ople, should call them "our sheriffs, bailiffs," &c., as he does in
Magna Carta.
I apprehend that inattention to these considerations has been the cause
of all the confusion of ideas that has arisen on this subject,--a
confusion very evident in the following paragraph from Dunham, which may
be given as an illustration of that which is exhibited by others on the
same points.
"Subordinate to the ealdormen were the _gerefas_, the sheriffs, or
reeves, _of whom there were several in every shire, or county_.
_There was one in every borough, as a judge._ There was one at every
gate, who witnessed purchases outside the walls; and there was one,
higher than either,--the high sheriff,--who was probably the reeve of
the shire. This last _appears_ to have been appointed by the king.
Their functions were to execute the decrees of the king, or
ealdormen, to arrest prisoners, to require bail for their appearance
at the sessions, to collect fines or penalties levied by the court of
the shire, to preserve the public peace, _and to preside in a
subordinate tribunal of their own_."--_Dunham's Middle Ages_, sec. 2,
B. 2, ch. 1. 57 _Lardner's Cab. Cyc._, p. 41.
The confusion of _duties_ attributed to these officers indicates clearly
enough that different officers, bearing, the same official names, must
have had different duties, and have derived their authority from
different sources,--to wit, the king, and the people.]
[Footnote 88: _Darrein presentment_ was an inquest to discover who
presented the last person to a church; _mort de ancestor_, whether the
last possessor was seized of land in demesne of his own fee; and _novel
disseisin_, whether the claimant had been unjustly disseized of his
freehold.]
[Footnote 89: He has no power to do it, _either with, or without, the
king's command_. The prohibition is absolute, containing no such
qualification as is here interpolated, viz., "_without the king's
command_." If it could be done _with_ the king's command, the king would
be invested with arbitrary power in the matter.]
[Footnote 90: The absurdity of this doctrine of Coke is made more
apparent by the fact that, at that time, the "justices" and other
persons appointed by the king to hold courts were not only dependent
upon the king for their offices, and removable at his pleasure, _but
that the usual custom was, not to appoint them with any view to
permanency, but only to give them special com
|