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
juries specially summoned for that purpose by the sheriff of the county,
and they were obliged to find sureties that they would faithfully
perform their important functions. Only in their presence could loans be
validly contracted between Jews and Christians; and it was their duty to
see the terms of all such bargains reduced to writing in a regular
prescribed form in duplicate copies. No contract was binding unless a
written copy or chirograph had been preserved in one or other of those
repositories or arks, which thus served every purpose of a modern
register, and other purposes as well. If the money-lender suffered
violence and was robbed of his copy of the bond, the debtor was still
held to his obligations by the duplicate which remained. If the Jew and
all his relatives were slain, even then the debtor did not escape, but
was confronted by a new and more powerful creditor, the king himself,
armed with the chirograph. Lists of all transactions were preserved, and
all acquittances and assignments of debts, known from their Hebrew name
as “starrs,” had also to be carefully enrolled.[450] Minute and
stringent rules, codified by Hubert Walter in the terms of a written
commission, were issued to the judges when starting on their circuit in
September, 1194.[451]
Footnote 450:
Cf. J. M. Rigg, _Sel. Pleas of the Jewish Exchequer_, p. xix.
-----
Footnote 451:
See chapter 24 of the _Forma procedendi in placitis coronae regis_,
cited in _Sel. Charters_, 262.
-----
If this cunningly-devised system prevented the Christian debtor from
evading his obligations, it also placed the Jewish creditor completely
at the mercy of the Crown; for the exact wealth of every Jew could be
accurately ascertained from a scrutiny of the contents of the _archae_.
The king’s officials were enabled to judge to a penny how much it was
possible to wring from the coffers of the Jews, whose bonds, moreover,
could be conveniently attached until they paid the tallage demanded. The
custom of fixing on royal castles as the places for keeping these arks,
probably explains the origin of the special jurisdiction exercised over
the Jews by the king’s constables (“_qui turres nostras
custodierunt_”).[452] In the dungeons of their strongholds horrible
engines were at hand for enforcing obedience to their awards. Such
jurisdiction, however, extended legitimately over trivial debts
only.[453] All important pleas were reserved for the officials of the
exchequer of the Jews, a special government department, which controlled
and regulated the whole procedure. Evidences of the existence of this
separate exchequer have been traced back to 1198, although no record has
been found of a date prior to 1218.[454] John, while despising the Jews,
was not slow to realize that in them the Crown possessed an asset of
great value. It was his policy to protect their wealth as a reservoir
from which he might draw in time of need, contenting himself meanwhile
with comparatively moderate sums.
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