c. 43 sought to prevent John from treating each of the former tenants

of the escheated barony as holder of a new barony of his own, and therefore liable to a baron’s relief of £100 instead of the £25 he ought to pay for his five fees, or £50 for his ten fees, or as the case might be. The case of William Pantol (see _Pipe Roll_, 9 Henry III., cited Madox, I. 318) seems to illustrate this. He was debited with £100 of relief for his father’s land, but protested that he held nothing of the Crown save five knights’ fees of the land which was of Robert of Belesme. This plea was upheld, and £75 of the amount debited was written off.

Footnote 895:

See c. 38 of 1217, and cf. the gloss given by Bracton (II. folio 87, b.) which makes the meaning somewhat less obscure. The Charter of 1217 contained a saving Clause: “unless the holder of the escheated barony held directly of us elsewhere.” Bracton added a second proviso, namely, unless the said sub-tenants (now Crown tenants _ut de escaeta_) had been enfeoffed by the king himself.

The Crown seems not to have strictly observed this rule in practice. Article 12 of the Petition of the Barons in 1258[896] complained that Henry had granted charters conferring rights which were not his to give (_aliena jura_), but which he had claimed as escheats. An act of the first year of Edward III. narrated how the Crown had confiscated from purchasers tenements held of the Crown “as of honours,” thus treating them “as though they had been holden in chief of the king, as of the Crown.” Redress was promised by the statute:[897] but irregularities continued throughout the earlier Tudor reigns; and the first Parliament of Edward VI. passed an act to protect purchasers of lands appertaining to honours escheated to the Crown.[898]

Footnote 896:

See _Sel. Charters_, 384.

Footnote 897:

See 1 Edward III., _stat._ 2, c. 13, _Statutes of Realm_, I. 256.

Footnote 898:

See 1 Edward VI. c. 4, _Statutes of Realm_, III. 9.