44/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
During the greater part of the thirteen years of the new King's reign they were fighting against him. On Wiliam's
part it was a battle of centralization against disintegration. He ralied the country people to his help—those who
fought with bows and spears. "Let every man," said the King, "who would not be branded infamous and a
coward, whether he live in town or country, leave everything and come to me" (S85).
In answer to that appeal, the English people ralied around their
Norman sovereign, and gained the day for him under the wals of
Rochester Castle, Kent. Of the two evils, the tyranny of one or the
tyranny of many, he first seemed to them preferable.
131. Wiliam's Method of raising Money; he defrauds the Church.
If in some respects Wiliam the Conqueror had been a harsh ruler, his son was worse. His brother Robert had
mortgaged Normandy to him in order to get money to join the first crusade (S182). Wiliam Rufus raised
whatever funds he desired by the most oppressive and unscrupulous means.
Wiliam's most trusted counselor was Ranulf Flambard. Flambard had brains without principle. He devised a
system of plundering both Church and people in the King's interest. Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, died
three years after Wiliam's accession. Through Flambard's advice the King left the archbishopric vacant and
appropriated its revenues to himself. He practiced the same course with respect to every office of the Church.
132. The King makes Anselm Archbishop (1093).
While this process of systematized robbery was going on, the King suddenly fel il. In his alarm lest death was at
hand, he determined to make reparation to the defrauded and insulted priesthood. He invited Anselm, the abbot
of a famous monastery in Normandy, to accept the archbishopric. Anselm, who was old and feeble, declined,
saying that he and the King could not work together. "It would be," said he, "like yoking a sheep and a bul."
But the king would take no refusal. Caling Anselm to his bedside, he forced the staff of office into his hands.
Anselm became the champion of the freedom of the Church. But when the King recovered, he resumed his old
practices and treated the Archbishop with such insult that he left the country for a time.
133. Wiliam's Merit; his Death.
Wiliam II's one merit was that he kept England from being devoured piecemeal by the Norman barons, who
regarded her as a pack of hounds in ful chase regard the hare that is on the point of faling into their rapacious
jaws.
Like his father, he insisted on keeping the English Church independent of the ever-growing power of Rome
(S118). In both cases his motives were purely selfish, but the result to the country was good.
His power came suddenly to an end (1100). He had gone in the morning to hunt in the New Forest (S119) with
his brother Henry. He was found lying dead among the bushes, pierced by an arrow shot by an unknown hand.
Wiliam's character speaks in his deeds. It was hard, cold, despotic, yet in judging it we should consider the
woulds of that quaint old writer, Thomas Fuler, when he says, "No pen hath originaly written the life of this King but what was made with a monkish penknife, and no wonder if his picture seems bad, which was thus drawn by
his enemy."
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
45/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
134. Summary.
Notwithstanding Wiliam's oppression of both Church and people, his reign checked the revolt of the baronage
and prevented the kingdom from faling into anarchy like that existing in France.
Henry I—1100-1135
135. Henry's Charter of Liberties.
Henry, third son of Wiliam the Conqueror, was the first of the Norman kings who was born and educated in
England. Foreseeing a renewal of the contest with the barons (S130), he issued a Charter of Liberties on his
accession, by which he bound himself to reform the abuses which had been practiced by his brother Wiliam
Rufus. The charter guaranteed: (1) The rights of the Church (which Wiliam Rufus had constantly violated); (2)
the rights of the nobles and landholders against extortionate demands by the Crown; (3) the right of al classes to
protection of the old English customs or laws.
The King sent a hundred copies of this important document to the leading abbots and bishops for preservation in
their respective monasteries and cathedrals (S45).
As this charter was the earliest written and formal guarantee of good government ever given by the Crown to the
nation, it marks an important epoch in English history. It may be compared to the statements of principles and
pledges issued by our modern political parties. It was a virtual admission that the time had come when even a
Norman sovereign could not dispense with the support of the country. It was therefore an admission of the truth
that while a people can exist without a king, no king can exist without a people.
Furthermore, this charter established a precedent for those which were to folow, and which reached a final
development in the Great Charter wrested from the unwiling hand of King John somewhat more than a century
later (S198). Henry further strengthened his position with his English subjects by his marriage with Maud, nice of
the Saxon Edgar, a direct descendant of King Alfred (S51).
136. The Appointment of Bishops settled.
King Henry also recaled Anselm (S132) and reinstated him in his office. But the peace was of short duration.
The Archbishop insisted, as did the Pope, that the power of appointment of bishops should be vested wholy in
Rome. The King was equaly determined that such appointments should spring from himself. Like Wiliam the
Conqueror (S118), he declared: "No one shal remain in my land who wil not do me homage" (S86).
The quarrel was eventualy settled by compromise. The Pope was to invest the bishop with ring and crosier, or
pastoral staff of office, as emblems of the spiritual power; the King, on the other hand, was to grant the lands
from which he bishop drew his revenues, and in return was to receive his homage or oath of alegiance.
This acknowledgement of royal authority by the Church was of great importance, since it gave the King power
as feudal lord to demand from each bishop his quota of fuly equipped knights or cavalry soldiers (SS150, 152).
This armed force would usualy be commanded by the bishop in person (S140).
137. Henry's Quarrel with Robert; the "Lion of Justice."
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
46/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
While this Church question was in dispute, Henry had stil more pressing matters to attend to. His elder brother
Robert (SS124, 127) had invaded England and demanded the crown. The greater part of the Norman nobles
supported this claim, but the English people held to Henry. Finaly, in consideration of a heavy money payment,
Robert agreed to return to Normandy and leave his brother in ful possession of the realm. On his departure,
Henry resolved to drive out the prominent nobles who had aided Robert. Of these, the Earl of Shrewsbury,
caled "Robert the Devil," was the leader. With the aid of the English, who hated him for his cruelty, the earl was at last compeled to leave the country.
He fled to Normandy, and, in violation of a previous agreement, was received by Henry's brother Robert. Upon
that, Henry declared war, and, crossing the Channel, fought (1106) the battle of Tinchebrai,[1] by which he
conquered and held Normandy as completely as Wiliam, Duke of Normandy, had conquered England forty
years before. The King carried his brother captive to Wales, and kept him in prison during his life in Cardiff
Castle. This ended the contest with the nobles.
[1] Tinchebrai, Normandy, in the region west of Caen and Avranches. (See map facing p. 54.)
By his uprightness, his decision, his courage, and by his organization of better courts of law (S147), Henry fairly
won the honorable title of the "Lion of Justice"; for the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" says, "No man durst misdo against another in his time."[2]
[2] See, too, the Summary of Constitutional History in the Appendix, p. vi, S7.
138. Summary.
The three leading points of Henry I's reign are: (1) the self-limitation of the royal power embodied in his Charter
of Liberties; (2) the settlement of old disputes between the King and the Church; (3) the banishment of the chief
of the mutinous barons, and the victory of Tinchebrai, with its important results.
Stephen—1135-1154
139. The Rival Candidates.
With Henry I's death two candidates presented themselves for the throne,—Henry's daughter, Matilda (for he
left no lawful son), and his nephew, Stephen. In France the custom of centuries had determined that the crown
should never descend to a female. It was an age when the sovereign was expected to lead his army in person,
and it certainly was not expedient that a woman should hold a position one of whose chief duties she could not
discharge. This French custom had, of course, no force in England; but the Norman nobles must have recognized
its reasonableness; or if not, the people did.[1]
[1] Before Henry's death, the baronage had generaly sworn to support Matilda (commonly caled the Empress
Matilda, or Maud, from her marriage to the Emperor Henry V of Germany; later, she married Geoffrey of
Anjou). But Stephen, with the help of London and the Church, declared himself "elected King by the assent of
the clergy and the people." Many of the barons now gave Stephen their support.
Four years after Stephen's accession Matilda landed in England and claimed the crown. The east of England
stood by Stephen, the west by Matilda. For the sake of promoting discord, and through discord their own
private ends, part of the barons gave their support to Matilda, while the rest refused, as they said, to "hold their www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
47/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
estates under a distaff." In the absence of the Witan or National Council (S80), London unanimously chose
Stephen King (1135).
The fatal defect in the new King was the absence of executive ability. Folowing the example of Henry (S135),
he issued two charters or pledges of good government; but without power to carry them out, they proved simply
waste paper.
140. The Battle of the Standard (1135).
David I of Scotland, Matilda's uncle, espoused her cause and invaded
England with a powerful force. He was met at North Alerton, in
Yorkshire, by the party of Stephen, and the battle of the Standard was
fought.
The leaders of the English were both churchmen, who showed that they could fight as vigorously as they could
pray (S136). The standard consisted of four consecrated banners, surmounted by a cross. This was set up on a
wagon, on which one of the bishops stood. The sight of this sacred standard made the English invincible. (See
map facing page 436.)
After a fierce contest the Scots were driven from the field. It is said that this was the first battle in which the
English peasants used the long bow; they had taken the hist, perhaps, from the Norman archers at the battle of
Hastings (SS73, 74). Many years later, their skil in foreign war made that weapon as famous as it was effective
(S238).
141. Civil War (1138-1153).
For fifteen years folowing, the country was torn by civil war. While it raged, fortified castles, which, under
Wiliam the Conqueror, had been built and occupied by the King only, or by those whom he could trust, now
arose on every side. These strongholds became, as the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" (S99) declares, "very nests of devils and dens of thieves." More than a thousand of these castles, it is said, were built. The armed bands who
inhavited them levied tribute on the whole country around.
Not satisfied with that, these miscreants seized those who were suspected of having property, and, in the words
of the "Chronicle," "tortured them with pains unspeakable; for some they hung up by the feet and smoked with foul smoke; others they crushed in a narrow chest with sharp stones. About the heads of others they bound
knotted cords until they went into the brain." "Thousands died of hunger, the towns were burned, and the soil left untiled. By such deeds the land was ruined, and men said openly that Christ and his saints were asleep."
The sleep, however, was not always to last; for in the next reign, Justice, in the person of Henry II, effectualy
vindicated her power. The strife for the crown continued til the last year of Stephen's reign. Then the Church
came to the rescue, and through its powerful influence the Treaty of Walingford (in Berkshire) was made. By
that treaty it was agreed that Matilda's son Henry should succeed Stephen.
142. Summary.
Stephen was the last of the Norman kings. Their reign had covered nearly a century. The period began in
conquest and usurpation; it ended in gloom. We are not, however, to judge it by Stephen's reign alone, but as a
whole.
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
48/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
This considered, it shows at least one point of advance over the preceding period,—the triumph of the moral
power of the Church over feudal discord. But Stephen's reign was not al loss in other respects, for out of the
"war, wickedness, and waste" of his misgovernment came a universal desire for peace through law. Thus
indirectly this weak King's inefficiency prepared the way for future reforms.
GENERAL REFERENCE SUMMARY OF THE NORMAN PERIOD (1066-1154)
I. Government. II. Religion. III. Military Affairs. IV. Literature,
Learning, and Art. V. General Industry and Commerce. VI. Mode of
Life, Manners, and Customs
I. Goverment
143. The King.
We have seen that the Saxons, or Early English rulers, in the case of Egbert and his successors, styled
themselves Kings of the West Saxons or of some other division of that race, and that finaly they assumed the
broader title of "Kings of the English," or leaders of the entire race or people (S49). The Norman sovereigns made no immediate change in this title, but as a matter of fact Wiliam, toward the close of his reign, claimed the
whole of the country as his own by right of conquest.
For this reason he and his Norman successors might properly have caled themselves "Kings of England," that is, supreme owners of the soil and rulers over it; but this title of territorial sovereignty was not formaly assumed until about fifty years later, in John's reign.
144. The Great Council.
Associated with the King in government was the Great or Central Council, made up of, first, the earls and
barons; and secondly, of the archbishops, bishops, and abbots; that is, of al the great landholders holding
directly from the Crown. The Great Council usualy met three times a year,—at Christmas, Easter, and
Whitsuntide. Al laws were held to be made by the King, acting with the advice and consent of this Council,—
which in the next century first came to be known as Parliament (1246, 1265, 1295),—but practicaly the King
alone often enacted such laws as he saw fit (SS213, 217).
When a new sovereign came to the throne, it was with the consent or by the election of the Great Council, but
their choice was generaly limited to some one of the late King's sons, and unless therer was good reason for
making a different selection, the oldest was chosen. Finaly the right of imposing taxes rested, theoreticaly at
least, in the King and Council, but, in fact, the King himself frequently levied them. This action of the King was a
cause of constant irritation and of frequent insurrection.
145. The Private or King's Council.
There was also a second and permanent council, caled the King's Council. The three leading officers of this
were: first, the Chief Justice, who superintended the execution of the laws, represented the King, and ruled for
him during his absence from the country; secondly, the Lord Chancelor (so caled from canceli, the screen
behind which he sat with his clerks), who acted as the King's adviser and confidential secretary, and as keeper of
the Great Seal, with which he stamped al important papers;[1] thirdly, the Lord High Treasurer, who took
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
49/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
charge of the King's revenue, received al moneys due the Crown, and kept the King's treasure in the vaults at
Winchester or Westminster.
[1] The Lord Chancelor was also the "Keeper of the King's Conscience," because intrusted with the duty of
redressing those grievances of the King's subjects which required royal interference. The Court of Chancery
(mentioned on page 73, note 1) grew out of this office.
146. Talies.
Al accounts were kept by the Treasurer on talies or smal sticks, notched on the opposite sides to represent
different sums. These were split lengthwise. One was given as a receipt to the sheriff, or other person paying in
money to the treasury, while the duplicate of this taly was held by the Treasurer. This primitive method of
keeping royal accounts remained legaly in force until 1785, in the reign of George III.
147. The Curia Regis,[2] or the King's Court of Justice.
The Chief Justice and Chancelor were generaly chosen by the King from among the clergy; first, because the
clergy were men of education, while the barons were not; and next, because it was not expedient to intrust too
much power to the barons. These officials, with the other members of the Private Council, constituted the King's
High Court of Justice.
[2] Curia Regis: This name was given, at different times, first, to the Great or National Council; secondly, to the
King's Private Council; and lastly, to the High Court of Justice, consisting of members of the Private Council.
It folowed the King as he moved from place to place, to hear and decide cases carried up by appeal from the
county courts, together with other questions of importance.[1] In local government the country remained under
the Normans essentialy the same as it had been before the Conquest. The King continued to be represented in
each county by an officer caled the sheriff, who colected the taxes and enforced the laws.
[1] The King's High Court of Justice (Curia Regis) was divided, about 1215, into three distinct courts: (1) the
Exchequer Court (so caled from the chequered cloth which covered the table of the court, and which was
probably made useful in counting money), which dealt with cases of finance and revenue; (2) the Court of
Common Pleas, which had jurisdiction in civil suits between subject and subject; (3) the Court of King's Bench,
which transacted the remaining business, both civil and criminal, and had special jurisdiction over al inferior
courts and civil corporations. Later, a fourth court, that of Chancery (see S145, and note 1), over which the
Lord Chancelor presided, was established as a court of appeal and equity, to deal with cases where the
common law gave no relief.
148. Trial by Battle.
In the administration of justice, Trial by Battle was introduced in addition to the Ordeal of the Saxons (S91). This
was a duel in which each of the contestants appealed to Heaven to give him the victory, it believed that the right
would vanquish. Noblemen[2] fought on horseback in ful armor, with sword, lance, and battle-ax; common
people fought on foot with clubs.
[2] See Shakespeare's "Richard II," Act I, scenes i and ii; also Scott's "Ivanhoe," Chapter XLIII.
In both cases the combat was in the presence of judges and might last from sunrise until the stars appeared.
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
50/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
Priests and women had the privilege of being represented by champions, who fought for them. Trial by Battle
was claimed and alowed by the court (though the combat did not come off) as late as 1817, in the reign of
George III. This custom was finaly abolished in 1819.[3]
[3] Trial by Battle might be demanded in cases of chivalry or honor, in criminal actions, and in civil suits. The last were fought not by the disputants themselves but by champions.
149. Divisions of Society.
The divisions of society remained after the Conquest very nearly as before, but the Saxon orders of nobility, with
a few very rare exceptions, were deprived of their rank and their estates given to the Normans.
It is important to notice here the marked difference between the new or Norman nobility and that of France.
In England a man was considered a noble because, under Wiliam and his successors, he was a member of the
Great or National Council (S80), or, in the case of an earl, because he represented the King in the government
of a county or earldom.
His position did not exempt him from taxation, nor did his rank descend to more than one of his children. In
France, on the contrary, the aristocracy were noble by birth, not office; they were generaly exempt from
taxation, thus throwing the whole of that burden on the people, and their rank descended to al their children.
During the Norman period a change was going on among the slaves, whose condition gradualy improved. On
the other hand, many who had been free now sank into that state of vileinage (S150) which, as it bound them to
the soil, was but one remove from actual slavery.
The smal, free landholders who stil existed were mostly in the old Danish territory north of Watling Street (see
map facing p. 32), and in the county of Kent on the southeast coast of England.
150. Tenure of Land in the Norman Period; Military Service, Feudal Dues, National Militia, Manors and Manor
Houses.
Al land was held directly or indirectly from the King on condition of military or other service. The number of
chief tenants who derived their title from the Crown, including ecclesiastical dignitaries, was probably about
fifteen hundred. These constituted the Norman barons. The undertenants were about eight thousand, and
consisted chiefly of the English who had been driven out from their estates.
Every holder of land was obliged to furnish the King a fuly armed and mounted soldier, to serve for forty days
during the year for each piece of land bringing 20 pounds annualy, or about $2000 in modern money[1] (the
pound of that day probably representing twenty times that sum now). Al the chief tenants were also bound to
attend the King's Great or National Council three times a year,—at Christman, Easter, and Whitsuntide.
[1] This amount does not appear to have been fuly settled until the period folowing the Norman kings, but the
principle was recognized by Wiliam.
Feudal Dues or Taxes. Every free tenant was obliged to pay a sum of money to the King or baron from whom
he held his land, on three special occasions: (1) to ransom his lord from captivity in case he was made a prisoner
of war; (2) to defray the expense of making his lord's eldest son a knight; (3) to provide a suitable marriage
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
51/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
portion on the marriage of his lord's eldest daughter.
In addition to these taxes, or "aids," as they were caled, there were other demands which the lord might make, such as: (1) a year's profits of the land from the heir, on his coming into possession of his father's estate; this was caled a relief; (2) the income from the lands of orphan heirs not of age; (3) payment for privilege of disposing of
land.[1]
[1] The clergy, being a corporate and hence an ever-living body, were exempt from these last demands. Not
satisfied with this, they were constantly endeavoring, with more or less success, to escape ALL feudal
obligations, on the ground that they rendered the state divine service. In 1106, in the reign of Henry I, it was
settled, for the time, that the bishops were to do homage to the King, i.e. furnish military service for the lands
they received from him as their feudal lord (S136).
In case of an orphan heiress not of age, the feudal lord became her guardian and might select a suitable husband
for her. Should the heiress reject the person selected, she forfeited a sum of money equal to the amount the lord
expected to receive by the proposed marriage. Thus we find one woman in Ipswich giving a large fee for the
privilege of "not being married except to her own good liking." In the colection of these "aids" and "reliefs," great extortion was often practiced both by the King and the barons.
Besides the feudal troops there was a national militia, consisting of peasants and others not provided with armor,
who fought on foot with bows and spears. These could also be caled on as during the Saxon period (S96). In
some cases where the barons were in revolt against the King, for instance, under Wiliam Rufus (S130), this
national militia proved of immense service to the Crown.
The great landholders let out part of their estates to tenants on similar terms to those on which they held their
own, and in this way the entire country was divided up. The lowest class of tenants were the common agricultural
laborers caled vileins,—a name derived from the Latin vila, meaning a country house or farm. These vileins, or
serfs, held smal pieces of land on condition of performing labor for it. They were bound to the soil and could be
sold with it, but not, like slaves, apart from it. They were not wholy destitute of legal rights.
Under Wiliam I and his successors, al free tenants, of whatever grade, were bound to uphold the King,[2] and
in case of insurrection or civil war to serve under him (S122). In this most importa