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
Thus gradually and insidiously throughout the entire reign of John, the
stream of feudal obligations by many different channels steadily rose
until the barons feared that nothing of their property would be saved
from the torrent. The normal rate of scutage had been raised, the
frequency of its imposition had been increased, the conditions of
foreign service had become more burdensome, and the objects of foreign
expeditions more unpopular; while attempts were sometimes made to exact
both service and scutage in the same year. The limit of the barons’
endurance was reached when, on 26th May, 1214, John, already discredited
by his unsuccessful expeditions in Poitou, soon to be followed by the
utter overthrow of his allies at Bouvines, issued writs for a scutage at
the unheard-of rate of three marks, grounded doubtless on the inquest of
1212 and unusually far-reaching in the subjects which it embraced.[139]
-----
Footnote 139:
See Miss Norgate, _John Lackland_, 210, and cf. _supra_, p. 37.
-----
Then the final crash came; this writ was like a call to arms—a call not
to follow the King’s banner, but to fight against him.
III. Royal Justice and Feudal Justice.
A well-known aphorism of legal text-books, couched in language unusually
figurative, declares the King to be “the sole fountain of justice.”
Correct as it is to apply this metaphor to the present state of the
constitution, it would be an anachronism and a blunder to transport it
into the thirteenth century. In John’s reign there still were—as there
had been for centuries—not one, but many competing jurisdictions. It was
by no means a foregone conclusion that the King’s Courts were the proper
tribunals to which a wronged individual must repair to seek redress. On
the contrary, the great bulk of the rural population, the villeins, had
no _locus standi_ except in the court of the manor to which they
belonged; while the doors of the royal Courts had been closed against
the ordinary freeman previous to the reign of Henry II. Royal justice
was still the exception, not the rule. Each man must seek redress, in
the ordinary case, in his own locality. To dispense justice to the
nation at large was no part of the normal business of a medieval King.
I. _Rival Systems of Law Courts._ In the thirteenth century, there
existed not one source of justice, but many. Rival courts, eagerly
competing to extend their own sphere of usefulness and to increase their
own fees, existed in a bewildering multitude. Putting aside for the
moment the Courts Christian, the Borough Courts, the Forest Courts, and
all exceptional or peculiar tribunals, there existed three great rival
systems of jurisdiction which may be named in the order in which they
became in turn prominent in England.
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