Lessened freedom of speech. to the King's presence. At Rockingham too and at Winchester there seems much greater freedom of speech than there is at Northampton. The whole assembly shouts and cheers as it pleases, and a simple knight steps forth to speak and to speak boldly.[1] At Northampton, as at Rockingham and at Winchester, the Archbishop is allowed the company of his personal followers. William Fitz-Stephen and Herbert of Bosham sit at the feet of Thomas, as Eadmer and Baldwin sit at the feet of Anselm. But at Northampton the disciples are roughly checked in speaking to their master, in a way of which there is no sign in the earlier assemblies. At Rockingham and Winchester again, though the Archbishop stays for the most part outside in the hall, yet he more than once goes unbidden into the presence-chamber, and is even followed thither by his faithful monks. At Northampton Thomas is never admitted to the King's presence, and no one seems to go into the inner room who is not specially summoned. This may be merely because, as is likely enough, strictness of rule, form, and etiquette had greatly advanced between William Rufus and Henry the Second. Or it may have been because Thomas was strictly summoned to answer a charge, while Anselm was really under no charge at all, but came as a member of the assembly.
The inner and outer council;
foreshadowing of lords and commons.
Another point here arises. I cannot but think that in
these great assemblies, consisting of an inner and an outer
body, we must see the same kind of distinction which we
saw on the great day of Salisbury between the Witan
and the landsitting men. That is, I see in the inner and
outer bodies the foreshadowing of Lords and Commons.
To this day there is one chamber in which the King's
throne is set; there is another chamber whose occupants
do not enter the presence of that throne, except by
- ↑ See above, p. 508.
