Part 15 (1/2)

Hallam says, that ”For the first three reigns (of the Norman kings) *

* the intolerable exactions of tribute, the rapine of purveyance, the iniquity of royal courts, are continually in the mouths of the historians. 'G.o.d sees the wretched people,' says the Saxon Chronicler, 'most unjustly oppressed; first they are despoiled of their possessions, and then butchered.' This was a grievous year (1124). Whoever had any property, lost it by heavy taxes and unjust decrees.”--_2 Middle Ages_, 435-6.

”In the succeeding reign of _John_, all the rapacious exactions usual to these Norman kings were not only redoubled, but mingled with outrages of tyranny still more intolerable. * *

”In 1207 John took a seventh of the movables of lay and spiritual persons, all murmuring, but none daring to speak against it.”--_Ditto_, 446.

In Hume's account of the extortions of those times, the following paragraph occurs:

”But the most barefaced acts of tyranny and oppression were practised against the Jews, who were entirely out of the protection of the law, and were abandoned to the immeasurable rapacity of the king and his ministers. Besides many other indignities, to which they were continually exposed, it appears that they were once all thrown into prison, and the sum of 66,000 marks exacted for their liberty. At another time, Isaac, the Jew, paid alone 5100 marks; Brun, 3000 marks; Jurnet, 2000; Bennet, 500. At another, Licorica, widow of David, the Jew of Oxford, was required to pay 6000 marks.”--_Hume's Hist. Eng., Appendix_ 2.

Further accounts of the extortions and oppressions of the kings may be found in Hume's History, Appendix 2, and in Hallam's Middle Ages, vol.

2, p. 435 to 446.

By Magna Carta John bound himself to make rest.i.tution for some of the spoliations he had committed upon individuals ”_without the legal judgment of their peers_.”--_See Magna Carta of John_, ch. 60, 61, 65 and 66.

One of the great charges, on account of which the nation rose against John, was, that he plundered individuals of their property, ”_without legal judgment of their peers_.” Now it was evidently very weak and short-sighted in John to expose himself to such charges, _if his laws were really obligatory upon the peers_; because, in that case, he could have enacted any laws that were necessary for his purpose, and then, by civil suits, have brought the cases before juries for their ”judgment,”

and thus have accomplished all his robberies in a perfectly legal manner.

There would evidently have been no sense in these complaints, that he deprived men of their property ”_without legal judgment of their peers_,” if his laws had been binding upon the peers; because he could then have made the same spoliations as well with the judgment of the peers as without it. Taking the judgment of the peers in the matter, would have been only a ridiculous and useless formality, if they were to exercise no discretion or conscience of their own, independently of the laws of the king.

It may here be mentioned, in pa.s.sing, that the same would be true in criminal matters, if the king's laws were obligatory upon juries.

As an ill.u.s.tration of what tyranny the kings would sometimes practise, Hume says:

”It appears from the Great Charter itself, that not only John, a tyrannical prince, and Richard, a violent one, but their father Henry, under whose reign the prevalence of gross abuses is the least to be suspected, were accustomed, from their sole authority, without process of law, to imprison, banish, and attaint the freemen of their kingdom.”--_Hume, Appendix_ 2.

The provision, also, in the 64th chapter of Magna Carta, that ”all unjust and illegal fines, and all amercements, _imposed unjustly, and contrary to the Law of the Land, shall be entirely forgiven_,” &c.; and the provision, in chapter 61, that the king ”will cause full justice to be administered” in regard to ”all those things, of which any person has, without legal judgment of his peers, been dispossessed or deprived, either by King Henry, our father, or our brother, King Richard,”

indicate the tyrannical practices that prevailed.

We are told also that John himself ”had dispossessed several great men without any judgment of their peers, condemned others to cruel deaths, * * insomuch that his tyrannical will stood instead of a law.”--_Echard's History of England_, 106.

Now all these things were very unnecessary and foolish, if his laws were binding upon juries; because, in that case, he could have procured the conviction of these men in a legal manner, and thus have saved the necessity of such usurpation. In short, if the laws of the king had been binding upon juries, there is no robbery, vengeance, or oppression, which he could not have accomplished through the judgments of juries.

This consideration is sufficient, of itself, to prove that the laws of the king were of no authority over a jury, in either civil or criminal cases, unless the juries regarded the laws as just in themselves.]

[Footnote 70: By the Magna Carta of Henry III. this is changed to once a year.]

[Footnote 71: From the provision of Magna Carta, cited in the text, it must be inferred that there can be no legal trial by jury, in civil cases, if only the king's justices preside; that, to make the trial legal, there must be other persons, chosen by the people, to sit with them; the object being to prevent the jury's being deceived by the justices. I think we must also infer that the king's justices could sit only in the three actions specially mentioned. We cannot go beyond the letter of Magna Carta, in making innovations upon the common law, which required all presiding officers in jury trials to be elected by the people.]

[Footnote 72: ”The earls, sheriffs, and head-boroughs were annually elected in the full folcmote, (people's meeting).”--_Introduction to Gilbert's History of the Common Pleas_, p. 2, _note_.

”It was the especial province of the earldomen or earl to attend the shyre-meeting, (the county court,) twice a year, and there officiate as the county judge in expounding the secular laws, as appears by the fifth of Edgar's laws.”--_Same_, p. 2, _note_.

”Every ward had its proper alderman, who was _chosen_, and not imposed by the prince.”--_Same_, p. 4, _text_.

”As the aldermen, or earls, were always _chosen_” (by the people) ”from among the greatest thanes, who in those times were generally more addicted to arms than to letters, they were but ill-qualified for the administration of justice, and performing the civil duties of their office.”--_3 Henry's History of Great Britain_, 343.

”But none of these thanes were annually elected in the full folcmote, (people's meeting,) _as the earls, sheriffs, and head-boroughs were_; nor did King Alfred (as this author suggests) deprive the people of the election of those last mentioned magistrates and n.o.bles, much less did he appoint them himself.”--_Introd. to Gilbert's Hist. Com. Pleas_, p.