Charter of Liberties - Results of The Charter

Results of The Charter

William I had been a great admirer of the laws of Edward the Confessor. He had reformed many laws in an effort to make the law of Edward the common law of England, while establishing a strong Norman rule and custom. During the whole Norman period, there was little legislation.

Henry began his reign with the Charter of Liberties. Henry sent a strong message. He was returning to his father’s ways, which were viewed with great nostalgia. The perceived abuses of William II were to be abolished. The corruption and larceny of reliefs, wardships, marriages, murder fines and so forth, was to end. Debts and past offences were to be forgiven. The demesne lands and military tenants were to be freed from the danegold of Danelaw. Above all, the “laga Eadwardii” Law of Edward the Confessor, as amended by William I, would be restored. The proclamation was made with the assumption that the barons would make the same concessions to their tenants as the king had promised to them. Plucknett is of the opinion that this good will probably did flow down the feudal chain. The Charter was not legislation, but rather a promise to return to the law, as it existed in the time of William I, before it had been corrupted by William II.

The promises made in the Charter could not be enforced. There is ample evidence that Henry I ignored them. The Pipe Rolls which came thirty-one years into Henry’s reign indicate he had extended the power of the crown well beyond the limits set in the Charter. The establishment of the Exchequer, ostensively to end corruption and fraud in the taking and holding of taxes, in reality led to greater power of the crown. The direction of its chief minister, Bishop Roger of Salisbury evolved the law for tenants in chief which became the harshest and most severe in Europe. This occurred silently, and placed precedent upon precedent. Early in his reign, Henry issued a writ declaring the county and hundred courts should be held as in the days of Edward the Confessor. These had the result of bringing the ancient traditional tribunals in accordance with newer Norman methods. We are told by chroniclers that Henry legislated about theft, restored capital punishment (which had been suspended for a great many crimes by William II), and harshly treated utterers of bad money and rapacious exactions of his courtiers. He made his roving court and army the terror of every neighborhood. Henry made the measure of his own arm the standard ell.

The drowning of his son, William, in the loss of the White Ship in 1120, led to the end of the Norman dynasty. Stephen of England claimed the throne in 1135. He was the last Norman king. His conflict with Henry's daughter Matilda led to The Anarchy.

Plucknett describes the Charter of Liberties as a forerunner to legislation in later years. There was no legislation as such either under the Saxons or the Normans. The Charter was a great concession, born of political need. Large portions of the charter were a withdrawal of practices which were of questionable legality, and corrosive politically. Various feudal dues, instead of being arbitrary and ad hoc, were declared to be reduced to reasonable limits. The Charter led to an obscure decree of Stephen (1135-1154), the statutum decretum that established where there was no son, daughters would inherit. This was remarkable in its day, and pre-dated the reforms of Henry II of England.

The problems with the Church had been brewing for some time. William I had tried to invest bishops with his temporal seal. Pope Gregory VII in 1075 had prohibited lay investiture, holding the Church was independent of the state. A long struggle ensued. This was still going on when Henry I assumed the throne, and entered into open conflict with Anselm. This conflict was moderated and ameliorated by the canon lawyer Ivo of Chartres. It was agreed that Henry could observe the selection of bishops, without interference. This accord was extended to all of Europe by 1122. The Concordat of Worms in 1122 did not last, but only changed the nature of tension between Church and State, which exists to this day. The government of Henry I at Westminster became exquisitely effective. The mechanism of Norman government needed a strong hand. Stephen was not up to it. Henry’s death was viewed as a great tragedy for several centuries:

“Then there was tribulation soon in the land, for every man that could forthwith robbed another...A good man (Henry I) he was, there was great awe of him. No man durst misdo against another in his time. He made peace for man and beast. Whoso bare his burden of gold and silver, no man durst say aught but good.”

During the lawless reign of Stephen, Henry I came to be known as the "Lion of Justice", a title that he probably deserved.

The Charter of Liberties was a precedent for the Magna Carta (Great Charter) of 1215, at the end of the reign of John of England.