II. The Influence of Magna Carta upon later Practice. This chapter, along with chapters 12 and 14, was discarded by Henry III.; and little difference, if any, can be traced between the practices that prevailed before and after 1215. Only in one particular were the requirements of John’s Magna Carta observed, namely, as regards the need for obtaining a royal licence. Mesne lords after this date, whatever may have been their reason, invariably asked the Crown’s help to collect their aids. They could not legally distrain their freeholders, except through the sheriff, and this was, in part at least, a result of Magna Carta.[[521]]
Henry III., however, entirely disregarded the rule which forbade the licensing of extraordinary aids. Like his ancestors, he was prepared to grant writs on almost any plausible pretext. From the Patent and Close Rolls, as well as from other sources, illustrations of the Crown’s earlier and later practice may readily be collected.
(1) Scutages. In 1217, for example, Henry granted permission to all Crown tenants who had served in person to collect scutage from their knights.[[522]]
(2) Ordinary Aids. (a) John in 1204 authorized the collection of “an effectual aid” from the knights and freeholders of the Constable of Chester for the ransom of their lord.[[523]] (b) A royal writ in 1235 allowed Henry Tracey, as already mentioned, to take an aid for his eldest daughter’s marriage.
(3) Special Aids. (a) When a fine of sixty marks was incurred in 1206 by the Abbot of Peterborough, John allowed him to distrain his under-tenants for contributions.[[524]] (b) An heir, paying relief, might likewise transfer the obligation to his freeholders.[[525]] (c) The lord’s debts were frequently paid by his tenants. The returns to the Inquest of 1170 contain particulars of the “sums given individually by some forty burgesses of Castle Rising towards paying off the mortgages of their lord, the Earl of Arundel, who was clearly in the hands of the Jews”;[[526]] while in 1234 the Earl of Oxford and the Prior of Lewes each obtained a letter patent distraining their tenants to contribute to the discharge of their debts.[[527]] Sufficient evidence is thus preserved that Henry III. took full advantage of the omission from his own charters of this part of his father’s promises. He did not question too minutely the justice of applications for such writs, if good fees were punctually paid. His letters, during the earlier years of his reign, authorized the taking of a “reasonable” aid, without hinting at any mode of determining what that was. This is illustrated by the procedure adopted by Henry Tracey in 1235, who apparently debated with his assembled knights of Devonshire the amount to be paid as “reasonable,” and finally accepted 20s. per fee.[[528]] It is interesting to note, however, that this same mesne lord, twelve years later, obtained a writ bidding the sheriff of Somerset assist him to collect “the scutage of Gascony” at a specified rate, namely, 40s. per fee.[[529]]
The first Statute of Westminster virtually reverted to the rule laid down in 1215, for its terms imply that aids could only be taken on the three well-known occasions. The vague declaration that these should be reasonable in amount is replaced by the specification of a fixed rate, namely 40s., or double what had been usual at an earlier period. Definition of the amount and times of payment may, however, have been worth purchasing even at this increase.
[517]. The chapter is, therefore, on the one hand a necessary supplement of cc. 12 and 14, while on the other it is merely a particular application of the general principle enunciated in c. 60, which extended to sub-tenants all the benefits secured to Crown tenants by previous chapters.
[518]. The exemptions enjoyed by them are explained under c. 43.
[519]. See Bracton’s Notebook, case 1146, cited by Pollock and Maitland, I. 331.