[110] “Magna Carta,” cap. 42 of the second confirmation by Henry III (1217); Stubbs’ “Select Charters,” p. 337. “Nec liceat alicui vicecomiti vel ballivo tenere turnum suum per hundredum nisi bis per annum;” “Fleta,” Lib. ii. cap. 52. [111] See Appendix VI, p. 431. [112] “The articles for the London eyre of 1244 are in ‘Munimenta Gildhallæ,’ i. 79; those for the eyre of 1321 are in ‘Munim. Gild.,’ ii. 347. The latter are fully seven times as long as the former and fill fifteen octavo pages.” Pollock and Maitland, “History of English Law,” ii. 519; cf. “Fleta,” i. cap. 19 and 20: “De Processu coram Justiciariis itinerantibus—De capitulis Coronæ et Itineris.” [113] Originally, _custos placitorum coronæ_, record keeper of the pleas of the Crown. [114] In existence also in France and Germany from the earliest times, thus defined in the “Grand Coutumier de Normandie,” chap. 54: “Il ne doit être crié fors pour cause criminelle, si comme pour feu et pour larcin ou pour homicide ou pour autre évident péril, si comme si aucun court sus à un autre le couteau trait. Car cil qui crie haro sans apert (obvious) péril le doit amender au prince . . . A ce cri doivent isser tous ceux qui l’ont oui.” This custom remained in use in Normandy until the French Revolution. Glasson, “Origines de la clameur de haro,” Paris, 1882. In England the statutes concerning the “hue and cry” were repealed only in 1827. [115] “Fleta,” lib. i. cap. 19, 20. See also “Local Self-Government and Centralization,” by Toulmin Smith, 1848, pp. 220–232, 298. [116] “Mais de cler jour, à la veue de toutz, issint qe gentz de pays puissent veer la peine et la hounte que les ditz atteintz ount, et par tant en soient les meuz chastiez.” Year, probably, 33 Ed. I; Palgrave, “Original Authority of the King’s Council,” p. 56. [117] Reeves, “History of English Law,” ed. Finlason, ii. p. 408. [118] Prologue to the “Canterbury Tales;” The Monk. [119] See Appendix VII, p. 432. [120] “Household Expenses of Richard de Swinfield,” ed. J. Webb, 1854, Camden Society, vols. i. p. 125, ii. pp. xxx–xxxvi. The duels of Thomas de Bruges were not those of the cases of felony and crime which resulted in the death of the vanquished; it was merely the duel with staff and shield, _cum fuste et scuto_, which required, as may be imagined, the replacement of the champion much less frequently. In the twenty-ninth year of Edward III, a duel took place by means of champions between the Bishop of Salisbury and the Earl of Salisbury. When the judges, conformably to the laws, came to examine the dress of the combatants, they found that the bishop’s champion had several sheets of prayers and incantations sown in his garments (“Year Books of Edward I,” Rolls Series, 32–33d year, preface, p. xvi, note). This examination of the clothing was always made with the intention of discovering frauds of this kind, which were considered as the most dangerous and disloyal of all.