NORMAN AND ANGEVIN KINGS

NORMAN KINGS

William II (1087-1100)

Henry I (1100-1135)

BLOIS

Stephen (1135-1154)

ANGEVIN OR PLANTAGENET KINGS

Henry II (1154-1189)
Henry II was one of the greatest of English Kings. He was the first sovereign of a new
dynasty called Angevin (from Anjou) or Plantagenet.

Legal reforms: Henry embarked on a series of important legal reforms. One of them
was the development of a central court of administration and justice resident at
Westminster. The court at Westminster normally tried cases involving important persons
and large amounts of property, but it did not handle smaller cases. Such cases,
however, were increasing rapidly and Henry made the great decision to improve the
system of itinerant justices that had been created by Henry I. This enabled the king to
place royal justice at the disposal of freemen and lesser barons. The kingdom was
divided into circuits, and the itinerant justices travelled through the counties on regular
iters or journeys, bringing the justice of the King to small litigants. When the justices
were present, a county court became for the moment a royal court as the same legal
methods were employed as were used at Westminster. In this way, the law became a
common law – common to all England. It is true that when the itinerant justices left each
locality, the local courts went on administering the local laws based on ancestral
customs. But the common law was already on its way to supremacy. This common law
was superior to the justice dispensed at the local courts because Henry and his justices
used some parts of Anglo-Saxon and Norman law, borrowed from Roman law and from
the law of the church -canon law-, devising new practices to meet new needs, until King
and justices created a new law and built a body of decisions from which precedents and
legal principles could emerge. This kind of law was fairly flexible, since the accent was
on judge-made law and it grew in popularity quite soon. Besides, Henry made the jury a
part of the royal judicial procedure both for criminal and civil cases.

Thomas Becket: A clash of some kind between the King and the church was inevitable
in Henry’s reign. Under Stephen the church had obtained new privileges and
independence. A strong King like Henry II was certain to resist the pretensions of the
clergy and to seek to regain the control exercised by his predecessors. But Henry was
opposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, a former friend of his. The
clash centred upon the trial and punishment of criminous clerks, and the jurisdiction of
church courts, which had extended greatly. The church courts had extended their
jurisdiction to include the right to try all cases involving the clergy, whatever their
offence. The privilege of ‘benefit of clergy’ was often claimed by anyone who could read
or speak Latin, since the penalties of the church courts were extremely lenient. To
define the respective powers of church and government, Henry drew up a statement
called the Constitutions of Clarendon. It decreed, among its sixteen articles, that
accused clergy could continue to be tried in church courts, but, if they were found guilty
of criminal offences, they would be turned over to secular courts for punishment.

Inspired by the opposition of Thomas Becket, the bishops were most reluctant to agree
to the Constitutions. The quarrel was so bitter that Becket left for the Continent. Six
years later, Henry offered Becket a hollow reconciliation and permitted his return to
England. But the Archbishop of Canterbury immediately excommunicated certain
bishops who had crowned the King’s son, an act normally reserved for the archbishop.
It was at this new affront that Henry uttered the fatal words, ‘Will no one rid me of this
troublesome priest?’

A few days later four of his knights murdered the archbishop in the cathedral at
Canterbury. The murder canonised Becket and brought public humiliation to Henry. The
cult of St. Thomas Becket flourished mightily, and visits to the shrine of the holy blissful
martyr at Canterbury became the most popular of English pilgrimages. After the initial
outcry of indignation had subsided, Henry was able to make his peace with Rome and,
in spite of a few concessions, he was able to stand his ground. In the long run, most of
his demands were upheld and the expansion of church courts was halted.

One must think of Henry II as a great French noble whose primary interests lay in his
continental possessions. He had inherited Anjou, Maine, and Touraine from Geoffrey,
his father, and Normandy from Matilda, his mother. He married Eleanor of Aquitaine,
thus acquiring the greatest fief of southern France, together with Poitou and Auvergne.
Even before he became King of England, Henry controlled half of France. But Henry’s
possessions did not form a unit in any way. They differed in interests, in laws, and in
language; allegiance to him was the one strong bond of union. Thus, Henry was
constantly on the move, often travelling at great speed; his peoples saw more of him
than might be supposed and his enemies were constantly confounded by his sudden
appearances.

Richard I (1189-1199)

The splendid machinery of government developed by Henry II was so firmly and

soundly established that it continued to function during the reigns of his irresponsible
sons. It survived the absence of Richard and the avarice of John. Richard I was more
highly regarded by his contemporaries than he is by posterity. Everywhere he went, in
Europe or in the Holy Land, he was reverenced as a crusader who had done brave
deeds. But he neglected England since he did not take the trouble to understand the
problems of English government. He spent only five months of his reign in England,
regarding that country merely as a source of financial support for his many wars.
John (1199-1216)

Richard was succeeded by his brother John. John has been traditionally pictured as a
monster of iniquity. In recent years, however, historians have regarded him more
favourably, stressing his ability and nimble wit, his industry, and his interest in
government and administration. The truth is that this fat, little man was a highly
complicated person of many contradictions, since he was also cruel, vindictive,
revengeful and treacherous, his private morals being admittedly bad.

The first years of John’s reign were occupied in a struggle with Philip of France.
Because of a problem in French territories into which John had got involved, Philip
(John’s overlord for the Angevin lands in France) summoned the King of England to the
feudal court in Paris. Failing to appear, John was sentenced to the loss of all his French
possessions, and war began in 1202. Eventually, the Angevin empire collapsed and
Normandy was lost to England.

John was also worried about a quarrel with Pope Innocent III, the most violent clash of
church and state in England during the whole of the Middle Ages. It began in a disputed
election to the archbishopric of Canterbury. When John refused to accept Stephen
Langton, who had been selected in Rome, Innocent placed England under an interdict.
This papal weapon closed all the churches in the kingdom and suspended the normal
services of the clergy. Only baptism and confession for the dying were allowed. In 1209
John was excommunicated. At first, England remained quiet. But in 1212 there were
indications that the barons might revolt. Moreover, Philip was preparing an invasion of
England. The following year, John submitted to Rome, and agreed to receive Stephen
Langton as archbishop.

Magna Carta In 1214 John was defeated by Philip once more and was forced to return
to England, where there was unrest among the barons. John’s wars, though
unsuccessful, were extremely expensive and it was the frequency and size of John’s
demands of money that infuriated the barons. There were, of course, other abuses in
his government: he distorted his feudal rights to his own advantage, his justice could be
highly arbitrary, he employed dishonest persons as sheriffs and as other local officials.
Not only was there suspicion between him and the barons, but also deep hate. Hence,
when John returned from the Continent, defeated and shattered in prestige, and
demanded further taxes, there was an explosion. A number of barons formed a
coalition, pledged themselves to act together, renounced their allegiance in a formal
defiance, occupied London and compelled the King to set his seal to Magna Carta in the
summer of 1215.

Magna Carta was drawn up by feudal barons, whose interests naturally predominated in
it. A large part of the charter, therefore, was devoted to the detailed workings of
feudalism with the object of preventing the King from abusing his feudal rights. Many of
these rights were dangerously vague and the barons wished to define them more
exactly. Hence there were many articles dealing with the incidents of relief, wardship,
and marriage. A famous article declared that the King might levy the three ordinary aids
allowed by feudal custom but could not collect other aids without the consent of the
barons. This consent must be obtained in the feudal council of the tenants-in-chief.
If Magna Carta had dealt only with the details of feudalism, it would have lost
significance as feudalism passed away. But it also laid emphasis upon the principle of a
feudal contract between the King and his tenants in chief. This principle –that the
barons could resist if the King broke his part of the agreement- was one that could be
applied in the future long after feudalism had disappeared. Moreover, the charter went
beyond feudalism in a number of ways. In the first place, the charter was a protest
against the arbitrary use of the system of law and government which had arisen during
the twelfth century, especially during the reign of Henry II. The barons accepted this
system and wished to preserve it, but also understood that its machinery could become
a tyranny in the hands of an evil King. John had suspended courts and withheld justice,
he had seized property arbitrarily, and he had inflicted punishment without trial. The
charter declared that these abuses were not to continue. According to the famous article
39 a man must be tried by due process of law before he could be punished. The charter
did not define the law of the land, but it stated that there was a law, that there were
recognised legal procedures, and that these must be followed. From Magna Carta we
can derive the fundamental principle that even the King must obey the law.

The charter also trascended feudalism by granting benefits to classes other than the
nobility. The first article declared that the English Church should be free from the control
of the King and free to obey the papacy. The privileges of London and of other
boroughs were confirmed. Foreign merchants should enter England freely. Even the
peasants profited from an article declaring that they must not be fined so heavily as to
lose their means of livelihood, such as their tools or grain. There were also articles of a
general nature which benefited the nation as a whole: dishonest officials should be
dismissed, and arbitrary exactions ended. The charter also passed beyond feudalism in
its attempt to devise machinery by which the King could be forced to keep his promises.
A representative council of twenty-fine barons was established to watch John’s
government, and to bring to his attention any infringement of the charter. If this
infringement was not corrected, the twenty-five barons should organise and lead an
armed revolt against the King. This attempt to control the King, which was a step
towards limited monarchy, was of great significance for the future. Moreover, it gave
opposition a lawful place in the scheme of government. Basing their action upon the
feudal contract, the barons could now resist the Crown without incurring the stigma of
treason.

In later centuries Magna Carta was to become a guarantee of good government and a
symbol of English liberty. It was to be praised and glorified and appealed to again and
again. However, the agreement between John and the barons embodied in the Great
Charter lasted only about two months, since the King soon began to prepare for war.
However, the following year John unexpectedly died.

Henry III (1216-1272)

Edward I (1272-1307)

Henry III was succeeded by his son Edward, who was an aggressive ruler determined
to assert his rights as sovereign and to exercise fully his powers of kingship to promote
the public good. Yet, he believed his subjects had rights he could not invade, and he
should consult with the great men of the kingdom when those rights were in question.

Legal reforms: Because of his respect for law and his legal reforms, Edward I has been
called the English Justinian. He governed in close collaboration with his principal
advisers, who were his great officials, most of them drawn from the middle class. They
met the King in his Council, the most vital organ of administration. The Council, which
we have called the small council at the time of the Norman Conquest, dealt with all
kinds of business. Above all, it was a court which dealt with cases that fell outside the
jurisdiction of other courts or concerned the king. Sometimes, when a case was of a
public nature and affected the whole community, it was taken to the assembly of the
King’s tenants-in-chief, of which the council was a part. This assembly, the Great
Council, was now called Parliament, and was the highest court of all.

Edward improved the machinery of justice in the courts at Westminster and in the work
of the itinerant justices. Besides, his reign marked a definite break in the history of the
common law. During the century from about 1150 to about 1250, the law had been
flexible and had been growing rapidly. New law developed mainly from the decisions of
the justices. The result was rapid legal development but also some confusion. It was
Edward’s achievement to give the law order and organisation, but he also made it more
rigid. Judge-made law is flexible; Edward replaced it by statutes –legislation passed by
King in Parliament- which blocked the growth of unenacted law, i.e. the law that has not
passed through Parliament. Statute law is fixed and timeless, therefore, under Edward I,
the principle was growing that new law could be made only with the consent of
Parliament. Rigidity was also increased by a new type of judge and by the rise of a legal
profession. Both judges and lawyers were specialists, who knew the common law but
cared little about other forms of knowledge and the study of Roman law was neglected.
Hence, the common law ceased to grow fast. It was increasingly carried throughout the
kingdom by the itinerant justices, and this undermined the ancient jurisdiction of the
hundred and shire courts, and went on reducing the scope of the private courts of the
barons and great churchmen. Royal justice was on its way to supremacy. Besides,
some of Edward’s statutes contributed to the beginning of the decline of feudalism.

After 1285, the common law developed steadily along conservative lines. As the
government became stronger, the Royal courts increased in importance and prestige,
and gradually took away all business form the barons’ feudal courts.

Medieval courts:
There were four main types of court in the Middle Ages:
(a) Communal courts, applying local customary law, e.g. shire or county courts, and
hundred or parish courts. These declined in importance as common law spread.
(b) Feudal courts, held by feudal lords for their tenants, e.g. baronial courts and
manorial courts. These also decayed as the common law expanded. Fines levied by
these courts went largely into the landlords’ pockets. The landlords therefore bitterly
resisted the competition and expansion of common law; their concern to maintain
 their interests is apparent in the Magna Carta (particularly chapter17, which fixed
the location of some of the courts at Westminster).
(c) Ecclesiastical courts, dealing with the discipline of the clergy, matrimonial and
testamentary matters.
(d) Royal courts.

Edward II (1307-1327)

Edward III (1327-1377)

Edward III was a majestic figure who loved the pomp and pageantry of war and chivalry,
delighting in palaces, costly feasts and elaborate tournaments, which were jousts or
encounters between two knights, fought according to rules. They were held in open
fields surrounded by galleries for spectators. The ladies of the court, who attended the
tournaments, added a note of romance and helped to civilize jousting by turning it into a
means of winning honour for one’s lady. Chivalry –a social and moral code of knightly
behaviour- laid stress on disinterested bravery, on honour, virtue and courtesy, and on
devotion to the service of a lady as her attendant and champion. It was set forth in
romances about King Arthur and his Round Table (For further details, see the notes on
the Anglo-Saxons). As a matter of fact, however, this code of chivalry had little relation
to daily life, for the position of women was low and they were often beaten and
maltreated, while the marriage of an heiress was a matter of business and diplomacy.

The reign of Edward III was also characterized by the first part of the Hundred Years’
War with France, in which the upper classes followed the King trying to seek financial
profit as well as honour and renown. In 1337 excuses for fighting France were not hard
to find since there were economic and political issues that brought about hostility
between the two countries. But one suspects that Edward and his magnates, inspired
by high spirits and material greed, were ready to employ any excuse that served their
turn.

We must also remember that the King’s participation in this war gave the House of
Commons an excellent opportunity to gradually increase its power and rights. (For more
details, see the notes on the rise of Parliament).

Richard II (1377- 1399)

Richard was deposed by his cousin Henry Bolingbroke when he seized Henry’s
inheritance (his lands and nobility title) from his father the Duke of Lancaster (the King’s
uncle), something that Henry obviously refused to accept.

Adapted from A History of England by D. H. Willson