The scope of this paper is strictly defined by its title; its subject is the judgment said to have been pronounced upon John Lackland in 1202, and nothing else. I do not intend to discuss that other judgment which John is said to have undergone, in 1203 or later, for the murder of Arthur; nor the composition of the court before which the trial, on either or both of these occasions, is supposed to have been held. With respect to the so-called ‘second condemnation’ I will only say—for the sake of making my own attitude clear—that, notwithstanding the arguments recently put forth by M. Guilhiermoz in support of its reality, I am still content to abide by the conclusion which the generality of historical scholars, on both sides of the Channel, have for the last six teen years regarded as established by M. Bémont: that the ‘condemnation of 1203’ is fictitious. My study of the evidence relating to the matter has, however, led me to form the opinion that the condemnation of 1202 is fictitious likewise. It is with reference to this point alone that I venture to offer a few considerations.