ABSTRACT
“EDWARD I,” said Professor Plucknett, opening his Ford Lectures, “meant to be a great king; and he was.” 1 It would be equally true to say that Henry II meant to be a great king and that he, too, was, but it is unlikely that historians in general would say the same of King John, or agree with his latest biographer that he was “probably as good a king as his father.” 2 Nevertheless, each of these three kings, Henry II, John, and Edward I, was alike in his regard for the common law, and each of them played a major part in its development. If historians have sometimes overstressed the achievements and good intentions of Henry II and the wide vision and legal acumen of Edward I, they have generally redressed the balance by concealing the activities of King John in a haze of moral disapprobation and commentaries on single clauses of the Great Charter. Yet it is in his reign that it is possible for the first time to look closely into the day-by-day activities of the King and trace his influence on every aspect of government. It is but an act of historical piety to recall the great work of Thomas Duff us Hardy in editing King John’s chancery enrolments and working out the King’s itinerary; of Francis Palgrave in initiating the publication of the records of his courts of justice; and of Joseph Hunter in attacking the pipe rolls and the feet of fines. Over a hundred years ago these three great archivists laid a sound foundation on which public parsimony and perhaps a failure of nerve prevented the next generation from building.
