----- Footnote 332: Dr. Stubbs, _Const. Hist._, I. 582, gives the motive of thus naming them as “the hope of binding the persons whom it includes to the continued support of the hard-won liberties.” Those named were all moderate men. M. Paris (_Chron. Maj._ II., 589) describes them as “_quasi ex parte regis_,” while Ralph of Coggeshall (p. 172) narrates how “by the intervention of the Archbishop of Canterbury, with a few of his bishops and some barons, a kind of peace was made.” Cf. _Annals of Dunstable_, III. 43. The neutrality of the prelates is proved by other evidence. (_a_) C. 62 gave them authority to certify by letters testimonial the correctness of copies of the Charter. (_b_) The 25th of the Articles of the Barons left to their decision whether John should enjoy a crusader’s privileges; while c. 55 gave Langton a special place in determining what fines were unjust. (_c_) The Tower of London was placed in the custody of the archbishop as a neutral man whom both sides could trust. (_d_) Copies are preserved of two protests on different subjects by the prelates in favour of the king. See Appendix. Footnote 333: Cf. _supra_, 43–4, and for biographical information see authorities there cited. ----- III. _The Reasons of the Grant._ The preamble contains also a statement of what purport to be John’s reasons for conceding the Charter. These are quaintly paraphrased by Coke:[334] "Here be four notable causes of the making of this great charter rehearsed. 1. The honour of God. 2. For the health of the King’s soul. 3. For the exaltation of holy church, and fourthly, for the amendment of the Kingdom." The real reason must be sought in another direction, namely, in the army of the rebels; and John in after days did not scruple to plead consent given under threat of violence, as a reason for voiding his grant. The technical legal “consideration,” the _quid pro quo_ which John received as the price of this confirmation of their liberties was the renewal by his opponents of the homage and fealty which they had solemnly renounced. This “consideration” was not stated in the charter, but the fact was known to all.[335] ----- Footnote 334: _Second Institute_, 1, n. Footnote 335: Cf. _supra_, 41. ----- CHAPTER ONE.