Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/387

Rh The king oppressed his barons, and they oppressed the people. The kind of oppression to which the barons were subjected by the king was, moreover, very different from that exercised by the former on the people. It consisted, mainly, of the hardships incident to the feudal system, such as wardship and marriage, aids and escuage. But the wrongs suffered by the people at the hands of the barons were far more intolerable. They were despoiled of their property, were taken and imprisoned in the castles of the barons in order to extort ransoms, and were even put to death without any pretence or process of law. The chronicles of that period afford evidence of systematic outrages practised by the barons on the people for which it would be difficult to find a parallel in English history. This has not been sufficiently borne in mind by those historians who have eulogized the English barons for their great solicitude concerning the interests of the people, for their generosity in caring for the interests of the people as well as their own, and for their foresight in establishing such far-reaching and eternal principles of liberty. The truth seems to be, not only that the charter was obtained chiefly through the efforts of the barons, but also that it was intended, first of all, for their protection. The bulk of it relates to feudal matters, applied only to those who held land by military tenure, and therefore affected the mass of the people only indirectly. It has been suggested that those articles which do include the people, and which are of a fundamental character, were inserted at the instance of the king. Whether or not such is the truth, however, the Great Charter did contain at least one provision which included all freemen, protected them against all persons, and which, if enforced, would forever secure to them their most fundamental rights. Moreover,—and this is the point especially to be noticed,—that article was intended rather to afford a practical remedy for cruel and intolerable invasions of certain elementary rights than to announce theoretical principles of right for future ages,—or even for themselves,—or to establish a great principle of what we of this century are pleased to call "constitutional" law. Nor did it declare it to be self-evident "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This is worth observing, because it throws a strong light