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
(_b_) The mass of new business attracted to the King’s Courts made it
necessary to increase, the staff of judges and to distribute the work
among them. A natural division was that ordinary pleas (or common pleas)
should be tried before one set of judges, and royal pleas (or pleas of
the Crown) before another. This distinction is recognized in many
separate chapters.[155] Thus two groups of judges were formed, each of
which was at first rather a committee of the larger _Curia_ as a whole
than an independent tribunal; but, in later years, the two rapidly
developed into entirely separate courts—the Court of Common Pleas (at
first known as the Bench, that is, the ordinary Bench), and the Court of
King’s Bench (that is, the royal Bench, known also at first as the court
_Coram Rege_, since it was always supposed to be held in the King’s
presence).
Footnote 155:
See _infra_, under chapters 17 and 24.
-----
(_c_) Special procedure for determining pleas of disputed titles to land
or rights of possession was also invented by Henry to take the place of
the ancient method of trial by battle. These Assizes, as they were
called, are fully discussed elsewhere.[156] The Grand Assize was looked
on with suspicion by the barons as a procedure competent only before the
royal courts, and therefore closely bound up with the King’s other
devices for substituting his own jurisdiction for that of the private
courts. The petty assizes, on the contrary, met with a ready acceptance,
and the barons in 1215, far from objecting to their continuance,
demanded that they should be held in regular sessions four times a year
in each county of England.
Footnote 156:
See _infra_, under chapter 18.
-----
These were the chief innovations which enabled Henry, while instituting
many reforms urgently required and gladly welcomed by the mass of his
subjects, at the same time to effect a revolution in the relations of
royal justice to feudal justice. As time went on, new royal writs and
remedies were being continually devised to meet new types of cases; and
litigants flocked more and more readily to the King’s Courts, leaving
the seignorial courts empty of business and of fees. Nor was this the
only grievance of the barons. When one of their own number was amerced
or accused of any offence involving loss of liberty or lands, he might
be compelled by the Crown, under Henry and his sons, to submit to have
the amercement assessed or the criminal proceedings conducted by one of
the new Benches (by a tribunal composed of some four or five of the
King’s officials), in place of the time-honoured judgment of his peers
assembled in the _Commune Concilium_ (the predecessor of the modern
Parliament).
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