Note 583 — MAGNA CARTA. (continued 3)

Cf. Pollock and Maitland (II. 512), who describe Henry’s promise as “a return to the old Anglo-Saxon system of pre-appointed wites.” In order to avoid unnecessary confusion, no mention has been made in the account given above of a classification of amercements into three degrees, which increases the obscurity surrounding their origin. The Dialogus de Scaccario, II. xvi., tells how (a) for grave crimes, the culprit’s life and limbs were at the king’s mercy as well as his property; (b) for less important offences, his lands were forfeited, but his person was safe; while (c) for minor faults, his moveable effects only were at the king’s disposal. In the last case, the offender was “in misericordia regis de pecunia sua.” Thus to be “in mercy” did not always mean the same thing. Further, a villein or dependent freeman on a manor might fall in the “mercy” of his lord, as well as of the king. The records of manorial courts are full of petty amercements for petty transgressions of the customs of the manor.