Charters of Liberties.-William Rufus.-Henry I.-Charters granted by him.-No Legislative Assembly in his reign.--Stephen.-Henry II. -Separation of the Clergy from the Laity.-Constitutions of Clarendon.-New Laws.-Ireland united to the Crown of England.-Richard I.-Charters to Boroughs.-Effect of the Crusades.-Growth of National Property.

ALTHOUGH by the Conquest Monarchy was placed in the ascendant, and power little less than absolute centred in the Conqueror, yet the genius of the Saxon polity could not be repressed, and the aristocratic principle gradually assumed a controlling influence.

The moderating influence of the aristocratic class was shown by the concession of their demands, or petitions, in the form of charters from the sovereign, such charters having the name of Charters of Liberties. These were in the nature of compacts between the Crown and its immediate tenants, the barons; the Crown, on its part, granting exemption from its oppressive prerogatives, as they affected the barons, and through them subordinately favouring the body of the people. There is extant what is considered to be a copy of such a charter, issued by the authority of the

1087-1100.]

CHARTERS OF LIBERTIES.

37

Conqueror, by which he granted that "omnes liberi homines," or the freehold tenants by military service, should hold their lands free from unjust exactions and from all tallage; and in which the existence of "the Common Council of the whole kingdom" is made apparent, for it is referred to as convened. This charter is supposed to make a distinction in the legislative acts of the sovereign,-between those which imposed charges on the people, and those which applied to the general law. In the former cases, it is supposed that the consent of the barons in council was necessary; in the latter, that the king had independent authority. In this charter the King, as a concession to the people, commanded that in addition to the laws which he had decreed, those of Edward the Confessor should be observed.1

WILLIAM RUFUS, the second son of the Conqueror, although he obtained the throne, in 1087, against the right of his elder brother Robert, was arbitrary and tyrannical; and no trace can be found of any charter or concession to the barons or to the people, or of any legislative assembly in his reign.

HENRY THE FIRST, the Conqueror's youngest son, seized the crown, in 1100, after the death of his brother William Rufus, and whilst his elder brother Robert was absent at the Crusades. He caused himself to be immediately crowned; and, to give validity to his title and to gain the goodwill of the people, he, after his coronation, and in the first year of his reign, issued a charter, which states that he had been crowned with the consent of the Common Council of Barons, "Communi Concilio Baronum Regni Anglie coronatum." This charter makes some concessions to the Church, in regard to the enjoyment of its revenues. It then declares that" omnes malæ consuetudines," by which the kingdom had been oppressed, should be taken away. It makes con

1 Rymer's Foedera (Record Commissioners' edition, 1816), vol. i. p. 1. Peers' Report, vol. i. p. 29.

2 Peers' Report, vol. i. p. 36.

cessions to the barons, by providing that on the death of any baron who held lands of the king, the heir should redeem the land by a just and lawful relief, or payment of a fixed, in lieu of an indefinite and arbitrary sum of money; and he extended that advantage to those who held lands of the barons, in regard to the relief they were liable to pay to their lords. He also released the barons from certain money-payments and works, described by the words "gilda" and "opera;" and having thus relinquished the power of imposing such charges, he in effect surrendered the power of the Crown to impose taxes on the most opulent portion of its subjects without their consent. But the tenants of the king's demesnes were not by this charter exempted from liability to taxation by tallage; and the principal cities and boroughs, being part of his demesnes, derived from it no exemption from arbitrary taxation. There is in this charter a clause by which the king restores to the people the laws of King Edward, with such emendations as his father (the Conqueror) had made in them with the consent of his barons.1

When the purpose of issuing this charter was served, it fell into disuse; the grievances it pretended to redress were still continued; and the royal authority, in all those particulars, was again unrestrained. There is no proof that Henry ever convened any assembly for legislative purposes. Historians mention that the great men assembled to assist the King in his invasion of Normandy, when he defeated his brother Robert, and made him prisoner; and on another occasion, when the King required his subjects to swear allegiance to his daughter Matilda, as his successor; but there is no record or proof of any legislative assembly.3

STEPHEN acquired the crown, in 1135, on the death of Henry I., by the treachery of the clergy and barons, who had sworn allegiance to Matilda. He issued two charters in the beginning of his reign, in the first of which he founds his title

1 Matthew Paris, p. 55. Peers' Report, vol. i. p. 38. 2 Peers' Report, vol. i. p. 38.

3 Peers' Report, vol. i. p. 36.

1135-1154.]

HENRY II.

39

to the throne on election: "Dei gratiâ, assensu cleri et populi, in Regem Anglorum electus." The second charter contains a general confirmation of the charter of Henry. But the reign of Stephen was, almost from the beginning, a scene of tumult and trouble, and from the fourth year of his reign the accustomed assemblies of even the Curia Regis ceased. In such a reign it cannot be expected that constitutional law should have advanced. These disorders were at length mitigated by the convention between Stephen and Henry, Duke of Normandy, by which it was agreed that Stephen should enjoy the crown during his life, and that Henry, the son of Matilda by her second husband, Geoffrey Plantagenet, Earl of Anjou, should succeed to the throne, which, by the death of Stephen, he soon after did.'

HENRY THE SECOND, considered as the restorer of the Saxon dynasty, ascended the throne in 1154. He was a man of great abilities; and he made some important changes, in the general law of the realm, and in the administration of justice. But the distinguishing feature of his reign is the contest which arose between the lay and ecclesiastical powers, between the king and the clergy. The lay and ecclesiastical jurisdictions,—which under the Saxon government were peaceably combined in the same courts, where the bishop and earl sat together to administer civil and ecclesiastical justice,―had, since the Conquest, become completely separated; and the clergy held themselves in no case amenable to any but ecclesiastical authority.2 They were backed in their repudiation of lay authority by the

1 Peers' Report, vol. i. p.42. "Under the turbulent and miserable reign of Stephen, neither government nor law existed in England. The realm was entirely given up to violence: every powerful man built his castle, which became a den of robbers; the towns and the open country, the clergy and the peasantry, all suffered equally from spoil and rapine; pestilence and famine swept away the people, and the labours of agriculture were abandoned in despair. Such things (continue the Monks of Peterborough) did we suffer for nineteen years for our sins." (Saxon Chronicle, A.D. 1137.)

2 Peers' Report, vol. i. p. 42.

power of the Pope, which was now at its height. The Popes, by their legates, presided in all ecclesiastical councils; they were appealed to in all controversies concerning religion or church discipline; and they maintained the pretended rights of the Church, against what they designated as the usurpations of kings and princes.1

The separation of the clergy from the laity in the same commonwealth produced evil consequences, by removing from the sovereign power a large and influential body of men. Henry resolved to repress these clerical distinctions, and to bring the clergy under the law of the land; exemption from which was carried so far as to shield them from punishment for crimes, even of the deepest dye. To assist him in his scheme, he raised up the celebrated Thomas à Becket to be Archbishop of Canterbury, and Primate of England; expecting from his gratitude and his loyalty full co-operation in carrying out the design. A-Becket was the first native archbishop since the Conquest, but he was no sooner elevated to the dignity of primate, and possessed of the power and influence of that high office, than all his submissiveness ceased, and he became the chief, if not indeed finally the only opponent of the purposes of the king.2 This contest produced the CONSTITUTIONS OF CLARENDON: they were made in an assembly of the archbishops, bishops, and clergy, and the earls, barons, and proceress of the kingdom, convened by King Henry at his palace or manor of Clarendon, in Wiltshire, in the year 1164, and the tenth year of his reign. These ordinances are sixteen in number : they are in the form of a declaration and recognition of the prerogatives of the king, which the archbishops and clergy engaged to hold and observe. So far as these ordinances

1 Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii. p. 403.

2 See Littleton's Henry II., vol. ii. book 3, p. 354.

3 The 'proceres regni' are supposed to include the justiciar, chancellor, justices, and other officers of the king, who appeared to have been always considered as (official) members of the Great Council. (Peers' Report, vol. i. p. 46.)