We are touching the root of the perturbation of the kingdom of which we are speaking, and of the dissension of the parties who fought the said battle. The objects at which these two parties aimed were different. The King, with his, wished thus to be free; and so (it was urged on his side) he ought to be; and he must cease to be King, deprived of the rights of a King, unless he could do whatever he pleased. It was no part of the duty of the magnates of the kingdom to determine whom he should prefer to his earldoms, or on whom he should confer the custody of castles, or whom he would have to administer justice to the people, and to be Chancellor and Treasurer of the kingdom. He would have everyone at his own will, and counsellors from whatever nation he chose, and all ministers at his own discretion; while the Barons of England are not to interfere with the King's actions, the command of the Prince having the force of law, and what he may dictate binding everybody at his pleasure. For every Earl also is thus his own master, giving to everyone of his own men both as much as he will, and to whom he will; and although he be a subject, the King permits it all. Which, if he do well, is profitable to the doer; if not, he must himself see to it; the King will not hinder him from injuring himself. Why is the Prince worse in condition, when the affairs of the Baron, the knight, and the freeman, are thus managed? Therefore they aim at making the King a slave, who wish to diminish his power, to take away his dignity of Prince; they wish by sedition to reduce captive into guardianship and subjection the royal power, and to disinherit the King, that he shall be unable to reign so fully as hitherto have done the Kings who preceded him, who were in no respect subjected to their people, but administered their own affairs at their will, and conferred what they had to confer according to their own pleasure. This is the King's argument, which has an appearance of fairness, and this is alleged in defence of the right of the kingdom.