cts of
violence in the crown, than against such general impositions, which,
unless they were evidently reasonable and necessary, could scarcely,
without general consent, be levied upon men who had arms in their
hands, and who could repel any act of oppression by which they were
all immediately affected. We accordingly find, that Henry, in the
course of his reign, while he gave frequent occasions for complaint,
with regard to his violations of the great charter, never attempted,
by his mere will, to levy any aids or scutages; though he was often
reduced to great necessities, and was refused supply by his people.
So much easier was it for him to transgress the law, when individuals
alone were affected, than even to exert his acknowledged prerogatives,
where the interest of the whole body was concerned.
[FN [d] Rymer, vol. i. p. 215.]

This charter was again confirmed by the king in the ensuing year, with
the addition of some articles, to prevent the oppressions by sheriffs;
and also with an additional charter of forests, a circumstance of
great moment in those ages, when hunting was so much the occupation of
the nobility, and when the king comprehended so considerable a part of
the kingdom within his forests, which he governed by peculiar and
arbitrary laws. All the forests which had been enclosed since the
reign of Henry II. were disafforested; and new perambulations were
appointed for that purpose: offences in the forests were declared to
be no longer capital; but punishable by fine, imprisonment, and more
gentle penalties: and all the proprietors of land recovered the power
of cutting and using their own wood at their pleasure.

Thus these famous charters were brought nearly to the shape in which
they have ever since stood; and they were, during many generations,
the peculiar favourites of the English nation, and esteemed the most
sacred rampart to national liberty and independence. As they secured
the rights of all orders of men, they were anxiously defended by all,
and became the basis, in a manner, of the English monarchy, and a kind
of original contract, which both limited the authority of the king,
and ensured the conditional allegiance of his subjects. Though often
violated, they were still claimed by the nobility and people; and as
no precedents were supposed valid that infringed them, they rather
acquired than lost authority, from the frequent attempts made against
them, in several ages, by regal and arbi