[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.It has already been said that the single organ of the feudalstate, by which government in all its branches was carriedon, was the We shall find it difficult to realizea fact like this, or to understand how so crude a system ofgovernment operated in practice, unless we first have clearlyin mind the fact that the men of that time did not reasonmuch about their government.They did not distinguishone function of the state from another, nor had they yetbegun to think that each function should have its distinctmachinery in the governmental system.All that came later,as the result of experience, or more accurately, of the pres-sure of business.AS yet, business and machinery both wereundeveloped and undifferentiated.In a single session of thecourt advice might be given to the king on some questionof foreign policy and on the making or revising of a lawa suit between two of the king s vassals might be heardand decided and no one would feel that work of different andsomewhat inconsistent types had been done.seemed asproperly the function of the assembly as the other.In thecomposition of the court, and in the practice as to time andplace of meeting, there was something of the same indefinite-ness.The court was the It was his personal machinefor managing the business of his great property, the state.As such it met when and where the king pleased, certainmeetings being annually expected; and it was composed ofany persons who stood in immediate relations with the king,Edited by Joseph Hunter and published by the Record Commission in 1833. THE REGZS1130presence he saw fit to call for by special or general CHAP.his vassals and the officers of his household orgovernment.If a vassal of the king had a complaint againstanother, and needed the assistance of the king to enforce hisview of the case, he might look upon his standing in theas a right; but in general it was a burden, aservice, which could be demanded of him because of someestate or office which he held.In the reign of the first Henry we can indeed trace thebeginnings of differentiation in the machinery of government,but the process was as yet wholly unconscious.We find inthis reign evidence of a large and of a smallThe difference had probably existed in the two pre-ceding reigns, but it now becomes more apparent because theincreasing business of the state makes it more prominent.More frequent meetings of the were necessary, butthe barons of the kingdom could not be in constant attend-ance at the court and occupied with its business.The largecourt was the assembly of all the barons, meeting on occa-sions only, and on special summons.The small court waspermanently in session, or practically so, and was composedof the king s household officers and of such barons or bishopsas might be in attendance on the king or present at the time.The distinction thus beginning was destined to lead to mostimportant results, plainly to be seen in the constitution ofto-day, but it was wholly unnoticed at the time.To themen of that time there was no distinction, no division.Thesmall was the same as the larger the larger wasno more than the smaller.Who attended at a given datewas a of convenience, or of precedent on the threegreat annual feasts, or of the desire of the king for a largerbody of advisers about some difficult question of policy; butthe assembly was always the same, with the same powers andfunctions, and doing the same business.Cases were broughtto the smaller body for trial, and its decision was that of theThe king asked advice of it, and its answer wasthat of the council.The smaller was not a committee of thelarger.It did not act by delegated powers.It was theitself.In reality differentiation of old institutions intonew ones had begun, but the beginning was unperceived, INTERESTSby process similar to this that the financialCHAP.ness of the state began to be set off from the legislative andthough it was long before it was entirely dissociatedfrom the latter, and only gradually that the ExchequerCourt was distinguished from the The sheriffs,as the officers who collected the revenues of the king, eachin his own county, were responsible to theprobably from early times the mechanical of examin-ing and recording the accounts had been performed by sub-ordinate officials; but any question of difficulty which arose,any disputed point, whether between the sheriff and thestate or between the sheriff and the taxpayer, must havebeen decided by the court itself, though probably by thesmaller rather than by the larger body.Certainly it is thesmall which has supervision of the matter whenwe get our first glimpse of the working of this machinery.Already at this date a procedure had developed for examin-ing and checking the sheriff s accounts, which is evidentlysomewhat advanced, but which is interesting to us becausestill so primitive, Twice a year, at Easter and at Michaelmas,the court met for the purpose, under an organization peculiarto this work, and with some persons especially assigned to it;and it was then known as the Exchequer.The name wasderived from the fact that the method of balancing accountsreminded one of the game of chess.Court and sheriff satabout a table of which the cloth was divided into squares,seven columns being made across the width of the cloth, andthese divided by lines running through the middle along thelength of the table, thus forming squares.Each perpendic-ular column of squares stood for a fixed denomination ofpence, shillings, pounds, scores of pounds, hundredsof pounds, etc.The squares on the upper side of the tablestood for the sum for which the sheriff was responsible, andwhen this was determined the proper counters were placedon their squares to set out the sum in visible form, as on anabacus
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]