RUFUS. THE Constitutional importance of the reign of WILLIAM RUFUS WILLIAM consists mainly: (1) in the systematic elaboration by Ranulf Flambard 1087-1100. of the theory of the incidents of Feudal tenure, and its rigid application in practice, as a fiscal expedient, to ecclesiastical and lay tenants alike and (2) in the continued struggle between the Royal and Feudal powers, which caused the King to throw himself upon the support of the native English, and led to the ultimate breaking up of the baronage of the Conquest. A despot of the worst sort, William devoted himself almost entirely to his pleasures, and after the death of Archbishop Lanfranc, his ablest adviser, left nearly all the work of government to his Justiciar. This great official was not, as in the Conqueror's days, a powerful baron, but a humble and clever Court chaplain of congenial and compliant tastes, Ranulf Flambard,' Ranulf by whom the Church, the feudal vassals, and the people, were all subjected to systematic oppression and extortion. As Justiciar, he controlled and directed the whole fiscal and judicial business of the kingdom; and in order to supply the prodigality of the master who had raised him to this exalted position, he directed his ingenuitylike Empson and Dudley four centuries later-to turning the feudal rights of the King and the procedure of the Courts of justice into instruments of pecuniary extortion. The feudal incidents of relief, wardship, and marriage, which, under the Conqueror, had been based on true feudal principles, and, for the most part, reasonably exacted, were now systematically organised as a method of arbitrarily taxing 1 Ranulf is by some said to have come over to England prior to the Conquest, being supposed to be the Ranulf who occurs in Domesday, i. 51, as a small landowner in Hampshire, T. R. E. He was afterwards, perhaps, in the service of Maurice, Bishop of London; and then Chaplain to William Rufus, who, after a time, made him Chief Justiciar. (Ord. Vital. x. 18: Ang. Sac. i. 706.) [Freeman, Reign of William Rufus, 1882, i. 329, and App. S., says that Ranulf's early history is not easy to trace, but thinks the office which he held was that of Justiciar.-C.] [Vide Lappenberg, Norman Kings, p. 226: Ord. Vital., 786 c.: Will. of Malmes bury, iv. 314-ED.] Infra, ch. x. Flambard. Struggle between the Royal and Feudal powers [1073.] the tenants-in-chief, under colour of exacting a legal due.1 The system of extortion thus fixed upon the tenants of the King was naturally, indeed necessarily, extended by them to their sub-tenants, and in this way all holders of land by military tenure became subject to the new imposts. The fiefs of the Church were assimilated by Ranulf as far as possible to lay fiefs. Bishoprics and abbeys were purposely kept vacant for years together, during which time the King claimed, on the analogy of the wardship of a lay fief, to receive all the profits for his own use; and when at length a successor was nominated to the vacant benefice, a fine was demanded equivalent at least to the relief which would have been payable by a lay heir.3 The great struggle between the Royal and Feudal powers, which began under the Conqueror himself in the conspiracy of Ralph [de] Guador, Earl of Norfolk or East Anglia, and Roger of Breteuil, Earl of Hereford, was actively carried on under Rufus. Taking advantage of the claim of Duke Robert to the throne of England, the larger part of the barons eagerly seized the opportunity of siding with him against Rebellion of the King. Seven years later an attempt was made to set aside the the barons. line of the Conqueror altogether in favour of Stephen of Aumale, grandson of Duke Robert II. of Normandy. On both occasions the 1 Supra, pp. 50, 51. 2 The mesne tenant had a legal right to the assistance of his sub-tenants to meet the feudal claims of the lord paramount. Glanvill, lib. ix. c. 8: 'Post-quam vero convenerit inter dominum et haeredem tenentis sui de rationabili relevio dando et recipiendo, poterit idem haeres rationabilia auxilia de hominibus suis inde exigere.' 3 Ord. Vital. viii. 8: 'He desired to be the heir of every one, churchman or layman. Ang.-Sax. Chron., s. a. 1100; Stubbs, Const. Hist., i. 300. [Freeman, Reign of William Rufus, i. 341, calls Ranulf Flambard the law-giver of feudalism in England, and remarks upon the fact that though he had served under the Conqueror, probably aiding in the Domesday survey, he was not promoted till the reign of the Red King, whose views he thoroughly suited.'-C.] [The statement in the text that Stephen was grandson of Robert II. of Normandy seems to be an error for Robert I. The account given by Green, Hist. Eng. People, Lond. 1878, i. 136, is extremely brief, and does not in any way affiliate this rather shadowy claimant on the Royal stock, and it is somewhat confusing from Anglicising his name as Stephen of Albemarle. It appears, however, from a comparison of Tables CIV. and LXXXVIII., of Bouillet's Atlas d'Hist. et de Géog., Paris, 1866, that Adelaide, an illegitimate daughter of Robert I. of Normandy, variously known as Robert the Devil, or the Magnificent, married Eudes II., Count of Champagne and of Aumale, who d. after 1063, and who is noted by Bouillet as 'tige des Comtes d'Aumale.' It is clear that Stephen of Aumale was a son of this marriage, and he is so given by G. E. C. in his New Perage, in Genealogist, N. S. vol. i. 1884, s. v. Albemarle, where his mother is called Adeliza: he was, therefore, a descendant of the Conqueror's ancestors, but not of the Conqueror himself, and the line of which the Conqueror was the stock would have been set aside, while the lineage of the Conqueror would have been to a certain extent retained, though only through an illegitimate channel, and all connection with the old English stock would have been severed. There seems to seeks the support of insurrections were unsuccessful; and being followed by considerable forfeitures, served only to bring about the decay, ultimately the almost utter extinction, of the baronage of the Conquest. In order to main- William II. tain his ground, the King was compelled to court the support of his English subjects, who eagerly and successfully fought for him against the English: their feudal oppressors. On three separate occasions-at his coronation, at the outbreak of the rebellion of his Norman barons almost immediately afterwards, and again in 1093, when ill and in fear of death-he sought to engage the affections of the people by issuing Constitutional manifestoes in which he promised good laws, lighter and promises taxation, and free hunting. But his promises were never kept. Instead of the free hunting promised, he made the capture of a stag a capital offence.3 good laws. 1100-1135. Church. HENRY I., on his accession, issued a Charter of Liberties which is HENRY in form an amplification of the covenant made by the King with his Charter of people in the coronation oath. Copies were despatched to the several Liberties. counties and deposited in the principal monasteries. In this Charter Henry endeavoured to propitiate all classes of his subjects by abolishing the malae consuetudines, the illegal exactions with which the clergy, the baronage, and the people generally had been oppressed during the reign of the late King. (1) To the Church he promised (i.) Th that on the death of an archbishop, bishop, or abbot, he would neither sell nor let to farm, nor accept anything from, the possessions of the Church or its tenants, during the vacancy of the benefice. (2) To (ii.) The his barons and other tenants-in-chief he promised a remission of vassals. various illegal exactions, to which they had been subjected under cover of the incidents of feudal tenure. The heir should not be com- Reliefs. pelled to redeem his land, as in the time of the late king, William Rufus, but should pay only a lawful and just relief. The King's licence Marriages. for the marriage of his vassal's daughter or other female relative must still be obtained, but it should be given without payment, and should not be refused unless the intended husband were the king's enemy. be no mention of Stephen of Aumale in the genealogical tables appended to Mr. Bailey's valuable Succession to the Crown.-C.] [Nor does he occur in Ludovic Lalanne's Dictionnaire Historique de la France, 1872.—ED.] 1 Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 294. Will. Malmesb., Gesta Regum, lib. iv. § 306; Eadmer, Hist. Nov. i. pp. 14. 16. 3 Venationes quas rex prius indulserat, adeo prohibuit ut capitale esset supplicium prendisse cervum.-Will. Malmesb., Gesta Regum, iv. § 319. The King's acknowledgments of his duty were not however without their value. . . . He had testified to the nation his own duty and their right. . . If the reign of William Rufus had no other importance it taught a lesson of profoundly valuable consequence to his successor.'-Stubbs, Const. Hist. 1. 297. C.H. F Dower. Wardships. Demesne of military tenants. Testaments. Fines. (iii.) The Nation. Forests retained. So-called In the case of an heiress the King would take the advice of his baronage before giving her in marriage. Widows should not be given in marriage against their will. Widows without children should possess their dowers unconditionally; if with children, so long as they continued chaste. The wardship of the persons and lands of children should belong to the mother or other relation. Knights, holding by military service, should have their demesne lands free from all gilda and opera, in order that they might the more efficiently equip themselves for the defence of the King and kingdom. The right of the King's vassals to bequeath their personal property by will was recognised; and in case of intestacy, the deceased person's wife, children, relations, or vassals legally authorised, were to dispose of it for the good of his soul, as to them should seem good. Fines for offences should not be assessed at the King's mercy, as in the time of his father and brother, but according to the nature of the offence, as in the time of the King's 'other ancestors.' Thus early had the Norman barons begun to claim for themselves the benefit of the old English laws. (3.) To the Nation at large the King granted the laws of Edward the Confessor with the emendations made by the Conqueror with the consent of his barons. The claims of the people were also recognised in the proclamation of the King's peace, and especially in the express extension to all under-tenants of the benefits granted to the King's immediate vassals. The King further promised to exact no moneyage which had not been levied in the time of King Edward, and to punish all coiners or utterers of base money. He forgave the debts due to his late brother; and all murder-fines (murdra) up to the day of his coronation. Such fines should in future be regulated by the law of King Edward. The only unpopular clause in the charter was that in which Henry declared his intention to retain the forests in his own hand as his father had held them, a personal indulgence for which he pleads the 6 common consent' of his barons. This Charter of Liberties is the sole legislative enactment of Henry's reign; for the so-called 'Laws of Henry I.' were compiled at a later date.3 Historically the Charter records the nature and recent 1 Cap. 13. Lagam Edwardi regis vobis reddo cum illis emendationibus quibus pater meus emendavit consilio baronum suorum. See the charter in full in Ancient Laws and Institutes, p. 215, and Select Chart. 96. The so-called Leges Henrici Primi are a collection of legal memoranda and records of custom, illustrated by reference to the civil and canon laws, but contain and Consti of Henry's introduction of the illegal exactions which it specifically abolishes; Historical Constitutionally it is important as a formal and deliberate recognition, tutional by a practically despotic king, of the ancient and lawful freedom of the importance nation, and of the limitation of the Royal power. It seems to have charter. been re-issued by Henry at various times; but as soon as he found himself firmly seated on the throne, he never hesitated to disregard its provisions. It was renewed by Stephen and by Henry II. ; and under John it served, in the hands of the Archbishop, Stephen Langton, as a text upon which the barons founded their claim for a restoration of the ancient liberties of the nation. courts and the native Marries a Atheling. His somewhat questionable title1 to the throne, the contest with Henry his brother Robert, and the difficulty of keeping in check a turbulent receives and powerful baronage, caused Henry to court the alliance and support of support of the native population. The people were already predis- English. posed in his favour as being the first of the new dynasty who had been born and educated in England. His politic marriage with the 'good niece of Queen Maud,' daughter of Malcolm Canmore, King of Scots, by Edgar Margaret, sister of Edgar Atheling, gave him a still stronger claim to national support. Moreover, the feudal barons, ever seeking to achieve their independence, were the common enemies of both king and people. Impelled alike by national sentiment and unity of interest, and encouraged by the King's promises of good government, the people steadily supported the Crown against all assailants. Henry Triumphs was thus enabled to obtain a complete triumph over his rebellious rebellious vassals, many of the most powerful of whom, including Robert de Belesme, Earl of Shrewsbury and Arundel, the most dangerous of them all, were expelled the kingdom with the forfeiture of their English estates. In the end Henry acquired a plenitude of Royal ing very many vestiges of ancient English jurisprudence. The date of the compilation is later than the reign of Henry 1.... It would appear to give probable but not authoritative illustrations of the amount of national custom existing in the country in the first half of the 11th century, but cannot be appealed to with any confidence, except where it is borne out by other testimony.'-Stubbs, Select Chart. 100. 1 It will be remembered that Henry was the youngest of the three sons of the Conqueror, who had bequeathed the Crown to his eldest son Robert, to whom he had promised it, even before the Conquest. Rufus secured the succession in derogation of the rights of Robert, and now Henry's energetic action in seizing the reins of government rendered his questionable title a good one. The words used by Bp. Stubbs (Select Charters, Introd. Sketches, 29), as applied to John's title to the throne, appear also applicable here: 'a questionable title perfected by the election of the nation.'-ED.] • The expulsion of Robert de Belesme is vividly described by Ordericus Vitalis. The English were overjoyed at his downfall. Omnis Anglia, exulante crudeli tyranno, exultavit, multorumque congratulatio regi Henrico tunc adulando dixit, "Gaude rex Henrice, Dominoque Deo gratias age quia tu libere coepisti regnare over the barons. |