Henry II (1154 - 1189) is generally seen as the main catalyst in the foundation of the common law system, the nucleus from which our present legal system has evolved.

Legal History

LIFE AND TIMES OF HENRY II

Henry II (1154 – 1189) is generally seen as the main catalyst in the foundation of the common law system, the nucleus from which our present legal system has evolved.

Henry II was the eldest son of Geoffrey Plantagenet Count of Anjou and the Empress Matilda (Maud), the daughter of Henry I. He was born at Le Mans in 1133 and grew up during the period of civil war and anarchy caused by the death of Henry I. The majority of the great lords and magnates of England refused to acknowledge Matilda’s claim to the throne, instead they supported the counter claim made by Stephen of Blois, crowning him king in 1135. Matilda however never stopped trying to oust him from power and claim what she viewed as her birthright and destiny. This attitude undoubtedly influenced Henry, who has been referred to as “the first Angevin King said to possess a maturity beyond his years and obsessed with the restoration of his ancestral rights.” Henry was not only charismatic, intelligent, educated and imaginative he was also politically very shrewd. He proved this by marrying Eleanor of Aquitaine in 1152 when he was 19 years old. She was several years older than him, divorced from the King of France and Duchess of Aquitaine in her own right. She was the most influential woman of her day and an extremely wealthy heiress. The validity of Henry’s claim to the English throne had already been recognised by the “Treaties of Wallingford, Winchester and Westminster.” By marrying Eleanor, Henry had finally secured the resources he needed to successfully enforce his claim on Stephen’s death in 1154.

Henry inherited a country that had been divided by civil war and unrest for nearly 20 years. In Henry however, the people had a king who understood the need for effective, stable government, who 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. 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.

In 1155 Henry II appointed Thomas À Beckett an ambitious commoner as Chancellor, whose main function was to distribute royal charters, writs and letters. Indeed, their friendship during the early years had been very close due to the nature of their work. In that À Becket had preformed many tasks for Henry II which included leading the English army into battle. 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’, 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.’ 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. More importantly Henry II was responsible for establishing jury trails, which would put an end to the old Germanic trials by ordeal or battle. 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’ 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. For example by 1189 Henry II had successfully erected a permanent body of professional judges and appointed a formed permanent bench at Westminster.

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’, 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.’ Moreover, the ‘Court of Common Plea was set up by Henry II in order to hear disputes between the King’s subjects’. 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.’ 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’. 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. Therefore, by 1162 À Beckett was named Archbishop of Canterbury. Henry’s deviousness for picking À Beckett caused many church leaders to be anxious and have grave concerns about À Beckett’s ‘materialistic and cruel military nature and along with a close relationship with Henry II meant À Becket may not be an independent leader for the church’. Indeed, Adams suggests ‘Henry hoped À Beckett would utilise his influence to persuade bishops and clergy to accept some curtailment of clerical immunity’. However, À Beckett distanced himself from Henry II and vehemently opposed the weakening of church courts. Splits in their friendship began to appear since Henry II demanded that a certain tax know as ‘the sheriff’s aid’ go directly to the Exchequer. À 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’. The fact that Stubbs 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’. 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’. And if convicted, the clerics would lose the protection of the church and therefore endure the same treatment as any lay person’. 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 stipulates that neither were the case, since definite particulars Henry believed would be more satisfactory. Although, Mooney 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’. Alternatively, Baker 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’. Indeed, once ‘Henry had all ineffective sheriffs replaced with his own men to collect the revenues’. 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. 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, Stubbs 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’. 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’ by the ‘Assizes of Clarendon’ in 1166. Indeed Stubbs 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.”

As well as enabling the future development of the ‘Assizes of Northampton’ 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 ...

Henry II (1154 - 1189) is generally seen as the main catalyst in the foundation of the common law system, the nucleus from which our present legal system has evolved.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

King John and King Henry II

To what extent did the role of feudalism in the military organisation show...

With what political and administrative justification can the lands of the K...

Shakespeare: Richard II, Henry IV and Henry V