III. _Position of the “Minor Barons.”_ In recognizing a distinction between two classes of Crown tenants, the Great Charter merely gave the weight of its authority to existing usage, as that had taken shape in the reign of Henry II. Crown tenants varied in power and position in proportion to the extent of their lands, from the great earl who owned the larger share of one or more counties, down to the small free-holder with only a few hides, or it might be acres, of land. A rough division was drawn somewhere in the midst; but the exact boundary was necessarily vague, and this vagueness was probably encouraged by the Crown, whose requirements might vary from time to time.[503] Those Crown tenants on one side of this fluctuating line were known as _barones majores_, those on the other as _barones minores_. The distinction had been recognized as early as the days of Henry II.;[504] but Magna Carta helped to stereotype it, and contributed to the growing tendency to confine the word “baron” to the greater men.[505] It is unlikely that any “minor baron” who obeyed the general summons would enjoy equal authority with the magnates invited individually by writ; and it is difficult to say even whether he was sure of a welcome, and, if so, in what capacity. Three distinct theories at least have been advanced as to the position occupied by the “minor barons” in the Common Council. (1) The duty of attendance, burdensome to all, was specially burdensome to the poorer Crown tenants. It has accordingly been suggested that the device of inviting them by general summons was intended as an intimation that they need not come. This is the view taken by Prof. Medley.[506] ----- Footnote 503: See Prof. Medley, _Engl. Const. Hist._, 123. Footnote 504: See _Dialogus de Scaccario_, II. x. D., “_baronias scilicet majores seu minores_.” Footnote 505: Cf. _supra_, c. 2. Footnote 506: _Engl. Const. Hist._, 123. “The smaller tenants-in-chief would thankfully regard the general summons as an intimation to stay away.” ----- (2) Dr. Hannis Taylor holds an exactly opposite opinion, reading this chapter as the outcome of a desire to ensure the fuller attendance of the smaller men—as an attempt “to rouse the lesser baronage to the exercise of rights which had practically passed into desuetude.”[507] Each of the _barones minores_ was thus encouraged to attend for himself and his own interests. If such an attempt had really been made, and had succeeded in compelling the attendance of a large proportion of those who previously had almost made good their right to shirk the burden, the result would have been to leave no room whatever for the future introduction of the representative principle into the national council. ----- Footnote 507: _Engl. Const._, I. 466. -----