The period which elapsed between the suppression of the great rebellion and the outbreak of the quarrel between Henry and his sons is the period of his greatest power. It is at this time that we find the greatest marks of his activity as a lawgiver. The year 1176 is marked by the great Assize of Northampton, an expansion of a similar Assize of Clarendon in the year 1166, the fruit perhaps of his experience in the late rebellion, and the knowledge gained by his inquiries into the conduct of the sheriffs in 1170. That inquiry, which was called for by the complaints of the exactions of the sheriffs, proved to him that their conduct had not been free from peculation, and led him to believe that the employment of local nobles as his chief officials was dangerous. He took the opportunity of making a general examination of the judicial system of the country, the fruit of which was the concentration and organization of the Curia Regis, and the arrangements embodied in the Assize of Northampton. The King’s court consisted originally, as has been already mentioned, of all those tenants who held their land direct from the crown (tenants in capite), and was the ordinary feudal court, and the natural parent of our present Parliament, and especially of the House of Lords. But for the ordinary despatch of business, whether judicial or financial, what may be regarded as a permanent committee of this body of immediate holders was employed. This committee consisted of the great officers of the household, such as the chancellor, treasurer, marshal and others, and other selected barons closely connected with the royal household. The head of this committee, or Curia Regis, was the great justiciary, the King’s representative. The royal chaplains or clerks were formed into a body of secretaries, at the head of which was the chancellor. The Curia Regis at first attended the King and had a twofold duty; when they sat as judges its members were called justices, in financial questions they sat in the exchequer[28] chamber, and were called barons. This administrative system, which had been organized in Henry I.’s reign, was entirely destroyed by the wild reign of Stephen. Its reconstitution was the great work of Henry II. In the earlier part of his reign the visitations were renewed upon the old system, the itinerant justice being usually either the great justiciary, chancellor, or some other great household officer. In the year 1168 four barons of the exchequer performed this duty; in 1176 the country was divided into six circuits. This number was not permanent, several alterations were made in it. Nor was the number of visitations thoroughly established. By Magna Charta in John’s reign commissions are promised four times a year, but shortly afterwards it would seem that the general journey of the itinerant justices was every seven years, until the reign of Edward I. It is to be remembered that these visitations were for all sorts of objects; for hearing civil cases, for inspecting the working of criminal jurisdiction, and, perhaps before all things, for arranging the financial matters of the country, and superintending the sheriffs in all matters connected with the exchequer. The itinerant justices during their circuits superseded the sheriff’s authority and presided in his courts. They were also allowed to enter and preside in the baronial courts. It has been mentioned that these courts were in most respects complete Hundreds. The two parallel systems, now on certain occasions presided over by the same official, were thus assimilated and brought into immediate connection with the central authority. This administrative organization gave rise to what is of much political importance, a new class of barons, new men who had risen by their talents and by the King’s favour, whose interests were therefore on the side of order and of the crown. At one period, in 1178, Henry II. appears to have found his new ministers untrustworthy, at all events in that year he restricted the Curia Regis to five persons, keeping the highest appellate jurisdiction in the hands of himself and the old Curia Regis, which may henceforth be regarded as the King’s ordinary council. The name Curia Regis has thus passed through three phases; a feudal court, a permanent committee of the feudal court, and a restricted committee of that committee. In these various bodies we have the sources of all the judicial bodies in England. The feudal court, with certain additions, became the Parliament; without those additions the Great Council, retaining its natural prerogative of final court of appeal, and represented now by the House of Lords. The permanent committee, or ordinary council, is represented by the privy council, still retaining some of its judicial powers. From its body of clerks, headed by the chancellor, arose the courts of Chancery. While the limited committee was divided shortly after the Magna Charta into three courts, the exchequer, the common pleas, and the king’s bench, at first with the same judges for all, but by the end of Edward III.’s reign with a separate staff.

Henry’s legal mind, which thus organized the administration, introduced many improvements In judicial procedure. It is to this reign that can be traced the origin of trial by jury. This method was not employed first in criminal cases, but in carrying out inquiries of various kinds. As soon as such inquiries came to be made on oath, the beginning of the jury system had arrived. As early as the great Domesday survey, the sheriff, barons, freeholders, the priest, the reeve, and six villeins of each township, had been all examined upon oath. Judicially this method of inquiry was first applied in civil cases. By the ordinance of the Grand Assize, a choice was given to any person whose right to the possession of land was called in question. He might either if he pleased defend his claims by the old-fashioned appeal to battle, or he might have his right examined by twelve freeholders on their oath, selected by four freeholders also on their oath, nominated by the sheriff. These sworn freeholders were evidently at first witnesses; twelve others were subsequently added to them, who, from their neighbourhood or other reasons, might be supposed to be better acquainted with the facts. This took place in Edward I.’s reign. The double jury was then separated, the original twelve playing their part as jurors of the present day, judging of the facts asserted by the second twelve, who represent the witnesses. In 1166, by the Assize of Clarendon, the same process was extended to criminal cases; that is to say, twelve lawful men from each hundred, and four from each township, were sworn to inquire whether there were any criminal, or receiver of criminals, in their district, and to present the same to the itinerant justices or to the sheriffs. These criminals were then put to the ordeal without further investigation. This was the origin of the grand jury. The abolition of ordeal rendered some substitute necessary, and ordinary trial by jury was the consequence.

The Assize of Northampton in 1176 was, as has been said, a repetition in stronger terms of the Assize of Clarendon. It is moreover interesting, as giving a notion of the duties of the itinerant justices, who on this occasion were six in number. Not only was the examination of crimes in their hands, but they had to arrange the law with regard to tenure of land, reliefs of heirs, dowers of widows, and other such matters, and to exact fealty from all classes of the commonwealth, and to see to the complete destruction of private castles, and the secure guardianship of those of the crown. These latter points were probably rendered necessary by the Rebellion of 1174. The same feeling of mistrust of his feudal barons which dictated these precautions was the cause of two other measures of this reign. The military service of the tenants in chief was changed into a money payment called scutage. This money enabled the King to hire men for his foreign wars, and to dispense with the service of his barons; while, by the Assize of Arms in 1181, the national militia of England, the old fyrd of the Saxons, to follow which was one of the duties of the trinoda necessitas, was reorganized, and the arms required of each class in the country carefully defined.

At the same time that Henry was thus organizing his authority in England, his position in Europe was a great one. Two of his sons were married or betrothed to daughters of the King of France. Of his three daughters, the eldest was the wife of Henry the Lion of Saxony, the rival of Frederick Barbarossa; the second, Eleanor, was Queen of Castile; the third, Joanna, though still a child, was taken to Sicily as the bride of the Norman king of that country, which at this time was the dominant power of the Mediterranean. His importance indeed was such that he seemed of all the kings in Europe most firmly seated on his throne, and was selected on account of his power and character, as well as for family reasons, as arbitrator between Alphonso of Castile and his uncle Sancho of Navarre, and as the strongest ally to whom Henry the Lion could have recourse when he was stripped of his German possessions. This befell him in consequence of his desertion of Frederick Barbarossa before his invasion of Lombardy, which terminated in the great battle of Legnano. But in the midst of his greatness there were two dangers constantly besetting Henry; on the one hand was the King of France, on the other were his own children. Not only did the great power of a feudatory naturally excite the French King’s jealousy, Henry had pursued a crooked policy with regard to the marriage of his sons; he had refused to surrender to Louis the Vexin and Bourges as he had promised to do upon their marriages. There was thus a constant opportunity for quarrel. On the other hand, with regard to his sons, his measures had been still more unfortunate. Anxious to secure his succession, and conscious probably that his kingdom was too large to be held by one hand, he had caused his eldest son to be crowned, thus exciting the envy of his brothers; while, at the same time, he had given them large duchies, which rendered them nearly independent of him. In addition to this, his dislike for his wife had rendered her a constant enemy, while his foolish affection for his youngest son John gave still further cause of offence. When therefore, as was likely to happen, any of his sons determined to oppose him, they were certain of assistance from France, and of bad advice from their mother.

It is difficult to arrange the constant brief wars which characterized the close of his reign, complicated as they are by the rising interests in the affairs of the East, which were gradually bringing on the third Crusade. They may perhaps be divided into four; the first extending to the death of young Henry; the second to the death of Geoffrey of Brittany; the third from 1184 to a peace negotiated in the interests of the crusades in 1188; and the last, the quarrel with Richard and John, which terminated with the King’s death. The first of these broke out in 1183. Richard had entered with zest into the wild feudal life of Poitou and Aquitaine, and had been very successful there. He had even pushed his arms to Bayonne, in the territories of the Basques, and to the borders of Navarre. This had aroused the envy of his elder brother. This young prince, who regarded himself, and was regarded by many, as the flower of knighthood, was capable of any amount of hypocrisy and double dealing, and seems to have so far cajoled his father as to persuade him to demand from his younger brothers homage to the elder. This Richard positively refused to give. But his arbitrary rule in Poitou and Aquitaine had made him many enemies, at the head of whom was the wild intriguing noble, at once warrior and troubadour, Bertram de Born. With these young Henry allied himself, and, with the aid of his brother from Brittany, pressed so heavily upon Richard, that the old king had to come to his assistance. At this crisis the young king caught a fever and died, forgiven but unvisited by his father. The King took advantage of his son’s death to pursue his success, and succeeded in subjugating the refractory barons, and re-establishing peace. Conscious that the young King Philip II. of France, who had succeeded to the throne in 1180, and over whom he had once had much influence, had been mixed in his son’s rebellion, Henry tried to make peace with him too. Philip met the request by a demand for the restitution of Gisors and the dower of his sister Margaret, young Henry’s widow, and it was with much difficulty that temporary peace was patched up; but it was finally arranged that part of the dowry should be restored, and Gisors transferred to Richard on his marriage with the Princess Alice.

Constantly unwise in his conduct to his sons, Henry now demanded from Richard, perhaps as a recompense for his assistance, a part of Aquitaine, to be given to his favourite son John. This Richard refused to give, and consequently both John and Geoffrey of Brittany attacked him. But though Geoffrey was thus ready enough to quarrel with his elder brother, it was from no love of his father that he did so. He, as well as Richard, was hurt by Henry’s evident partiality for John. He took the opportunity of putting in his own claim for Anjou. On Henry’s refusal, he at once fled to France, where he was as usual well received. His death relieved his father for the time from his opposition, but sowed the seed of further difficulties; for on the one hand his province Brittany was at once divided between the French and English faction, and on the other King Philip II. raised claims as overlord to the guardianship of his young son Arthur. There was a growing disinclination however on all sides to plunge into war; for the Pope was constantly urging a general peace, and the combination of Christian princes for the great Eastern Crusade. A succession of weak princes, and the unnatural and artificial character of the feudal kingdom of Jerusalem, together with the rise of the new Mahomedan power of the Saracens under Saladin, had reduced European power in the East to a very low ebb; and in 1184, Heraclius, the Bishop of Jerusalem, had found it necessary to come over, to attempt to persuade the Kings of England and France to embark in a new crusade. But to Henry, although under a pledge to join such an expedition, the idea of leaving his European dominions in their present critical situation was very distasteful, and he consequently postponed taking action. The feeling however that a crusade was imminent rendered hostilities more difficult; so that when, in 1187, the arbitrary behaviour of Richard in Aquitaine had produced fresh difficulties with France, which as usual terminated in the flight of Richard and the junction of his interests with those of his father, the news of the great battle of Hettin, in which the flower of the Christian army of Jerusalem had been entirely destroyed, and the arrival of William of Tyre for the purpose of exciting the enthusiasm of the West, put a sudden end to the hostilities; and, in 1188, the two kings met in perfect friendship under the old elm in the neighbourhood of Gisors, which was their usual place of treaty, and joined with apparent heartiness in taking the Cross. Upon this occasion Henry imposed upon England the tax, known as the Saladin tax, which was a tenth on all property, and in the collection of which the King’s officers were to work hand in hand with the Church.

But nothing could keep the restless Richard in order; before the year was over, he was engaged in fresh quarrels with Geoffrey of Lusignan and Raymond of Toulouse. After mutual demands for the ransom of some captives, Richard advanced in arms against Raymond, who applied to his suzerain Philip for assistance. This open attack on his dominions Philip could not put up with. At length he declared himself the open enemy of the English. It was in vain that his great feudatories reminded him that he was under the crusader’s vow, in vain that a meeting was held at Gisors. The enmity of the kings was only thereby inflamed, and, in token of his eternal hostility, Philip had the old elm of reconciliation hewn down. One would have supposed that Richard, the cause of the quarrel, would have clung to his father; nor is the reason for his not doing so very plain. Perhaps it may be traced to his father’s refusal to give him up Alice, the French King’s sister, for his wife, wishing it is said to make her his own; perhaps it was continued jealousy of his brother John. Certainly he did betake himself to the French court, and with him many others of Henry’s French feudatories fell away. Henry thus found himself in a difficult situation; broken in mind and body, his resources strained to the utmost by the late heavy taxation of England, and his nobles rapidly deserting him.

His health appears to have influenced his mind. He remained inactive at Le Mans, while Philip overran Maine and threatened to besiege Tours. At length Le Mans, where Henry was with his son Geoffrey, was taken. The city where he had himself been born was the particular object of Henry’s love. He felt its loss as a heavy blow, and though he knew his weakness, could not bring himself to retreat to Normandy, where his chief strength lay. With a sudden accession of energy, he reappeared in Anjou. But his appearance had no effect. One by one the fortresses of Maine were captured, and Philip constantly approached Tours. When that town fell, Henry’s spirit was quite broken. He agreed to an interview with Richard and Philip on the plain of Colombières, to make his submission. Almost fainting, and held upon his horse by his attendants, in the midst of a violent thunderstorm, he met his undutiful son, and brought himself to give him the kiss of peace, whispering as he did so, however, “May God not let me die until I have taken me due vengeance on thee.” The terms of his submission were complete. He promised to give up the Princess Alice; he allowed his nobility to swear fealty for their lands to his son Richard; he promised to pay Philip 50,000 marks for the restoration of his conquests. He had asked, in exchange, for a list of those nobles who had joined Richard in rebellion. When he found at the head of the list the name of his beloved son John, his heart was broken. “I care no more for myself nor for the world,” he said. A day or two longer he lingered, and was carried to Chinon, murmuring at intervals, “Shame, shame, on a conquered king,” and there died, attended only by his natural son and Chancellor Geoffrey.[29]

It is scarcely possible to place the importance of this reign too high, or to overvalue the work of Henry II. We find in his reign the organization of almost all departments of the government subsequently completed by Edward I. The arrangements of the Curia Regis and the reforms in judicial procedure have been already mentioned. The exchequer also was put on a new footing. It now becomes possible to see with some clearness the sources and amount of the royal revenue. To the revenues derived from the domain lands and from the Danegelt, the Norman kings had added feudal dues. Both the proceeds of the royal domain and of the Danegelt appear to have been farmed. The farm of the counties amounted in Henry II.’s reign, after the deductions caused by the grants both of Stephen and of Henry, to about £8000 a year. The Danegelt, originally two shillings on every hide, amounted in Henry I.’s reign to about £2500. As this is about a tenth of what the tax would have produced had it been fully exacted, it must probably also have been farmed to the sheriff, who collected what he could of it, and paid a fixed sum to the exchequer. This unsatisfactory tax came to an end in Henry II.’s reign, perhaps through the agency of Becket. The other source of revenue was the Donum and Auxilium, contributions paid by vassals to assist their lords. The first term applied to the counties, the second to the towns. These names became the general names of all irregular imposts, which are also sometimes called hidage, scutage, or tallage, the tallage being the aid raised from towns, the scutage the aid raised from knights’ fees, the hidage the aid raised from tenants in socage. The importance of the scutage as a commutation for military service has been already dwelt upon. Recourse appears to have been had to these scutages only three or four times during the reign. To these sources of revenue are to be added the fees from the law courts, and the incomes arising from feudal incidents, such as wardship, marriage, and reliefs. The whole income of the country was perhaps about £50,000. The taxes seem to have been assessed by Barons of the Exchequer, aided by the declaration of the knights as to their own holdings, by juries in the case of minor tenants. But it was not only in details of administration that Henry showed his character. He constantly summoned great councils, and as his power was so great and centralized that he could certainly have acted without them, this appears to show a fixed intention on his part to assume the position of a national and constitutional king. The general effect of his work at home was to form the nation. Normans became English. The English no longer felt themselves a conquered people. Their oppressors, the feudal nobility, were destroyed or kept in restraint. The new nobles were chiefly ministers of the crown, and all sections of the people looked to the King as the national representative. The importance of Henry’s reign abroad was scarcely less striking. His immense continental dominions made him one of the great powers of Europe. His close contact with France, and the difficulties which it produced, began the hereditary policy of opposition to that country which has characterized the whole of English history. On the other hand, though he may have had no clear view of what he was doing, he set on foot also the lasting friendships of the nation. The marriage of his daughter with the Guelph Duke brought England into constant friendship with Germany, and caused Otho, the son of Henry the Lion, to be brought up in England, and to be regarded as an English prince. The marriage of his other daughter with Spain set on foot that connection which lasted even beyond the Reformation. His work as a whole may be summed up in the words of Professor Stubbs: “He was faithful to the letter of his engagements. He recovered the demesne rights of the crown, so that his royal dignity did not depend for maintenance on constant taxation. He restored the usurped estates; he destroyed the illegal castles, and the system which they typified; he maintained the royal hold on the lawful ones, and the equality and uniformity of justice which their usurpers had subverted; he restored internal peace, and with it plenty, as the riches of England in the following reign amply testify. He arranged the administration of justice by enacting good laws and appointing faithful judges. He restored the currency; he encouraged commerce, he maintained the privileges of the towns; and, without encouraging an aggressive spirit, armed his people for self-defence. He sustained the form, and somewhat of the spirit of national representation. The clergy had grounds of complaint against him for very important reasons; but their chief complaints were caused by their preference for the immunities of their class to the common safeguard of justice.”