Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John: With an Historical Introduction — John Shaqi
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
Among the expedients adopted by the Norman Duke for reducing his
feudatories in England into subjection to the Crown, one of the most
important was the total abolition of the old provinces formerly governed
by separate ealdormen or jarls. Leaving out of account the exceptional
franchises, afterwards known as palatine earldoms, the real
representative of the King in each group of counties was now the sheriff
or _vicecomes_, not the earl. This Latin name of _vicecomes_ is
misleading, since the officer so-called in no sense represented the earl
or _comes_, but acted as the direct agent of the Crown. The name,
“viceroy,” more accurately describes his actual position and functions,
since he was directly responsible to the Crown, and independent of the
earl. The problem of local government, however, was not eradicated by
the substitution of the sheriff for the earl as chief magistrate in the
county; it only took a different form. The sheriffs themselves, when
relieved from the earl’s rivalry and control, tended to become too
powerful. If they never dreamed of openly defying the royal power, they
at least thwarted its exercise indirectly, appropriated to their private
uses items of revenue, pushed their own interests, and punished their
own enemies, while acting in the name of the King. The office threatened
to become territorial and hereditary,[3] and its holders aimed at
independence. New checks had to be devised to prevent this new local
authority from again defying the central power. New safeguards were
found, partly in the organization of the Exchequer and partly in the
device of sending periodically on circuit itinerant justices, who took
precedence of the sheriff, heard complaints against his misdeeds in his
own county, and thus enabled the Crown to keep a watchful eye on its
representatives. By such measures, Henry I. seemed almost to have solved
these problems before his death; but his success was apparent rather
than real.
-----
Footnote 3:
In one county, Westmoreland, the office did become hereditary.
-----
The incompleteness of Henry’s solution of the difficulty became evident
under Stephen, when the leading noble of each locality tried, generally
with success, to capture _both_ offices for himself; great earls like
Ralph of Chester and Geoffrey of Essex compelled the King not only to
confirm them as sheriffs in their own titular counties, but also to
confer on them exclusive right to act as justices therein.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account