[Sidenote: Henry"s difficulties and his success in meeting them.]
Henry at once adopted vigorous measures. He destroyed the illegally erected fortresses, sent off the mercenaries, and deprived many earls who had been created by Stephen and Matilda of their t.i.tles. Henry II"s task was a difficult one. He had need of all his indefatigable energy and quickness of mind to restore order in England and at the same time rule the wide realms on the continent which he had either inherited or gained through his marriage with the heiress of the dukes of Guienne.[91] Although he spent the greater part of his reign across the Channel, he still found time to be one of the greatest of all England"s rulers.
[Sidenote: His reforms in the judicial system.]
[Sidenote: The grand jury.]
In order that he might maintain his prerogatives as judge of disputes among his subjects and avoid all excuse for the private warfare, which was such a persistent evil on the continent, he undertook to improve and reform the system of royal courts. He arranged that his judges should make regular circuits throughout the country, so that they might try cases on the spot at least once a year. He established the famous Court of King"s Bench to try all other cases which came under the king"s jurisdiction. This was composed of five judges from his council, two clergymen, and three laymen. We find, too, the beginning of our grand jury in a body of men in each neighborhood who were to be duly sworn in, from time to time, and should then bring accusations against such malefactors as had come to their knowledge.
[Ill.u.s.tration: The Plantagenet Possessions in England and France]
[Sidenote: Trial by jury.]
[Sidenote: The common law.]
As for the petty or smaller jury, which actually tried the accused, its origin and history are obscure. It did not originate with Henry II, but he systematized trial by jury and made it a settled law of the land instead of an exceptional favor. The plan of delegating the duty of determining the guilt or innocence of a suspected person to a dozen members of the community who were sworn to form their opinion without partiality was very different from the earlier systems. It resembled neither the Roman trial, where the judges made the decision, nor the mediaeval compurgation and ordeals, where G.o.d was supposed to p.r.o.nounce the verdict. In all legal matters the decisions of Henry"s judges were so sagacious and consistent that they became the basis of the common law which is still used in all English-speaking countries.
[Sidenote: Henry II and Thomas a Becket.]
[Sidenote: Becket as chancellor.]
Henry"s reign was embittered by the famous struggle with Thomas a Becket, which ill.u.s.trates admirably the peculiar dependence of the monarchs of his day upon the churchmen. Becket was born in London. He early entered one of the lower orders of the Church, but grew up in the service of the crown, and was able to aid Henry in gaining the throne.
Thereupon the new king made him his chancellor. Becket proved an excellent minister and defended the king"s interest even against the Church, of which he was also an officer. He was fond of hunting and of warlike enterprises and maintained a brilliant court from the revenues of the numerous church benefices which he held. It appeared to Henry that there could be no better head for the English clergy than his sagacious and worldly chancellor. He therefore determined to make him Archbishop of Canterbury. The kings of that time often chose their most efficient officers from among the prelates. Lanfranc, for example, had been the Conqueror"s chief minister. There were several good reasons for this practice. The clergy were not only far better educated than laymen but they were also not ordinarily dangerous as military leaders, nor could their offices become hereditary.
[Sidenote: Made Archbishop of Canterbury, Becket defends the cause of the Church against the king.]
In appointing Becket Archbishop of Canterbury, Henry intended to insure his own complete control of the Church. He proposed to bring clerical criminals before the royal courts and punish them like other offenders, to make the bishops meet all the feudal obligations, and to prevent appeals to the pope. Becket, however, immediately resigned his chancellorship, gave up his gay life, and opposed every effort of the king to reduce the independence of the Church. After a haughty a.s.sertion of the supremacy of the spiritual power over the secular government, Thomas fled from the wrathful and disappointed monarch to France and the protection of the pope.
[Sidenote: Murder of Becket and Henry"s remorse.]
In spite of a patched-up reconciliation with the king, Becket proceeded to excommunicate or suspend some of the great English prelates and, as Henry believed, was conspiring to rob his son of the crown. In a fit of anger, Henry exclaimed among his followers, "Is there no one to avenge me of this miserable clerk?" Unfortunately certain knights took the rash expression literally, and Becket was murdered in Canterbury cathedral, whither he had returned. The king had really had no wish to resort to violence, and his sorrow and remorse when he heard of the dreadful deed, and his terror at the consequences, were most genuine. The pope proposed to excommunicate the king. Henry, however, made peace with the papal legates by the solemn a.s.sertion that he had never wished the death of Thomas and by promising to return to Canterbury all the property which he had confiscated, to send money to aid in the capture of the Holy Sepulcher at Jerusalem, and to undertake a crusade himself.[92]
[Sidenote: Richard the Lion-Hearted, 1189-1199.]
[Sidenote: John, 1199-1216.]
54. Henry"s later years were troubled by the machinations of Philip Augustus of France and by the quarrels and treason of his own sons, of which some account has already been given.[93] He was followed by his son, the picturesque Richard the Lion-Hearted, one of the most romantic figures of the Middle Ages. He was, however, a poor ruler, who spent but a few months of his ten years" reign in England. He died in 1199 and was succeeded by his brother John, from all accounts one of the most detestable persons who has ever worn a crown. His reign was, nevertheless, a notable one in the annals of England. In the first place, he lost a great part of the possessions of his house upon the continent (Normandy, Brittany, Anjou, etc.); secondly, he was forced by a revolt of his people, who refused to endure his despotism any longer, to grant the Great Charter. The loss of his lands across the Channel has already been described; it remains only to speak of the winning of the Great Charter of English liberties.[94]
[Sidenote: The granting of the Great Charter, 1215.]
When, in 1213, John proposed to lead his English va.s.sals across the water in order to attempt to reconquer his lost possessions, they refused to accompany him on the ground that their feudal obligations did not bind them to fight outside of their country. Moreover, they showed a lively discontent with John"s despotism and his neglect of those limits of the kingly power which several of the earlier Norman kings had solemnly recognized. In 1214 a number of the barons met and took a solemn oath to compel the king, by arms if necessary, to confirm a charter containing the things which, according to English traditions, a king might not do. It proved necessary to march against John, whom the insurgent n.o.bles met at Runnymede, not far from London. Here on the 15th of June, 1215, they forced him to swear to observe the rights of the nation, as they conceived them, which they had carefully written out.
[Sidenote: The provisions of the Charter and its importance.]
The Great Charter is perhaps the most famous doc.u.ment in the history of government;[95] its provisions furnish a brief and comprehensive statement of the burning governmental questions of the age. It was really the whole nation, not merely the n.o.bles, who concluded this great treaty with a tyrannous ruler. The rights of the commoner are guarded as well as those of the n.o.ble. As the king promises to observe the liberties and customs of his va.s.sals and not to abuse his feudal prerogatives, so the va.s.sals agree to observe the rights of their men.
The merchant is not to be deprived of his goods for small offenses, nor the farmer of his wagon and implements. The king is to impose no tax, beside the three stated feudal aids,[96] except by the consent of the great council of the nation. This is to include the prelates and greater barons and all who hold directly of the king.
There is no more notable clause in the Charter than that which provides that no one is to be arrested or imprisoned or deprived of his property unless he be immediately sent before a court of his peers for trial. To realize the importance of this, we must recollect that in France, down to 1789, the king exercised such unlimited powers that he could order the arrest of any one he pleased, and could imprison him for any length of time without bringing him to trial, or even informing him of the nature of his offense. The Great Charter provided further that the king should permit merchants to move about freely and should observe the privileges of the various towns; nor were his officers longer to exercise despotic powers over those under them.
"The Great Charter is the first great public act of the nation after it has realized its own ident.i.ty, the consummation of the work for which unconsciously kings, prelates, and lawyers have been laboring for a century. There is not a word in it that recalls the distinctions of race and blood, or that maintains the differences of English and Norman law.
It is in one view the summing up of a period of national life, in another the starting-point of a new period, not less eventful than that which it closes" (Stubbs).
In spite of his solemn confirmation of the Charter, John, with his accustomed treachery, made a futile attempt to abrogate his engagements; but neither he nor his successors ever succeeded in getting rid of the doc.u.ment. Later there were times when the English kings evaded its provisions and tried to rule as absolute monarchs. But the people always sooner or later bethought them of the Charter, which thus continued to form an effective barrier against permanent despotism in England.
[Sidenote: Henry III, 1216-1272.]
55. During the long reign of John"s son, Henry III, England began to construct her Parliament, an inst.i.tution which has not only played a most important role in English history, but has also served as the model for similar bodies in almost every civilized state in the world. Henry"s fondness for appointing foreigners to office, his anxiety to enjoy powers which he had not the intelligence or energy to justify by the use he made of them, and his willingness to permit the pope to levy taxes in England, led the n.o.bles to continue their hostility to the crown. The n.o.bles and the people of the towns, who were anxious to check the arbitrary powers of the king, joined forces in what is known as the War of the Barons. They found a leader in the patriotic Simon de Montfort, who proved himself a valiant and unselfish defender of the rights of the nation.
[Sidenote: The English Parliament.]
The older Witenagemot of Saxon times, as well as the Great Council of the Norman kings, was a meeting of n.o.bles, bishops, and abbots, which the king summoned from time to time to give him advice and aid, and to sanction important governmental undertakings. During Henry"s reign its meetings became more frequent and its discussions more vigorous than before, and the name _Parliament_ began to be applied to it.
[Sidenote: Simon de Montfort summons the commons to Parliament.]
In 1265 a famous Parliament was held, where, through the influence of Simon de Montfort, a most important new cla.s.s of members--the _commons_--was present, which was destined to give it its future greatness. In addition to the n.o.bles and prelates, the sheriffs were ordered to summon two simple knights from each county and two citizens from each of the more flourishing towns to attend and take part in the discussions.
[Sidenote: The Model Parliament of Edward I, 1295.]
Edward I, the next king, definitely adopted this innovation. He doubtless called in the representatives of the towns because the townspeople were becoming rich and he wished to have an opportunity to ask them to make grants to meet the expenses of the government. He also wished to obtain the approval of all cla.s.ses when he determined upon important measures affecting the whole realm. Since the Model Parliament of 1295, the commons, or representatives of the people, have always been included along with the clergy and n.o.bility when the national a.s.sembly of England has been summoned. We shall see later how the present houses of Lords and Commons came into existence under Edward"s son.
[Sidenote: England in the fourteenth century.]
From the reign of Edward I we are, as a distinguished English historian has well said, "face to face with modern England. Kings, Lords, Commons, the courts of justice, ... the relations of Church and State, in a great measure the framework of society itself, have all taken the shape which they still essentially retain" (Green). The English language was, moreover, about to become the speech we use to-day.
CHAPTER XII
GERMANY AND ITALY IN THE TENTH AND ELEVENTH CENTURIES
[Sidenote: Contrast between the development of Germany and France.]
56. The history of the kingship in the eastern, or German, part of Charlemagne"s empire is very different from that in France, which was reviewed in a previous chapter. After a struggle of four hundred years, it had become clear by the thirteenth century that the successors of Louis the German (Charlemagne"s grandson) could not make of Germany a kingdom such as St. Louis left to his descendants. From the thirteenth century down to Napoleon"s time there was no Germany in a political sense, but only a great number of practically independent states, great and small. It was but a generation ago that, under the leadership of Prussia,--a kingdom unknown until many centuries after Charlemagne"s time,--the previously independent kingdoms, princ.i.p.alities, and free towns were formed into the federation now known as the German empire.
[Sidenote: Stem duchies.]
The map of the eastern part of Charlemagne"s empire a century after his death indicates that the whole region had fallen into certain large divisions ruled over by dukes, who, in Saxony and Bavaria at least, were kings in all but name.[97] Just how these duchies originated is something of a mystery, but two things at least are clear which help to explain their appearance. In the first place, under the weak successors of Louis the German, the old independent spirit of the various peoples, or _stems_, that Charlemagne had been able to hold together, once more a.s.serted itself and they gladly returned to the leadership of their own chiefs. In the second place, they were driven to do this by the constant attacks from without, first of the Northmen and the Moravians, a Slavic people, then of the terrible Hungarian hors.e.m.e.n who penetrated more than once as far west as France. As there was no competent central power to defend the people, it was natural that they should look to their local leaders for help and guidance.
[Sidenote: Henry I, 919-936.]
These _stem duchies_, as the Germans call them, prevented the German kings from getting a firm hold on their realms. The best that they could do was to bring about a sort of confederation. Consequently, when the German aristocracy chose the strong Henry I, of the ducal house of Saxony,[98] as their king in 919, he wisely made no attempt to deprive the several dukes of their power. He needed their a.s.sistance in the task of dealing with the invaders who were pressing in on all sides. He prepared the way for the later subjugation of the Slavs and the final repulse of the Hungarians, but he left to his famous son, Otto I, the task of finally disposing of the invaders and attempting to found a real kingdom.
[Sidenote: Otto the Great, 936-973.]
The reign of Otto I (936-973), called the Great, is one of the most extraordinary in the history of Germany. He made no attempt to abolish the duchies, but he succeeded in getting all of them into the hands of his sons, brothers, or near relatives, as well as in reducing the power of the dukes. For example, he made his brother Henry duke of Bavaria, after forgiving him for two revolts. His scholarly brother, Archbishop Bruno of Cologne,[99] he made duke of Lorraine in the place of his faithless son-in-law, Conrad, who had rebelled against him. Many of the old ducal families either died out or lost their heritage by unsuccessful revolt. None of them offered a long succession of able rulers. The duchies consequently fell repeatedly into the hands of the king, who then claimed the right to a.s.sign them to whom he wished.
In the middle of the tenth century the northern and eastern boundaries of Germany were as yet very ill defined. The Slavic peoples across the Elbe, many of whom were still pagans, were engaged in continual attacks upon the borders of Saxony. Otto I did more than fight these tribes; he established dioceses, such as Brandenburg, Havelberg, etc., in a district which is now the political center of the German empire, and greatly forwarded the Christianizing and colonization of the tract between the Elbe and the Oder.