Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John: With an Historical IntroductionMcKechnie, William Sharp
History
Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John: With an Historical Introduction
McKechnie, William Sharp
Constitutional history -- England -- Sources; Law -- England -- History; Law -- England -- Sources; Magna Carta
or sub-tenants), and must reserve in his own hands sufficient lands out
of the proceeds of which to fulfil them. The final solution of the
problem, here temporarily disposed of, was contained in the Statute
commonly known as _Quia Emptores_,[264] which allowed the tenant to
dispose of parts of his estate by way of substitution, while forbidding
subinfeudation entirely.
-----
Footnote 264:
18 Edward I., also known as Westminster III.
-----
Chapter 43 marks the growing hostility against the accumulation by the
monasteries of wealth in the form of landed estates, and begins the
series of legislative measures which culminated in the Statute of
Mortmain.[265] The times were not ripe in 1217 for a final solution of
this problem, and the charter of that year contented itself with an
attempt to remedy one of the subsidiary abuses of the system merely, and
not to abolish the main evil. An ingenious expedient had been devised by
lawyers to enable tenants to cheat their lords out of some of the lawful
feudal incidents. Religious houses formed one species of corporation,
and all corporations made bad tenants, since, as they never died, the
lord of the fief was deprived of the possibility of a wardship, relief,
or escheat falling to him. This was a hardship; but it was not unfair,
provided that the transaction which made the abbey or monastery owner of
the subjects was a _bona fide_ one. Sometimes, however, more or less
collusive agreements were made between a lay free-holder and a religious
house whereby a new link was inserted in the feudal chain to the
prejudice of the freeholder’s lord. The freeholder bestowed his lands on
a particular house, which took his place as the new tenant of the lord
and then subinfeudated the same subjects to the original tenant, who
thus got his lands back again, but now became tenant of the church, not
of his former lord. The lord was thus left with a corporation for his
tenant and lost all the profitable incidents, which would, under the new
arrangement, accrue to the church when the freeholder died. Such
expedients were prohibited, under pain of forfeiture, by chapter 43 of
the re-issue of 1217; and this prohibition was interpreted very
liberally by the lords in their own favour.[266]
-----
Footnote 265:
7 Edward I., also known as the Statute _de religiosis_.
Footnote 266:
See Pollock and Maitland, I. 314.
-----
These were the main alterations made in 1217 in the tenor of the Great
Charter.[267] This re-issue is of great importance, since it represents
practically the final form taken by the Charter, only two changes being
made in subsequent issues.[268] On the 22nd February, 1218, copies of
the Great Charter in this new form were sent to the sheriffs to be
published and enforced. In the writs accompanying them, the special
attention directed to the clause against unlicensed castles shows the
importance attached to their demolition.[269]
-----
Footnote 267:
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account