Chapter Two

Si quis comitum vel baronum nostrorum, sive aliorum tenencium de nobis in capite per servicium militare, mortuus fuerit, et cum decesserit heres suus plene etatis fuerit et relevium debeat, habeat hereditatem suam per antiquum relevium; scilicet heres vel heredes comitis de baronia comitis integra per centum libras; heres vel heredes baronis de baronia integra per centum libras; heres vel heredes militis de feodo militis integro per centum solidos ad plus; et qui minus debuerit minus det secundum antiquam consuetudinem feodorum.

If any of our earls or barons, or others holding of us in chief by military service shall have died, and at the time of his death his heir shall be of full age and owe “relief,” he shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient relief, namely the heir or heirs of an earl, £100 for a whole earl’s barony; the heir or heirs of a baron, £100 for a whole barony; the heir or heirs of a knight, 100s. at most for a whole knight’s fee; and whoever owes less let him give less, according to the ancient custom of fiefs.

All preliminaries concluded, the Charter at once attacked what was, in the barons’ eyes, the chief of John’s abuses, his arbitrary increase of feudal obligations. The Articles of the Barons, indeed, had plunged at once into this most crucial question without a word by way of pious phrases or legal formulae, such as were necessary in a regular Charter.

I. Assessment of Beliefs. Each “incident” had its own special possibilities of abuse, and the Great Charter deals with each of these in turn. The present chapter defines the reliefs to be henceforth paid to John. The vagueness of the sums at first was a natural corollary of the early doubts as to whether the hereditary principle was absolutely binding or not. The heir with title not yet recognized was keen to come to terms. The lord took as much as he could grind from the inexperience or timidity of the youthful heir; the heir tried to profit from the good nature or temporary embarrassments of the lord. All was vague; and such vagueness favoured the strongest or most wily.

A process of definition, however, was early at work; and progressed, though slowly. Public opinion set limits of variation, to go beyond which was considered unreasonable or even indecent. Some conception of a “reasonable relief” was evolved. Yet the criterion varied: the Crown might defy rules binding on others. Henry I., indeed, when bidding against duke Robert in 1099 for the throne showed himself willing, in words if not in practice, to accept the limits set by contemporary opinion. His Charter of Liberties promised that all reliefs should be justa et legitima—an elastic phrase no doubt, and one in after days liberally interpreted by the exchequer officials in their royal master’s favour. By the end of the twelfth century, when Glanvill wrote, the exact sums which could be taken by mesne lords had been fixed; although the Crown remained free to exact higher rates. Baroniae capitales, he tells us, were charged relief, not at a fixed rate, but at sums which varied juxta voluntatem et misericordiam domini regis.

Every year, however, made for definition; and custom pointed with increasing authority towards 100s. per knight’s fee, and £100 for a barony. Two entries on the Pipe Roll of 10 Richard I. amusingly illustrate the unsettled practice. A sum of £100 is described as a “reasonable relief” for a barony, and immediately this entry is stultified by a second entry of a considerable additional payment by way of “fine” to induce the king to accept the sum his own roll had just declared “reasonable.” John was more openly regardless of reason. The Pipe Roll of 1202 shows how an unfortunate heir failed to get his heritage until he paid 300 marks, with the promise of an annual “acceptable present” to the king.

If John could ask so much, what prevented him asking more? He might name a prohibitive price, and so defeat the hereditability of fiefs altogether. Such arbitrary exactions must end, so the barons were determined in 1215; custom must be defined, so as to prevail henceforth against royal discretion. The first demand of the Articles of the Barons is, “that heirs of full age shall have their heritage by the ancient relief to be set forth in the Charter.” Here it is, then, duly set forth and defined in chapter 2 of Magna Carta as £100 for an "earl’s barony," £100 for "a baron’s barony," 100s. for a knight’s fee, and a proportional part of 100s. for every fraction of a knight’s fee. This clause produced the desired effect. These rates were strictly observed by the exchequer of Henry III., as we know from the Pipe Rolls of his reign. Thus, when a certain William Pantoll was charged with £100 for his relief on the mistaken supposition that he held a “barony,” he protested that he held only five knight’s fees, and got off with the payment of £25. The relief of a barony was subsequently reduced from £100 to 100 marks. The date of this change, if we may rely on Madox, lies between the twenty-first and thirty-fifth years of Edward I.

Apparently all who paid reliefs to the king were mulcted in a further payment (calculated at 9 per cent. of the relief) in name of "Queen’s Gold," a contribution to the private purse of the Queen Consort, and collected by an official specially representing her at the exchequer.

The Charter deals only with tenure by knight’s service; nothing is said of other tenures. The explanation of the omission may possibly be different in the cases of socage and of serjeanty respectively. (a) Socage. The barons were not so vitally interested in socage, that being, in the normal case, the tenure of humbler men. In later reigns the king, like an ordinary mesne lord, contented himself with one year’s rent of socage lands in name of relief. (b) Serjeanty. The barons cannot have been indifferent to the fate of serjeanties, since many of them held great estates by such tenures. Possibly they assumed that the rules applied to knights’ fees and baronies would apply to serjeanties as well. The Crown, however, acted on a different view; large sums were frequently extorted by Henry III. By the reign of Edward I., however, the practice of the exchequer was to limit itself to one year’s rent (a sufficiently severe exaction) for serjeanties, which thus fell into line with socage.

II. Units of Assessment. Some explanation is required of the three groups into which crown estates were thus divided—knight’s fees, barons’ baronies, and earls’ baronies.

(1) Feodum militis integrum. The origin of the knight’s fee is obscured by a network of conflicting theories. A thread of connection is sometimes traced between it and the mysterious five-hide unit of Anglo-Saxon times; other authorities would ascribe its introduction into England to a definite act of some great personage—either William the Conqueror, according to Selden, who founds on a well-known but untrustworthy passage in Ordericus Vitalis, or Ranulf Flambard, according to Freeman, Stubbs, and Gneist. It seems probable that the Normans, here as elsewhere, pursued their policy of avoiding an open rupture with the past, and that the Conqueror adapted as far as possible the existing system of land tenure to his own needs. There is little doubt, in light of the evidence accumulated by Mr. Round in his Feudal England, that William I. stipulated verbally for the service of a definite number of knights from every fief bestowed by him on his Norman followers. A knight’s fee or scutum thus became a measure of military service, and of feudal assessment; servitium unius militis was a well-known legal unit. But a difficult problem arises when it is asked what definite equation, if any, existed between land and service. Three answers have been given: (a) A definite ratio exists between amount of service and extent of ground. In other words, the knight’s fee contains a fixed area of land; every five hides sent one warrior, thus preserving the old Anglo-Saxon unit. (b) The ratio lies not between service and extent, but between service and value. An estate of £20 annual rental sends one knight to the king’s wars; the normal knight’s fee contains 20 librates of land. (c) Other authorities deny that any proportion exists at all: William the Conqueror exacted from each of his grantees precisely as much or as little knight’s service as he saw fit.

Is it not possible to reconcile these divergent conclusions? Undoubtedly the Conqueror held himself bound by no fixed rules, but made exceptions where he pleased: some favoured foundations were exempt from all service whatsoever. Yet, if he distributed estates at his own free will, he did not necessarily distribute them irrationally or at random. He demanded service of knights in round numbers, 5 or 10 or 20, as he saw cause, and in normal cases he was guided by some loose sense of proportion. Where there was no reason either for preferential treatment or for special severity, service would be roughly proportionate either to the area or to the value. This rule was William’s servant, not his master, and was made to yield to many exceptions, which would amply account for the existence in later days of knight’s fees varying from 2 hides to 14 hides, instead of the normal 5. Each such fee, whatever its acreage or its rental, owed the service of one knight, and paid relief at 100s.

(2) Baronia integra. The word “barony” cannot be easily defined, on account of the many changes it has undergone. A “barony” at the Norman Conquest differed in almost every respect from a “barony” at the present day. The word baro was originally synonymous with homo, meaning, in feudal usage, a vassal of any lord. It soon became usual, however, to confine the word to king’s men; “barones” were thus identical with "crown tenants"—a considerable body at first; but a new distinction soon arose between the great men and the smaller men among their number (between barones majores and barones minores). The latter were usually called knights (milites), while “baron” was reserved for the holder of an “honour.” For determining what constituted an “honour,” however, it was impossible to lay down any absolute criterion. Mere size was not sufficient: a magnate once classed as a full “baron” might successfully claim to be only a “knight,” thus lightening some of his feudal burdens, for example this one of “reliefs.” Chapter 14 of Magna Carta helped to stereotype the division, since it stipulated that each major baro should receive an individual writ of summons to the Council, leaving the barones minores to be convened collectively through the sheriff. As the one point of certainty, where everything else was vague, these writs came to possess an exaggerated importance, and it was finally held (at a date long subsequent to Magna Carta) that the mere receipt of a special summons, if acted upon, made the recipient a baron, and entitled his heirs, in all time coming, to succeed him in what was fast hardening into a recognized title of dignity. The “barons” in 1215 knew nothing of all this; they desired merely to have the reliefs due by them taxed at a fixed rate. Each “barony” should pay £100, a sum afterwards reduced to 100 marks.

Relief was thereafter a fixed sum, while the size of the barony varied in each case. As the same holds true of the knight’s fee, it is doubly ridiculous to attempt to discover an equation between the knight’s fee and the barony founded upon the ratio of the sums payable. Coke, however, was guilty of this absurdity.

(3) Baronia comitis integra. A peculiar phrase is used in the text, an "earl’s barony" appearing where “earldom” might be expected. The reason is that “earldom” originally implied the holding of an office and not the ownership of land, whereas relief was payable for the earl’s lands or “honour,” not for his office. The Charter, therefore, uses words well fitted to make its meaning clear. The earl (or comes) was the successor of the ealdorman as local governor of a county or group of counties. His title was official, not tenurial, or even, in early times, necessarily hereditary.

Some of the ideas most intimately connected with a modern earldom were signally inappropriate to the Norman earls. At the present day an earldom is one of several “steps in the peerage,” a conception that did not then exist. At the present day it carries with it a seat in the House of Lords, whereas no instance is recorded until long after the Norman Conquest of any earl or other great man demanding as a right to be present in the king’s council: the custom of summoning all crown tenants became stereotyped only in the reign of Henry II. and was not formally recognized previous to chapter 14 of Magna Carta. At the present day, again, the hereditary principle is the chief feature of an earldom, whereas William did not admit that the office necessarily passed from father to son.

The policy of the Conqueror had been to bring each county as far as possible under his own direct authority; many districts had no earls, while in others the connection of an earl with his titular shire was reduced to a shadow, the only points of connection being the right to enjoy “the third penny” (that is, the third part pro indiviso of the profits of justice administered in the county court) and the right to bear its name. It is true that in addition the earl usually held valuable estates in the shire, but he did this only as any other landowner might. For purposes of taxation the whole of his lands, whether in his own county or elsewhere, were reckoned as one unit, here described as baronia comitis integra, the relief on which was taxed at one hundred pounds.

Very gradually in after ages, the conception of an earldom suffered change. The official character gave way before the idea of tenure, and later on the modern conception was formulated of a hereditary dignity conferring specific rank and privileges. The period of transition when the tenurial idea prevailed is illustrated by the successful attempt of Ranulf, earl of Chester and Lincoln, in the reign of Henry III. to aliene one of his two earldoms—described by him as the comitatus of Lincoln. Earls are now, like barons, created by letters patent, and need not be land-owners. Thus the words “barony” and “earldom,” so diverse in their origin and early development, were closely united in their later history.

III. Liability of Church Property to “Relief.” The Great Charter of John, unlike the Charter of Henry I. makes no mention of the lands of vacant sees in this connection, probably because the main question had long been settled in favour of the church. The position of a bishopric was, however, a peculiar one. Each prelate was a crown tenant, and his fief was reckoned a “barony,” entitling its owner to all the privileges, and saddling him with all the feudal obligations of a baron.

It was not then unnatural that, when a prelate died, the Crown should demand “relief” from his successor, in the same way as from the heir of a dead lay baron. Such demands, when made by William Rufus and his minister Flambard, met with bitter opposition. The Crown in consequence, unwilling to forego any of its feudal dues, endeavoured to shift their incidence from the revenues of the see to the shoulders of the feudal under-tenants. After bishop Wulfstan’s death on 18th January, 1095, a writ was issued in William’s name to the freeholders of the see of Worcester, calling on each of them to pay, as a relief due on their bishop’s death, a specified sum, assessed by the barons of the exchequer.

In revenge for such extortions from church lands and tenants, the historians of the day, all necessarily recruited from the clerical class, have heartily recommended Rufus and Flambard to the opprobrium of posterity. Anselm compelled Henry I. to promise amendment in his coronation Charter, which undertook to exact nothing during vacancies either from the demesne of the church or from its tenants. No corresponding promise was demanded from John, a proof that such exactions had ceased. The Crown no longer extorted relief from church lands, although wardship was, without protest, enforced during vacancies.