[837]. See R. Hoveden, III. 136. This truce, which was dated 28th July, 1191, had been brought about by the mediation of the archbishop of Rouen and of certain of the English prelates.
[839]. The writ is dated 10th May, 1215, and appears in New Rymer, I. 128.
[840]. Magna Carta also omits as unnecessary “per vim et arma,” though the Articles of the Barons had contained the word “vi.”
[841]. Chron. Maj., III. 247-8.
[842]. M. Paris, Ibid., III. 251-2.
[843]. Pollock and Maitland, I. 393, hesitate to condemn this argument. "The very title of the ‘barons’ of the Exchequer forbids us to treat this as mere insolence." Dr. Stubbs has no such scruples: “The Bishop replied contemptuously, and with a perverse misrepresentation of the English law” (Const. Hist., II. 49). Elsewhere he makes him, not so much contemptuous, as ill-informed of the law—“ignorant blunder as it was” (II. 191). Yet Bishop Peter had presumably a more intimate knowledge of the law he administered as justiciar in 1233 than any modern writer can have. In the matter of amercements, at least, the barons of the exchequer acted as the peers of earls and barons.
[844]. Pike, House of Lords, 173. See also Bracton, f. 119; Pollock and Maitland, I. 393.
[845]. “The trial, therefore—the ascertaining of the fact—was, though under the direction and control of the Court of Peers, by battle; but the judgment on the trial by battle was to be given by the peers.” Pike, House of Lords, 174.
[846]. Pike, Ibid., 174–9.