Part 5 — MAGNA CARTA. (continued 6)

(5) Attendance at forest courts. Unlike the grievances already mentioned which pressed chiefly on those within the forests, the burden of performing “suit” at the forest courts was specially resented by those who lived without. At every inquisition representatives from neighbouring townships must be present, while the entire population were compelled to meet the justices on their forest eyres. Henry II., whatever may have been the earlier practice, enforced this duty of attendance upon those outside the 498boundaries as well as on those within. The Assize of Woodstock admits no exemption for earl or baron, for knight or freeholder, nor even (according to one version) for archbishop or bishop. All and sundry must be present at the eyres. The double duty of doing suit at county courts and at forest courts meant a double loss of time, and double risk of amercement. This 11th Article of the Assize was repealed by chapter 44 of Magna Carta, which restricted the obligation to denizens of the forests, a concession confirmed in 1217.^[943]

(6) Fines and punishments. Frequent exactions ground down the dwellers in the royal forests to abject poverty. If they failed to attend one of the numerous inquisitions, they paid a fine. If they failed to disclose the guilty poacher, they paid a fine. If they gave false information, they paid a fine. If they sold or gave away timber, they paid a fine. If they kept grey hounds or mastiffs, which had not been “lawed,” that is deprived of the requisite number of claws, they paid a fine.^[944] If a bow or arrow were found in their keeping, they paid a fine. If they committed any one of the numerous forms of waste or trespass, they paid a fine. Truly, the wretched peasant must walk warily if he would preserve sufficient of his miserable pittance to keep himself, his wife and children, in life and health.

The Northamptonshire Eyre Roll of 1209 illustrates how a whole township might suffer severely for no fault of their own. "The head of a hart recently dead was found in the wood of Henry Dawney at Maidford by the king’s foresters. And the forester of the aforesaid Henry is dead. And because nothing can be ascertained of that hart, it is ordered that the whole of the aforesaid town of Maidford be seized into the king’s hand, on the ground 499that the said Henry can certify nothing of that hart."^[945] There was clearly a strong inducement, in such cases, to find someone guilty.

In certain cases Henry II. would not accept a fine, but inflicted loss of limbs upon violators of the king’s monopoly. It was often better to kill a fellow-man than a boar or stag. Article 1 of the Assize of Woodstock announced that the full rigour of the laws would be enforced, as under Henry I., while article 12 laid down more definitely that sureties would only be accepted for two offences. For the third offence nothing would suffice save the body of the offender. John’s Magna Carta made no specific regulation on this head, although the general provision for abolishing “evil customs” afforded some relief. Chapter 10 of the Carta de foresta in 1217 conceded that no one should henceforth lose life or limb for such offences. The culprit should lie in prison for year and day, and thereafter find sureties for his future good behaviour, or failing such sureties be banished from the realm.

(7) Arbitrary government and illegal exactions. If the laws of Henry’s code were stringent and the legal payments onerous, it was a worse evil that the law, such as it was, could be safely defied by the Crown officials, and that payments of a perfectly illegal nature might be freely exacted. Within the forest bounds the peasantry lived in daily fear of the discretionary authority of officials, whose most unreasonable wishes they dared not oppose. Sometimes a local tyrant established a veritable reign of terror. This happened in the forest of Riddlington under Peter de Neville, as the records of the Rutland Eyre held in 1269 disclose. One item, taken almost at random from the long list of his evil deeds, will suffice: “The same Peter imprisoned Peter, the son of Constantine of Liddington, for two days and two nights at Allexton, and bound him with iron chains on suspicion of having taken a certain rabbit in Eastwood; and the same Peter 500the son of Constantine, gave two pence to the men of the aforesaid Peter of Neville, who had charge of him, to permit him to sit upon a certain bench in the gaol of the same Peter, which is full of water at the bottom.”^[946] In this evil pit, miscalled a gaol, men illegally arrested on mere suspicion were allowed to rot or starve to death if they failed to pay heavy ransoms. Other examples are only too abundant. In 1225 Norman Samson, a petty official of the forest of Huntingdon, put men to the torture without cause, and only released them from their torments in return for heavy bribes. These petty despots were practically irresponsible, since the eyres were held at wide intervals of seven years. Even then the sufferers might hesitate to complain, fearing a worse fate when the backs of the justices were turned. If such things could happen after the grant of the charters of 1215 and 1217, it is not likely that the foresters were more merciful before. John was always too indifferent or too busy to redress such wrongs. The only guarantee against their recurrence in the future was that honest officials should be selected. Magna Carta sought to secure this by the provisions of chapter 45, which (occurring amongst the forest clauses) directed that no justiciar, sheriff, constable or bailiff should be appointed, except such as knew the law of the land and meant to observe it. The word constable included the wardens, while bailiff was wide enough to embrace the foresters. It is doubtful whether this clause would have effected any improvement; it was withdrawn in 1216.

Some good must have resulted from chapter 16 of the Forest Charter, which forbade wardens to hold pleas of the forest, and reserved them for the justices in eyre. This prevented wardens from being judges in their own cause; but their arbitrary acts continued to be plentiful under Henry III., as has been already shown. Blackmail, under thin disguises, was levied upon all who would escape the unwelcome attentions of those in power. Sixty years after Magna Carta the men of Somerset complained that 501“foresters come with horses at harvest time and collect every kind of corn in sheaves within the bounds of the forest and outside near the forest, and then they make their ale from that collection, and those who do not come there to drink and do not give money at their will are sorely punished at their pleas for dead wood, although the king has no demesne; nor does anyone dare to brew when the foresters brew, nor to sell ale so long as the foresters have any kind of ale to sell; and this every forester does year by year to the great grievance of the country.”^[947]

Each one of these abuses had been specifically forbidden by chapter 7 of the Carta de foresta, which had prohibited the making of “scotale” and the collection of corn, lambs, and pigs. Such rules were easier to enunciate than to enforce.

VII. Later History of Forests and Forest Laws. The Forest Charter signally failed to secure a pure administration of the law; but two processes were at work which tended to lighten the burdens inflicted. The long struggle to define accurately the boundaries ended in the reign of Edward II. in the defeat of the king, who consented to the frontier being drawn to suit the barons.^[948] Within these restricted limits, time and the progress of civilization gradually softened the severity of the forest code, many customs becoming obsolete.^[949] Charles I. made an ill-judged attempt to revive some of the Crown’s long-forgotten rights. Justice-seats were held by the Earl of Holland, accompanied by amercements and attempts to extend the forest bounds.^[950] The result was a drastic act of the Long Parliament limiting them to their old extents.^[951] This statute, however, abolished neither the forests, the forest laws, nor 502the forest courts. After the Restoration a Justice-seat actually took place pro forma before the Earl of Oxford. Blackstone declares this to be the last ever held,^[952] although the offices of justice and warden of the forests were not abolished till 1817.^[953] The forests, much curtailed in extent, are still the property of the Crown, though now administered in the interests of the public by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests.^[954] The operation of the common law is, of course, no longer excluded from their confines, the old antithesis between the forest law and the law of England being now a thing of the past.^[955]

CHAPTER FORTY-FIVE.

Nos non faciemus justiciarios, constabularios, vicecomites vel ballivos, nisi de talibus qui sciant legem regni et eam bene velint observare.

We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only such as know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well.

The object of this plainly worded clause was to prevent the appointment of unsuitable men to responsible offices under the Crown. The list of officers given is a comprehensive one—justices, sheriffs, constables and bailiffs—embracing all royal ministers and agents, both of the central and of the local government, from the chief justiciar down to the humblest serjeant.^[956] The clause was directed in 503particular against John’s foreign favourites such as the Poitevin Bishop of Winchester, Peter des Roches,^[957] who had wielded and abused the authority of chief justiciar in 1214 when the king was abroad, or such as Engelard de Cygony and the other tools of John’s extortions, stigmatized by name in a later part of Magna Carta,^[958] who had filled various posts as sheriffs, wardens, and officials of the exchequer. Such men had no interests at stake in England, and little love for its customs and free traditions. In future John must choose a different type of servants, avoiding all such unscrupulous men, whether Englishmen or foreigners, as were ready to break the law in their master’s interests or their own. There is thus no difficulty in understanding what class of men were here excluded from office; but what class were to fill their places? Bishop Stubbs, commenting on this passage, credits the draftsmen of the Charter with an intention to secure the appointment of men well versed in legal science: “on this principle the steward of a court-leet must be a learned steward.”^[959] The clause of Magna Carta, however, refers exclusively to royal nominees, not to the officers appointed by mesne lords to preside over their feudal courts. The barons appointed their own stewards and bailiffs, and had no wish to hamper their own freedom of choice; but only that of the king. Further, it was not great lawyers whom the barons desired John to employ, but plain Englishmen with a rough-and-ready knowledge of insular usage, who would avoid arbitrary acts condemned by the law of the land. The barons at Runnymede in 1215 desired exactly what the council of St. Albans had desired on 4th August, 1213, when it issued formal writs commanding all sheriffs and foresters to observe the laws of Henry I. and to abstain from unjust exactions;^[960] and it must be remembered that these laws of Henry were but the older laws of Edward Confessor slightly amended.

The attitude of John’s barons was the same as that of 504Henry’s barons, when the latter declared in 1234 in such emphatic terms that they did not wish the laws of England to be changed.^[961] They were far from desiring to be governed by ministers deeply versed in the science and literature of jurisprudence, since these would necessarily have been churchmen and civilians. The laws which the Crown’s officers must know and observe were the old customary laws of England, as opposed alike to the canon law and the civil law of Rome. Honest Englishmen were wanted, with a reputation for straightforward dealing and in sympathy with native prejudice. Crown ministers might do well enough without any academic training in an age when only one short treatise on the law of England had been written (that of Glanvill); while the stewards of court leets, referred to by Bishop Stubbs, might even be ignorant of the common law, provided they were versed in “the custom of the manor.”

This provision of Magna Carta, directed primarily against alien sheriffs, castellans, and other ministers, disappeared in 1216 (without any comment in the so-called “respiting clause”), along with several provisions of a temporary nature, also directed against foreigners. Even if this well-meaning chapter of John’s Great Charter had remained in force, it would not have effected much, in the absence of adequate machinery to ensure its enforcement. In promising the selection of such ministers as knew the law and meant to keep it, John remained sole judge of the men appointed and their intentions. The clause indicated no standard of fitness to which appeal could be made, no neutral arbitrator to decide between the fit and the unfit, and no sanction to enforce compliance on an unwilling king. Half a century later, the Provisions of Oxford gave proof of some advance in political theory. They contained an expedient, crude enough it is true, for constraining royal officials to keep the law. Forms of the oaths of office to be taken by castellans and ministers of all 505grades were carefully provided.^[962] Even this was only a first step towards settling a problem which was not completely solved until, after the struggles of many centuries, the modern doctrine of ministerial responsibility was firmly established.

CHAPTER FORTY-SIX.

Omnes barones qui fundaverunt abbatias, unde habent cartas regum Anglie, vel antiquam tenuram, habeant earum custodiam cum vacaverint, sicut habere debent.

All barons who have founded abbeys, concerning which they hold charters from the kings of England, or of which they have long-continued possession, shall have the wardship of them, when vacant, as they ought to have.

The religious houses of the various orders, (abbeys, priories, and convents), which had increased so rapidly in number since the reign of Henry I., fell naturally into two classes according as they had been founded by the king or by private individuals. The king or the great baron, in bestowing lands on a religious foundation, reserved, either expressly or by implication, certain valuable rights of property, of which the control over the election of the abbot or prior, together with the wardship of the fief during vacancies, were the most important. King John, while by his separate charter to the clergy he had renounced in favour of all churches and monasteries, cathedral and conventual, all control over election of prelates, had carefully reserved his rights of wardship; and the barons insisted that the proprietary rights of mesne lords who had 506founded religious houses, should also be respected. John however, wherever he had any plausible pretext, usurped the wardship over private foundations, in addition to his own. It would appear from the terms of a later chapter,^[963] that in 1215 the Crown actually held in ward certain abbeys founded by mesne lords, for provision is there made for their restoration. The present chapter looks to the future, forbidding new usurpations of this nature.

In the reissues of the Charter certain verbal changes occur, but it is not clear that they imply any changes of substance. In 1216 the words “and as it has been above declared” were added, implying that the rights of mesne lords were to be restricted by the rules previously laid down in chapter 5, as to wardship—rules especially applied to the lands of bishoprics and religious houses in 1216 by a clause which had no parallel in John’s charter.^[964] In 1217 three other small changes tend to widen the scope of the clause. The “barons who have founded abbeys” of John’s grant become “the patrons of abbeys”; royal “charters” become more explicitly “charters of advowson”; “ancient tenure” is expanded into “ancient tenure or possession.”^[965]

Is it possible that the influence of the Church was powerful enough at Runnymede to prohibit all mention of lay “patrons” and lay presentations or “advowsons”; whereas it was powerless to prevent the barons pressing their rights of patronage two years later? John’s promise of free canonical election^[966] had interfered with royal patronage, and Stephen Langton would be unwilling to admit a subject’s claim to rights which he had forced the Crown to renounce. The question of lay patronage, indeed, was not directly raised in any version of Magna Carta; but prior to 1215 John seems to have interfered between abbeys and 507their founders. On 16th August, 1200 he granted to William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke, the privilege of bestowing the pastoral staff of Nuthlegh Abbey, which lay within that nobleman’s fief; this shows that John forbade appointments without royal licence.^[967] The present chapter of Magna Carta made little difference in practice. Henry III. claimed wardship over abbeys and priories formed by earls and barons on their own fiefs, and kept them vacant, by preventing their patrons making appointments without his licence.^[968]

CHAPTER FORTY-SEVEN.

Omnes foreste que afforestate sunt tempore nostro, statim deafforestentur; et ita fiat de ripariis que per nos tempore nostro posite sunt in defenso.

All forests that have been made such in our time shall forthwith be disafforested; and a similar course shall be followed with regard to river-banks that have been placed “in defence” by us in our time.

An analogy may be traced between the royal prerogatives of hunting and of falconry here brought together. William the Conqueror claimed wide and ill-defined rights to “afforest” whole districts at his discretion, and in one well-known instance at least, the creation of the New Forest, he made good his claim, at the cost of much suffering to his humbler subjects. Large tracts of land were thus 508consecrated to the wild boar and the stag. The king claimed somewhat similar powers for protecting his preferential rights of fowling. If woods could be “afforested” for hunting, rivers might be placed “in defence” for hawking. The parallel must not be pushed too far. River-banks were preserved only for such limited period as was covered by the king’s express command; and although wardens were appointed to guard them,^[969] the Crown never established such absolute control over the banks of rivers as it did within districts declared “afforested.”

The provision of the present chapter, defining what river-banks might be “defended,” disappeared, together with the relative clause of chapter 48 (“ripariis et earum custodibus”), from the reissue of 1216; but, in the respiting clause there was promised further deliberation, which resulted in its replacement in chapter 20 of the final version of Magna Carta.^[970]

More attention is usually paid to the bearing of the present chapter upon the limits of the forests. John, if he had created no new forests, had at least extended the boundaries of the old ones. All such encroachments are to be immediately given up. This summary redress, which implies that John’s aggressions were so notorious as to admit of no dispute, should be contrasted with the more judicial procedure appointed by chapter 53 for determining encroachments made by Henry II. and Richard I. A somewhat similar distinction is also to be found in the corresponding provisions of the Forest Charter of 1217 (chapters 1 and 3); but the line is there differently drawn. Chapter 1 of the Carta de foresta extends the summary methods of redress to the disafforesting of all forests created by Richard as well as those created by John. The terms of the later document are also more detailed, making more explicit the meaning of the earlier grant. Both seem to be directed against encroachments 509on the rights of landowners, affording no protection to the poor. While they deny the Crown’s right to afforest private woods “to the damage of any one” (that is, of barons or freeholders owning them), they admit the legality of past acts, whether of Henry, of Richard, or of John, in afforesting Crown lands, subject always to a saving clause in favour of freeholders in right of common of pasturage.^[971]

Even if Henry III. had cordially co-operated with his barons to disafforest all tracts of ground afforested by Henry II. and his sons, difficulties of definition would still have made the task tedious. As it was, struggles to settle the boundaries embittered the relations between Crown and Parliament, until the very close of Edward Plantagenet’s reign. Only the leading steps in the slow process by which the opposition triumphed need here be mentioned.

After the issue of the Carta de foresta on 6th November, 1217,^[972] machinery was set in motion, in obedience to its terms, to ascertain the old boundaries and to disafforest all recent additions. The work of redress continued for some years, suffering no interruption from the issue of the new royal seal at Michaelmas, 1218.^[973] In face of many difficulties only slow progress was possible. More strenuous efforts followed the reissue of the Charters on 11th February, 1225;^[974] for, five days later, justices were appointed to make new perambulations, which resulted in the disafforestation of wide tracts. Henry considered himself, and with some reason, as unjustly treated by these justices, or by the local juries on whose verdicts they had relied. After he had proclaimed himself of age in January, 1227, he challenged their findings; and this has been misinterpreted as an attempt to annul the Forest Charter.^[975]

Some of the knights who had perambulated the forests 510were persuaded or coerced into acknowledging that they had made mistakes; and, after further inquiry, Henry restored the wider bounds. His reactionary measures went on for two years; but thereafter the frontiers were fixed, in spite of many complaints, until strong pressure compelled Edward I., towards the close of his reign, to reopen the whole question. Perambulations in 1277 and 1279 produced apparently no results. Renewed complaints were followed by new perambulations in 1299-1300, the reports of which were laid before a Parliament which met at Lincoln on 25th January, 1301. The king, as the result of hostile forces converging from several sides, had to surrender; and on 14th February he confirmed the Forest Charter, and formally agreed to the reduced boundaries as defined by the most recent inquests. Edward had acted under constraint: on this plea he subsequently obtained from Pope Clement V. a bull, dated 29th December, 1305, revoking all the concessions made at Lincoln.^[976] The Crown seemed thus to triumph once more; but the barons refused to accept defeat, forcing upon Edward II. the acceptance of the narrower bounds as they had been defined at his father’s Parliament in 1301. This settlement was confirmed by statute in the first year of the reign of Edward III.,^[977] and that king failed in all attempts to escape from its provisions. Thus the authoritative pronouncement made in 1301 by the Parliament of Lincoln furnished the basis on which the protracted controversy was finally determined.^[978]

The further history of the forest boundaries may be told in a few sentences. No changes were made until the sixteenth century. When Henry VIII. afforested the districts surrounding Hampton Court in 1540, he did so by consent of Parliament, and on condition of compensating 511all those who suffered damage. The same course was followed by Charles I. in creating the Forest of Richmond in 1634. Finally, as a result of the attempts of the Stewarts to revive obsolete forest rights, a statute of the Long Parliament, reciting the Act of 1327, “ordained that the old perambulation of the forest in the time of King Edward the First should be thenceforth holden in like form as it was then ridden and bounded.”^[979]

CHAPTER FORTY-EIGHT.

Omnes male consuetudines de forestis et warennis, et de forestariis et warennariis, vicecomitibus et eorum ministris, ripariis et earum custodibus, statim inquirantur in quolibet comitatu per duodecim milites juratos de eodem comitatu, qui debent eligi per probos homines ejusdem comitatus, et infra quadraginta dies post inquisicionem factam, penitus, ita quod numquam revocentur, deleantur per eosdem, ita quod nos hoc sciamus prius, vel justiciarius noster, si in Anglia non fuerimus.^[980]

All evil customs connected with forests and warrens, foresters and warreners, sheriffs and their officers, river-banks and their wardens, shall immediately be inquired into in each county by twelve sworn knights of the same county chosen by the honest men of the same county, and shall, within forty days of the said inquest, be utterly abolished, so as never to be restored, provided always that we previously have intimation thereof, or our justiciar, if we should not be in England.

This chapter is mainly, though not exclusively, a forest one. It provides in a sweeping and drastic manner for 512the abolition of “evil customs,” three groups of which are specially emphasized: (a) those connected with forests and warrens (presumably royal warrens only), with their officials; (b) those connected with sheriffs and their subordinates; and (c) those connected with river-banks and their guardians. The word “customs” is obviously here used in its wider sense, embracing all usages and procedure, whether specially connected with pecuniary exactions or not.^[981] The word “evil” is not defined, but here (in favourable contrast to elsewhere) machinery is provided for arriving at a definition. This takes the form of a new application of the useful inquisitio. In each county a local jury of twelve knights was to be immediately chosen by “the good people” of that county, and these twelve received a mandate to hold a comprehensive inquest into “evil customs” generally. All practices condemned by them (after hearing on oath smaller local juries, doubtless) were to be abolished within forty days of the inquiry, “so that they shall never be restored.”

At the end of the chapter appears a proviso that, before actual abolition, notice must be sent to the king, or, in his absence, to his justiciar. Although such intimation was absolutely necessary, both on grounds of policy and of ordinary courtesy, it would appear that this clause was inserted only at the instance of the king’s friends; at least, it is written (as an afterthought) at the foot of two of the copies of the Great Charter.

Whether acting under pressure or from grounds of policy, John lost no time in instituting the machinery necessary for effecting this part of the reforms. On the very day on which the terms of peace were finally concluded between king and barons at Runnymede, namely, on 19th June, 1215, he began the issue of writs to sheriffs, warreners, and river bailiffs. Within a few days every one of these had been certified of the settlement arrived at, and had received commands to have twelve 513knights chosen by the county in the first county court, who should make sworn inquest into evil customs.^[982]

These orders were obeyed: knights were appointed in the various counties, who seem to have taken a liberal view of their own functions. Far from confining themselves to declaring customs to be evil, or even to seeing them abolished, they claimed to share with the sheriffs the exercise of the entire executive authority of the county. Some warrant for these pretensions may be found in the terms of a second series of writs issued in the king’s name on 27th June and following days. These were addressed to the sheriff and the twelve knights jointly, commanding them to make instant seizure of all who refused to take, as required in the previous writs, the oath of obedience to the twenty-five executors of the Charter.^[983] The revolutionary committee of the central government had thus in each county local agents in the twelve knights whose original duties had been to see evil customs abolished.

The hatred which all classes bore to the forest laws is well illustrated by the iconoclastic spirit in which these knights concurred with the jurors of each small district, and with all others concerned, for the drastic treatment of abuses. Moderate-minded men began to fear that these sweeping changes would virtually abolish the royal forests altogether (in their technical legal sense). Accordingly, the leading prelates, who were in large measure responsible for inducing the king to make truce at Runnymede, and were thus under a moral obligation to do what they could to prevent the barons breaking faith, issued a written protest. They declared that the chapter in question must be understood by both parties “as limited,” and “that all those customs shall remain, without which the forests cannot be preserved.”^[984] Clearly, the whole code of the 514forest laws was in danger of being swept out of existence, as forming one huge “evil custom.” What effect, if any, this protest had, is not known. The country was soon plunged in civil war, during the continuance of which neither side had leisure for the reform of abuses, however urgently required. In 1216 the subject was one of those “respited” for future consideration, and in 1217 an attempt was made to specify in detail those evil customs which were to be abolished. The dangerous experiment of leaving such definition to local juries in each district was not repeated.

CHAPTER FORTY-NINE.

Omnes obsides et cartas statim reddemus que liberate fuerunt nobis ab Anglicis in securitatem pacis vel fidelis servicii.

We will immediately restore all hostages and charters delivered to us by Englishmen, as sureties of the peace or of faithful service.

A feature of John’s system of government was the constant demand for hostages as guarantees of his subjects’ loyalty. Such an expedient was, indeed, naturally resorted to in the Middle Ages upon special occasions, as, for example, to secure the observance of a recent treaty, or where the leaders of a rebellion, newly suppressed, had been spared on condition of future good behaviour. Thus the Conqueror, in 1067, during a forced absence from 515England immediately after its acquisition, took with him Edgar Atheling and the Earls Morkere and Eadwin; and many other instances readily occur. Such cases were, however, exceptional, until John established an unfortunate claim to distinction as the only king of England who ever resorted to such a policy, not merely in face of danger, but as a constant and normal practice in times of peace. It may be that his continual suspicions were well grounded; but this scarcely excuses them, since it was his own bad government which goaded his subjects into a condition of perpetual unrest.

John lived in his native England like a foreign conqueror in the midst of a hostile race, keeping sons and daughters in his clutches to answer for their parents’ attempts at revolt. This ingenious but unfair practice accords well with what we know of John’s character and general policy. It was a measure of almost devilish cunning for obtaining his immediate aim, but likely to recoil on himself whenever a critical state of his fortunes arrived. Its efficacy lay in this, that it forced the hand of discontented magnates, compelling them to decide upon the instant between the desperate expedient of open rebellion and the delivery of their children to an unscrupulous enemy, thus renouncing, perhaps for ever, the possibility of resistance or revenge, thereafter to be purchased at too dear a price—the life of the hostage. By thus paralyzing his enemies one by one, John hoped to render disaffection innocuous. Those nobles whom the tyrant did not thus control through their tenderest affections were too few for effective resistance. At the slightest show of temper, they, too, were suddenly pounced upon for hostages, thus joining the ranks of those who dared not rebel.^[985]

The entire history of the reign shows of what excessive 516practical importance this question of hostages had become. It abounds with examples of the varied pretexts upon which John demanded them, and of his drastic methods of visiting upon their heads the sins of those who had pledged them. Thus, in 1201, John seized the castles of certain of his barons; and one of them, William of Albini, only saved his stronghold of Belvoir by handing over his son as a hostage.^[986] In the same year, the men of York offended the king by omitting to meet him in procession when he visited their city, and by their failure to provide quarters for the billeting of his archers. The king, as usual, demanded hostages, but ultimately allowed the citizens to escape on payment of £100 to buy back the king’s goodwill.^[987]

Hardly a year passed without similar instances; but, apparently, it was not until 1208 that the practice was enforced wholesale. In that year the king’s abject fear of the effects of the Pope’s absolution of his barons from their allegiance led to his demand that every leading man in England should hand over his sons, nephews, or other blood relations to the king’s messengers.^[988]

The danger of failure to comply with such demands is illustrated by the fate of Maud of Saint-Valery, wife of William de Braose, who refused point-blank to hand over her grandchildren to a king who, she was unwise enough to say, “had murdered his captive nephew.”^[989] Two years later John, after failing to extort enormous sums in name of fines, caused her, with her eldest son, to be starved to death, a fate to which her own imprudence had doubtless contributed.^[990] John’s drastic methods of treating his hostages may also be illustrated from the chronicles of his reign, for example, from the fate of the youths he brought from Wales in June, 1211. When he heard of the Welsh 517rebellion of the following year, he ordered his levies to meet him at Nottingham. On his arrival, at the muster, early in September, John found awaiting him a great concourse, who were treated to an object lesson which long might haunt their dreams. His passion at white heat, John incontinently hanged eight-and-twenty defenceless boys of the noblest blood of Wales.^[991] This ghastly spectacle could not have been forgotten by any one then present, when later in the same month the king, in the throes of sudden panic, fled to London; and, secure in the fastnesses of the tower, demanded hostages wholesale from all the nobles whose fidelity he doubted. The inveterate Eustace de Vesci and Robert fitz Walter preferred to seek safety in flight, the only alternative open to them.^[992] The others, with the Nottingham horror fresh in their memories, were constrained to hand over, with feelings that may be conceived, their sons and daughters to the tender mercies of John, cunning and cruel by nature, and rendered doubly treacherous by suspicion intensified by fear.

The defects of this policy, in the long run, may be read in the events which preceded Magna Carta. When John’s hold on the hostages was relaxed, because of his preparations for the campaign of 1214, ending as it did in utter discomfiture, the disaffected were afforded their long-desired opportunity, and were stimulated to rapid action by the thought that such a chance might never occur again. John, on his return, held comparatively few hostages, and the northern barons saw that they must act, if at all, before their children were once more in the tyrant’s clutches.

Even in June, 1215, John had control over a few hostages, and the chapter now under discussion demands the immediate restoration of those of English birth (the Welsh receiving separate treatment) together with the charters which John held as additional security, very much as a creditor might hold the titles of a mortgaged property. 518This provision of Magna Carta was immediately carried out. Letters were dispatched to the custodians of royal hostages, ordering an immediate release.^[993] The practice of taking hostages, however, by no means ended with the granting of the Great Charter. Before a year had run, some of the insurgent nobles, repenting of their boldness, succeeded in making terms with John by the payment of large sums of money and the delivery of their sons and daughters in security for their future loyalty. Simon fitz Walter, for example, thus gave up his daughter Matilda.^[994]

CHAPTER FIFTY.

Nos amovebimus penitus de balliis parentes Gerardi de Athyes, quod de cetero nullam habeant balliam in Anglia; Engelardum de Cygony, Petrum et Gionem et Andream, de Cancellis, Gionem de Cygony, Galfridum de Martinny et fratres ejus, Philippum Marci et fratres ejus, et Galfridum nepotem ejus, et totam sequelam eorundem.

We will entirely remove from their bailiwicks, the relations of Gerard de Athyes (so that in future they shall have no bailiwick in England), namely Engelard de Cygony, Peter, Gyon, and Andrew of the Chancery, Gyon de Cygony, Geoffrey de Martyn with his brothers, Philip Mark with his brothers and his nephew Geoffrey, and the whole brood of the same.

Chapter 45 sought to secure the appointment of suitable men to posts of trust under the Crown; the present chapter 519definitely excludes from bailiwicks (a comprehensive term embracing all grades of local magistracies) one particular group of royal favourites. Their names prove them of foreign extraction. They had come from Brabant, Flanders, and Poitou,^[995] and several of them stayed on in England and held lucrative posts under Henry III. in spite of the ban here laid upon them. The clause of John’s Charter which excluded them from office was indeed omitted from future reissues, along with chapter 45.

The reasons which had rendered them obnoxious to the barons are not explained, but may be readily imagined. They had filled the unpopular posts of collectors of customs, wardens of forests, and commanders of royal garrisons, and had distinguished themselves by their unscrupulous zeal in pushing the king’s prerogatives connected with trade, castles, forests, and purveyance.

The career of Engelard de Cygony may be taken as typical of the rest. He was a nephew of Gerard de Athyes,^[996] and was deep in the confidence of his master, as is proved by the number of responsible offices with which he was entrusted. We know that in 1211 he acted as Sheriff of Gloucester, since he accounted to the Exchequer for the firma comitatus. He further accounted for the firma burgi of Bristol,^[997] which seems to imply interference with the chartered liberties of that city. It was probably because John required his services elsewhere, that some of his sheriff’s duties were performed by deputy, a burgess named Richard rendering accounts on his behalf. Engelard also held pleas of the Crown for Gloucestershire, in violation alike of the ordinance of 1194 forbidding any sheriff to act as justiciar in his own county, and of the customary rule (confirmed only, not originated, by chapter 24 of Magna Carta) which prevented sheriffs from holding pleas of the Crown.^[998] Several entries tell of barrels of wine which he took as “prise” from ships entering the port of Bristol. For example, the 520exchequer officials allowed him to deduct from the amount which he owed as firma, the sum of 60s., in respect of four tuns of red wine, as certified by the king’s writ,^[999] an entry which suggests that he had purchased from the Crown the profits yielded by the prerogative of taking prise; and had then resold to the king the hogsheads actually required for the royal use at 15s. each. Engelard also guarded a rich treasure for the king at Bristol, probably as constable of the castle there, sums being paid to him ad ponendum in thesauro regis.^[1000] On one occasion he was entrusted with the custody of more than 10,000 marks of the king’s money.^[1001] Hostages, as well as bullion, were placed under his care; a writ dated 18th December, 1214, directed him to liberate three noble Welshmen whom it mentioned by name.^[1002]

In the civil war to which the treaty of peace sealed at Runnymede was a prelude, Engelard, then constable of Windsor Castle and warden of the adjacent forest of Odiham, proved active in John’s service. He successfully defended Windsor from the French faction, making vigorous sorties until relieved by the king.^[1003] He requisitioned supplies to meet the royal needs; and a plea was brought against him so long afterwards as 1232, in connection with twelve hogsheads of wine thus taken.^[1004] He acted as sheriff of Surrey under William Marshal, the Regent, but was suspended from this office in 1218 in consequence of a dispute with Earl Warenne.^[1005] He remained warden of the castle and forests for twenty years after the accession of Henry III.,^[1006] and his long services were rewarded 521with grants of land: in the county of Oxford he held the manor of Benzinton, with four hundreds and a half, during the king’s good pleasure;^[1007] while his son Oliver received the lucrative post of guardian over the lands and heirs of Henry de Berkley.^[1008]

In 1221, however, acting in consort with Falkes de Bréauté, Philip Mark, and other castellans, Engelard supported earl William of Aumâle in his resistance to the demands of Henry’s ministers, that all royal castles should be restored to the king. Notwithstanding the secrecy with which he sent men to the earl at Biham castle,^[1009] he fell under suspicion of treason, and escaped imprisonment only on finding hostages that he would hold the castle of Windsor for the king, and surrender it at his will.^[1010] In 1236, he was relieved of some of his offices, but not of all, for in 1254 he was two years in arrears with the firma of the manor of Odiham.^[1011] In that year, apparently, he died; for the patent roll contains a writ granting him permission to make his will, and an entry in 1255 relates how “for good service done to the king by Engelard de Cygony in his lifetime, the king granted to his executors that they should be quit of all accounts to be rendered by them at the exchequer, and of all averages of accounts, and of all debts and imposts.”^[1012] Engelard thus died, as he had lived, the trusted servant and favourite of kings. His career illustrates how the very same men who had incurred odium as the partizans of John became, when the civil war was over, the instruments of his son’s misgovernment.^[1013]

522

CHAPTER FIFTY-ONE.

Et statim post pacis reformacionem amovebimus de regno omnes alienigenas milites, balistarios, servientes, stipendiarios, qui venerint cum equis et armis ad nocumentum regni.

As soon as peace is restored, we will banish from the kingdom all foreign-born knights, cross-bowmen, serjeants, and mercenary soldiers, who have come with horses and arms to the kingdom’s hurt.

John here binds himself to disband his foreign troops, who had acted as the agents of his tyrannies, keeping the native English in subjection, and ever ready to take the field in the event of rebellion. These men, who had garrisoned the royal castles which formed such formidable engines of oppression in the Middle Ages, are now to be banished “as soon as peace is restored,” an indication that, even at the date of Magna Carta, a state of virtual war was recognized. This promise was partially fulfilled. On 23rd June writs were issued for the disbandment of the mercenaries.^[1014] The renewal of the civil war, however, was followed by the enrolment of new bands of foreigners on both sides, and these men long continued to exercise an evil influence in England. Their presence was one of the main causes of the rebellion of 1224, after the suppression of which most of them were again banished with their ring-leader, Falkes de Bréauté, at their head.

The words used to describe these soldiers are comprehensive. Stipendiarii embraced mercenaries of every kind: balistarii were cross-bowmen. This weapon, imported into England as a result of the crusades, quickly superseded the 523earlier short bow, but had, in turn, to succumb to the long bow, which was apparently derived from Wales, and was developed as the regular weapon of one branch of the English army by Edward I., who gained by means of it many battles against the Scotch and Welsh, and made possible the later triumphs of the Black Prince and of Henry V.

CHAPTER FIFTY-TWO.

Si quis fuerit disseisitus vel elongatus per nos sine legali judicio parium suorum, de terris, castellis, libertatibus, vel jure suo, statim ea ei restituemus; et si contencio super hoc orta fuerit, tunc inde fiat per judicium viginti quinque baronum, de quibus fit mencio inferius in securitate pacis: de omnibus autem illis de quibus aliquis disseisitus fuerit vel elongatus sine legali judicio parium suorum, per Henricum regem patrem nostrum vel per Ricardum regem fratrem nostrum, que in manu nostra habemus, vel que alii tenent que nos oporteat warantizare, respectum habebimus usque ad communem terminum crucesignatorum; exceptis illis de quibus placitum motum fuit vel inquisicio facta per preceptum nostrum, ante suscepcionem crucis nostre: cum autem redierimus de peregrinacione nostra, vel si forte remanserimus a peregrinacione nostra, statim inde plenam justiciam exhibebimus.

If any one has been dispossessed or removed^[1015] by us, without the legal judgment of his peers, from his lands, castles, franchises, or from his right, we will immediately restore them to him; and if a dispute arise over this, then let it be decided by the five-and-twenty barons of whom mention is made below in the clause for securing the peace.^[1016] Moreover, 524for all those possessions, from which any one has, without the lawful judgment of his peers, been disseised or removed, by our father, King Henry, or by our brother, King Richard, and which we retain in our hand (or which are possessed by others, to whom we are bound to warrant them) we shall have respite until the usual term of crusaders; excepting those things about which a plea has been raised, or an inquest made by our order, before our taking of the cross; but as soon as we return from our expedition (or if perchance we desist from the expedition) we will immediately grant full justice therein.

The Charter here reverts to a topic of vital interest to the barons, the subject of illegal disseisins already raised in chapter 39, which is here supplemented. Legal remedy is provided for everyone dispossessed by the Crown “sine legali judicio parium suorum.” A distinction is drawn, however, between two classes of wrongs, according as they have been inflicted by John himself, where summary methods are to rule, or by his predecessors, where less precipitate procedure must take its course.

The Articles of the Barons had recognized the same distinction, while providing somewhat different treatment. Those disseised by Henry or Richard were to get redress "according to the judgment of their peers in the king’s court"; those disseised by John, “according to the judgment of the twenty-five barons,” that is, of the executors, to be afterwards more fully discussed. Both cases, however, were in the Articles qualified by a stipulation which calls for comment. John had taken the crusader’s vow a few months previous, and now claimed the usual three years’ “respite” allowed to those preparing for the holy war, from all legal proceedings against them. The barons, viewing John’s vow as a deliberate and notorious perjury, rejected his claim. The point was referred by the Articles of the Barons to arbitration. The prelates, whose judicium on this point was declared to be final (“appellatione remota”), and who were bound to give an early decision (“ad certum 525diem”), might not unreasonably have been suspected of partiality, since “taking the cross” was not a step to be belittled by churchmen. Yet they seem to have acted in a spirit of not unfair compromise, if the clause as it finally appeared in John’s Magna Carta may be taken as giving the substance of their award.

The crusader’s privilege was not allowed by Langton and his fellow-arbitrators in cases where John himself had been the disseisor; the twenty-five executors might there decide forthwith. Respite was allowed, however, in respect of the disseisins of Henry and of Richard (except where legal proceedings were already pending).^[1017] The Charter says nothing of the procedure to be adopted at the close of the three years; but there was probably no intention to depart from the terms of the Articles in this respect, namely, "judgment of peers in the king’s court."

John had good reason to consider as unfair the mode here appointed for deciding disputes as to disseisins effected by him. Many delicate points would thus be referred to the summary decision of a baronial committee, sure to be composed of his most bitter enemies—the very men, perhaps, whom he had dispossessed. If the “judgment of the twenty-five” meant for the barons “the judgment of peers,” it meant for the king the judgment of inferiors and enemies.^[1018]

CHAPTER FIFTY-THREE.

Eundem autem respectum habebimus, et eodem modo, de justicia exhibenda de forestis deafforestandis vel remansuris forestis, quas Henricus pater noster vel Ricardus 526frater noster afforestaverunt, et de custodiis terrarum que sunt de alieno feodo, cujusmodi custodias hucusque habuimus occasione feodi quod aliquis de nobis tenuit per servicium militare, et de abbaciis que fundate fuerint in feodo alterius quam nostro, in quibus dominus feodi dixerit se jus habere; et cum redierimus, vel si remanserimus a peregrinacione nostra, super hiis conquerentibus plenam justiciam statim exhibebimus.^[1019]

We shall have, moreover, the same respite and in the same manner in rendering justice concerning the disafforestation or retention of those forests which Henry our father and Richard our brother afforested, and concerning the wardship of lands which are of the fief of another (namely, such wardships as we have hitherto had by reason of a fief which anyone held of us by knight’s service), and concerning abbeys founded on other fiefs than our own, in which the lord of the fee claims to have right; and when we have returned, or if we desist from our expedition, we will immediately grant full justice to all who complain of such things.

This chapter makes an advance upon the Articles of the Barons, extending to three kinds of abuses, not specially mentioned there, the respite provided in chapter 52 for redressing acts of illegal disseisin. The “close time” secured to John in virtue of his crusader’s vow is to cover (a) inquiries into the proper boundaries of forests said to have been extended by his father or by his brother; (b) wardships over the lands of under-tenants usurped by him by reason of his illegal extension of prerogative wardship, and (c) abbeys founded by mesne lords and seized by John during vacancies in violation of the rights of wardship of such founders.^[1020]

527

CHAPTER FIFTY-FOUR.

Nullus capiatur nec imprisonetur propter appellum femine de morte alterius quam viri sui.

No one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman, for the death of any other than her husband.

The object of this chapter was to find a remedy for what the barons evidently considered an unfair advantage enjoyed by women appellants, who were allowed to appoint some champion to act for them in the duellum, while the accused man had to fight for himself. The connection between appeal and battle, and the distinction between battle following on appeal and battle on a writ of right, have already been explained.^[1021] In civil pleas wherein combat was legally competent, neither party could fight in person: champions were insisted on, although hired champions were condemned. In theory, these men were witnesses, each swearing that he had actually seen the seisin—that is, had been present at the infeftment of the claimant whose title he supported, or at that of his ancestor from whom he inherited the land.^[1022] In criminal pleas, on the other hand, the parties must fight in their own persons. This distinction is not so illogical as it seems at first sight, for the appellant was supposed to be an eye-witness of the 528crime^[1023]; and the apparent anomaly disappears when both rules of procedure are treated as deductions from the principle that the combatants in all cases were witnesses whose conflicting testimonies must be weighed in the balance of battle, with an overruling Providence holding the scales.

In a case of murder, no private accuser would be heard unless he alleged that he had seen the accused actually do the deed. The stringency of this rule was, however, modified by legal fictions. The near relation, or the feudal lord, of the slain man was treated as constructively present at his slaying, because of the closeness of the bond of blood or of homage between the two. This, at least, is the most plausible interpretation of Glanvill’s words: “No one is admissible to prove the accusation unless he be allied in blood to the deceased or be connected with him by the tie of homage or lordship, so that he can speak of the death upon testimony of his own sight.”^[1024]

The rule also which required an appellant to offer proof by his own body was relaxed in certain cases; women, men over sixty years of age, and those with broken bones or who had lost a limb, an ear, a nose, or an eye, were unable to fight effectively, and might therefore appear by proxy.^[1025] The privilege thus accorded to women was looked on with much disfavour as conferring an unfair advantage as against appellees who were not allowed to produce a substitute. Accordingly an option was given the man accused by a woman; he might, in Glanvill’s words, elect either "to abide by the woman’s proof or to purge himself by the ordeal."^[1026] This option 529was freely used; an appellee in 1201 was allowed to go to the ordeal of water,^[1027] while two years later when the widow of a murdered man offered to prove her accusation “as the court shall consider,” the accused was allowed to go to the ordeal, “for he has elected to bear the iron.”^[1028] After the virtual abolition of ordeal in 1215, appeals by women were usually determined per patriam (that is by the sworn verdict of a jury of neighbours). Such is the doctrine of Bracton,^[1029] whose authority is amply borne out by recorded cases. Thus in 1221, a man accused by a woman of her husband’s murder offered fifteen marks for a verdict of the jurors.^[1030]

A woman’s right of accusation (even when thus safeguarded from abuse) was restricted to two occasions, the murder of her husband and the rape of her own person. Magna Carta mentions only one of these two grounds of appeal; but silence on the subject of assault need not be interpreted as indicating any intention to deprive women of their rights in such cases.^[1031]

The present chapter of the Great Charter confines itself to appeals of murder, declaring that no woman has the right to institute proceedings in this way for the death of father, son, or friend, but only for that of her husband. Hard as this rule may seem, the barons here made no change on existing law. Glanvill does not seem to recognize the possibility of a woman’s appeal of homicide save for the death of her husband.^[1032] He seems to deduce the reason for allowing it in that case from the principle already explained: "A woman 530is heard in this suit accusing anyone of her husband’s death, if she speak as being an eye-witness to the fact, because husband and wife are one flesh"—another example of constructive presence.^[1033]

There seems to be no authority whatever for Coke’s hasty inference from the provisions of this chapter, that previous to 1215 a woman had an appeal for the death of any one of her “ancestors.”^[1034] The chapter, in spite of its declaratory nature, seems an ungallant one, indicating that the barons were more careful to guard themselves against unnecessary risk than to champion the cause of defenceless women.^[1035]

CHAPTER FIFTY-FIVE.

Omnes fines qui injuste et contra legem terre facti sunt nobiscum, et omnia amerciamenta facta injuste et contra legem terre, omnino condonentur, vel fiat inde per judicium viginti quinque baronum de quibus fit mencio inferius in securitate pacis, vel per judicium majoris partis eorundem, una cum predicto Stephano Cantuariensi archiepiscopo, si interesse poterit, et aliis quos secum ad hoc vocare voluerit: et si interesse non poterit, nichilominus procedat negocium sine eo, ita quod, si aliquis vel aliqui de predictis viginti quinque baronibus fuerint in simili 531querela, amoveantur quantum ad hoc judicium, et alii loco eorum per residuos de eisdem viginti quinque, tantum ad hoc faciendum electi et jurati substituantur.

All fines made with us unjustly and against the law of the land, and all amercements imposed unjustly and against the law of the land, shall be entirely remitted, or else it shall be done concerning them according to the decision of the five-and-twenty barons of whom mention is made below in the clause for securing the peace, or according to the judgment of the majority of the same, along with the aforesaid Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and such others as he may wish to bring with him for this purpose, and if he cannot be present the business shall nevertheless proceed without him, provided always that if any one or more of the aforesaid five-and-twenty barons are in a similar suit, they shall be removed as far as concerns this particular judgment, others being substituted in their places after having been selected by the rest of the same five-and-twenty for this purpose only, and after having been sworn.

The thirty-seventh of the Articles of the Barons, forming the draft of this chapter, refers specially to one particular class of illegal fines, namely those exacted by John from defenceless widows in return for being allowed the peaceful enjoyment of their legal rights of property in their own and their husband’s estates (“pro dotibus, maritagiis, et hereditatibus”). It forms thus a natural supplement to chapter 7. The earlier chapter had confirmed widows in their rights for the future; this one remits fines unjustly taken in the past. It is probable that even the clause of the Articles of the Barons did not intend to limit its own operation to this one group of unjust fines; and it mentions amercements, without any qualification. In any view, the terms of Magna Carta were broadened out to embrace illegal fines and amercements of every sort.^[1036]

532The distinction between fines and amercements, absolute in theory but tending to become obliterated in practice, has been explained in a former chapter.^[1037] The system of arbitrary fines, always so galling a feature in the Crown’s policy throughout the Middle Ages, culminated in the reign of John, whose talents were well suited to the development of its ingenious and mean details. Dr. Stubbs describes the product of his labours as “the system of fines which was elaborated into that minute and grotesque instrument of torture which all the historians of the reign have dwelt on in great detail.”^[1038] Hallam commented on this in a passage which has become classical. "The bishop of Winchester paid a ton of good wine for not reminding the king (John) to give a girdle to the countess of Albemarle; and Robert de Vaux five best palfreys, that the same king might hold his peace about Henry Pinel’s wife. Another paid four marks for leave to eat (pro licentia comedendi)."^[1039]

Unique procedure was provided by the present chapter for deciding disputes as to the legality of fines and amercements. Authority to decide was vested in a board of arbitrators to consist of thirteen or more of the twenty-five executors, together with Stephen Langton and such others as he chose to summon. No mention is made of the maximum number whom the primate might thus nominate, and there is no attempt to define their powers relative to those of the other members of the board, a somewhat unbusinesslike omission, but one which testifies to the great confidence placed in Langton by those who approved its terms. Care is taken to prevent such members of the twenty-five as were likely to be biased from sitting in judgments on suits like their own—a stipulation which 533might with advantage have been extended to several other chapters.

This chapter, like others addressed to the special circumstances of John’s reign, found no echo in future charters.

CHAPTER FIFTY-SIX.

Si nos disseisivimus vel elongavimus Walenses de terris vel libertatibus vel rebus aliis, sine legali judicio parium suorum, in Anglia vel in Wallia,^[1040] eis statim reddantur; et si contencio super hoc orta fuerit, tunc inde fiat in marchia per judicium parium suorum, de tenementis Anglie secundum legem Anglie, de tenementis Wallie secundum legem Wallie, de tenementis marchie secundum legem marchie. Idem facient Walenses nobis et nostris.

If we have disseised or removed Welshmen from lands or liberties, or other things, without the legal judgment of their peers in England or in Wales, they shall be immediately restored to them; and if a dispute arise over this, then let it be decided in the marches by the judgment of their peers; for tenements in England according to the law of England, for tenements in Wales according to the law of Wales, and for tenements in the marches according to the law of the marches. Welshmen shall do the same to us and ours.

This is the first of three chapters directed towards redressing wrongs suffered by Welshmen: and the three taken together testify to the importance attached by the barons to the value of the Welsh alliance. Restoration is to be made (a) of illegal disseisins effected by John (chapter 56); (b) of those effected by Henry II. and 534Richard I. (chapter 57); and (c) of hostages and charters delivered to John as pledges of peace (chapter 58).

The present chapter does for Welshmen what the first part of chapter 52 had already done for Englishmen. The reasons for treating Welshmen separately were probably twofold, partly for the sake of emphasis, and partly because some slight differences of detail were required. “Judgment of peers,” indeed, was applied to both cases, but for the dispossessed Welshmen, “in marchia per judicium parium suorum” takes the place of the “per judicium viginti quinque baronum” provided for Englishmen in like case. The “venue” was thus apparently fixed in the marchland for all Welshmen’s cases, although three different kinds of law were to be applied according to the situation of the property in dispute. This clear indication of the existence of three distinct bodies of law, one for England, another for Wales, and a third for the marches, shows that the unifying task of the common law had not yet been completed. Interesting questions of a nature analogous to those treated by the branch of modern jurisprudence known as International Private Law must constantly have arisen. The “peers” of a Welshman were not defined; but a court composed of Welsh barons or freeholders was probably meant.

The final words of the chapter, declaring that Welshmen were to afford reciprocal redress to John and his subjects, are interesting, since they imply that Welshmen had, in some cases, successfully seized lands claimed by Englishmen. Here, as usual, the barons were mainly interested in securing their own rights.

CHAPTER FIFTY-SEVEN.

De omnibus autem illis de quibus aliquis Walensium disseisitus fuerit vel elongatus sine legali judicio parium 535suorum per Henricum regem patrem nostrum vel Ricardum regem fratrem nostrum, que nos in manu nostra habemus, vel que alii tenent que nos oporteat warantizare, respectum habebimus usque ad communem terminum crucesignatorum, illis exceptis de quibus placitum motum fuit vel inquisicio facta per preceptum nostrum ante suscepcionem crucis nostre: cum autem redierimus, vel si forte remanserimus a peregrinacione nostra, statim eis inde plenam justiciam exhibebimus, secundum leges Walensium et partes predictas.

Further, for all those possessions from which any Welshman has, without the lawful judgment of his peers, been disseised or removed by King Henry our father, or King Richard our brother, and which we retain in our hand (or which are possessed by others, to whom we are bound to warrant them) we shall have respite until the usual term of crusaders; excepting those things about which a plea has been raised or an inquest made by our order before we took the cross; but as soon as we return, (or if perchance we desist from our expedition), we will immediately grant full justice in accordance with the laws of the Welsh and in relation to the foresaid regions.

The provisions here made for restoring to Welshmen estates of which they had been unjustly dispossessed by Henry or Richard are expressed in terms identical with the similar provisions made in the latter part of chapter 52 for Englishmen in like case, except for the last words, “in accordance with the laws of the Welsh in relation to the aforesaid districts,” indicating the three systems of law referred to in the previous chapter. No machinery is here specified for declaring or applying that law; the need for this indeed had been rendered remote by John’s success before the arbitrators who determined that a crusader’s privilege should be accorded him.^[1041]

The Articles of the Barons had, however, mentioned the procedure to be adopted; and a comparison of the 536terms of articles 25 and 44 with those of chapter 57 of the Charter suggests the antithesis between “per judicium parium suorum in curia regis” for Englishmen in such cases, and “in marchia per judicium parium suorum” for Welshmen.

CHAPTER FIFTY-EIGHT.

Nos reddemus filium Lewelini statim, et omnes obsides de Wallia, et cartas que nobis liberate fuerunt in securitatem pacis.

We will immediately give up the son of Llywelyn and all the hostages of Wales, and the charters delivered to us as security for the peace.

The treatment of hostages in general and Welsh hostages in particular has already been fully illustrated.^[1042] The patent and close rolls of the reign show a constant coming and going of these living pledges of the peace. A writ of 18th December, 1214, for example, bade Engelard de Cygony restore three Welsh nobles to Llywelyn.^[1043] Since then, new hostages, including Llywelyn’s own son, had been handed over; and charters also had apparently been pledged. John now promised unconditionally to restore all of these; and the Welsh Prince must have breathed more freely when this was fulfilled, allowing him, his son by his side, with a light heart to prepare for the hostilities against the English Crown, long seen to be inevitable and now to be resumed in alliance with the disaffected English barons.

The Articles of the Barons had to some extent treated this question of the Welsh hostages and charters as an 537open one, referring its final determination to the arbitration of Stephen Langton and such others as he might nominate to act with him. The point had apparently been decided in favour of the Welsh before the Charter was engrossed in its final form.^[1044]

CHAPTER FIFTY-NINE.

Nos faciemus Alexandro regi Scottorum de sororibus suis, et obsidibus reddendis, et libertatibus suis, et jure suo, secundum formam in qua faciemus aliis baronibus nostris Anglie, nisi aliter esse debeat per cartas quas habemus de Willelmo patre ipsius, quondam rege Scottorum; et hoc erit per judicium parium suorum in curia nostra.

We will do toward Alexander, King of Scots, concerning the return of his sisters and his hostages, and concerning his franchises, and his right, in the same manner as we shall do towards our other barons of England, unless it ought to be otherwise accordingaccording to the charters which we hold from William his father, formerly King of Scots; and this shall be according to the judgment of his peers in our court.

A heterogeneous body of forces was drawn into temporary union by common hatred of John. The barons welcomed allies whether from Wales or from Scotland; if the three preceding chapters were a bid for Llywelyn’s support, this one was dictated by a desire to conciliate Alexander. John was forced to promise to restore to the king of Scots 538his sisters and other hostages, together with his franchises and his “right.” This last word covered Alexander’s claim to independence and also whatever title he might prove good to various English fiefs which he claimed to hold under the English Crown.

Opinions have been, and still are, sharply divided as to whether, or in what degree, Scotland was subject to feudal overlordship. Of one fact there can be no doubt; David I. and his successors, kings of Scotland, had been wont to do fealty and homage to the kings of England; but this fact has received widely different interpretations. Such homage, it is argued, was performed in respect of certain English baronies which happened to belong by hereditary right to the kings of Scotland, namely, the earldom of Huntingdon, the isolated position of which enabled the English Crown without danger to admit the claim, and the counties of Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmoreland, the proximity of which to the border rendered their possession by a Scottish prince a source of weakness to England.^[1045] The terms in which the oath of homage was taken did not indicate for what fiefs it was sworn—whether for the English earldoms alone, or for the whole country north of Tweed as well.

The position of the kings of Scots remained ambiguous in this respect, until William the Lion was placed at a terrible disadvantage by his capture at Alnwick in 1174, after supporting the rebellion against Henry II. To gain his release he ratified the Treaty of Falaise on 8th December, of that year, by which he agreed in future to hold all his territories as fiefs of the English Crown. All his tenants in Scotland were to take a direct oath to Henry; while hostages were surrendered along with the castles of Berwick, Roxburgh, Jedburgh, Edinburgh, and Stirling.^[1046]

539This notable achievement of Henry’s diplomacy was, like other portions of his life’s work, undone by his successor. Richard, preparing for his crusade of 1190, sold recklessly every right that would fetch a price: William bought back the independence of his ancient kingdom; but this restoration of the relations that had prevailed previous to 1174, involved a restoration of all the old ambiguities. When Richard died, William despatched ambassadors to England, pressing his claims upon the northern counties, promising to support John’s title in return for their admission, and adding threats.^[1047]

John avoided committing himself to a definite answer until his position in England was assured; thereafter he commanded William to do homage unconditionally. The Scots king disregarded the first summons, but yielded to a second, taking the oath in public on the summit of the hill of Lincoln, on 21st November, 1200, “reserving always his own right.”^[1048] The saving clause left everything vague as before.

In April, 1209, the king of Scots incurred John’s displeasure by sheltering bishops who had supported the policy of Rome in the matter of the interdict. William’s only son, Alexander, was demanded as a hostage, or alternatively three border castles must be delivered up. After a refusal, the old king gave in on 7th August, 1209.^[1049] Alexander did homage on behalf of his father “for the aforesaid castles and other lands which he held,” and found sureties for the payment of 15,000 marks. William’s daughters, Margaret and Isabel (the two ladies referred to in Magna Carta) became the wards of John, who had the right to bestow them in marriage—stipulations which come suspiciously near an admission of feudal vassalage.^[1050] There seems, however, 540to have been some understanding that one of them should wed John’s eldest son.^[1051] Margaret and Isabel, though kept virtually as prisoners in Corfe Castle, Dorset, were yet honourably and kindly treated there. The Close Rolls of the reign contain several entries (which read strangely enough among the sterner memorials of John’s diplomacy) containing orders for supplying them with articles of comfort and luxury. Thus on 6th July, 1213, John, busy as he must have been with affairs of state, instructed the Mayor of Winchester to despatch in haste for the use of his niece Eleanor and of the two Scots princesses robes of dark green (tunics and super-tunics) with capes of cambric and fur of miniver, together with twenty-three yards of good linen cloth, with light shoes for summer wear, “and the Mayor is to come himself with all the above articles to Corfe, there to receive the money for the cost of the same.”^[1052] Margaret and Isabel had no reason to complain of such treatment, whatever thoughts the Mayor of Winchester may have had of so liberal an interpretation of his civic duties.

Meanwhile, events in Scotland had favoured English pretensions. In the year 1212, William, now in advanced age, although his son was still a stripling, was compelled by internal troubles to appeal for aid to John. Cuthred, a claimant for the Scottish throne as a descendant of Donald Bane MacWilliam, having acquired a considerable following in Scotland, endeavoured to dethrone King William; and his attempt seemed likely to succeed, when English succour was asked and paid for by a Treaty signed at Norham on 7th February, 1212. By this, William granted to John the right to marry the young Alexander, then fourteen years of age, “sicut hominem suum ligium,” to whomsoever he would, at any time within the next six 541years, but always "without disparagement"—a phrase already explained.^[1053] William further pledged himself and his son to keep faith and allegiance to John’s son, Henry, “as their liege lord” against all mortals.^[1054] The young Scottish prince thereafter journeyed southwards in the train of John, by whom he was knighted on the 4th of March at London. In June an English army entered Scotland; the pretender was defeated and killed. William had saved his Crown, but his independence was impaired. Scotland was gradually sinking into the position of a vassal state. This was recognized at Rome. On 28th October, 1213, Innocent III., among other healing measures consequent on John’s surrender of his kingdom, ordered the king of Scotland and his son to show fealty and devotion to John, in terms similar to those addressed to the English barons.^[1055]

William the Lion died at Stirling on 4th December, 1214, and Alexander was crowned at Scone two days later,^[1056] his peaceful succession being facilitated by the knowledge that he had the support of John. On 28th April, 1215, the English king, already deep in his quarrel with the barons, acknowledged receipt of Thomas Colville and other Scotsmen as hostages.^[1057] Such was the position of affairs when John was brought to bay at Runnymede. The barons were willing to bid for the alliance of Alexander; yet it was unnecessary to bid high, since his unsatisfied claims on the northern counties predisposed him against the English king. The barons, therefore, did nothing calculated to endanger such hold as England had over the Scottish Crown. John promised to restore Alexander’s sisters and other hostages unconditionally, but used words which committed him on none of the disputed points.^[1058] 542Franchises and “right” were to be restored only in so far as accorded with the terms of King William’s “charters” as interpreted by the judgment of the English barons in the court of the English king.^[1059]

The allusion to the Scottish king as one among “our other barons of England” need not be pressed against Alexander any more than similar expressions should be pressed against John, whose position as Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine in no way made England a fief of the French Crown. In questions affecting his feudal position in France, John’s peers were the dukes and counts of that country; and similarly those who had a right to sit in judgment as Alexander’s peers over his claims to English fiefs were the English earls and barons. Such a tribunal was not likely to give decisions favourable to Scots pretensions at the expense of England.^[1060]

Alexander, though no party to the treaty at Runnymede, was willing to extract such benefit from it as he could. Accordingly, on 7th July, 1215, he despatched the Archbishop of St. Andrews and five laymen to John “concerning our business which we have against you to be transacted in your court.”^[1061] Nothing came of this; and when the civil war began Alexander invaded England in order to push his claims. John swore his usual oath, "by God’s teeth," that he would “chase the little red-haired fox-cub from his 543hiding holes.”^[1062] Neither Alexander’s participation in the war nor the subsequent efforts of diplomacy achieved settlement of the questions in dispute. None of the latent ambiguities had been finally removed when the relations between the two countries entered on a new phase as a consequence of the attempts at annexation made by Edward I., “the hammer of the Scots.”

CHAPTER SIXTY.

Omnes autem istas consuetudines predictas et libertates quas nos concessimus in regno nostro tenendas quantum ad nos pertinet erga nostros, omnes de regno nostro, tam clerici quam laici, observent quantum ad se pertinet erga suos.

Moreover, all the aforesaid customs and liberties, the observance of which we have granted in our kingdom as far as pertains to us towards our men, shall be observed by all of our kingdom, as well clergy as laymen, as far as pertains to them towards their men.

It would have been as impolitic as it was obviously unfair for the barons, in their capacity of mesne lords, to inflict upon their own tenants—the men without whose support they would have been powerless at Runnymede—those very exactions which they compelled the king to abjure as against themselves. Accordingly, the benefit of the same “customs and liberties” conceded by John to his feudal tenants was—in a somewhat perfunctory manner it is true—extended also to the feudal tenants of all other magnates, whether cleric or lay. Although the reference to “customs and liberties” was quite general in its terms, it seems natural to infer that feudal 544grievances were chiefly, if not exclusively, intended, since the view of society indicated is feudal rather than national, and this is quite in keeping with many other clauses of the Charter.

These considerations suggest that too wide and liberal a view has sometimes been taken of the scope of this chapter. Coke treated it as affecting not merely freeholders, but the whole mass of the people, and as enunciating a doctrine of mutual responsibility between the king and his subjects. “This is the chief felicity of a kingdom, when good laws are reciprocally of prince and people (as is here undertaken) duly observed.”^[1063] In this view he has had many followers, and the present chapter has received undue emphasis as supporting a democratic interpretation of Magna Carta.^[1064] It has sometimes been referred to as “the only clause which affects the whole body of the people.”^[1065] The better view is that its provisions were confined to freeholders.

Even authors who interpret the chapter in this restricted application are still prone to exaggerate its importance. Two opposite lines of comment, in favour respectively with historians of two different schools, seem equally in need of supplement. (1) This clause is sometimes regarded as springing directly from the barons’ own uncontrolled initiative. Dr. Stubbs takes this view, contrasting its substance with similar restraints imposed by Henry I. on the barons by his Charter of Liberties, and emphasizing as specially notable the fact that the present clause was “adopted by the lords themselves.”^[1066] Such praise is unmerited; the barons had no option, since the omission of provisions to this effect would have been a glaring absurdity and a most imprudent act. (2) On the other hand, credit for the clause, equally unwarranted, has been sometimes bestowed on John. Dr. Robert Henry 545says that “this article, which was highly reasonable, was probably inserted at the desire of the king.”^[1067]

The substance of this chapter appears in the reissues of 1217 and 1225; but its force is there greatly impaired by the addition of a new clause inconsistent with its spirit, reserving to archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, templars, hospitallers, earls, barons, and all other persons as well ecclesiastical as secular, all the franchises and free customs they previously had.^[1068] The chief object of this was presumably to make it clear that Magna Carta, while conferring benefits, took nothing away; but it would naturally be interpreted as a saving clause in favour of aristocrats in their relations with their dependants (“erga suos”) as well as with the Crown, thus modifying the clause which immediately preceded it.

CHAPTER SIXTY-ONE.

Cum autem pro Deo, et ad emendacionem regni nostri, et ad melius sopiendam discordiam inter nos et barones nostros ortam, hec omnia predicta concesserimus, volentes ea integra et firma stabilitate in perpetuum^[1069] gaudere, facimus et concedimus eis securitatem subscriptam; videlicet quod barones eligant viginti quinque barones de regno quos voluerint, qui debeant pro totis viribus suis observare, tenere, et facere observari, pacem et libertates quas eis concessimus, et hac presenti carta nostra confirmavimus, ita scilicet quod, si nos, vel justiciarius noster, vel ballivi nostri, vel aliquis de ministris nostris, in aliquo erga 546aliquem deliquerimus, vel aliquem articulorum pacis aut securitatis transgressi fuerimus, et delictum ostensum fuerit quatuor baronibus de predictis viginti quinque baronibus, illi quatuor barones accedant ad nos vel ad justiciarum nostrum, si fuerimus extra regnum, proponentes nobis excessum, petent ut excessum illum sine dilacione faciamus emendari. Et si nos excessum non emendaverimus, vel, si fuerimus extra regnum justiciarius noster non emendaverit, infra tempus quadraginta dierum computandum a tempore quo monstratum fuerit nobis vel justiciario nostro si extra regnum fuerimus, predicti quatuor barones referant causam illam ad residuos de viginti quinque baronibus, et illi viginti quinque barones cum communa tocius terre distringent et gravabunt nos modis omnibus quibus poterunt, scilicet per capcionem castrorum, terrarum, possessionum, et aliis modis quibus poterunt, donec fuerit emendatum secundum arbitrium eorum, salva persona nostra et regine nostre et liberorum nostrorum; et cum fuerit emendatum intendent nobis sicut prius fecerunt. Et quicumque voluerit de terra juret quod ad predicta omnia exequenda parebit mandatis predictorum viginti quinque baronum, et quod gravabit nos pro posse suo cum ipsis, et nos publice et libere damus licenciam jurandi cuilibet qui jurare voluerit, et nulli umquam jurare prohibebimus. Omnes autem illos de terra qui per se et sponte sua noluerint jurare viginti quinque baronibus, de distringendo et gravando nos cum eis, faciemus jurare eosdem de mandato nostro, sicut predictum est. Et si aliquis de viginti quinque baronibus decesserit, vel a terra recesserit, vel aliquo alio modo impeditus fuerit, quominus ista predicta possent exequi, qui residui fuerint de predictis viginti quinque baronibus eligant alium loco ipsius, pro arbitrio suo, qui simili modo erit juratus quo et ceteri. In omnibus autem que istis viginti quinque baronibus committuntur exequenda, si forte ipsi viginti quinque presentes fuerint, et inter se super re aliqua discordaverint, vel aliqui ex eis summoniti nolint vel nequeant interesse, ratum habeatur et firmum quod major pars eorum qui presentes fuerint providerit, vel preceperit, ac si omnes 547viginti quinque in hoc consensissent; et predicti viginti quinque jurent quod omnia antedicta fideliter observabunt, et pro toto posse suo facient observari. Et nos nichil impetrabimus ab aliquo, per nos nec per alium, per quod aliqua istarum concessionum et libertatum revocetur vel minuatur; et, si aliquid tale impetratum fuerit, irritum sit et inane et numquam eo utemur per nos nec per alium.

Since, moreover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom, and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance for ever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five-and-twenty barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault toward anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence be notified to four barons of the foresaid five-and-twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression corrected without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five-and-twenty barons, and those five-and-twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole land, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations towards us. And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five-and twentyfive-and twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power; and we publicly and freely grant leave to every one who wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid anyone to swear. All those, moreover, in the land who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling to swear to the twenty-five to help them in constraining 548and molesting us, we shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid. And if any one of the five-and-twenty barons shall have died or departed from the land, or be incapacitated in any other manner which would prevent the foresaid provisions being carried out, those of the said twenty-five barons who are left shall choose another in his place according to their own judgment, and he shall be sworn in the same way as the others. Further, in all matters the execution of which is entrusted to these twenty-five barons, if perchance these twenty-five are present and disagree about anything, or if some of them, after being summoned, are unwilling or unable to be present, that which the majority of those present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and established, exactly as if the whole twenty-five had concurred in this; and the said twenty-five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all that is aforesaid, and cause it to be observed with all their might. And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such thing has been procured, let it be void and null, and we shall never use it personally or by another.

This important chapter stands by itself, providing machinery for enforcing all that precedes it. It thus forms what modern jurisprudence would describe as the “sanction” of the whole, but what was known in the current phrase of its own day as “the form of security” (forma securitatis ad observandum pacem et libertates).^[1070] It contains the only executive clause of the Charter, the sole constitutional machinery provided for enforcing the rights now defined on parchment, the sole protection against future attempts of the king to render them of no effect.

I. The Nature of the “Security” or legal Sanction. The procedure devised for enforcing the Charter was exceedingly crude: John conferred upon twenty-five of his most bitter 549enemies a legal right to organize rebellion, whenever in their opinion he had broken one of the provisions of Magna Carta. Violence might be legally used against him, until he redressed their alleged grievances “to their own satisfaction” (secundum arbitrium eorum). If it had been possible to put so violent an expedient in practice, the “sovereignty,” or supreme power in England, would have been split into two for practical purposes. While the old monarchy remained theoretically intact, John would have held the sceptre, still nominally his, only until his opponents declared that he had broken some part of the Charter, when, by his own previously-granted mandate, it would pass, along with wide powers of coercion, to the twenty-five barons forming what is sometimes described as a Committee of Executors, but which was rather a Committee of Rebellion.^[1071] Instead of using, as was afterwards done with steadily increasing success, the king’s own administrative machinery and his own servants to restrain his own misdeeds, the barons preferred to set up a rival executive of their own, with wide but ill-defined powers, and connected with the older executive by no constitutional bonds. So long as a single alleged grievance remained unredressed, a new administration composed of John’s political antagonists existed in an attitude of, at best, armed neutrality, side by side with King John as the representative of the older system of monarchic administration.

The procedure for redressing grievances was described in some detail; the wronged party must make known his case to four barons of the twenty-five, and these would then personally make it known to the king, and ask redress. John was allowed time to effect this, but if he refused or delayed, then compulsion might be used. The Articles of the Barons had left the maximum term of delay unspecified, merely saying “within a reasonable time to be determined in the Charter.” The Charter did determine this, naming forty days. Compulsion might take any form (for example 550seizure of castles, lands, and personal estate), except violence against the person of the king, or against his wife or children. The present chapter, then, contained the only legal sanction mentioned in the Charter, and this may be briefly summarized as the delegation by John to a revolutionary committee of the baronial opposition, of wide powers of coercion to be used against him.

II. Minor Details of the Scheme. Although the whole expedient seems utterly chimerical to the modern mind, the opposition leaders in 1215 evidently thought they had devised a practicable scheme of government. This is shown by the care with which they elaborated the procedure to be adopted at different stages and in various contingencies.

(1) Appointment of the twenty-five executors. The members of the committee were to be, in the first instance, “elected” (a loose word already discussed) by the “barons.” The majores barones of chapter 14 would undoubtedly have the controlling voice; but the minores barones might possibly have taken some share in the appointment. Vacancies which occurred through death, absence from England, or any other cause, were to be filled by the method now known as “co-optation.” The committee, once appointed, would form a close corporation; no one uncongenial to the majority could gain admission—an arrangement with a thoroughly oligarchic flavour. The provision for supplying vacancies caused by death proves that the scheme was not to be temporary, but to last during John’s lifetime or longer. Twenty-five magnates seem to have been actually selected. The writs issued to the Sheriffs on 19th June command the enforcement of the oath to the twenty-five barons, but do not mention them by name. Matthew Paris supplies the omission, and though he does not disclose the source of his information, it is unlikely that so comprehensive a list could be entirely a work of the imagination.^[1072] They occur in the following order, the earls of Hertford, Aumâle, Gloucester, Winchester, Hereford, Norfolk, and 551Oxford, William Marshall the younger, Robert fitz Walter the elder, Gilbert de Clare, Eustace de Vesci, Hugh Bigod, William of Mowbray, William Hardell (Mayor of London), William de Lanvalei, Robert de Ros, John de Lacy (Constable of Chester), Richard de Perci, John fitz Robert, William Mallet, Geoffrey de Say, Roger de Mumbezon, William of Huntingfield, Richard de Muntfitchet, and William of Albini.^[1073] There are here no churchmen and no members of the moderate party whose names appear in the preamble. All except two, or at the most three, of the twenty-five were drawn from those factions of the baronage who were the declared enemies of John.^[1074] It was an oligarchy of disaffected Crown tenants, whose baronial homogeneity was only broken by the presence of one representative of other classes, the Mayor of London. Such a committee was not likely to use the excessive powers delegated to it by John to further any other interests than its own. Even Stephen Langton and his fellow-prelates were soon to discover this, as the two protests issued by them clearly prove.

(2) A majority of those present to form a quorum. Driven by the necessities of the case, the barons devised, or stumbled upon, a peculiarly modern expedient. The presence of every member of the committee of twenty-five could not reasonably be expected upon every occasion, while absolute unanimity on questions of delicacy would be difficult to obtain. It was provided, accordingly, that the will of the majority of those present should prevail. It 552would be inaccurate to say, in modern phraseology, that thirteen formed a quorum, since the quorum varied with the number of those present. It is notable that no provision was made for summoning or constituting meetings of the committee endowed with these tremendous powers. Room was thus left for packed meetings of one faction being hurriedly convened and usurping the rights of the whole body. The precedent thus tentatively introduced for the right of a majority to act for the whole was followed only timidly and at long intervals. Still, its appearance in John’s Charter marks a stage in the advance of the valuable principle of modern politics which substitutes the “counting of heads for the breaking of them.”

(3) The sub-committee of four. Four of the twenty-five Executors were to act as a medium of intercourse between aggrieved individuals and the king, being charged with the duty of hearing complaints and laying them before John. Such a position would involve wide discretionary powers; for if the four barons refused to endorse the justice of the complaint, John also would be in safety to refuse.^[1075]

(4) Local agents of the twenty-five executors. In each county the twelve knights, whose original function was to preside at inquiries into “evil customs,” came to act as the local representatives of the revolutionary committee, being associated with the sheriff in the discharge of all his duties and armed with power to constrain him to carry out the provisions of Magna Carta, very much as the twenty-five were authorized to constrain the king. In particular, these knights were charged with the enforcement of the oath of obedience to the revolutionary committee, 553and with the confiscation of the property of all who refused.^[1076]

(5) The part to be played by the public. The king authorized his subjects to side with the executors and against him if he should violate the Charter, and to assist them in such acts of violence as the forcible seizure of his castles, lands, and personal estate; for his general mandate was granted to the twenty-five “cum communa totius terre,” while licence was “freely and publicly” bestowed on everyone so disposed to swear obedience to the Executors in all such acts, and to bring their weight to bear on the king to the best of their ability. Two aspects of this provision require special attention: (a) Its relation to allegiance and treason. It was intended to operate as a provisional release of John’s subjects from their oaths of fealty and homage, and consequently from the pains and penalties of the treason laws. John solemnly authorized his subjects, in certain circumstances, to transfer their allegiance from himself to the committee of his foes. If they refused, he promised to compel them; and on 27th June, 1215, writs were actually issued instructing the seizure of the lands and goods of all who would not swear to obey the twenty-five.^[1077] (b) Communa totius terre. The “community of the whole land” was thus to afford active help in subjecting the king to the reign of law; and the phrase has been pressed into the service of democracy by enthusiasts who seek to magnify modern conceptions by finding their roots in the past. Few words of medieval Latin offer a more tempting field to enquirers than this communa, which, with its English and French equivalents, holds the key to many problems of constitutional origins. A group of interesting questions clusters round the three words “borough, guild, and commune,” and the appearance in Magna Carta of a body described as a “commune” (communa totius terre) in conjunction with an oath of obedience to a revolutionary committee suggests an interesting comparison with the form of civic constitution known in that age as “the 554sworn commune.”^[1078] A second field of enquiry, equally alluring, is suggested by the fact that the lower chamber of the Mother of Parliaments, the English “House of Commons,” was originally composed of the representatives of the various communes or communities known as counties and boroughs respectively.