[340]. Cf. supra, 117.
[341]. Cf. Pollock and Maitland, I. 74.
[342]. Cf. supra, 120–1.
[343]. For explanation see infra, c. 18.
[344]. On the other hand c. 22, which lays down special rules for the amercement of beneficed clerks, to that extent confirmed class privileges of the clergy.
[345]. Mr. J. H. Round (Geoffrey de Mandeville, 3), speaking of Stephen’s “oath” to restore the church her “liberty,” describes this as “a phrase the meaning of which is well known.” If “well” known, it was known chiefly as something vague, something which baffled definition, because churchmen and laymen could never agree as to its contents, while it tended also to vary from reign to reign. Mr. Round attempts no definition. Sir James Ramsay (Angevin Empire, p. 475), writing of the phrase as used in John’s Charter, is less prudent. "It would relieve the clergy of all lay control, and of all liability to contribute to the needs of the State beyond the occasional scutages due from the higher clergy for their knights’ fees." This definition assuredly would not have satisfied Henry I., as a legitimate interpretation of the words as used by him in his Charter of Liberties.
[346]. Cf. supra, p. [39]. The text will be found in Statutes of the Realm, I. 5, and in New Rymer, I. 126-7. It was confirmed by Innocent on 30th March, 1215. See Potthast, Regesta pontificum romanorum, No. 4963.
[349]. See Miss Norgate, John Lackland, p. 208, and authorities there cited.