II. _Composition of the Council._ It is clear that the meetings contemplated were purely baronial assemblies since none but Crown tenants were invited to attend; while individual notice under the king’s seal was given only to the more important magnates among them. The Common Council of the Charter was thus an assembly of military Crown tenants, and “the common consent of my kingdom” in John’s mouth was synonymous with “the consent of my barons.”[500] ----- Footnote 500: This is illustrated by a comparison of the words used in the text with the phrases in which Henry and his sons expressed “the common consent” to important ordinances and charters: _e.g._ (_a_) the Assize of Clarendon in 1166 (_Select Charters_, 143) bears to have been ordained by Henry II. “_de consilio omnium baronum suorum_”; (_b_) John’s Charter surrendering his kingdom to Innocent in 1213 declares that he acted “_communi consilio baronum nostrorum_” (_Select Charters_, 285); (_c_) Matthew Paris makes Earl Richard complain to his brother Henry III. in 1255 that the Apulian business had been entered on “_sine consilio suo et assensu barnagii_” (_Chron. Maj._ V. 520). ----- The king’s Council had by this time freed itself from any complicated theories as to its own composition, which may ever have hampered it. It was now extremely homogeneous; a feudal muster of Crown vassals. Some historians, indeed, in their anxiety to find distinguished pedigrees for their democratic ideals, have traced the origins of the leading features of the modern Parliament back to the Anglo-Saxon era; but such attempts are hurtful to the best interests of history, while they do not in the least advance the cause of popular liberties.