Our Legal Heritage: King AEthelbert - King George III, 600 A.D. - 1776Reilly, S. A.
History
Our Legal Heritage: King AEthelbert - King George III, 600 A.D. - 1776
Reilly, S. A.
Law -- England -- History
Before Henry's reign, the church, with the pope's backing, had
become more powerful and asserted more authority. Henry tried to return
to the concept of the king being appointed by God and as the head of
the church as well as of the state, as in Henry I's time, and to
include the church in his reform of the legal system, which would make
the spiritual jurisdiction and temporal jurisdiction conform to a
common justice. Toward this end, he published the Constitutions of
Clarendon. But the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, refused to
agree to them, although as Chancellor he had seen the beneficial
effects on the kingdom of Henry's legal measures. The disagreement came
to a head in Henry's attempt to establish the principle of "one law to
all" by having church clerics punished by the civil courts as before,
instead of having "benefit of clergy" to be tried and punished only in
ecclesiastical courts, even for secular crimes. Clerics composed about
one-sixth the population. The church courts had characteristically
punished with spiritual penalties of a fine or a penance, and at most
defrocking. It could not impose a death penalty, even for murder. When
Archbishop Becket was murdered and became a martyr, "benefit of clergy"
became a standard right, except for offenses in the king's forests.
Appeals could be made to the pope without the king's permission. The
king could take a criminal cleric's chattels, but not his life.
However, though theoretically bishops were elected by the body of
bishops with the approval of the king, as a practical matter, the king
chose the bishops and the abbots. It was a constant matter of dispute,
in which the pope would sometimes involve himself. Selection of
archbishops was also a frequent matter of contention between king and
pope.
The church copied the assize procedure developed by the Royal
Court to detect ecclesiastical offenses though it retained trial by
compurgation. Bishops could request the Chancery to imprison an
offender who had remained excommunicant for forty days, until he made
amends. Chancery complied as a matter of course. This went on for six
centuries.
The delineations of jurisdiction among these courts were
confused and there was much competing and overlapping of jurisdictions.
However, the court could appoint arbitrators or suggest to the parties
to compromise to avoid the harshness of a decisive judgment which might
drive the losing party to violent self-help.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account