Development of government, rights and justice

Model answer

Two knights from each shire.

Model answer

Interpretation A is convincing in describing Burnell as a worldly man who grew rich in the king's service. He bought many manors and built up a great estate for his family. Figure 1 supports this: Acton Burnell Castle, built after he received a licence to fortify it in 1284, is a red sandstone manor house with corner towers, battlements and large first-floor windows for its great hall - the home of a wealthy lord, built as much for show and comfort as for defence. He also built a great hall at the bishop's palace at Wells. His career was spent as a royal clerk and minister rather than as a pastor, and when Edward tried to have him made Archbishop of Canterbury in 1278, the pope refused, partly because of his worldly life; he was said to have had children of his own.

However, A is unconvincing when it claims that Burnell's only loyalties were to Edward and himself. Serving Edward meant serving the kingdom. Burnell was one of the council that kept England peaceful in 1272-74, and as chancellor from 1274 to 1292 he ran the chancery efficiently while the great statutes were made: Westminster I (1275), Gloucester (1278), Mortmain (1279), Westminster II and Winchester (1285) and Quia Emptores (1290). Some of these protected ordinary people against corrupt officials and helped keep order. He was also a hard-working diplomat and took part in the Great Cause, dying at Berwick in 1292. Moreover, it was normal for royal clerks to be rewarded with bishoprics - Burnell became Bishop of Bath and Wells in 1275 - so judging him only as a churchman is unfair. The author, a clergyman writing in 1910, judges him by a later ideal of what a bishop should be.

Overall, A is convincing that Burnell was a wealthy, worldly royal servant, but unconvincing in its harsh conclusion, because his service brought good government to the kingdom as well as rewards to himself.

Model answer

When Edward became king, the disorder left by the civil war and the corruption of local officials were serious problems. The Hundred Rolls inquiry of 1274-75 revealed sheriffs and bailiffs taking bribes and imprisoning people unjustly, so Edward's first step was the Statute of Westminster I in 1275. It curbed the abuses of officials, set out rules on who could be released on bail, and ordered harsh imprisonment for notorious felons who refused to accept trial by jury. Royal justices continued to visit the counties on the general eyre to hear criminal cases.

The most important measure came in 1285 with the Statute of Winchester, which made local communities responsible for keeping order. When a crime was discovered the hue and cry was to be raised and everyone had to join the chase; if robbers were not caught, the whole hundred was held responsible for the losses. Towns were to keep watch and ward, shutting their gates from sunset to sunrise and questioning strangers. Roads between market towns were to be cleared of trees and undergrowth for 200 feet on each side so that robbers could not lie in ambush, and every man between fifteen and sixty had to keep weapons according to his wealth. In the same year Westminster II allowed cases to be tried by royal justices when they visited the counties (nisi prius), making justice quicker. Keepers of the peace were later appointed in some counties to enforce the Statute of Winchester.

Edward also acted against those who abused the law. On his return from Gascony in 1289 he found many complaints against his officials, and in 1289-90 most of his judges were dismissed. In 1305 he sent special trailbaston commissions to deal with violent gangs. However, war limited his success: from 1294 large numbers of criminals were pardoned in return for serving in his armies, and the general eyres stopped. Edward created a lasting framework for keeping order, but disorder remained a problem at the end of his reign.

Model answer

Great landowners certainly benefited from several of Edward I's statutes, especially those about land. However, I do not agree that they were the main beneficiaries overall. The statutes also served the crown, which gained most from restoring its authority, and some of the most important protected ordinary free men from the abuses of officials and lords.

The case for the great landowners is strong. De Donis, the first chapter of the Statute of Westminster II in 1285, allowed land granted to a man and the heirs of his body to be kept in the family rather than sold away, protecting great estates for generations. Quia Emptores, passed in 1290 at the request of the magnates, ended subinfeudation: when land was sold, the buyer held it directly from the seller's lord, so lords no longer lost the valuable dues - wardships, marriages, reliefs and escheats - that came with land. The Statute of Mortmain of 1279 had a similar purpose, preventing land from passing to the Church, which never died or married and so never paid these dues. Westminster II also helped lords recover services and rents owed by tenants, and the Statute of Quo Warranto of 1290 allowed lords to keep franchises their families had held since 1189. Since the great landowners dominated parliament, it is not surprising that statutes served their interests.

However, the crown benefited at least as much. Many statutes restored royal rights after the weakness of Henry III's reign. The Quo Warranto inquiries established that franchises came from the king, even if the 1290 compromise let lords keep long-held rights. Mortmain gave the crown control over gifts of land to the Church, and licences to make such gifts brought in money. In the long run Quia Emptores brought more land under the king as the ultimate overlord.

Ordinary free men also benefited. The Statute of Westminster I of 1275 was a response to the complaints of the Hundred Rolls juries, many of whom were ordinary freeholders. It forbade sheriffs, bailiffs and the officials of lords to take bribes or excessive fees, limited wrongful imprisonment and the abuse of distraint, protected free elections and repeated Magna Carta's promise of reasonable amercements. Westminster II allowed cases to be heard in the counties instead of only at Westminster, which made justice easier to obtain. The Statute of Winchester of 1285 aimed to make the roads and towns safer for everyone through the hue and cry, watch and ward, and the clearing of undergrowth 200 feet on each side of highways, although it also placed burdens on local communities. Merchants gained from the Statute of Acton Burnell of 1283 and the Statute of Merchants of 1285, which helped them recover debts. Not everyone benefited: the Church lost out through Mortmain.

Overall, great landowners were among the main beneficiaries of the land law statutes, but the statutes as a whole were designed to strengthen royal authority and good order, and the crown gained most. Westminster I and the Statute of Winchester show that ordinary free men and communities gained real protection too, so the statement is only partly true.