Clause 11 of King John's Magna Carta has not received as searching an examination as have other clauses of that document. For example, McKechnie's comment runs to only half a page. In the 295 pages which he devotes to the individual clauses of Magna Carta, only his comments on clauses 62 and 63, clauses which he describes as ‘entirely of a formal nature’, and on clauses 53 and 57 are shorter. True, some of the points which have relevance for clause 11 are made in his comment on clause 10. But nearly all such points concern the Jews, whereas it is the intention of the present article to argue that the Jewish aspect of clause 11 has been too much discussed, or too much assumed, at the expense of other aspects, particularly its connection with guardians. After all, the common assumption that clause 11 represents part of a baronial attack on the Jews has been coupled, rather paradoxically, with the admission that it was too superficial to have much effect on the Jews. It is worthwhile inquiring whether the paradox really exists. Is the superficial effect on the Jews an indication that the purpose of the clause, at least in its origin, lay in a different direction? This article will suggest the possibility that unscrupulous guardians were the primary target of clause 11.