fender against the rapacity of the Norman nobility, and maintaining the jurisdiction of the old courts-the hundred and the shire-with their time-honored laws and customs of selfgovernment. He maintained likewise the old English yeomanry, the fyrd or national militia,' made it dependent upon his summons, and caused every householder in England to swear loyalty to him personally, as against any other lord whatsoever. In this way he preserved the roots of popular liberty, and gained for himself and his successors the strong support of the people in the long hundred-years struggle to curb the Norman baronage, a struggle ending in the almost complete destruction of the old nobility. For the first time England had secured a really strong and stable central government. What the people loved in their Norman kings was the good peace they made in the land; a peace unexampled elsewhere, allowing agriculture and industry to thrive as they had never done before, and making England a storehouse from which the distracted nations of Europe purchased the necessaries of life. Under AngloSaxon rulers the protection of the king's peace had been either local or temporary. William I. extended his peace to all his subjects, English as well as French, and this protection meant far more than of old, for William put down the robber, murderer and ravisher with a strong hand. Such security had never been known in England as during his latter years of peaceful reign, and "as the stern avenger of crime, even the conquered learned to bless him." In the words of the old chronicle: "No man durst slay other man, had he never so mickle evil done to the other." who withstood his will, but he was mild to the good men "Stark he was to those who loved God." And it passed into a proverb that a man "who in himself was aught" (i. e., who had any confidence 'Traill, i, 235. 'Freeman, ii, 170; and Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Anno 1087. 150 William the Conqueror in his own manhood) "might go in safety through William's realm with his bosom full of gold." Royal justice was, however, the exception during all the Norman period. The Conqueror kept his oath to maintain "the good laws of Edward the Confessor," and these old customs of the English were promulgated and confirmed many times by his descendants, and enforced, as formerly, by the people, through the local courts of the hundred and the shire, whether communal or seigniorial. Probably the Normans brought with them to England but few crystallized legal ideas and institutions. "Written laws they had none." After the Conquest, William introduced the celebrated murdrum, or murder fine; for the lives of his followers must be protected, and if the community could not produce the man-slayer, it must itself be held responsible and pay the fine. This was called the law of Englishry. Every man found murdered was considered a Frenchman till the contrary was proved: a presumption very advantageous to the king's exchequer, and showing the strong tendency to make money out of justice in those days. But there was surprisingly little new legislation of any kind. Under William Rufus there were no new laws, but he repressed the feudal nobility as sternly as did his father, and when they rebelled against him, owed his crown to the valor of the conquered English.3 In this reign the "race of feudal lawyers" begins "to creep into light." Later on we shall watch them modifying antiquated laws to meet new needs. Despite the many crimes and vices of Henry I., "the Lion of Justice," he is described by impartial men and eyewitnesses as "the almost perfect model of a king." Why? He was a despot, doing good, and just what England needed. In his hands the sword of justice was sharp, and it 'Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Anno 1087. 2 Traill, i, 275; Maitland and Pollock, i, 72-3. 'Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Anno 1088. is written that all men, great and small, French and English, had to bow before it. "Durst none man misdo with other in his time." A special law decreed death by hanging for all thieves and robbers, and we know that this penalty and many others were frequently enforced, even against the king's own followers.' Henry I. extended the rights of the crown beyond the limits set by his charter (1100) and "evolved a law for his tenants-in-chief, which was perhaps the severest law in Europe." However, when Henry died, "little had yet been done toward centralizing justice," and in the woeful days of Stephen it looked as if English law would break into a hundred local customs, if it survived at all.3 Then, for the first and last time, the Norman nobility gained complete control of the kingdom, and horribly did they misuse their power. The Chronicle has left us a most vivid picture of this time of utter lawlessness: "When every rich man his castles made . . . . . and filled them with devils and evil men." "If two men or three came riding to a town all the township fled for them and weened that they were reavers."4 Many acts, formerly crimes, became no longer criminal, as is almost always the case when society is sick and degenerating. "Every man who had the power ' For many centuries theft and robbery, "in their coarsest form," were punished with death. Stephen, iii, 128. "Rex Anglorum Heinricus pacem firmam legemque talem constituit, ut, si quis in furto vel latrocinio deprehensus fuisset suspenderetur." Flor. Wig., Anno 1108, ii, 57. One reason for this extreme severity may have been the great social need of fostering the accumulation of property. There was comparatively little wealth in the world then, and what existed was very largely in the hands of the nobility and clergy, whose influence was dominant in the making of the laws. 'Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Annis 1124 and 1125, for legislation concerning theft and coining, abuses of royal purveyance and bad money. Also Eadmer, Hist., Nov., p. 94; Wm. of Malms., Gesta Regum, ii, 627. For legislation concerning measures see Gesta Regum, ii, 641. See also Maitland and Pollock, i, 73. 'Maitland and Pollock, i, 87. 'Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Anno 1137. 152 Woeful Days of Stephen did that which was right in his own eyes." Robbery ceased to be a crime, for the great and powerful of the land mostly lived by spoliation as their acknowledged right. The picture is not of men waging war. "Every man who had the means to build himself a castle made it the centre of general havoc, of spoil for the sake of spoil, it would seem of torture for the sake of torture." There was no regard for sex, rank or calling. The human fiends who did these deeds were not criminals, for society had ceased to punish such acts as crimes and seemed in the very throes of dissolution. For the certainty and severity of punishment are indices of the degree of social displeasure, or, in other words, of the idea of criminality, occasioned by an act. In times of national disorganization and anarchy, social energies are paralyzed or directed into other channels than that of justice. Wrongs remain unpunished, and this lack of punishment causes in many minds the total loss, or serious weakening, of the idea of criminality formerly associated with the act, and this the more easily in proportion as the conduct has only recently been made criminal. Thus society degenerates. For some reason, the punishment of malefactors becomes less sure than formerly. Then, their bad actions, grown common and frequently leading to success, waken less and less of the idea of criminality in the minds of the community. What the poet sings of vice is largely true of crime: "Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, Pope, Essay on Man, Epi. ii, line 217. Sometimes social degradation takes the reverse course, and apathy or blindness to the evil in bad acts precedes their freedom from punishment as crimes; but for enduring social progress to higher civilization, both a keen and sensitive so 1 1 Freeman, v, 242. * Ibid., v, 284. cial disapproval of acts dangerous to national welfare and a A reign which was no reign, when none could sit Till famine dwarft the race."1 But all this was changed when Henry II. came to the throne. Lord of half France, as well as all England, his power was very great, and he was most resolute that all men, great and small, should be equal before the law. His first work was the destruction of two hundred castles of the robber barons, and the whole of his thirty-five years' reign was employed in strengthening, extending and enforcing royal justice. "From this time," writes Stubbs, "the reign of law may be said to have begun in England." "Perhaps no king ever did more lasting good to his people."" In the reign of Richard I. all things were salable, and some of the larger cities purchased their liberties from the king-a most important step in upward social progress. Despite the continuous absence of the sovereign, and the heavy taxation made necessary by his foreign wars, England prospered greatly. Already the freest and most orderly nation in Europe, it was fast becoming the wealthiest nation also.3 Since the imposition of scutage under Henry II., the 'Tennyson, Becket, pp. 57, 58. "Traill, i, 261. 'The population of England was small at this time, not more than 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 inhabitants, concentrated in the south and east. The vast majority of the people were farmers. Traill, i, 362, 367, 452. |