Henry Ii (1154 – 1189) Is Generally Essay Example

possessed a flair for administration and the commitment to carry through the changes he deemed necessary to achieve his goal i.e. unchallenged peace and a prosperous realm. Henry's first priority was to curb the power of his barons. During Stephen's reign, many barons had manipulated existing feudal laws to promote their own ambitions while simultaneously reducing the power of the king. Henry introduced reforms that aimed to reverse this process, weakening the barons and strengthening his own position.7 Luckily, the basic structures needed for effective administration and government were already in place. A system of central government controlled by sheriffs accountable to the king was already in existence, as was a fledgling, bureaucratic administration that acted on the king's seal.8

In 1155 Henry II appointed Thomas � Beckett an ambitious commoner as Chancellor, whose main function was to distribute royal charters, writs and letters9. Indeed, their friendship during the early years had been very close due to the nature of their work. In that � Becket had preformed many tasks for Henry II which included leading the English army into battle.10 Commitment on such a scale indicates that Henry felt that it would not take him long before achieving his ultimate goal for crushing all corruptness.

Henry II believed that once he had 'razed all unauthorized castles built during the previous reign'11, reclaimed many of the rights, powers of the crown that laxed during the civil war era. Furthermore, Henry knew that by applying 'monetary payments to replace military service as the primary duty of vassals he could successfully crush all unruly elements.'12 In that Henry II reorganized the need to reform the legal system and in

doing so he created the Common Law in the hope such justice would once again be resumed back into the firm governmental structure it had been under his forefather's management. 13 More importantly Henry II was responsible for establishing jury trails, which would put an end to the old Germanic trials by ordeal or battle. 14 Furthermore it can be augured that Henry II 'empowered a new social class of government clerks which stabilized procedure, so that the government could operate effectively in the king's absence and would subsequently prove sufficiently tenacious to survive the reign of incompetent kings'.

Dane'16 suggests Henry's desire to dwell on continent meant that the need to 'govern Britain directly, consolidate his authority while defending his dominions', meant Henry II would have been extremely anxious to erect an effective government on account that he like preferred to spend this time, to be more precise twenty-one of the thirty-four-years of his reign dwelling on the continent. Indeed, Henry's systematic approach to law provided a common basis for development of royal institutions throughout the entire realm which was swifter than the old legal system.17 For example by 1189 Henry II had successfully erected a permanent body of professional judges and appointed a formed permanent bench at Westminster.18

As well as creating a system of frequent circuits of Royal Justices or Eyres. Indeed, it was from these Royal Courts of Westminster developed out of the 'Curia Regis'19, also referred to as the (King's Council) came into being. Indeed, the 'Court of the Exchequer was the first court to emerge from the Curia Regis' which dealt initially with despites connected with royal revenues.'20 Moreover, the 'Court

of Common Plea was set up by Henry II in order to hear disputes between the King's subjects'.21 However, the Court of King's Bench was last to emerge and initially was closely associated with the King himself, hearing disputes between subjects and the King. Furthermore, judges who resided within these courts had the ability and power to travel around the countryside with the King's own personal justice symbolizing a dynamic and responsive need for the King's royal duty to keep the peace. Moreover, Henry II was also dispensed with the feudal law of ordeals by battle by replacing it with fines instead.'22 Other reforms Henry II introduced during the early part of his reign concerned the ecclesiastical courts. Since, Henry II dismay and anger at the fact the church continued to 'prosper and weald power'23. Indeed Henry II knew and sensed something had to be done in order to limit the church's power, especially if he was to restore and maintain a good governmental and judicial system.24 Therefore, by 1162 � Beckett was named Archbishop of Canterbury. Henry's deviousness for picking � Beckett caused many church leaders to be anxious and have grave concerns about � Beckett's 'materialistic and cruel military nature and along with a close relationship with Henry II meant � Becket may not be an independent leader for the church'.

Indeed, Adams26 suggests 'Henry hoped � Beckett would utilise his influence to persuade bishops and clergy to accept some curtailment of clerical immunity'.27 However, � Beckett distanced himself from Henry II and vehemently opposed the weakening of church courts.28 Splits in their friendship began to appear since Henry II demanded that a certain

tax know as 'the sheriff's aid' 29go directly to the Exchequer. � Beckett, in a 'Great Council, declared he was willing to make his contribution to sheriffs, as had been customary, but absolutely refused to pay if the money was to be added to the revenue of the Crown'.30 The fact that Stubbs31 supposes such a tax was really the Danegeld is debatable, although in any case historians may share his admiration for this tax. However, the taxation dilemma is quickly forgotten due to a more serious quarrel over the 'Constitution of Clarendon on the 13th January 1164'.32 In truth the code illustrates a collection of sixteen articles that defined church-state relations in England. "Designed in order to restrict ecclesiastical privileges and curb the power of the church courts these were yet another attempt by Henry II to divulge royal prerogatives as they were prior to the anarchy of King Stephen's reign.

However, quarrels via the church and state intensified, this put Henry II into the forefront of the dispute since it was alleged inadequacy of the punishment meted out to clerics who were guilty of criminal offences,would in future be dealt with under royal justice before trail in an ecclesiastical court'33. And if convicted, the clerics would lose the protection of the church and therefore endure the same treatment as any lay person'34. Consequently, Henry II wanted this particular reform on account since following an alleged fact that a hundred homicides had been committed by clerics within ten years rests on no adequate evidence. Indeed, Morris 35 stipulates that neither were the case, since definite particulars Henry believed would be more satisfactory. Although, Mooney36 addresses

the matter of growing conflict over the purposed and implementation of a 'code' housed within the 'Constitution of Clarendon' as being a primary extension of the 'code' based upon the practices endorsed during Henry I's era, to have originally focused upon the relations and power of both the church and state'. 37 Alternatively, Baker 38 suggests that Henry II got his swift justice in the Assizes for they provided a fast and clearer verdicts that 'enriched the treasury and extended the King's appointment of local sheriffs to collect taxes for Henry as well as holding the post of 'Royal Debt collectors'.39 Indeed, once 'Henry had all ineffective sheriffs replaced with his own men to collect the revenues'.40 While others travelled as judges or officials whose task was to administer justice in the King's name all throughout the lands.

Another strategy Henry applied focused upon arranged marriages via rival families encouraged harmony and tactical shrewdness in the manner in which Henry II introduced such a ploy.42 Indeed it would appears Henry's desire to erect a new administrative zeal and impetus was evident from the start of his reign may have matured into intense frustrations at the pace, which his reforms took prior to eventually emerging as an efficient system of government that had stood the test of time. Alternatively, such drive may be construed by Henry II's critics that his approach to reform were both forceful, and aggressive which at times resembled tyranny on account of the fact that Henry II had an ability to frequently make claims that were over and beyond those he could legitimately make, which would explain Henry's desire to extend his realm

even further. Nevertheless, Stubbs43 suggests Henry II was in fact 'a far-seeing King who recognized that the well-being of the nation was the surest foundation of his own power'.44 This referencing demonstrates again Henry II brilliance for establishing reforms as being yet another example whereby he further weakened the traditional feudal ties in strategically superior manner because Henry knew that by strengthening his position he could then implement and formalise the jurisdiction of the 'General Eyre'45 by the 'Assizes of Clarendon' in 1166.46 Indeed Stubbs47 noted that "the Assize of Clarendon, ethos:

'Is a document of the greatest importance

to our legal history, and must be regarded

as introducing changes into the administration

of justice which were to lead the way to self

government at not distant time."48

As well as enabling the future development of the 'Assizes of Northampton' 49 in 1176. Meant both Assizes provided an establishment in relation to the criminal law ensured that in criminal matters a jury or panel of twelve men in every country to be responsible for presenting to the sheriff those suspected of serious crimes. Furthermore, it meant that the accused were often brought before the "General Eyre'50 when it arrived in the area. However, in matters regarding civil issues, a new civil remedy called the 'Assize of Novel Disseisin'51 offered persons complaining that their lands had been unfairly or wrongly seized. Indeed, from this remedy grew a range of other civil actions which were brought about by the 'General Eyre', which signifies again how Henry II's royal and more uniform justice began to filter into the country as a whole. However, by "Richard II reign the 'General Eyre' concept had disappeared, but

the system of circuit judges from what is today referred to as the High Court under English law took its place".52

Arguably, Henry II's philosophy regarding the "Assizes" firmly established judicial procedure regarding crimes. Indeed, Clanchye 53, refers to two major principles of Henry II's reforms emerged whereas Hunter54, relates to a process whereby Henry II develop 'civil law by implementing either of the 'Grand or Petty' Assizes in matters which required a tenant's title could only be questioned within the courts which came under the direction of the King's authority as he overlord to all freemen and property'. Either way it is possible to suggest that both academics accept the fact that in truth Henry II's reforms caused and opened the doors for freemen to become able to purchase land or property. Facts indicate that under the old legal system such rights had been denied. Subsequently, under Criminal law, it was the King who would have sole jurisdiction over everyone, including members of church and serfs. This in practice meant that the English Kings ultimate authority over all members of his realm and power to over see all cases that royal justice system wanted to achieve. However, as the new justice system began to evolve many quarrels between the King and the church, which festered and intensified following Henry's attempts to introduce the 'Constitutions of Clarendon' in 1164 caused emotions to escalate dramatically once � Beckett changed both mentally and spiritually, once he took up his role as Archbishop of Canterbury in June 116255, much to the surprise of the church and Henry.

Reason for their quarrel stemmed from the fact that the Roman church's belief

that the single most vital religious role of the monarchy had to be its allegiance to the church. � Beckett following his spiritual transformation agreed with the church but Henry II did not. Since Henry believed that the monarch is appointed by God to rule not only that State but to protect and guide the church. Indeed, it is possible to suggest that it may be due to this point which inspired Henry II to produce guidelines within his Assizes whereby a jury of twelve men could pave the way for 'good government' in future by creating secular taxation of movable goods come into existence especially the use of the grand jury system. 56 Therefore, an Assizes could also be used to check the power the local magnates gained during King Stephen's anarchy by taking power away from the local courts (and hence the local magnates), returning it back to the crown".57 Consequently, it is interesting to note that number "twenty-one of the Assize's indicates a comparative mildness of the measures against heretics. Which half a century later heresy and apostasy were alike punished with death."58

Moreover, once Henry decoded his 'twenty-two Assizes of Clarendon' he could legally and successfully extract power, lands and wealth back from the church and corrupt officials after issuing an inquest of Sheriffs, this meant that the "barons, sheriffs, knights and freemen of the country would swear an 'oath of truth concerning all that shall be asked of them on behalf of their lord king, and that they will not conceal the truth for love of any one or for hated or for money or reward or for fear, promise or

anything else." 59

Ultimately, failure to comply with the new 'code'60 meant punishments varied from fines, corporal punishment for misdemeanors, imprisonment and the death penalty for felonies.61 Without doubt, there is no evidence of "liberal" attitudes to offenders or had the need for rehabilitation in the secular laws.62 Henry however felt that the Church courts frequently imposed penances, in line with the concepts of forgiveness and redemption. 63 Sadly, the relationships between � Beckett and Henry II intensified and festered following Henry's implementation of the "Assizes" in 1166. Nevertheless, � Beckett felt that the government of the church should be left in the hands of the clergy and answerable to the Pope on account that the church had its own allegiance as well as its own laws. Indeed, Henry knew his reforms would unsettle both the church and his subjects, because they may see them as frightening due to the fact that the majority of the Royal legislations were concealed within the 'Assizes of Clarendon' in 1166, would firmly established judicial procedure regarding crimes, especially the use of the grand jury system.64 However, � Beckett and the church continued to disregard Henry's reforms this meant any stability regarding a general level of crime within society, both prior to and after the reforms meant that Henry's legal and administration code may fail to perform satisfactory.

Arguably, it is likely that most crime rose due to the lack throughout this period of an effective police force this coupled with peoples fear, location, hardships of life and alcohol consumption especially on feast days meant that "crimes of opportunity" and personal quarrels were common. And crimes of violence again were frequent

as all men carried a knife then the latter frequently ended in violence. For example the prime areas like marches via Wales and Scotland were notorious for levels of crime even by the standards of the day.65 Henry's rising resentment over Church law remained fairly static, even though his failed attempts to limit powers of clergy. Although Henry had the right of intervention in matters requiring his presence in order to deal with the crimes of lollardy and witchcraft.

Although in matters requiring a serious enforcement for crimes Henry developed the 'Council of Northampton in 1176 as a means to clamp down upon serious offenders.'66 This reform refers to any convicted persons having been found guilty of their crime could effectively lose their limbs, as well as introducing and firmly establishing Royal justices. Nonetheless, Bates implies that the "first and greatest of all Henry's 'justices' were Roger of Salisbury (d.1139) and Sir Richard de Lucy (retired 1178)." Although Baker67 suggests 'justices' under modern law would be portrayed as Prime Ministers. However, in Henry II's era their function meant that they had to travel via the realm seeking 'representatives of twelve lawful men, who in turn would sit in what under modern day law would be referred to as the grand jury.'68

Ever increasing tension, hostilities and politics via Henry II and the church during this period meant in certain quarters reform and clauses incorporated within the second article of the sixteenth article of the 'Assizes of Clarendon 1166',69 generated vast anger from the church, since it refers to clerics who had "committed crimes would in future be answerable to the legal authority of the crown courts rather

than that of the ecclesiastical courts." 70 Indeed, in the beginning church leaders in England, including � Beckett had "reluctantly agreed to Henry's provisions but later reverse their decisions and condemned the Constitutions"71. In fact � Beckett was not sympathetic to the royal cause in the escalating battle between church and state. Henry II having lost patience with � Beckett demanded � Beckett stand trail for continuous defiance and disobedience. �

Beckett fearing for his personal safety sensed that if he was 'convicted, under the terms outlined under the second article of the sixteenth article of the 'Assizes of Clarendon 1166',72 � Beckett could lose either limbs or his life once the courts pronounced him guilty of 'feudal disobedience'.73 Understandably "the second article of the sixteenth article of the 'Assizes of Clarendon 1166',74 � Beckett fled to Grantham in the middle of the night before going into voluntary exile in Normandy on 2nd November 1164". Returning to Canterbury once the Pope intervened on December 2nd 1170.'75

Regrettably, their truce was short lived once � Beckett's excommunicating all bishops who had prudently supported the King during � Beckett's exile. During another venomous rage and Henry uttered, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent Priest".76 This rash phrase caused a 'terrible tragedy to occur after four knights murdered and martyred � Beckett in Canterbury Cathedral on the 29th December 1170'.77

As a result all 'Christendom were horrified while Henry II, displayed genuine remorse by surrendering his former pretensions even though he had been absolved of the crime by Pope Alexander III in 1172.'78 To demonstrate his policy or genuine remorse, Henry II, surrendered his former pretensions by revoking two

controversial clauses, which he had battled so furiously with � Beckett although the remainder of the Constitution did in effect go on to integrate into the English common law. Furthermore, in 1174, Henry II performed humiliating penance at the martyr's tomb.

Consequently, towards the end of Henry II's reign his popularity had dwindled following � Beckett's death. However, within a very few years Canterbury had become a place of pilgrimage celebrated throughout Europe Indeed, it would seem that Henry's fortunes had altered and that even in death � Beckett's could still seem to out do him. Arguably, it would seem that the talons grip Henry II had relied upon all throughout his regime coupled with such zeal to erect an effective legal system now had an appearance that resembled tyranny. One that would eventually cause a great dived within his own family. The sibling rebellion was so strong that they constantly plotted against Henry on several occasions before Henry's death upon a French battlefield on 6th July 1189 after being defeated by his son Richard.

Therefore, in conclusion it would seem that the facts outlined and referred to above indicate that Henry II's legacy of erecting an effective reliable legal system be over shadowed by the martyrdom of � Beckett's death. Arguably, it is indeed possible to suggest that Henry II was honestly intent on a scheme of judicial reform, and that he found that the growing jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts (the publication of the "Decretum Gratiani" and the increased study of the canon law had made them very popular) was an obstacle in his way. Indeed Henry II knew and sensed something had to be

done in order to limit the church's power, especially if he was to restore and maintain a good governmental and judicial system. Furthermore, Henry II had become dismayed and angry that the church continued to 'prosper and weald power.

Arguably, Henry Ii no doubt believed he had been very shrewd and deviousness to appoint � Beckett as Archbishop of Canterbury, however Henry failed understand or consider that once appointed � Beckett would in fact bite the hand that had placed in a position of great power. In truth Henry tactics had well and truly back fired upon him since � Becket, knew Henry II to well and what lengths Henry would go to in order to get what Henry II considered was rightfully his by birth right. Indeed, � Becket had been correct to suspected that Henry II was deliberately striking at the privileges of the Church, whereby Henry's approach of obtaining a promise was extorted from the bishops in order to observe the "avit� con suetudines" before anyone knew what these were, as well as the pretence that the 'Constitutions of Clarendon' as being a mere representation of nothing more than the customs laws said to have been observed during the era of Henry I, does not leave the impression of straightforward dealing.

Therefore, it could be suggested that in hinge sight � Beckett was indeed just to have stood in defiance against a King whose critics and own family saw him as a tyrant who rules his lands with a talon's grasp. Alternatively, academics like Stubbs79 portray Henry II as 'a far-seeing King who recognized that the well-being of the nation was the surest foundation

of his own power'. Equally Churchill'80 portrays Henry II as being the "very greatest King of England ever knew, but withal the most unfortunate"...81 Since, his death "being imputed to those only to whom himself had given life, his ungracious sons"...82 More importantly, Henry II's legal reforms should never be underestimated on account they were the main catalyst in the foundation of the common law system, our present legal system has evolved.