In 1168, when Henry II. took an aid for the marriage of his daughter, London contributed £617 16s. 8d., which might afford a precedent for a “reasonable” aid. See _Pipe Roll_, 14 Henry II., cited Madox, I. 585. ----- It is equally probable, however, that the intention was to render the same consent necessary to the validity of aids, asked from London, as had previously been stipulated in the case of scutages from tenants in chief. If this is so, then the method provided in chapter 14 for taking “the common counsel of the realm” was peculiarly ill-adapted to secure to the men of London any effective voice in taxing themselves. The necessity for the consent of an exclusively baronial assembly could not adequately protect the Londoners, whose essentially different interests were unrepresented. Subsequent history casts no light on the original intention of this clause; no occasion of testing its meaning ever occurred, the entire chapter of which it forms part having been omitted from all subsequent issues of the Charter. (6) _Later history of the Crown’s right to tallage the towns._ Magna Carta, even in its original form, did not deprive the king of his right to tallage London, like any other part of his ancient demesne; and the Crown continued quite legally and almost without question to exercise this prerogative at intervals from 1215 until 1340. It has sometimes been maintained, indeed, that the _Confirmatio Cartarum_ of 1297 was intended to abolish this prerogative, and it is true, that a document once considered as an authoritative version of the _Confirmatio_ bore the suggestive title of _De tallagio non concedendo_. It is now well known that the latter document is quite unauthentic; while, if the _confirmatio_ itself was intended to relieve the towns from tallages taken without their consent, it signally failed. Edward III. occasionally exacted tallages from London and other towns. His parliaments, however, sought to prohibit this, and succeeded, in 1340, in passing a statute which abolished, in words peculiarly wide and categorical, unparliamentary taxation of every kind whatsoever. This act, which is sometimes styled by modern writers “the real _statutum de tallagio non concedendo_,” is held by Dr. Stubbs to have conclusively abolished _inter alia_ the Crown’s right of tallage.[474] This finally settled the law, but did not prevent the king from trying to break that law. In subsequent years Edward III. frequently disregarded the restriction thus placed upon his financial resources, and with varying success. He rarely did so, however, without meeting protests; and the rule of law laid down in the act of 1340 was never repealed. ----- Footnote 474: See _Const. Hist._, II. 548. “Of the scope of this enactment there can be no doubt; it must have been intended to cover every species of tax not authorised by parliament, and ... it seems to have had the effect of abolishing the royal prerogative of tallaging demesne.”