stare juri super his coram eo. Bertrandus de Faveriis abjuratus usuras, ut præmittitur, promisit restituere centum solidos monetæ antiquæ: quos, prout ipse confessus est, habuerat per usurariam pravitatem....” Thirty-six more cases were treated in this way.
[77] Villani, Cronica, book xii, chap. lviii (ed.1823, vol. vi, p. 142): Villani complains of the conduct of the inquisitor: “Ma per attignere danari, d’ogni piccola parola oziosa che alcuno dicesse per iniquità contra Iddio, o dicesse che usura non fosse peccato mortale, o simili parole, condannava in grossa somma di danari, secondo che l’uomo era ricco.”
[78] Constitutions of Clarendon, cap. 15: “Placita de debitis, quæ fide interposita debentur, vel absque interpositione fidei, sint in justitia regis.” On the whole subject see Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, 2nd ed., 1898, vol. ii, pp. 197-202, and F. Makower, Constitutional History of the Church of England, 1895, § 60.
[79] Cal. of Early Mayor’s Court Rolls of the City of London, ed. A. H. Thomas, pp. 44, 88, 156, 235; Selden Soc., Borough Customs, ed. M. Bateson, vol. ii, 1906, pp. 161 (London) and 209-10 (Dublin); Records of Leicester, ed. M. Bateson, vol. ii, 1901, p. 49. For similar prohibitions by manorial courts, see Hist. MSS. Com., MSS. of Marquis of Lothian, p. 28, and G. P. Scrope, History of the Manor and Barony of Castle Combe, 1852, p. 238.
[80] Annales de Burton, p. 256; Wilkins, Concilia, vol. ii, p. 115; Rot. Parl., vol. ii, p. 129b.
[81] Cal. of Letter Books of the City of London, ed. R. R. Sharpe, vol. H, pp. 23-4, 24-5, 27, 28, 200, 206-7, 261-2, 365; Liber Albus, bk. iii, pt. ii, pp. 77, 315, 394-401, 683; Selden Soc., Leet Jurisdiction in the City of Norwich, p. 35; Hist. MSS. Com., MSS. of Marquis of Lothian, pp. 26, 27.
[82] Rot. Parl., vol. ii, pp. 332a, 350b.
[83] R. H. Morris, Chester in the Plantagenet and Tudor Reigns, 1894 (?), p. 190.
[84] Early Chancery Proceedings, Bdle. xi, no. 307; Bdle. xxix, nos. 193-5; Bdle. xxxi, nos. 96-100, 527; Bdle. lx, no. 20; Bdle. lxiv, no. 1089. See also Year Books and Plea Rolls as Sources of Historical Information, by H. G. Richardson, in Trans. Royal Historical Society, 4th series, vol. v, 1922, pp. 47-8.