Separation of spiritual from crown of England. Under the pre-Norman kings the Church and the State had been practically identical, alike subject to the supreme power of the Witan, by whom kings, earls, and bishops were elected and deposed, and laws spiritual and temporal enacted. The bishop and the ealdorman sat side by side at the gemôt of the shire or hundred, deciding all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil. One of the most important acts of Wiltemporal courts, liam's reign was the separation of the ecclesiastical from the civil jurisdiction of the courts of law. He directed that from henceforth no bishop or archdeacon should hold pleas of ecclesiastical matters in the shire or hundred court; but that all such pleas should be determined according to the canon and ecclesiastical laws before the bishop, at the place which he should appoint for the purpose. All sheriffs and other lay persons were prohibited from interfering in spiritual causes. But in making this change William took care to preserve the ancient supremacy of the State, by laying down his three famous canons of the royal supremacy, viz.: William's canons of the Royal Supremacy 1. That no pope should be acknowledged, or papal letters received, in England, without the king's consent. 2. That the decrees of national synods should not be binding without the king's confirmation. 3. That the king's barons and officers should not be excommunicated, or constrained by penalty of ecclesiastical rigour, without his permission.3 1Fidelitatem facere nolui, nec volo: quia nec ego promisi, nec antecessores meos antecessoribus tuis id fecisse comperio.'-Epp. Lanfr. ed. Giles, No. 10. 2 See the Ordinance of William in Ancient Laws and Institutes, ed. Thorpe, p. 213, and Select Chart. 81. 3 Eadmer, Hist. Nov. i. p. 6; Select Chart. 79. A further usage, which was claimed by Henry I. as a precedent, was the prohibition of the exercise of legatine power in England, or even of the legates landing on the soil of the kingdom without royal license.' Of these rules, Professor Stubbs remarks: There is something Karolingian in their simplicity, and possibly they may have been suggested by the germinating Gallicanism of the day. They are, however, of great prospective importance, and form the basis of that ancient customary law on which throughout the middle A further check on the dignitaries of the Church consisted in the tenure of their estates; which from having been held by alodial title, or in frankalmoign (free alms), were for the most part converted into baronies to be held of the king by military service. The judicial organization of the kingdom at the end Judicial of William's reign was but slightly altered from what it organization. had been under Eadward the Confessor. The spiritual courts had now, as we have seen, exclusive jurisdiction in spiritual matters, but for civil matters the ordinary courts were still those of the shire, the hundred, or the borough, together with the hall-moots, now become the manorial courts baron, of the king or other lord. In the court of the shire all the freeholders of the shire,1 in the court baron all the free tenants of the manor, continued, as of old, to act as judges, and doubtless gave judgment in accordance with their ancient local customs; but in the shire and hundred courts the Norman sheriff, or vice comes, now presided with a power and authority far less limited than the power and authority of any of his English predecessors. The supreme court of the kingdom was the Curia Curia Regis. Regis, at once the council of the king and the Witenagemôt of the nation, with whose counsel and consent the king discharged both legislative and judicial functions. The immense amount of business to be trans- Justiciar appointed. acted, the frequent absence of the king in Normandy, and his ignorance of the English language, caused the appointment of a new officer of the highest dignity, the Justiciar, who represented the king in all matters, acted ages the English Church relied in her struggles with the papacy.'-Const. Hist. i. 286. See the accounts of the suits between the Bishop of Rochester and Pichot, the sheriff, on behalf of the king, Text. Roffens. 150; between Bishop Wulstan and the Abbot of Veshand, 'judicante et testificante omni vicecomitatu,' Heming, p. 77; and between Archbishop Lanfranc and Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, Text. Roff. Hickes, p. 32. 2 Spence, Eq. Juris. i. 100. William's riches. His great power Harshness of his rule. as regent in his absence, and at all times administered the legal and financial business of the country. The office of Chancellor, who, as official keeper of the royal seal, first appears under Eadward the Confessor (the first of our kings who had a seal), was continued; but he was subordinate to the Justiciar, heading the king's clerks or chaplains, who performed the duties of secretaries. William was reputed to be the most opulent prince in Christendom. His income is circumstantially stated. by Ordericus Vitalis to have been £1061 10s. 11⁄2d. a day, a sum which seems incredible, when tested by the relative value of money then and now. Little trust can be placed in the numerical statements of early chroniclers; but there is no doubt that the Conqueror's revenue was exceptionally large, whilst his expenditure was relatively small. His armies were furnished free of cost by his military tenants, and by the old constitutional fyrd or national militia. When he thought fit to employ mercenaries, their cost was defrayed by a Danegeld levied on the whole cultivated land of the kingdom, and by billeting the troops at free quarters throughout the country.1 As king of the English, feudal superior of his tenantsin-chief, and personal lord of all his subjects, William exercised a power far greater than that which any of his predecessors had ever wielded. Though the formal changes which he made in our constitution and laws were few in number, his government was practically despotic, and his administration harsh. His tyranny, says Hallam, 'displayed less of passion or insolence than of that in 1 In the winter of 1083-84 the Conqueror levied a tax of six shillings on every hide of land, three times the rate of the old Danegeld, which after having been abolished by Eadward the Confessor was now revived in an aggravated form and continued as a permanent, though only occasional, source of revenue. Chron. Sax. A.D. 1083; Freeman, Norm. Conq. iv. 685; Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 279. difference about human suffering which distinguishes a cold and far-sighted statesman.' 1 To resist a threatened invasion from Denmark he A.D. 1069. caused the whole country between the Tyne and the Humber to be laid waste, so that for some years afterwards there was not an inhabited village and hardly an inhabitant left.2 He was a very stark man and very savage so that no man durst do anything against his will. He had earls in his bonds who had done against his will; bishops he set off their bishoprics, abbots off their abbotries, and thegns in prison, and at last he did not spare his own brother Odo.' 'Truly in his time men had mickle suffering and very many hardships. Castles he caused to be wrought and poor men to be oppressed. He was so very stark. He took from his subjects many marks of gold and many hundred pounds of silver: and that he took, some by right and some by mickle might, for very little need.' 'He let his lands to fine as dear as he could then came some other and bade more than the first had given, and the king let it to him who had bade more. Then came a third and bid yet more, and the king let it into the hands of the man who bade the most. Nor did he reck how sinfully his reeves got money of poor men, or how many unlawful things they did. As man spake more of right law, so man did more unlaw. His rich men moaned and his poor men murmured: but he was so hard that he recked not the hatred of them all.'3 1 Mid. Ages, ii. 305. 2 W. Malmesbury, p. 103. CHAPTER III. REIGNS OF THE NORMAN AND FIRST ANGEVIN William Rufus. 1087-1100. Slight constitutional importance of his reign. Ranulf Flambard. William seeks support of the English against the Baronage: THE reign of WILLIAM RUFUS possesses little constitutional importance. A tyrant of the worst sort, he 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 great baron, but a humble and clever chaplain of congenial and compliant tastes, Ranulf Flambard, by whom the Church, the feudal vassals, and the people were subjected to systematic oppression and extortion. Under William Rufus the great struggle between the royal and feudal powers, which began under the Conqueror himself in the conspiracy of Ralph Guader, Earl of Norfolk or East Anglia, and Roger of Breteuil, Earl of Herefordshire, was actively carried on. 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 the King. Seven years later an attempt was made to set aside the line of the Conqueror altogether in favour of Stephen of Aûmale, grandson of Duke Robert II. of Normandy. On both occasions the insurrections were unsuccessful; and being followed by considerable forfeitures served only to bring about the decay, which ultimately ended in the almost utter extinction, of the baronage of the |