Limiting Power

Further to the discussion on the monarchy, parliament and democracy, I thought I’d write a simple piece about the beginnings of Parliament. Needless to say, I couldn’t keep it simple – or short! But, for those interested here’s the first part of my take on the beginnings of England’s progress down the democratic path to the Westminster System …

When Henry II ascended the English throne in 1158, he had already inherited Anjou and Maine from his father, he held the Duchy of Normandy from his mother and Acquitaine, Poitou and Gascony through his wife, Eleanor, by whom he had five sons and three daughters. Only four sons survived to adulthood, the first-born died in infancy.

Primogeniture was not universally accepted –  William the Conqueror left Normandy to his oldest son, Robert, and England to second surviving son, William Rufus. Robert was again overlooked when  William Rufus died and the throne was taken by William the Conqueror’s last son, Henry.

It was never intended that Henry and Eleanor’s vast holdings would be inherited by only one son: they determined that Henry’s lands would go to the Henry, the oldest surviving son, Eleanor’s lands would pass to Richard, the second son, and the third surviving son, Geoffrey, would rule Brittany by virtue of his marriage to the heiress. The last son John, initially nicknamed Lackland, was to become Lord of Ireland. Things did not turn out as Henry and Eleanor planned: both Henry the Younger and Geoffrey pre-deceased the couple, leaving Richard as sole heir, and John with, basically, nothing.

It is often assumed that medieval monarchs had stores of gold and jewels, somewhat akin to Aladdin’s cave, and could simply yell “Off with their Heads” and heads would tumble… Nothing could be farther from the truth. Kings had lands which produced revenue, but these were also used to reward their magnates for services. Kings had the profits of justice (does anything change?), and they had their feudal dues and taxes. Feudal dues tended to be more in the way of service in exchange for land-holding, although they by the end of Richard’s reign they were being commuted for cash payments. Taxes had never been a regular feature of the Crown’s income, theoretically being collected only in time of need – this became a crucial factor in the struggle to contain monarchical power. Wars were also useful – they provided plunder.

Without sufficient money to pay for a standing army or a permanent bureaucracy, monarchs were reliant on their magnates to keep the things running – especially when they were busily riding from one end of their lands to the other. Nobody does ‘owt for nowt’ – least of all power and land-hungry barons – who expected to be rewarded for their support and were highly unlikely to act against their own best interests and there is no doubt that sensible monarchs sought advice from their barons and endeavoured to keep them ‘on side’.

Richard I was, in my opinion, little more than a thug, but since the Church was the keeper of the Chronicles, he gained a wonderful reputation because he went off to fight the Infidel. The cost to England, however, was pretty horrendous. In 1188, Henry II raised an unprecedented sum of money for a Crusade. Known as the Saladin Tithe, it was a 10% tax on revenues and movable goods. Some few months later, Henry died and Richard inherited the throne – and a full Exchequer. He promptly set about raising more money, by the sale of his Crown lands,  the sale of offices, and fines from people already in office for the privilege of retaining them. He is reputed to have said he would sell London could he find a wealthy enough buyer. It is estimated that he raised 100,000 silver marks from England alone. With that, he set off for the Third Crusade in the summer of 1190 and left those to whom he had sold offices and fined to recoup their money from those below them in the pecking order.

Failing to recapture Jerusalem, in 1193 Richard decided to return to Europe. On his return journey he was captured and finally ended up in the hands of the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV. Being yet another ruler in short supply of funds, it is hardly surprising that Henry used this opportunity to set a high ransom for Richard’s release – some 150,000 marks. It was incumbent on all subjects to pay  for their king’s ransom, and this time a tax of 25% was raised on all moveable goods throughout all of Richard’s lands. Next time you see the Merry Men of England welcoming Richard, remember that all the sheriffs of England (not just the dreaded Sheriff of Nottingham) were raising huge taxes for that King – a King who only visited England for six months in his ten year reign and was only interested in what he could screw out of that country for his wars.

I have to agree with Stubbs, historian, that

He [Richard] was a bad king: his great exploits, his military skill, his splendour and extravagance, his poetical tastes, his adventurous spirit, do not serve to cloak his entire want of sympathy, or even consideration, for his people. He was no Englishman, but it does not follow that he gave to Normandy, Anjou, or Aquitaine the love or care that he denied to his kingdom. His ambition was that of a mere warrior: he would fight for anything whatever, but he would sell everything that was worth fighting for. The glory that he sought was that of victory rather than conquest.

Richard died in 1199 and was succeeded by his brother, John, who, as everyone knows, was a Bad King. But, was he?

John had huge problems from the beginning:

• He inherited an empty Exchequer, and a country impoverished by his brother’s financial extortions. Revenue from Crown lands had been slashed thanks to Richard’s profligate sales.
• His accession to the English throne and Richard’s lands in France was disputed. Henry II’s third son, Geoffrey, had been incredibly inconsiderate and had two children, Arthur and Eleanor, before he died. There were those who preferred to see an adult male ascend the throne, but others , such as the King of France and the barons in Richard’s French possessions, preferred to see Arthur, a minor, inherit Richard’s lands –  aware that they would benefit from a weak ruler, and minority governments were invariably weak.
• The notion of a  ‘Contract’ between rulers and ruled was well established by the 8th C. But, that of course was not to say that monarchs always abided it by it!  Most, like Henry and Richard would have asserted that they were above the law. Nonetheless, the whole question of the nature of power had been the subject of much questioning during the 12th Century and it was increasinglybeing asserted that Kings should rule by ‘custom and law’, and with the counsel of the leading members of the realm. That most sensible rulers endeavoured to keep their magnates ‘on side’, had encouraged magnates to claim that they had a right to be consulted… a subtle, but extremely significant difference.
• He faced a very wily King of France, Philip, who was determined to extend his power over places like Normandy, Anjou, and Acquitaine and who had made a very good start during Richard’s reign – often helped by Richard’s magnates who found Richard to be exceedingly heavy handed. It is one of those useless ‘ifs’ of history to wonder if Richard had lived longer would he have faced outright rebellion from his magnates.
• It was also unfortunate that in 1198 Innocent III was elected to the Papacy. An extremely strong and powerful Prince of the Church, Innocent was just as determined as any secular monarch to extend Papal power. He claimed supremacy over all over monarchs, and used his power of excommunication and interdict to force monarchs to bend to his will. He was particularly determined to stop monarchs from appointing their own higher clergy. It was John’s refusal to accept Innocent’s nomination for the Archbishopric of Canterbury (not his murder!) that led to England being placed under an Interdict in 1208, and John being excommunicated the following year.

John has had a bad press, courtesy of the Church. He is often portrayed as lazy, lustful and vindictive .  John was all those things – on occasions. But there is clear evidence that he was an energetic and able administrator. It is from John’s time that we have virtually unbroken records of legal and administrative documents. He took a personal interest in dispensing  justice to the low as well the high. He built upon his father’s legal reforms and extended the power of the Crown courts, thus allowing freemen to by-pass the baronial courts and obtain far more equitable verdicts. He encouraged trade by supporting towns and boroughs – the use of Royal Charters allowed towns to flourish outside baronial constraints.  A word of caution! Before anyone starts to see John as a philanthropist – all of these measures were to his benefit financially as well as being  of  benefit to many.

There is no doubt that John upset many of his magnates with these measures. Unlike Henry and Richard, John seems to have been far more interested in his role as King of England than as a Duke of lands on the continent and spent a great deal more time in England than any king since Edward the Confessor. It has been suggested that the fact that he was a ‘hands on’ king who was around far too much that thoroughly upset the barons!

The great land-owners were also unimpressed with John’s inability to retain his continental possessions.  As one after the other of these fell to Philip, families felt obliged to relinquish either their continental or English lands to close family members – thus reducing their revenues and power bases.

The imposition of new  taxes and increased Customs duties were another cause of discontent, but it was the way John used his feudal prerogatives that caused most ill-feeling. Not only did he impose scutages (payment for not sending knights to war) when he had no intention of going to war, but he also raised them more frequently than any of his predecessors. Fines, such as those for entering an inheritance or for widows to remain single, were set so high that many barons became heavily indebted to the Crown. These debts were used to ‘punish’ them if they fell out of favour.

And fall out of favour they did… John’s treatment of some of those who lost favour was pretty grim. Not much worse than many other monarchs of the time, but noted by those who needed to tally up ‘wrongs’ to make themselves ‘right’.

John has been accused of being an extremely suspicious man. He probably was. It is asserted that because of this characteristic he surrounded himself with ‘newcomers’ and not those of high birth. However, this is a complaint that is thrown at the monarchy again and again throughout the ages.   Political realities have not changed much. Those who have access to the corridors of power also have access to the benefits of power,  patronage, land, and other goodies. They all fare better than those on the outside. And those who believe it to be their birth-right to have access to the source of power get pretty angry when they see their position usurped by ‘nobodies’.

By 1214, John had alienated many of his barons and many rose in rebellion. Whether the prime cause of the rebellion was John’s financial exactions, his treatment of his enemies, the loss of  continental possessions or the exclusion of those who thought they had a right to be consulted – it is clear to me that the real issue was to determine whether John should rule according to his whim or according to ‘custom and law’.

The Great Charter signed on the 15th of June 1215 was designed to protect certain liberties, and to assert that the King’s power could not be used arbitrarily. Again, a note of caution, the rights it protected were those of the Church and freemen –  not serfs or other unfree men.

The most interesting, controversial and usually forgotten provision of the Charter was the establishment of a committee of 25 barons who could meet at any time and overrule the will of the King if he defied the provisions of the Charter. This was not just about protecting liberties, this was about Power – who had it, and how it was to be used.

Needless to say, no blue-blooded Plantagenet would allow his God-given authority to be so limited! John was on the equivalent of a medieval mobile phone in the blink of an eye and got his new pal, the Pope, to annul the Charter.

But, the gauntlet had been thrown down. Hereafter, monarchs would assert their right to rule as they wished, but their subjects would assert that no one, not even kings, were above the law.

It was to be an interesting battle….

Part two to follow.