DOCUMENT: Constitutions of Clarendon, 1164

Constitutions of Clarendon. 1164.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/constcla.asp

In the year 1164 from the Incarnation of our Lord, in the fourth year of the papacy of Alexander, in the tenth year of the most illustrious king of the English, Henry II., in the presence of that same king, this memorandum or inquest was made of some part of the customs and liberties. and dignities of his predecessors, viz., of king Henry his grandfather and others, which ought to be observed and kept in the kingdom. And on account of the dissensions and discords which had arisen between the clergy and the Justices of the lord king, and the barons of the kingdom concerning the customs and dignities, this inquest was made in the presence of the archbishops and bishops, and clergy and counts, and barons and chiefs of the kingdom. And these customs, recognized by the archbishops and bishops and counts and barons and by the nobler ones and elders of the kingdom, Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, and Roger archbishop of York, and Gilbert bishop of London, and Henry bishop of Winchester, and Nigel bishop of Ely, and William bishop of Norwich, and Robert bishop of Lincoln, and Hilary bishop of Chichester, and Jocelin bishop of Salisbury, and Richard bishop of Chester, and Bartholemew bishop of Exeter and Robert bishop of Hereford, and David bishop of Mans, and Roger elect of Worcester, did grant; and, upon the Word of Truth did orally firmly promise to keep and observe, under the lord king and under his heirs, in good faith and without evil wile,-in the presence of the following: Robert count of I`eicester, Reginald count of Cornwall, Conan count of Bretagne, John count of Eu, Roger count of Clare, count Geoffrey of Mandeville, Hugo count of Chester, William count of Arundel, count Patrick, William count of Ferrara, Richard de I~uce, Reginald de St. Walelio, Roger Bigot, Reginald de Warren, Richer de Aquila, William de Braiose, Richard de Camville, Nigel de Mowbray, Simon de Bello Campo, Humphrey de Bohen Matthew de Hereford, Walter de Medway, Manassa Biseth -steward, William Malet, William de Curcy, Robert de Dunstanville, Jocelin de Balliol, William de Lanvale William de Caisnet, Geoffrey de Vere, William de Hastings Hugo de Moreville, Alan de Neville, Simon son of Peter William Malduit-chamberlain, John Malduit, John Marshall, Peter de Mare, and many other chiefs and nobles of the kingdom, clergy as well as laity.

A certain part, moreover, of the customs and dignities of the kingdom which were examined into, is contained in the present writing. Of which part these are the paragraphs;

1. If a controversy concerning advowson and presentation of churches arise between laymen, or between laymen and clerks, or between clerks, it shall be treated of and terminated in the court of the lord king.

2. Churches of the fee of the lord king cannot, unto all time, be given without his assent and concession.

3. Clerks charged and accused of anything, being summoned by the Justice of the king, shall come into his court, about to respond there for what it seems to the king's court that he should respond there; and in the ecclesiastical court for what it seems he should respond there; so that the Justice of the king shall send to the court of the holy church to see in what manner the affair will there be carried on. And if the clerk shall be convicted, or shall confess, the church ought not to protect him further.

4. It is not lawful for archbishops, bishops, and persons of the kingdom to go out of the kingdom without the permission of the lord king. And if it please the king and they go out, they shall give assurance that neither in going, nor in making a stay, nor in returning, will they seek the hurt or harm of king or kingdom.

5. The excommunicated shall not give a pledge as a permanency, nor take an oath, but only a pledge and surety of presenting themselves before the tribunal of the church, that they may be absolved.

6. Laymen ought not to be accused unless through reliable and legal accusers and witnesses in the presence of the bishop, in such wise that the archdean do not lose his right, nor any thing which he ought to have from it. And if those who are inculpated are such that no one wishes or dares to accuse them, the sheriff, being requested by the bishop, shall cause twelve lawful men of the neigh bourhood or town to swear in the presence of the bishop that they will make manifest the truth in this matter, according to their conscience.

7. No one who holds of the king in chief, and no one of his demesne servitors, shall be excommunicated, nor shall the lands of any one of them be placed under an interdict, unless first the lord king, if he be in the land, or his Justice, if he be without the kingdom, be asked to do justice concerning him: and in such way that what shall pertain to the king's court shall there be terminated; and with regard to that which concerns the ecclesiastical court, he shall be sent thither in order that it may there be treated of.

8. Concerning appeals, if they shall arise, from the archdean they shall proceed to the bishop, from the bishop to the archbishop. And if the archbishop shall fail to render justice, they must come finally to the lord king, in order that by his command the controversy may be terminated in the court of the archbishop, so that it shall not proceed further without the consent of the lord king.

9. If a quarrel arise between a clerk and a layman or between a layman and a clerk concerning any tenement which the clerk wishes to attach to the church property but the layman to a lay fee: by the inquest of twelve lawful men, through the judgment of the chief Justice of the king, it shall be determined, in the presence of the Justice himself, whether the tenement belongs to the church property, or to the lay fee. And if it be recognized as belonging to the church property, the case shall be pleaded in the ecclesiastical court; but if to the lay fee, unless both are holders from the same bishop or baron, the case shall be pleaded in the king's court. But if both vouch to warranty for that fee before the same bishop or baron, the case shall be pleaded in his court; in such way that, on account of the inquest made, he who was first in possession shall not lose his seisin, until, through the pleading, the case shall have been proven.

10. Whoever shall belong to the city or castle or fortress or demesne manor of the lord king, if he be summoned by the archdean or bishop for any offense for which he ought to respond to them, and he be unwilling to answer their summonses, it is perfectly right to place him under the interdict; but he ought not to be excommunicated until the chief servitor of the lord king of that town shall be asked to compel him by law to answer the summonses. And if the servitor of the king be negligent in this matter, he himself shall be at the mercy of the lord king, and the bishop may thenceforth visit the man who was accused with ecclesiastical justice.

11. Archbishops, bishops, and all persons of the kingdom who hold of the king in chief have their possessions of the lord king as a barony, and answer for them to the Justices and servitors of the king, and follow and perform all the customs and duties as regards the king; and, like other barons, they ought to be present with the barons at the judgments of the court of the lord king, until it comes to a judgment to loss of life or limb.

12. When an archbishopric is vacant, or a bishopric, or an abbey, or a priory of the demesne of the king, it ought to be in his hand; and he ought to receive all the revenues and incomes from it, as demesne ones. And, when it comes to providing for the church, the lord king should summon the more important persons of the church, and, in the lord king's own chapel, the election ought to take place with the assent of the lord king and with the counsel of the persons of the kingdom whom he had called for this purpose. And there, before he is consecrated, the person elected shall do homage and fealty to the lord king as to his liege lord, for his life and his members and his earthly honours, saving his order.

13. If any of the nobles of the kingdom shall have dispossessed an archbishop or bishop or archdean, the lord king should compel them personally or through their families to do justice. And if by chance any one shall have dispossessed the lord king of his right, the archbishops and bishops and archdeans ought to compel him to render satisfaction to the lord king.

14. A church or cemetery shall not, contrary to the king's justice, detain the chattels of those who are under penalty of forfeiture to the king, for they (the chattels) are the king's, whether they are found within the churches or without them.

16. Pleas concerning debts which are due through the giving of a bond, or without the giving of a bond, shall be in the jurisdiction of the king.

16. The sons of rustics may not be ordained without the consent of the lord on whose land they are known to have been born.

Moreover, a record of the aforesaid royal customs Anna dignities has been made by the foresaid archbishops and bishops, and counts and barons, and nobles and elders of the kingdom, at Clarendon on the fourth day before the Purification of the blessed Mary the perpetual Virgin; the lord Henry being there present with his father the lord king. There are, moreover, many other and great customs and dignities of the holy mother church, and of the lord king, and of the barons of the kingdom, which are not contained in this writ. And may they be preserved to the holy church, and to the lord king, and to his heirs, and to the barons of the kingdom, and may they be inviolably observed for ever.

QUOTES: Waverley, Sir Walter Scott, 1814, Vol.1, Ch.27

       https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5998/5998-h/5998-h.htm

"'Forgive me, Mr. Waverley,' said Flora, her complexion a little heightened, but her voice firm and composed. 'I should incur my own heavy censure did I delay expressing my sincere conviction that I can never regard you otherwise than as a valued friend. I should do you the highest injustice did I conceal my sentiments for a moment. I see I distress you, and I grieve for it, but better now than later; and O, better a thousand times, Mr. Waverley, that you should feel a present momentary disappointment than the long and heart-sickening griefs which attend a rash and ill-assorted marriage!'

'Good God!' exclaimed Waverley, 'why should you anticipate such consequences from a union where birth is equal, where fortune is favourable, where, if I may venture to say so, the tastes are similar, where you allege no preference for another, where you even express a favourable opinion of him whom you reject?'

'Mr. Waverley, I HAVE that favourable opinion,' answered Flora; 'and so strongly that, though I would rather have been silent on the grounds of my resolution, you shall command them, if you exact such a mark of my esteem and confidence.'

She sat down upon a fragment of rock, and Waverley, placing himself near her, anxiously pressed for the explanation she offered.

'I dare hardly,' she said, 'tell you the situation of my feelings, they are so different from those usually ascribed to young women at my period of life; and I dare hardly touch upon what I conjecture to be the nature of yours, lest I should give offence where I would willingly administer consolation. For myself, from my infancy till this day I have had but one wish—the restoration of my royal benefactors to their rightful throne. It is impossible to express to you the devotion of my feelings to this single subject; and I will frankly confess that it has so occupied my mind as to exclude every thought respecting what is called my own settlement in life. Let me but live to see the day of that happy restoration, and a Highland cottage, a French convent, or an English palace will be alike indifferent to me.'

'But, dearest Flora, how is your enthusiastic zeal for the exiled family inconsistent with my happiness?'

'Because you seek, or ought to seek, in the object of your attachment a heart whose principal delight should be in augmenting your domestic felicity and returning your affection, even to the height of romance. To a man of less keen sensibility, and less enthusiastic tenderness of disposition, Flora Mac-Ivor might give content, if not happiness; for, were the irrevocable words spoken, never would she be deficient in the duties which she vowed.'

'And why,—why, Miss Mac-Ivor, should you think yourself a more valuable treasure to one who is less capable of loving, of admiring you, than to me?'

'Simply because the tone of our affections would be more in unison, and because his more blunted sensibility would not require the return of enthusiasm which I have not to bestow. But you, Mr. Waverley, would for ever refer to the idea of domestic happiness which your imagination is capable of painting, and whatever fell short of that ideal representation would be construed into coolness and indifference, while you might consider the enthusiasm with which I regarded the success of the royal family as defrauding your affection of its due return.'

'In other words, Miss Mac-Ivor, you cannot love me?' said her suitor dejectedly.

'I could esteem you, Mr. Waverley, as much, perhaps more, than any man I have ever seen; but I cannot love you as you ought to be loved. O! do not, for your own sake, desire so hazardous an experiment! The woman whom you marry ought to have affections and opinions moulded upon yours. Her studies ought to be your studies; her wishes, her feelings, her hopes, her fears, should all mingle with yours. She should enhance your pleasures, share your sorrows, and cheer your melancholy.'

'And why will not you, Miss Mac-Ivor, who can so well describe a happy union, why will not you be yourself the person you describe?'

'Is it possible you do not yet comprehend me?' answered Flora. 'Have I not told you that every keener sensation of my mind is bent exclusively towards an event upon which, indeed, I have no power but those of my earnest prayers?'

'And might not the granting the suit I solicit,' said Waverley, too earnest on his purpose to consider what he was about to say, 'even advance the interest to which you have devoted yourself? My family is wealthy and powerful, inclined in principles to the Stuart race, and should a favourable opportunity—'

'A favourable opportunity!' said Flora—somewhat scornfully. 'Inclined in principles! Can such lukewarm adherence be honourable to yourselves, or gratifying to your lawful sovereign? Think, from my present feelings, what I should suffer when I held the place of member in a family where the rights which I hold most sacred are subjected to cold discussion, and only deemed worthy of support when they shall appear on the point of triumphing without it!'

'Your doubts,' quickly replied Waverley, 'are unjust as far as concerns myself. The cause that I shall assert, I dare support through every danger, as undauntedly as the boldest who draws sword in its behalf.'

'Of that,' answered Flora, 'I cannot doubt for a moment. But consult your own good sense and reason rather than a prepossession hastily adopted, probably only because you have met a young woman possessed of the usual accomplishments in a sequestered and romantic situation. Let your part in this great and perilous drama rest upon conviction, and not on a hurried and probably a temporary feeling.'

Waverley attempted to reply, but his words failed him. Every sentiment that Flora had uttered vindicated the strength of his attachment; for even her loyalty, although wildly enthusiastic, was generous and noble, and disdained to avail itself of any indirect means of supporting the cause to which she was devoted."

Waverley, Sir Walter Scott, Vol.1, Ch.27, 1814 

QUOTES: Waverley, Sir Walter Scott, 1814, Vol.1, Ch.19

      https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5998/5998-h/5998-h.htm

"The ingenious licentiate Francisco de Ubeda, when he commenced his history of 'La Picara Justina Diez,'—which, by the way, is one of the most rare books of Spanish literature,—complained of his pen having caught up a hair, and forthwith begins, with more eloquence than common sense, an affectionate expostulation with that useful implement, upbraiding it with being the quill of a goose,—a bird inconstant by nature, as frequenting the three elements of water, earth, and air indifferently, and being, of course, 'to one thing constant never.' Now I protest to thee, gentle reader, that I entirely dissent from Francisco de Ubeda in this matter, and hold it the most useful quality of my pen, that it can speedily change from grave to gay, and from description and dialogue to narrative and character. So that if my quill display no other properties of its mother-goose than her mutability, truly I shall be well pleased; and I conceive that you, my worthy friend, will have no occasion for discontent."

Waverley, Sir Walter Scott, Vol.1, Ch.19, 1814 

QUOTES: Waverley, Sir Walter Scott, 1814, Vol.1, Ch.18

     https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5998/5998-h/5998-h.htm

"As they glided along the silver mirror, Evan opened the conversation with a panegyric upon Alice, who, he said, was both CANNY and FENDY; and was, to the boot of all that, the best dancer of a strathspey in the whole strath. Edward assented to her praises so far as he understood them, yet could not help regretting that she was condemned to such a perilous and dismal life.

'Oich! for that,' said Evan, 'there is nothing in Perthshire that she need want, if she ask her father to fetch it, unless it be too hot or too heavy.'

'But to be the daughter of a cattle-stealer—a common thief!' 'Common thief!—no such thing: Donald Bean Lean never LIFTED less than a drove in his life.'

'Do you call him an uncommon thief, then?'

'No; he that steals a cow from a poor widow, or a stirk from a cotter, is a thief; he that lifts a drove from a Sassenach laird is a gentleman-drover. And, besides, to take a tree from the forest, a salmon from the river, a deer from the hill, or a cow from a Lowland strath, is what no Highlander need ever think shame upon.'

'But what can this end in, were he taken in such an appropriation?'

'To be sure he would DIE FOR THE LAW, as many a pretty man has done before him.'

'Die for the law!'

'Ay; that is, with the law, or by the law; be strapped up on the KIND gallows of Crieff, [Footnote: See Note 16.] where his father died, and his goodsire died, and where I hope he'll live to die himsell, if he's not shot, or slashed, in a creagh.'

'You HOPE such a death for your friend, Evan?'

'And that do I e'en; would you have me wish him to die on a bundle of wet straw in yon den of his, like a mangy tyke?'

'But what becomes of Alice, then?'

'Troth, if such an accident were to happen, as her father would not need her help ony langer, I ken nought to hinder me to marry her mysell.'

'Gallantly resolved,' said Edward; 'but, in the meanwhile, Evan, what has your father-in-law (that shall be, if he have the good fortune to be hanged) done with the Baron's cattle?'

'Oich,' answered Evan, 'they were all trudging before your lad and Allan Kennedy before the sun blinked ower Ben Lawers this morning; and they'll be in the pass of Bally-Brough by this time, in their way back to the parks of Tully-Veolan, all but two, that were unhappily slaughtered before I got last night to Uaimh an Ri.'

'And where are we going, Evan, if I may be so bold as to ask?' said Waverley.

'Where would you be ganging, but to the Laird's ain house of Glennaquoich? Ye would not think to be in his country, without ganging to see him? It would be as much as a man's life's worth.'"

Waverley, Sir Walter Scott, Vol.1, Ch.18, 1814 

'My master? MY master is in Heaven,' answered Evan, haughtily; and then immediately assuming his usual civility of manner, 'but you mean my Chief;—no, he does not shelter Donald Bean Lean, nor any that are like him; he only allows him (with a smile) wood and water.'

'No great boon, I should think, Evan, when both seem to be very plenty.'

'Ah! but ye dinna see through it. When I say wood and water, I mean the loch and the land; and I fancy Donald would be put till 't if the Laird were to look for him wi' threescore men in the wood of Kailychat yonder; and if our boats, with a score or twa mair, were to come down the loch to Uaimh an Ri, headed by mysell, or ony other pretty man.'

'But suppose a strong party came against him from the Low Country, would not your Chief defend him?'

'Na, he would not ware the spark of a flint for him—if they came with the law.'

'And what must Donald do, then?'

'He behoved to rid this country of himsell, and fall back, it may be, over the mount upon Letter Scriven.'

'And if he were pursued to that place?'

'I'se warrant he would go to his cousin's at Rannoch.'

'Well, but if they followed him to Rannoch?'

'That,' quoth Evan, 'is beyond all belief; and, indeed, to tell you the truth, there durst not a Lowlander in all Scotland follow the fray a gun-shot beyond Bally-Brough, unless he had the help of the Sidier Dhu.'

'Whom do you call so?'

'The Sidier Dhu? the black soldier; that is what they call the independent companies that were raised to keep peace and law in the Highlands. Vich Ian Vohr commanded one of them for five years, and I was sergeant mysell, I shall warrant ye. They call them Sidier Dhu because they wear the tartans, as they call your men—King George's men—Sidier Roy, or red soldiers.'

'Well, but when you were in King George's pay, Evan, you were surely King George's soldiers?'

'Troth, and you must ask Vich Ian Vohr about that; for we are for his king, and care not much which o' them it is. At ony rate, nobody can say we are King George's men now, when we have not seen his pay this twelve-month.'

Waverley, Sir Walter Scott, Vol.1, Ch.18, 1814 

FFL Quotes: History of England, David Hume, 1762, Vol.1, Ch.7, Section 1

   http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/10574/pg10574-images.html

NOTE: The chapters in the text of Hume's History of England are not subdivided into Sections, as my posts will be. The Sections will broadly (not always exactly) correspond with the subdivisions of the LibraVox recording of the book to which I am listening.

"In the progress and settlement of the feudal law, the male succession to fiefs had taken place some time before the female was admitted; and estates being considered as military benefices, not as property, were transmitted to such only as could serve in the armies, and perform in person the conditions upon which they were originally granted. But when the continuance of rights, during some generations, in the same family, had in a great measure, obliterated the primitive idea, the females were gradually admitted to the possession of feudal property; and the same revolution of principles which procured them the inheritance of private estates naturally introduced their succession to government and authority. The failure, therefore, of male heirs to the kingdom of England and duchy of Normandy seemed to leave the succession open, without a rival, to the Empress Matilda; and as Henry had made all his vassals, in both states, swear fealty to her, he presumed that they would not easily be induced to depart at once from her hereditary right, and from their own reiterated oaths and engagements. But the irregular manner in which he himself had acquired the crown might have instructed him, that neither his Norman nor English subjects were as yet capable of adhering to a strict rule of government; and as every precedent of this kind seems to give authority to new usurpations, he had reason to dread, even from his own family, some invasion of his daughter's title which he had taken such pains to establish."

David Hume, History of England, Vol.1, Ch.7, Section 1, 1762

"No sooner had Henry breathed his last, than Stephen, insensible to all the ties of gratitude and fidelity, and blind to danger, gave full reins to his criminal ambition, and trusted that, even without any previous intrigue, the celerity of his enterprise, and the boldness of his attempt, might overcome the weak attachment which the English and Normans in that age bore to the law and to the rights of their sovereign. [...]"

David Hume, History of England, Vol.1, Ch.7, Section 1, 1762

"William [Bishop of Canterbury], either believing, of feigning to believe, Bigod's testimony, anointed Stephen [nephew by marriage to the late King Henry I], and put the crown upon his head; and from this religious ceremony that prince, without any shadow either of hereditary title, or consent of the nobility or people, was allowed to proceed to the exercise of sovereign authority. Very few barons attended his coronation; but none opposed his usurpation, however unjust or flagrant. The sentiment of religion, which, if corrupted into superstition, has often little efficacy in fortifying the duties of civil society, was not affected by the multiplied oaths taken in favour of Matilda, and only rendered the people obedient to a prince, who was countenanced by the clergy, and who had received from the primate the rite of royal unction and consecration."

David Hume, History of England, Vol.1, Ch.7, Section 1, 1762 (italics added)

"Robert, Earl of Gloucester, natural son of the late king [Henry I], was a man of honour and abilities; and as he was much attached to the interests of his sister, Matilda [the true heiress of the English throne], and zealous for the lineal succession, it was chiefly from his intrigues and resistance that the king [Stephen] had reason to dread a new revolution of government. This nobleman, who was in Normandy when he received intelligence of Stephen's accession, found himself much embarrassed concerning the measures which he should pursue in that difficult emergency. To swear allegiance to the usurper appeared to him dishonourable, and a breach of his oath to Matilda: to refuse giving this pledge of his fidelity, was to banish himself from England, and be totally incapacitated from serving the royal family, or contributing to their restoration. He offered Stephen to do him homage, and to take the oath of fealty; but with an express condition, that the king should maintain all his stipulations, and should never invade any of Robert's rights or dignities: and Stephen, though sensible that this reserve, so unusual in itself, and so unbefitting the duty of a subject, was meant only to afford Robert a pretence for a revolt on the first favourable opportunity, was obliged, by the numerous friends and retainers of that nobleman, to receive him on those terms. The clergy, who could scarcely, at this time, be deemed subjects to the crown, imitated that dangerous example: they annexed to their oaths of allegiance this condition, that they were only bound so long as the king defended the ecclesiastical liberties, and supported the discipline of the church. The barons, in return for their submission, exacted terms still more destructive of public peace, as well as of royal authority: many of them required the right of fortifying their castles, and of putting themselves in a posture of defence; and the king found himself totally unable to refuse his consent to this exorbitant demand. All England was immediately filled with those fortresses, which the noblemen garrisoned either with their vassals, or with licentious soldiers, who flocked to them from all quarters. Unbounded rapine was exercised upon the people for the maintenance of these troops; and private animosities, which had with difficulty been restrained by law, now breaking out without control, rendered England a scene of uninterrupted violence and devastation. Wars between the nobles were carried on with the utmost fury in every quarter; the barons even assumed the right of coining money, and of exercising, without appeal, every act of jurisdiction; and the inferior gentry, as well as the people, finding no defence from the laws during this total dissolution of sovereign authority, were obliged for their immediate safety, to pay court to some neighbouring chieftain, and to purchase his protection, both by submitting to his exactions, and by assisting him in his rapine upon others. The erection of one castle proved the immediate cause of building many others; and even those who obtained not the king's permission, thought that they were entitled, by the great principle of self-preservation, to put themselves on an equal footing with their neighbours, who commonly were also their enemies and rivals. The aristocratical power, which is usually so oppressive in the feudal governments, had now risen to its utmost height, during the reign of a prince, who, though endowed with vigour and abilities, had usurped the throne without the pretence of a title, and who was necessitated to tolerate in others the same violence, to which he himself had been beholden for his sovereignty.

But Stephen was not of a disposition to submit long to these usurpations, without making some effort for the recovery of royal authority. Finding that the legal prerogatives of the crown were resisted and abridged, he was also tempted to make his power the sole measure of his conduct; and to violate all those concessions which he himself had made on his accession, as well as the ancient privileges of his subjects. The mercenary soldiers, who chiefly supported his authority, having exhausted the royal treasure, subsisted by depredations; and every place was filled with the best grounded complaints against the government.  [MN 1137.] The Earl of Gloucester, having now settled with his friends the plan of an insurrection, retired beyond sea, sent the king a defiance, solemnly renounced his allegiance, and upbraided him with the breach of those conditions which had been annexed to the oath of fealty sworn by that nobleman. [...]"

David Hume, History of England, Vol.1, Ch.7, Section 1, 1762

"Though the great power of the church, in ancient times, weakened the authority of the crown, and interrupted the course of the laws, it may be doubted, whether, in ages of such violence and outrage, it was not rather advantageous that some limits were set to the power of the sword, both in the hands of the prince and nobles, and that men were taught to pay regard to some principles and privileges. The chief misfortune was, that the prelates on some occasions acted entirely as barons, employed military power against their sovereign or their neighbours, and thereby often increased those disorders which it was their duty to repress. [...]"

David Hume, History of England, Vol.1, Ch.7, Section 1, 1762 (italics added)

DOCUMENT: The Charter of Liberties of Stephen, 1136

 https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/resource/the-charter-of-liberties-of-stephen/

The Charter of Liberties of Stephen, 1136

I, Stephen, by the grace of God with the assent of the clergy and people elected king of the English, consecrated by William archbishop of Canterbury and legate of the Holy Roman church, and confirmed by Innocent, pontiff of the holy Roman see, out of respect and love of God do grant freedom to the holy church and confirm the reverence due to her.

I promise that I shall neither do, nor permit to be done, anything by simony in the church or in ecclesiastical affairs. I allow and confirm that jurisdiction and authority over ecclesiastical persons and over all clerks and their property and the disposal of ecclesiastical honours will be in the hands of the bishops. I grant and concede that the liberties of the church confirmed by their charters, and their customs that have been observed from antiquity, will remain inviolate. I concede that all ecclesiastical possessions and tenures which were held on the day when king William my Grandfather was alive and dead, will be free and absolved from all dues, without any recovery from claimants. But if the church hereafter seeks to recover possessions which it held before the death of the said king but of which it is now deprived, I reserve to my own pleasure and dispensation whether the property should be restored or the matter discussed. I confirm whatever has been bestowed since the death of the said king by the liberality of kings or the munificence of princes whether in alms, by purchase or by any other grant of the faithful. I promise that I shall keep the peace and do justice in all things, and maintain them as far as I am able.

I reserve for myself the forests which William my Grandfather and William my uncle established and maintained. All the others, which Henry added, I restore and concede intact to the churches and to the kingdom.

If any bishop or abbot or other ecclesiastical person males reasonable distribution of his property before his death or makes arrangements for its distribution, I allow this to be firmly maintained. If he should be forestalled by death, let such distribution be made for the salvation of his soul by the counsel of the church. But while sees are vacant without their own pastors, I shall commit them and their possessions into the hand and keeping of clerks or upright men of the said church, until a pastor is appointed canonically.

I wholly abolish all exactions, injustices and miskennings wrongfully imposed either by the sheriffs or by anyone else.

I shall observe good laws and ancient and lawful customs relating to murder fines, pleas and other suits, and I command and ordain that they be observed. All these things I grant and confirm saving my regal and rightful dignity.

Witness William archbishop of Canterbury………………..at Oxford in the year of my incarnation of our Lord 1136, in the first year of my reign.

Response to News Clip by Mayor Pete Buttigieg Responding to the Opening Statement of Amy Coney Barrett, SCOTUS Nominee

For the video in question: https://twitter.com/petebuttigieg/status/1315707618980233217

Transcription: This is what nominees do, they write the most seemingly unobjectionable, dry stuff. But really what I see in there is a pathway to judicial activism cloaked in judicial humility. At the end of the day, rights in this country have been expanded because courts have understood what the true meaning of the letter of the law and the spirit of the Constitution is. And that is not about time-traveling yourself back to the 18th century and subjecting yourself to the same prejudices and limitations as the people who write these words. The Constitution is a living document because the English language is a living language, and you need to have some readiness to understand that. In order to serve on the Court in a way that's actually going to make life better. It was actually Thomas Jefferson who said that "We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy," as expect future generations to live under what he called "the regime of their barbarous ancestors." So even the Founders, that these kind of dead-hand Originalists claim fidelity to, understood better than their ideological descendents, today's judicial so-called conservatives. The importance of keeping with the times, and we deserve justices and judges that understand that.

My ABSTRACT
Mayor Pete is a radical with great rhetorical gifts. While well delivered, I find the content of his clip less inspired than cunning. He rightly denounces judicial activism, but he is selective in his applying the term. He praises the expansion of rights by the Courts, notwithstanding them being quintessential examples of modern judicial activism, since they identify constitutional rights never previous understood to be enumerated in it; but calls the prospect of a Court overturning an activist decision "judicial activism." I conclude therefore that Mayor Pete is not philosophically opposed to judicial activism, only when it does not play to his policy preferences. 

Mayor Pete omits certain key considerations.  

He does not mention instances when rights have been expanded via the amendment process, including guaranteeing the rights of former slaves as citizens and women's suffrage; and I believe he did because it flies in the face of his narrative that the Constitution is rigid, inflexible, and ill-equipped. 

Nor does he address instances when an activist decision has severely limited and restricted rights and liberty, such as Dred Scott v Sanford, Plessey v. Ferguson, and Korematsu v. United States. Judges are people, are not infallible, and get it wrong sometimes. For that reason, we should be cautious to call any Supreme Court decision "settled law."

Mayor Pete's quote was typical of Progressives. History is not a Progressive value. So when they appeal to it to make a point, they are usually bad at it. In this case, Mayor Pete uses Jefferson's quote that change in government is necessary as authoritative justification in favor of judicial activism. But Jefferson advocates no such method. On the contrary, consider this quote:

"Our peculiar security is the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. [...] If it is, then we have no constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of the powers which that instrument gives. It specifies & delineates the operations permitted to the federal government, and gives all the powers necessary to carry these into execution. Whatever of these enumerated objects is proper for a law, Congress may make the law. Whatever is proper to be executed by way of a treaty, the President & Senate may enter into the treaty; whatever is to be done by a judicial sentence, the judges may pass the sentence. Nothing is more likely than that their enumeration of powers is defective. This is the ordinary case of all human works. Let us go on then perfecting it, by adding by way of amendment to the Constitution, those powers which time & trial shew are still wanting." 

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Wilson Cary Nicholas, September 7, 1803 (capitalization update) 

My FULL POST

I anticipate that the most productive way would be to talk about specific cases where you feel that Originalist judges did not step up. I'm happy to talk about it as it comes up. 
 
Mayor Pete's clip is a tremendous example of the power of rhetoric. Notwithstanding being a radical -- supports Medicare for All, has defended late-term abortion with the Bible, anti-Second Amendment, supports open borders, in favor of extending certain federal benefits to illegal immigrants, supports court packing, supports abolishing the Electoral College -- he is generally a very composed speaker with a temperate delivery of words, and has demonstrated a gift for explaining very radical ideas in seemingly more moderate terms. I nevertheless find his substance in the clip less insightful than cunning. 

The identification of a right not previously understood to be contained in the text of the Constitution (or any law) is one of modern times' quintessential examples of judicial activism. 

Now, Mayor Pete rightly denounces judicial activism in this clip. 

But notice that he does not label the past expansion of rights by the Courts to which he referred as judicial activism, when they absolutely were. (A certain knowledge of history of the Supreme Court informs us that those rights include the constitutional right of privacy, the constitutional right of abortion, the constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, the constitutional right of same-sex marriage, etc.) He praises those decisions as "[understanding] what the true meaning of the letter of the law and the spirit of the Constitution is." It is the prospect of the Court overturning an activist decision (one of the few ways to reverse an activist decision) because that decision had no basis in the Constitution which Mayor Pete calls "judicial activism cloaked in judicial humility." 

When they are outcomes he likes, they are enlightened; when they are ones he doesn't, they are judicial activism. If I may say so then, Mayor Pete (and I'll add the Democrat Party and Progressivism) do not actually philosophically object to judicial activism as long as it okays their policy preferences. And I think that Mayor Pete explains that articulately here. 

According to Mayor Pete, interpreting the Constitution (which always includes its amendments) in the way they were understood by the people who ratified it is not a basic expression of the rule of law, not a method of respecting and preserving our democratic republic through separation of powers, not a display of reverence for our neighbors and our ancestors, not our building on their legacy, keeping what is good and reforming out what's not per the process they left for us, thereby complying with the ongoing goal to "form a more perfect Union." Nope, according to Mayor Pete, such an approach is "time-traveling yourself back to the 18th century and subjecting yourself to the same prejudices and limitations as the people who write these words," it's you not getting with the times, not letting the Past die, the Constitution cannot keep up. One cannot just have the hearts of the children turn to the fathers like that, and expect "to serve on the Court in a way that's actually going to make life better." 
 

I noted that Mayor Pete did not mention the instances when rights have been expanded in this country via the amendment process, such as ending slavery and reinforcing the rights of former slaves as citizens as well as women's suffrage -- two of the most noteworthy social advances in the modern world. 

He also failed to mention the times when an activist decision severely limited and restricted liberty to large swaths of people, such as Dred Scott v Sanford, Plessey v. Ferguson, and Koremotsu v United States. (With these court cases in mind, it is important to dismiss the idea that any Supreme Court decision ought to be taken as "settled law," in the case it was a bad or wrong decision, either in principle or process. It's important to understand that judges are human too, and not infallible.) 

These to me seem quite the oversights. But I am also not surprised, because the idea and the history that the Constitution is capable of adapting, that the American people once believed in the amendment process, and tremendous change took place via its mechanism, runs directly counter to Pete's narrative and that of his party: that Originalism, and by extension the Constitution, is rigid and inflexible, that it prevents liberty instead of protects it, that it is not equipped to change with the times, that it's old-fashioned, outdated, past its expiration, a ball-and-chain instead of an anchor, and it would be a disservice to the country to confirm an Originalist to the court. Judicial restraint protects the democratic elements of our republic. 

 
As we discussed before, Progressivism and the Living Constitution theory does not believe in the notion of timelessness for anything, let alone the Constitution. For the Progressive, the governing principle is Change. It rejects permanence in any form. The notion of absolute truth, physical law, of moral law, of sense of duty or responsibility, of the homeland, of the sovereign state, of the home, the the nuclear family, of individual will, loyalty, gratitude, respect, is all too stable a thing to allow in their envisioned society of unfettered progress. Because the Past is fixed, therefore history, precedent, tradition all have no value in Progressive thought, and thereby can't be expected to influence the Present, unless it can be used to further their Cause. And boy does it show whenever Democrats attempt to invoke precedent, history, tradition, or even facts; because man, do they suck at it as a general rule. But they blunder with confidence, banking that you and I won't know any better to spot their errors. And Mayor Pete’s attempt to quote Thomas Jefferson is a prime example. 

The quote is taken Jefferson's letter to Samuel Kercheval (codename "Henry Tompkinson"), 12 July 1816. The State of Virginia was looking to update its own state constitution, and Mr. Kercheval had asked Jefferson for his opinions. Much of the letter describes Jefferson's opinion of the weaknesses of the then state constitution of Virginia. It is true that Jefferson is not careful to specify "state constitution" at every opportunity, but I gather that his observations are reserved to Virginia from the context, and he never mentions the federal government until one of his final suggestions, when he writes, "We should [in Virginia] thus marshal our government into 1. the General federal republic, for all concerns foreign & federal[.]" 

Mayor Pete's quote comes from the final paragraph. Jefferson opens: "Some men look at Constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, & deem them, like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well: I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of it’s country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present: and 40. years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading: and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent & untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because when once known, we accomodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilised society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." 

(I’ll emphasize here Jefferson's acknowledgement that all of the Founding fathers shared his opinion that change was necessary in government, that the Constitution had to include a mechanism for change. Progressivism, the Democrat Party, and the Living Constitution theory do not hold the monopoly on thinking that change is necessary.) 

Mayor Pete offers this quote as a Founding-Father endorsement for judicial activism and condemnation for Originalism, saying that "[even] the Founders, that these kind of dead-hand Originalists claim fidelity to, understood better than their ideological descendents, today's judicial so-called conservatives." Jefferson said change is necessary, so, says Pete, activist judges are a legitimate method of change in our system. 

This is of course not true. Did Jefferson advocate for judicial activism to implement the change he saw fit? Had Mayor Pete read the letter from which he is quoting, he would have known that the answer is no, Jefferson did not. 

In fact, Jefferson explicitly advocated for regular constitutional conventions every 19-20 years, which is the interval at about which each generation becomes the new majority, to implement the changes; though he did not exactly know how to get enough people involved for the convention to be properly representative. (I'll also point out that it is not actually clear from the context of the letter whether Jefferson's opinions in this letter extend to the federal Constitution.) 

What did Jefferson think about judicial activism? I have not found the use of that term specifically, but may I offer this quotes for consideration: 

"Our peculiar security is the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. [...] If it is, then we have no constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of the powers which that instrument gives. It specifies & delineates the operations permitted to the federal government, and gives all the powers necessary to carry these into execution. Whatever of these enumerated objects is proper for a law, Congress may make the law. Whatever is proper to be executed by way of a treaty, the President & Senate may enter into the treaty; whatever is to be done by a judicial sentence, the judges may pass the sentence. Nothing is more likely than that their enumeration of powers is defective. This is the ordinary case of all human works. Let us go on then perfecting it, by adding by way of amendment to the Constitution, those powers which time & trial shew are still wanting." 

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Wilson Cary Nicholas, September 7, 1803 (capitalization update) 

QUOTES: Waverley, Sir Walter Scott, 1814, Vol.1, Ch.15

     https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5998/5998-h/5998-h.htm

"The Baron having also retired to give some necessary directions, Waverley seized the opportunity to ask, whether this Fergus, with the unpronounceable name, was the chief thief-taker of the district?
   'Thief-taker!' answered Rose, laughing; 'he is a gentleman of great honour and consequence, the chieftain of an independent branch of a powerful Highland clan, and is much respected, both for his own power and that of his kith, kin, and allies.'
   'And what has he to do with the thieves, then? Is he a magistrate, or in the commission of the peace?' asked Waverley.
   'The commission of war rather, if there be such a thing,' said Rose; 'for he is a very unquiet neighbour to his unfriends, and keeps a greater following on foot than many that have thrice his estate. As to his connection with the thieves, that I cannot well explain; but the boldest of them will never steal a hoof from any one that pays black-mail to Vich Ian Vohr.'
   'And what is black-mail?'
   'A sort of protection-money that Low-Country gentlemen and heritors, lying near the Highlands, pay to some Highland chief, that he may neither do them harm himself, nor suffer it to be done to them by others; and then if your cattle are stolen, you have only to send him word, and he will recover them; or it may be, he will drive away cows from some distant place, where he has a quarrel, and give them to you to make up your loss.' [Footnote: See note 13.]

Note 13:
Mac-Donald of Barrisdale, one of the very last Highland gentlemen who carried on the plundering system to any great extent, was a scholar and a well-bred gentleman. He engraved on his broadswords the well-known lines—

Hae tibi erunt artes; pacisque imponere morem, 

Parcere subjectis, et debellare superbos. 

Indeed, the levying of black-mail was, before 1745, practised by several chiefs of very high rank, who, in doing so, contended that they were lending the laws the assistance of their arms and swords, and affording a protection which could not be obtained from the magistracy in the disturbed state of the country. The author has seen a Memoir of Mac-Pherson of Cluny, chief of that ancient clan, from which it appears that he levied protection-money to a very large amount, which was willingly paid even by some of his most powerful neighbours. A gentleman of this clan, hearing a clergyman hold forth to his congregation on the crime of theft, interrupted the preacher to assure him, he might leave the enforcement of such doctrines to Cluny Mac-Pherson, whose broadsword would put a stop to theft sooner than all the sermons of all the ministers of the synod.
Waverley, Sir Walter Scott, Vol.1, Ch.15, 1814

Hae tibi erunt artes; pacisque imponere morem, 

Parcere subjectis, et debellare superbos. 

[Aeneid, 6: 852-853]

["Disposing peace and war by thy own majestic way;

To tame the proud, the fetter'd slave to free:

These are imperial arts, and worthy thee."

Translation, John Dryden]

[These will be ere unto thee skills for you; [Remember] to impose custom on peace, 

to spare those having been subjected, and to conquer the proud.

Found on youtube]

QUOTES: Waverley, Sir Walter Scott, 1814, Vol.1, Ch.14

    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5998/5998-h/5998-h.htm

"Having been so minute with respect to the diversions of Tully-Veolan on the first days of Edward's arrival, for the purpose of introducing its inmates to the reader's acquaintance, it becomes less necessary to trace the progress of his intercourse with the same accuracy. It is probable that a young man, accustomed to more cheerful society, would have tired of the conversation of so violent an assertor of the 'boast of heraldry' as the Baron; but Edward found an agreeable variety in that of Miss Bradwardine, who listened with eagerness to his remarks upon literature, and showed great justness of taste in her answers. The sweetness of her disposition had made her submit with complacency, and even pleasure, to the course of reading prescribed by her father, although it not only comprehended several heavy folios of history, but certain gigantic tomes in high-church polemics. In heraldry he was fortunately contented to give her only such a slight tincture as might be acquired by perusal of the two folio volumes of Nisbet. Rose was indeed the very apple of her father's eye. Her constant liveliness, her attention to all those little observances most gratifying to those who would never think of exacting them, her beauty, in which he recalled the features of his beloved wife, her unfeigned piety, and the noble generosity of her disposition, would have justified the affection of the most doting father."
Waverley, Sir Walter Scott, Vol.1, Ch.14, 1814

"Miss Bradwardine, such as we have described her, with all the simplicity and curiosity of a recluse, attached herself to the opportunities of increasing her store of literature which Edward's visit afforded her. He sent for some of his books from his quarters, and they opened to her sources of delight of which she had hitherto had no idea. The best English poets, of every description, and other works on belles-lettres, made a part of this precious cargo. Her music, even her flowers, were neglected, and Saunders not only mourned over, but began to mutiny against, the labour for which he now scarce received thanks. These new pleasures became gradually enhanced by sharing them with one of a kindred taste. Edward's readiness to comment, to recite, to explain difficult passages, rendered his assistance invaluable; and the wild romance of his spirit delighted a character too young and inexperienced to observe its deficiencies. Upon subjects which interested him, and when quite at ease, he possessed that flow of natural, and somewhat florid eloquence, which has been supposed as powerful even as figure, fashion, fame, or fortune, in winning the female heart. There was, therefore, an increasing danger in this constant intercourse to poor Rose's peace of mind, which was the more imminent as her father was greatly too much abstracted in his studies, and wrapped up in his own dignity, to dream of his daughter's incurring it. The daughters of the house of Bradwardine were, in his opinion, like those of the house of Bourbon or Austria, placed high above the clouds of passion which might obfuscate the intellects of meaner females; they moved in another sphere, were governed by other feelings, and amenable to other rules than those of idle and fantastic affection. In short, he shut his eyes so resolutely to the natural consequences of Edward's intimacy with Miss Bradwardine, that the whole neighbourhood concluded that he had opened them to the advantages of a match between his daughter and the wealthy young Englishman, and pronounced him much less a fool than he had generally shown himself in cases where his own interest was concerned."

Waverley, Sir Walter Scott, Vol.1, Ch.14, 1814

QUOTES: Waverley, Sir Walter Scott, 1814, Vol.1, Ch.13

   https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5998/5998-h/5998-h.htm

"The Baron of Bradwardine, mounted on an active and well-managed horse, and seated on a demi-pique saddle, with deep housings to agree with his livery, was no bad representative of the old school. His light-coloured embroidered coat, and superbly barred waistcoat, his brigadier wig, surmounted by a small gold-laced cocked-hat, completed his personal costume; but he was attended by two well-mounted servants on horseback, armed with holster-pistols.
   In this guise he ambled forth over hill and valley, the admiration of every farm-yard which they passed in their progress, till, 'low down in a grassy vale,' they found David Gellatley leading two very tall deer greyhounds, and presiding over half a dozen curs, and about as many bare-legged and bare-headed boys, who, to procure the chosen distinction of attending on the chase, had not failed to tickle his ears with the dulcet appellation of Maister Gellatley, though probably all and each had hooted him on former occasions in the character of daft Davie. But this is no uncommon strain of flattery to persons in office, nor altogether confined to the barelegged villagers of Tully-Veolan; it was in fashion Sixty Years Since, is now, and will be six hundred years hence, if this admirable compound of folly and knavery, called the world, shall be then in existence."

Waverley, Sir Walter Scott, Vol.1, Ch.13, 1814

"The truth is, the ride seemed agreeable to both gentlemen, because they found amusement in each other's conversation, although their characters and habits of thinking were in many respects totally opposite. Edward, we have informed the reader, was warm in his feelings, wild and romantic in his ideas and in his taste of reading, with a strong disposition towards poetry. Mr Bradwardine was the reverse of all this, and piqued himself upon stalking through life with the same upright, starched, stoical gravity which distinguished his evening promenade upon the terrace of Tully-Veolan, where for hours together—the very model of old Hardyknute—

Stately stepp'd he east the wa', 

 And stately stepp'd he west 

As for literature, he read the classic poets, to be sure, and the 'Epithalamium' of Georgius Buchanan and Arthur Johnston's Psalms, of a Sunday; and the 'Deliciae Poetarum Scotorum,' and Sir David Lindsay's 'Works', and Barbour's 'Brace', and Blind Harry's 'Wallace', and 'The Gentle Shepherd', and 'The Cherry and The Slae.'
   But though he thus far sacrificed his time to the Muses, he would, if the truth must be spoken, have been much better pleased had the pious or sapient apothegms, as well as the historical narratives, which these various works contained, been presented to him in the form of simple prose. And he sometimes could not refrain from expressing contempt of the 'vain and unprofitable art of poem-making', in which, he said, 'the only one who had excelled in his time was Allan Ramsay, the periwigmaker.'

[Footnote: The Baron ought to have remembered that the joyous Allan literally drew his blood from the house of the noble earl whom he terms— 

Dalhousie of an old descent 

 My stoup, my pride, my ornament.] 

But although Edward and he differed TOTO COELO, as the Baron would have said, upon this subject, yet they met upon history as on a neutral ground, in which each claimed an interest. The Baron, indeed, only cumbered his memory with matters of fact, the cold, dry, hard outlines which history delineates. Edward, on the contrary, loved to fill up and round the sketch with the colouring of a warm and vivid imagination, which gives light and life to the actors and speakers in the drama of past ages. Yet with tastes so opposite, they contributed greatly to each other's amusement. Mr. Bradwardine's minute narratives and powerful memory supplied to Waverley fresh subjects of the kind upon which his fancy loved to labour, and opened to him a new mine of incident and of character. And he repaid the pleasure thus communicated by an earnest attention, valuable to all story-tellers, more especially to the Baron, who felt his habits of self-respect flattered by it; and sometimes also by reciprocal communications, which interested Mr. Bradwardine, as confirming or illustrating his own favourite anecdotes. Besides, Mr. Bradwardine loved to talk of the scenes of his youth, which had been spent in camps and foreign lands, and had many interesting particulars to tell of the generals under whom he had served and the actions he had witnessed.
   Both parties returned to Tully-Veolan in great good-humour with each other; Waverley desirous of studying more attentively what he considered as a singular and interesting character, gifted with a memory containing a curious register of ancient and modern anecdotes; and Bradwardine disposed to regard Edward as puer (or rather juvenis) bonae spei et magnae indolis, a youth devoid of that petulant volatility which is impatient of, or vilipends, the conversation and advice of his seniors, from which he predicted great things of his future success and deportment in life. There was no other guest except Mr. Rubrick, whose information and discourse, as a clergyman and a scholar, harmonised very well with that of the Baron and his guest."

Waverley, Sir Walter Scott, Vol.1, Ch.13, 1814

QUOTES: Waverley, Sir Walter Scott, 1814, Vol.1, Ch.12

   https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5998/5998-h/5998-h.htm

"At this moment Mr. Saunderson appeared, with a message from his master, requesting to speak with Captain Waverley in another apartment. With a heart which beat a little quicker, not indeed from fear, but from uncertainty and anxiety, Edward obeyed the summons. He found the two gentlemen standing together, an air of complacent dignity on the brow of the Baron, while something like sullenness or shame, or both, blanked the bold visage of Balmawhapple. The former slipped his arm through that of the latter, and thus seeming to walk with him, while in reality he led him, advanced to meet Waverley, and, stopping in the midst of the apartment, made in great state the following oration: 'Captain Waverley—my young and esteemed friend, Mr. Falconer of Balmawhapple, has craved of my age and experience, as of one not wholly unskilled in the dependencies and punctilios of the duello or monomachia, to be his interlocutor in expressing to you the regret with which he calls to remembrance certain passages of our symposion last night, which could not but be highly displeasing to you, as serving for the time under this present existing government. He craves you, sir, to drown in oblivion the memory of such solecisms against the laws of politeness, as being what his better reason disavows, and to receive the hand which he offers you in amity; and I must needs assure you that nothing less than a sense of being dans son tort, as a gallant French chevalier, Mons. Le Bretailleur, once said to me on such an occasion, and an opinion also of your peculiar merit, could have extorted such concessions; for he and all his family are, and have been, time out of mind, Mavortia pectora, as Buchanan saith, a bold and warlike sept, or people.'
   Edward immediately, and with natural politeness, accepted the hand which Balmawhapple, or rather the Baron in his character of mediator, extended towards him. 'It was impossible,' he said, 'for him to remember what a gentleman expressed his wish he had not uttered; and he willingly imputed what had passed to the exuberant festivity of the day.'
   'That is very handsomely said,' answered the Baron; 'for undoubtedly, if a man be ebrius, or intoxicated, an incident which on solemn and festive occasions may and will take place in the life of a man of honour; and if the same gentleman, being fresh and sober, recants the contumelies which he hath spoken in his liquor, it must be held vinum locutum est; the words cease to be his own. Yet would I not find this exculpation relevant in the case of one who was ebriosus, or an habitual drunkard; because, if such a person choose to pass the greater part of his time in the predicament of intoxication, he hath no title to be exeemed from the obligations of the code of politeness, but should learn to deport himself peaceably and courteously when under influence of the vinous stimulus. And now let us proceed to breakfast, and think no more of this daft business.'"
Waverley, Sir Walter Scott, Vol.1, Ch.12, 1814

'I would not have you opine, Captain Waverley, that I am by practice or precept an advocate of ebriety, though it may be that, in our festivity of last night, some of our friends, if not perchance altogether ebrii, or drunken, were, to say the least, ebrioli, by which the ancients designed those who were fuddled, or, as your English vernacular and metaphorical phrase goes, half-seas-over. Not that I would so insinuate respecting you, Captain Waverley, who, like a prudent youth, did rather abstain from potation; nor can it be truly said of myself, who, having assisted at the tables of many great generals and marechals at their solemn carousals, have the art to carry my wine discreetly, and did not, during the whole evening, as ye must have doubtless observed, exceed the bounds of a modest hilarity.'
   There was no refusing assent to a proposition so decidedly laid down by him, who undoubtedly was the best judge; although, had Edward formed his opinion from his own recollections, he would have pronounced that the Baron was not only ebriolus, but verging to become ebrius; or, in plain English, was incomparably the most drunk of the party, except perhaps his antagonist the Laird of Balmawhapple. However, having received the expected, or rather the required, compliment on his sobriety, the Baron proceeded—'No, sir, though I am myself of a strong temperament, I abhor ebriety, and detest those who swallow wine gulce causa, for the oblectation of the gullet; albeit I might deprecate the law of Pittacus of Mitylene, who punished doubly a crime committed under the influence of 'Liber Pater'; nor would I utterly accede to the objurgation of the younger Plinius, in the fourteenth book of his 'Historia Naturalis.' No, sir, I distinguish, I discriminate, and approve of wine so far only as it maketh glad the face, or, in the language of Flaccus, recepto amico.'
   Thus terminated the apology which the Baron of Bradwardine thought it necessary to make for the superabundance of his hospitality; and it may be easily believed that he was neither interrupted by dissent nor any expression of incredulity."

Waverley, Sir Walter Scott, Vol.1, Ch.12, 1814