and it is curious that that scholar was not struck by the singular agreement of the two documents. In both we see that it is on an appeal of vassals that Philip Augustus acted; that he first repeatedly required King John to make peace with his vassals; that, not being able to get any satisfaction, he cited him before his court, with his barons' concurrence. From this point the two narratives differ somewhat; Ralph of Coggeshall insists on the privilege alleged by the King of England, who claimed to have the right not to appear at Paris, while Philip Augustus, in the letter summarized by Innocent III., insists on his attempts at accommodation. But Miss Norgate failed to see, and I do not know whether anybody has yet observed, that the bull of Innocent III. contains a clear allusion to the condemnation: Although the king of France, writes the Pope, had defied you (diffidasset) by the counsel of his barons and his men and war had broken out, he sent you again four of his knights, charged to ascertain whether you were willing to repair the wrongs committed towards him, and to cause you to know that in the contrary case he would henceforth conclude alliance against you with your men, wherever he could. And you have The “defiance" avoided those who sought you. proves previous The term diffidare has here evidently its full and formal sense: it is the solemn rupture of the feudal relationship; now, as M. Luchaire says in his Manuel d'Institutions, "defiance can only take] place between suzerain and vassal after the suzerain has summoned his feudatory to appear before his court and has had him condemned there, either present or by default." The moment that Philip declares he has defied John Lackland there is proof that the court has previously given its sentence.2

sentence

1

1. Manuel d'Institutions françaises (1892), p. 230.

2. The pope adds that Philip Augustus acknowledges having, after these events, received the homage of certain vassals of the king of England, "quod contumaciae tuae asserit imputandum."

H

It is not surprising that Philip Augustus did not give the Pope circumstantial details respecting the

The letter to the Norman bishops

condemnation by default and the text of the sentence. It was not his interest to do this in a letter in which he strove above everything to convince the Pope of his conciliatory spirit; and he contented himself therefore with telling the Pope that by the counsel of his barons and his men, de baronum et hominum suorum consilio, he had broken the feudal tie which bound him to John, diffidasset. This is why, in his letter of the 7th of March, 1205, to the Norman bishops 1 a letter on which Miss Norgate has no right to found an argument, Innocent III., ill-informed upon the trial of 1202, maintains an attitude of reserve. Philip Augustus is requiring the bishops to swear fealty to him because he has acquired Normandy upon a sentence of his court: asserens quod, justitia praeeunte, per sententiam curiae suae Normanniam acquisivit; the Pope, consulted by the bishops as to what they ought to do, cannot give them an answer in default of sufficient information: quia vero nec de jure, nec de consuetudine nobis constat, utpote qui causam, modum et ordinem, aliasque circumstantias ignoramus. He does not say that he has never heard of this condemnation of 1202; but he is ignorant of its precise tenour and the circumstances, and he is not well acquainted with the custom of France.

The letter of the 31st October, 1203, is in short the most important text which we possess for the solution of the problem of the two trials of John Lackland. By the absolute silence it maintains respecting the death of Arthur it proves convincingly that seven months after John's alleged condemnation by the peers of France as the murderer of his nephew, nothing was known at Rome either of the death of the young prince or of the 1, Potthast, op cit., No. 2434.

condemnation which was its supposed consequence. By the summary which it gives of the apology which the King of France had made for his conduct, it confirms the assertions of the very exact Ralph de Coggeshall.

M. Bémont's conclusions then still hold the field. John Lackland was not condemned to death by the court of France as murderer of Arthur in 1203, but he was condemned in 1202 by default, to the loss of his French fief, for disobedience and refusal of service to his

M. Bémont's conclusions hold their ground

suzerain.

The appeal of the Poitevin barons, a fine opportunity for preparing annexations, eagerly seized by Philip Augustus, was thus the indirect cause of the Constitutional separation of Normandy and England; an importance of the question event of immense importance for the English constitution as well as for French policy; for the monarchy of the Plantagenets was suddenly detached from a province from which it had derived a part of its institutions and its administrative staff, and, on the other hand, as Stubbs says, the king found himself face to face with the English people."

66

116

XI.

AN "UNKNOWN CHARTER OF LIBERTIES."

History of "unknown charter"

THERE exists in our Trésor des Chartes a list of "concessions of King John " to his barons, which was printed as early as 1863 by Teulet, in his Layettes.1 This document had completely escaped scholars working upon English history until the moment at which it was "discovered " by Mr. Round in a copy forming part of the Rymer Transcripts, and published by him in the English Historical Review.2 It is celebrated now under the name, inaccurate it will be seen, which Mr. Round has given to it of the "Unknown Charter of Liberties." As this so-called "Unknown Charter of English Liberties," certainly interesting, has only been studied since 1893, as Stubbs does not quote a single line of it, as he did not insert it in the last edition of his Select Charters, and as it is not to be found correctly transcribed in any of the books which French libraries usually possess, reproduce it here.3

Copy of the charter of Henry I

we

The manuscript, the writing of which is French and dates from the first quarter of the thirteenth century, contains, first, a copy of the charter of Henry I., preceded by these words: "Charta quam Henricus, communi baronum consilio rex coronatus, eisdem et prelatis regni Angliae 1. Layettes du Trésor des Chartes, publ. par A. Teulet, i, 1863, p. 423.

2. J. H. Round, An unknown Charter of Liberties, English Histor. Review, viii, 1893, pp. 288 sqq.

3. We shall follow the text given by Mr. MacKechnie, Magna Carta, pp. 569-570.

plurima privilegia concedit," and followed by the note: "Hec est carta regis Henrici per quam barones querunt libertates, et hec consequentia concedit rex Johannes.1 Next follows the list of the "concessions of King John," here given; we shall indicate for each clause 2 the analogous clauses of the charter of Henry I.,3 of the Articuli Baronum (June, 1215) and of the Great Charter :5

Text of the document

I.

1. "Concedit rex Johannes quod non capiet hominem absque judicio, nec aliquid accipiet pro justitia, nec injustitiam faciet " (Cf. Articles of the Barons, art. 29 and 30; Great Charter, art. 39 and 40.6)

2. "Et si contingat quod meus baro vel homo meus moriatur et heres suus sit in etate, terram suam debeo ei reddere per rectum releveium absque magis capiendi." (Cf. Charter of Henry I., 2; Articles of the Barons, 1; Great Charter, 2.)

3. "Et si ita sit quod heres sit infra etatem, debeo quatuor militibus de legalioribus feodi terram bajulare in custodia, et illi cum meo famulo debent mihi reddere exitus terre sine venditione nemorum et sine redemptione hominum et sine destructione parci et vivarii; et tunc quando ille heres erit in etate, terram ei reddam quietam." (Cf. Articles of the Barons, 2—3; Charter, 3-4.)

4. "Si femina sit heres terre, debeo eam maritare, consilio generis sui, ita non sit disparagiata. Et si una vice eam dedero, amplius eam dare non possum, sed se

1. Round, loc. cit., p. 288, and H. Hall, quoting a letter of M. Bémont, in English Histor. Review, ix, 1894, p. 327.

2. The division into clauses does not exist in the original any more than it does in the Great Charter.

3. Liebermann, Gesetze, i, pp. 521 sqq., or Bémont, Chartes des libertés anglaises, pp. 3 sqq.

4. Bémont, pp. 15 sqq. The true title is: Capitula que barones petunt et dominus rex concedit.

5. Bémont, pp. 26 sqq.

6. Cf. also the letter patent of the 10th of May, 1215, in Rymer, Rec. edition, i, p. 128, and the excellent commentary which Mr. MacKechnie gives on article 39 of the Great Charter (Magna Carta, pp. 436 sqq.).