it is certain (though it is difficult to form a correct idea of the relative value of money, in an age so distant as that in which such a limitation must have arisen), that the amount could not have been . less than fifty pounds of our present currency.

There were, however, many undoubted advantages to be gained by bringing suits in the king's superior courts, and it was often, indeed, a matter of necessity to do so. There was one very evident ground of necessity, upon which the prerogative of justice was vested in the sovereign-viz., that from the supreme power alone fixed by the legislature in the reign of Henry VI., as the qualification for knights of the shire. Twenty pounds a year was the salary of a judge in those days (Foss's Lives of the Judges, vol. vi. pp. 3, 41, 54, 61), so that forty shillings was a tenth of it, which, as the salary of a judge is now five thousand pounds, would make the present equivalent of forty shillings not less than five hundred pounds. It is difficult to get an accurate idea on the point, and the estimate may vary between fifty and five hundred pounds; one is the minimum, the other the maximum amount of the present equivalent. At the time of Magna Charta twenty shillings was the sum due on every knight's fee, on the marriage of his daughter, and two shillings was an ordinary subsidy on a “plough land,” i.e., in modern language, a farm, (Wade's History of England, temp. Henry III., p. 49). Madox says the king in that reign gave his poet one hundred shillings salary; the salary of the poet laureate is one hundred pounds, just twenty times as much in moneys numbered, but how much in point of real effective value, a few further data may help to show. In the reign of Edward III. the famine price of wheat was twenty shillings (Wade's History of England, p. 50), and forty shillings was the amount of the capitation tax of a baron (Ibid. 58). A bailiff in husbandry received less than forty shillings a year as his salary in the reign of Henry VII. (Ibid. p. 104). Now he would receive at least fifty pounds. In the same reign forty shillings a year was all that was allowed for the whole washing in the household of a great peer like the Duke of Northumberland (Ibid. 109). In the reign of Edward IV., as we learn from the old ballad "King Edward IV. and the Tanner of Tamworth," a wealthy tradesman boasted of a horse for which he paid four shillings. Now-a-days a rich tradesman would hardly boast of a horse for which he paid less than fifty pounds. In the reign of Henry VIII. the pound of beef was a halfpenny a pound, now it is one shilling, just twenty-four times as much, which again makes forty shillings equal to about the sum of fifty pounds. Lord Coke, in commenting upon the limitation of forty shillings, remarks that this was equal to six pounds in his time. But the effect of the discovery of America was vastly to decrease the value of money, insomuch that it sank two-thirds in value, and hence Hume observes that a crown in Henry VII.'s time served the same purpose as a pound in his own time (Essay on Money). But the comparison of data shows that the difference was far greater, and the lowest possible estimate makes the present equivalent of the ancient forty shillings at least fifty pounds. Lord Coke says that a day's "plough service," which, of course, comprised the use of the horses or oxen with the plough, and a man to hold the plough, and another to guide the horses, in his time, would be compensated for by eightpence (4 Inst. 269). That was in the reign of James I., after the long reign of Elizabeth, when such a prodigious advance had been made in wealth. And the sum of eightpence at that time, was, no doubt, worth ten times what it was at the time of the Conquest, as it was probably worth a tenth part of what it would be worth now. A penny, in the Saxon times was at least equal to a shilling now, and only fivepence made a shilling.

could emanate the authority to enforce justice. This was most apparent in that age of turbulence and violence, when it was constantly necessary to resort to force to execute the law, and when men, on the other hand, were always ready either to enforce or to resist it by a recourse to force. In such an age, to allow any but the officers of the State to execute it, would have led to anarchy and civil war.

The turbulence which characterised the county courts continued to disturb trials in the counties, even after a more regular administration of justice had been established, and under the itinerant justices sent by the crown into the counties, and the administration of justice was often so disturbed by local "routs," 2 or by the influence

1 By the common law, the sheriff was the minister of justice, and could take any sufficient number of men to assist him (Brook's Abr. "Forcible Entree," 8; Year-Book, 22 Hen. VI., 37). And men were accustomed to assemble with force and arms, and either to enforce what they considered justice, or to resist it. Hence, though the law allowed of personal self-defence (Year-Book of Edward IV. 28), and even allowed of violence in defence of property in actual possession, even to regain possession after recent dispossession, it did not allow of violent attempts to regain possession after the wrongdoer had acquired peaceable possession (Mirror, chapter on "Disseisin "). Hence the statutes of forcible entry, to prevent men from making forcible entry even into their own lands, if with arms, or terror of actual bodily violence (YearBook, 8 Hen. VI., 9). These statutes, Coke said, were in affirmance of the common law, for, says he, the law abhors violence (3 Coke's Reports, 12). And it was laid down that if a man came with many, even of those who were accustomed to attend upon him, it was force (Year-Book, 10 Hen. VII, 72). And in the Mirror it is said that not only swords and spears, but clubs and staves, were "arms." That men did in those days gather together in numbers, armed with weapons, in order to enforce what they deemed justice, or to resist the law, is apparent from the reports in the Year-Book, and from contemporary history. Thus in the Paston Letters we find a place in dispute held by one body of armed men, and regularly besieged and assailed by another, and a man actually killed in the fray (Letter 281). So in the Year-Book of Henry VI. we find a case in which a case was adjourned from the assizes "because the parties in their own counties came with great routs of armed men, more as though they were going to battle than to an assize" (Year-Book, 7 Hen. VI. ; 33 Hen. VI. 9). In such a state of society to allow every suitor to enforce justice would be to allow of civil war, and lead to anarchy. Hence the doctrine was established, of necessity, that it was only the ministers of the king, the sheriff and his officers, who could use force to execute the law, although under him and in his aid, the whole county could act, and thus under the statutes of forcible entry the justices of the peace were allowed to use force to remove force (Year-Book, 21 Hen. VI., 5, 7 Edw. IV., 18).

2 Thus, so early as the reign of Henry I., it was mentioned as a cause of failure of justice, which drew causes into the king's court (Leges Hen. Prim. c. vii.) And even when king's justices went down into the counties, it is not to be supposed the evil entirely abated, and it truly appears that it had not. The curia regis, certainly, as early as the reign of Henry II., took cognizance of causes which previously would have gone into the counties, for Glanville wrote his Treatise upon it. And the charter of Henry III. provided that the common pleas should be taken in a fixed court, and that the evil continued, ase will show. An assize was arrayed before

of local magnates, that it was necessary to remove cases into the curia regis, the king's superior court.

Independently of the turbulence of the county court, there were various reasons for the removal of causes therefrom, or from other local courts, into the king's superior courts. The power of the county court, or any local court, was strictly limited by its local jurisdiction;1 whereas the king's superior court had jurisdiction over the whole country, and could send causes for trial into any county, or summon parties to attend in any county.

Again, it was often necessary to remove causes from the local court, to avoid a failure of justice, on account of the deficiency of

Sir Wm. Babington and Strange, in the county of Cumberland, and it was adjourned before them at Westminster, and Fulthorpe asked of the justices the cause of the adjournment, and Babington said that it was because it was a great matter, and the parties in their own counties came with great routs of armed men, more like as though they were going to battle than to an assize (“les parties en lour propre counties, viendront ove graund routs des gents armes, plus semble pur vener a battaile que al assize"), and so for danger of the peace being disturbed; and also for that counsel were in London, and the parties could be better served in their right, the case was adjourned (Year Book, 7 Hen. VI.). See Year Book, 32 Hen. VI. 9, where a trial in the country was denied in a cause between the duke of Exeter and Lord Cromwell, "because there had been a great rout, and a greater would ensue if the trial should take place there, for my lord of Exeter is a great and potent prince in that county (un graund et prepotant prince") (Year-Book, 32 Hen. VI. 9). The Paston Letters afford many instances of similar proceedings at assizes about the same period. In modern times the courts have always recognised that it is a good cause for removing a case into another county for trial, that there is a popular excitement and doubt of the possibility of fair trial.

1 Thus in an assize, where the tenant set up a release, the witnesses of which were in divers counties, the case was adjourned to the king's court at Westminster, "which had jurisdiction over the whole country" (Year-Book, 7 Edw. II. p. 231). Various modes were provided for removal of causes into the superior courts, writs of " pone,” "recordari," or "certiorari" (Year-Book, 7 Edw. IV. 23, 34 Hen. VI. fol. 43). The plaintiff might always remove a cause at his will without cause, for, of course, he would not needlessly delay his own suit, and there could be no disadvantage to the other party in removal of the case from the court of the county; but the defendant could only remove a case for good cause shown (F. N. B. Recordare, 79). Thus so early as Year-Book, 50 Edward III., it was said by Belkenap, J., if a stranger comes into the Cinque ports and commits a transitory trespass, and afterwards goes out of their jurisdiction, he to whom the trespass is done may have an action at the common law; for it is more for his benefit to have the suit at the common law than within the Cinque ports, for they have no power to summon any man that is out of their jurisdiction, viz., in the county of Kent, or elsewhere, into the limits of their jurisdiction. And thus an appeal of felony was held to be in Kent for a murder in their jurisdiction, "because although the Cinque ports have several liberties (i.c., local courts), yet the reason of the grant of these liberties was for the ease and benefit of the inhabitants, and not for their prejudice " (Crispe v. Viroll, Yelverton's Kep. 13); and it would be for their prejudice if they could not follow murderers or debtors out of their own limited local jurisdiction.

suitors or jurors, or the influence of one of the parties over them, from their being, most of them, or all of them, his tenants, or from the lord having an interest in the case, or other causes likely to prevent a fair trial.1

Nevertheless, notwithstanding the obvious advantages to be gained by suing in the king's court, it is probable that ancient usage would have longer delayed their ascendancy, but for some degree of legal compulsion to sue there, occasioned by the legal maxims and rules already alluded to. And there is every reason to believe that the exercise of this compulsion, and the strenuous assertion by the sovereign of the prerogative of a general control over the administration of justice, and the establishment of a regular judicature, arose chiefly from its being found that fees and amercements would constitute a considerable source of revenue. It is beyond a doubt that the first court was the exchequer. And the sending of itinerant justices, and in the subsequent establish1 Thus a case was removed from the local court where there were only six suitors (Year-Book, Hen. IV.). So where the lord of the hundred was interested, as in an assize against the mayor and commonalty of Winton (31 Assize, 19); so in a case as to the mayor and corporation of Coventry (Year-Book, 15 Edw. IV. 18); so if all the inhabitants were tenants of one of the parties (Year-Book, 22 Edw. IV. 3). In such cases the evil was avoided by removal of the case into the king's court, because then the jury could be accorded to come not from the place in question, nor even from the county at large (in which case some of the inhabitants of the place might be included), but from some other hundred (Year-Book, 3 Hen. VI. 39; Trials per Pais, 109; Gilbert's Hist. of C. P., 68-71; Comberbatch, 332; Dance v. Ellden, Cro. Jac. 650).

2

2 There can be no doubt that, in the commissions of these justices, especial care was given to direct their attention to any branches of the revenue, particularly fines and amercements; and so diligently did they attend to this department of their duty that we find the people at last began to dread their approach, and actually desired the periods at which they came might be lengthened (vide Ang.-Sacr., i. 495). This led to the discontinuance of justices itinerant, who went once or twice a year, and the substitution of justices in eyre, who went only once in seven years; but their commissions again directed their attention to the revenue, escheats, fines, for feitures, &c. That the exchequer was the first superior court is clear, for a contem porary writer, the author of Dialogus de Scaccario, says it was established soon after the Conquest, and it is mentioned in the reign of Henry I. (Madox's Exch. i. 204), while there is no mention of any other superior court of law except after Magna Charta, when, as common pleas were forbidden from being taken in any court which followed the king, as the exchequer did, the court of common pleas arose at Westminster. Until then, the records show that all suits between party and party which came up to the superior court of the king, came into the exchequer (Mad. Exch. 686-793). The judges of that court were called barons of the exchequer, and the other judges who sat there, probably to assist in deciding common pleas, were called "justices of the bench," to distinguish them from the justices itinerant. Fines were taken in the exchequer, and the records removed there about the time of Henry IV. (Year Book, 37 Hen. IV. 17).

ment of a superior court for private suits, or common pleas (as they were called), or rather that cognizance of them in the exchequer, which led to such a court, arose from this cause.

For these writs fees were charged,1 and justice was thus, and in other ways, made a source of royal revenue, which caused it to be made a branch of royal prerogative, and secured it the care and attention of the government, in order to promote and extend that from which revenue was derived. Thus the interest of the crown happily led it to make the administration of justice its special study, and from this at first some abuses, but in the ultimate result many improvements, undoubtedly arose.

From whatever causes, however, the ordinary jurisdiction of the king's courts was upheld to the utmost by legal rules and maxims, and to a great extent, no doubt, it rested upon legal principle. 2 In

"The saurus regis," says Lord Coke, "est pacis vinculo," a truth which all our sovereigns, Saxon or Norman, caught with singular avidity, and grasped with great tenacity. And so soon as they found that justice could be made a source of revenue, they gave every attention to it. Fees were charged for writs, and even fines for expedition; and this is alluded to in the Mirror as an "abuse." Moreover, every possible occasion was taken for declaring a suitor be in mercy, as it was called-in misericordia regis—for any contempt of court, the effect of which was that he was liable to be amerced, and this was a further source of revenue. This is alluded to in the laws of Henry I., and there is a chapter upon it. There is also a chapter in the Mirror on the subject, and one of the clauses of Magna Charta was directed against the abuses of amercements. All this, however, tended to give the sovereign an interest in enforcing a regular administration of justice, and in establishing a regular judicature for the purpose. That this was so is shown by this, that the very worst and most rapacious of our Norman sovereigns showed a great regard for the administration of justice. Thus Hale states as to John-" This king endeavoured to bring the law and the pleadings and proceedings thereof to some better order than he found it-for saving his profits, whereof he was very studious-and for the better reduction of it into order and method, we find frequently in the records of his time, fines imposed, pro stulti, loquio, that is, mulets imposed by the court for barbarous pleadings, whence afterwards arose the common fine, pro pulchre placitando, which was, indeed, no other than a fine for want of it" (Hist. Com. Law, 7). All this was of course illegal; and these were the kind of exactions, no doubt, intended by the article in Magna Charta, " Nulli vendemus, nulli negabimus, aut differemus rectum aut justitiam."

So early as the reign of Henry I. the county court was called curia regis (Leges Henrici Primi, c. xi.), yet counties existed before the earliest times of the Saxons, and the courts of counties arose before there was any united monarchy. "Le leete est le plus ancient cour in le realme" (Year-Book, 7 Hen. VI. 12). It was as ancient as hundreds, which undoubtedly existed before the time of the Saxons (whose earliest laws speak of them as already existing), so that it was more ancient than the monarchy itself. So of the courts baron, as ancient as manors, which belong to the time of the Romans. Yet even the leet was said to be the court of the king (curia regis), and so of courts in towns and boroughs, which have courts; they are entitled the court of the king (Year-Book, 21 Hen. VII. p. 40). Yet the ancient style of the court