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
Sir Edward Coke (_Coke upon Littleton_, 77 A) is the original source
of much confusion as to the nature of primer seisin, which he seems to
have considered as a second and additional relief exacted by the Crown
amounting to the whole rent of the first year. The Popes, he further
held (equally erroneously), were only imitating this practice when
they exacted one year’s rent from every newly granted benefice under
the name of “first fruits.” These errors have been widely followed
(_e.g._ Thomson, _Magna Charta_, p. 416, Taswell Langmead, _Const.
Hist._, p. 50).
-----
(_f_) _Fines for alienation_ occupy a place by themselves. Unlike other
incidents already discussed, they became exigible not on the tenant’s
death, but on his wishing to part with his estate to another during his
own lifetime, either as a gift or in return for a price. How far could
he effect this without consent of his lord? This was, for many
centuries, a subject of frequent and heated disputes, often settled by
compromises, in which the tenant paid a fine to the lord for permission
to sell. Such fines are payable at the present day in Scotland (under
the name of “compositions”) from feus granted prior to 1874; and, where
no sum has been mentioned in the Feu Charter, the law of Scotland
defines the amount exigible as one year’s rent. John’s Magna Carta
contains no provisions on this subject. Disputes, long and bitter, took
place later in the thirteenth century; but their history is irrelevant
to the present inquiry.[109]
-----
Footnote 109:
See Taswell Langmead, _Const. Hist._, pp. 51-2; also Pollock and
Maitland, II. 326. _Cf._, however, c. 39 of the re-issue of Magna
Carta in 1217.
-----
II. _Feudal Aids._ The feudal tenant, in addition to fulfilling all the
essentials of the feudal relation and also all the burdensome incidents
already enumerated, was expected to come to the aid of his lord in any
special crisis or emergency. The help thus rendered was by no means
reckoned as a payment to account of the other obligations, which had
also to be paid in full. The additional sums thus given were technically
known as “aids.” At first, the occasions on which these might be
demanded were varied and undefined. Gradually, however, they were
limited to three. Glanvill,[110] indeed, mentions only two, namely, the
knighting of the overlord’s eldest son, and the marriage of his eldest
daughter; but he intends these, perhaps, merely as illustrations rather
than as forming an exhaustive list. Before the beginning of the
thirteenth century the recognized aids were clearly three—the ransoming
of the king and the two already mentioned. This understanding was
embodied in Magna Carta.[111]
-----
Footnote 110:
IX. c. 8.
Footnote 111:
See _infra_, under chapter 12.
-----
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