(the question who was to decide on the extent of the proceedings before the ecclesiastical court was left open); if then the clerk was convicted or confessed, he was to be delivered up to the secular court to be by it sentenced and punished.26 However, this provision of the constitutions of Clarendon was rejected by the pope. The treaty of Avranches (1172) contained no specific declaration either way.27 An agreement upon the question was subsequently made (1176) between the king and legate Hugo. It laid down that, in criminal cases, for the future no clerk should be brought in person before a secular judge except for some offence against the forest laws or in respect of some service due by reason of feudal tenure to the king or some other temporal lord.28

The principle was thus recognized that in criminal procedure against spiritual persons, so far as it was directed against the persons of the offenders, the ecclesiastical court had to give judgment.29 This was frequently afterwards confirmed.30 The concessions on

263: Clerici retati et accusati de quacumque re, summoniti a justitia regis, venient in curiam ipsius, responsuri ibidem de hoc unde videbitur curiae regis quod sit ibi respondendum, et in curia ecclesiastica unde videbitur quod ibidem sit respondendum. Ita quod justitia regis mittet in curiam sanctae ecclesiae ad videndum qua ratione res ibi tractabitur. Et si clericus convictus vel confessus fuerit, non debet de caetero eum ecclesia tueri.-The interpretation reproduced in the text is established by F. W. Maitland in The English Historical Review, 1892, pp. 224 ff.

27 Cf. § 4 notes 50, 51.

28

Videlicet quod clericus de caetero non trahatur ante judicem secularem in persona sua de aliquo criminali, neque de aliquo forisfacto (Roger de Wendover translates forisfactum by transgressio; but compare below, note 47), excepto forisfacto forestae mea, et excepto laico feodo unde michi vel alii domino seculari laicum debetur servitium; (Printed more fully in § 4, note 54; the words criminali and forisfacto indicate here the opposition between graver and minor offences.)

29 The ecclesiastical court had, of course, as in the Anglo-Saxon period, sole competence in disciplinary proceedings against clerks or higher spiritual persons. Cf. also 1 Hen. VII (1485) c 2: qil soit loiall a toutz erchevesqes et Evesqes et autre Ordinaries aiantz episcopall jurisdiccion, de punier et de chastiser tiels presters Clerks et hommez religiousez esteantz dedeinz les boundez de lour jurisdiccion quels seront convictez devant eux de advoutrie (=adultery) fornicacion incest ou auscun auter carnall incontinencie, par committance de eux agarder all prison illoqes a demurer par tiell temps come semblera a lour discrecions conveniant pur la qualite et quantite de lour trespas,

30 For example, Articuli episcoporum, 1285, c 5: ut clerici incarcerati, quoties et quando requiruntur, restituantur praelatis, sicut alias est concessum. Responsio regis: Cancellarius intelligit, quod clerici capti debent statim episcopis restitui, quotiens regem vel justitiarios requiri contingit. (Wilkins II, 115.)

An inference is drawn from this recognition in 52 Hen. III (1267) Stat. de Marleberge c 27: Si clericus aliquis pro crimine aliquo vel recto quod ad coronam pertineat arrestatus fuerit et postmodum de precepto Regis in ballium traditus vel replegiatus extiterit, Ita quod hii quibus traditus fuerit in ballium eum habeant coram Justiciariis; non amercientur de cetero illi quibus traditus fuerit in ballium, vel alii plegii sui, si corpus suum habeant coram Justiciariis, licet coram eis propter privilegium clericale respondere nolit vel non possit.

the part of the state reached their greatest extent in Edward IV's charter of 1462, ratified in 1484 by Richard III.31

By the usage of the courts the privilege granted to the clergy was in and after the thirteenth century extended to all persons who could read.32 On the other hand, in accordance with ecclesiastical rulings, those clerks who had married twice or had married a widow were regarded as laymen and therefore not entitled to claim the immunity from lay judgment.33 Decision on the preliminary question sometimes raised, whether the accused was to be considered a clerk, was left, after some uncertainty of usage, to the ecclesiastical courts.34

By privilegium cleri (benefit of clergy) was understood in this and the following period, not only as to procedure, the immunity already indicated, but also as to penalties, exemption from death or mutilation.35 In so far as the clerk was not bound to answer in a

31 Extract from the charter of 1462 in append. IX.

32 Cf. Reeves, Hist. of Engl. Law c 27, Ed. 1869, III, 164 ff. This continued to be the practice even after 25 Ed. III st. 6 c 4 (printed below, note 44), indeed as long as the privilege lasted.-Yet judicial decisions to the contrary occur, e g. 26 Ass. 19 (cited in Reeves, l.c., 3rd Ed. III, 139).—The privilege was first extended to women by 21 Jac. I (1623/4) c 6 and 3 Gul. & Mar. (1691) c 9 s 6, when it had come to imply a mere mitigation of punishment, not a special exemption from temporal jurisdiction.

33 Leg Hen. Ic 57 § 9 (above, note 24). Liber Sextus I, 12 c 1 Gregorius X in concilio generali Lugdunensi (1274): Altercationis antiquae dubium praesentis declarationis oraculo decidentes, bigamos omni privilegio clericali declaramus esse nudatos, et coërcitioni fori saecularis addictos, consuetudine contraria non obstante. Ipsis quoque sub anathemate prohibemus deferre tonsuram vel habitum clericalem.

4 Ed. I (1276) Stat. de Bigamis c 5 likewise declares the temporal judge competent.

Fleta, Book I c 32 § 34: Bigami vero et Sacrilegi ab omni Privilegio Clericali sunt interdicti, non obstante in Consilio Lugdun. ejusdem Constitutionis revocatione. Mirrour aux Justices c 3 s 5: Exception de Clergy est ascun foits encomberable par replication de Bigamy en cest manere:

The above axiom of law is also assumed in 18 Ed. III (1344) st. 3 c 2: Item qe si nul clerk soit areinez devant noz Justices a notre suyte, ou a la suite de partie, et le clerk se tiegne a sa clergie alleggeant qil ne doit devant eux sur ce respoundre, et si homme lui surmette pur nous, où pur la partie qil eit espusez deux femmes ou une veue, qe sur ceo les Justicz neient conisance ne poer de trier, par enquestes ou en autre manere, la bygamye, einz soit mandez a la Court Cristiene, come ad este fait en cas de bastardie; et tantqe la certification soit mande par lordinarie, demoerge la persone, en quele bigamie est alegge par les paroles susditz ou en autre manere en garde; sil ne soit meinpernable. 34 Mirrour aux Justices c 3 s 5: Et pur ceo que appent à dire, en quelle point Clerke est Bigame, si que la Bigamy soit triable en Laïc Court, si jurées, nequidant dient que ils ne scavoient; adonques appent celle certification venir del Ordinary al maundement le Roy si come en case de matrimony dédit.—18 Ed. III (1344) st. 3 c 2 (note 33).—Charter of Edward IV in 1462 (append. IX). Similarly the ecclesiastical courts decided in cases where the question arose, whether a person had taken the monastic vow or not. Bracton, Book IV tract. 6 c 7 § 1 (IV, 492), Book V tract. 5 c 20 § 6 (VI, 328). Fleta, Book VI c 19. For an instance in 1101 see Bigelow, Placita Anglo-Normannica, 79.

35 9 Ed. II st. 1 (1315/6) Art. Cleri c 15: Item licet clericus coram seculari Judice judicari non debeat, nec aliquid contra ipsum fieri, per quod ad periculum mortis vel mutilaciónem membri valeat perveniri

secular court, this exemption from death or mutilation was a matter of course, in that ecclesiastical courts never inflicted these punishments. Beyond that, the limitation of the forms of punishment was never in principle recognized by the state, though in particular cases, especially if the higher clergy were concerned, the authorities generally abstained from imposing the penalty of death, or at least from carrying the sentence into execution.56

Attempts substantially to limit the immunity of the clergy begin again with the reign of Henry VII.37 It is, however, to be observed that in the whole period from Henry II to Henry VII that immunity was, indeed, a recognized principle, but a principle subject to exceptions which rendered it possible for the royal officers to intervene in securing from the clergy respect for civil enactments or for the injunctions of temporal authorities.38

In this connexion the following matters are to be considered :

1. The preliminary proceedings in the secular court.

It was not the office of the secular judge to consider whether the accused was a clerk or not, unless the ordinary, or during certain periods perhaps also if the accused,99 demanded to be delivered up to the ecclesiastical court. This demand could, it seems, originally be put forward at any stage, alike before examination and after condemnation. If it was not put forward-which for various causes frequently happened-then judgment was passed, and for the most part sentence carried out by the secular powers upon clerks no less than laymen. Usage, however, seems in all these respects to have varied in the thirteenth century. 40 Under Henry VI the practice of the courts finally caused the further

36 Cf., however, the passages cited in note 40 below from Bracton and that in note 80 from Fleta.-Archbishop le Scrope of York was executed in 1405 after being found guilty of high treason. Stubbs, Const. Hist. III, 52 c 18 § 312, seems to be of opinion that the execution was illegal, on what grounds is not quite clear. Some examples of executions of inferior clergy after condemnation in the secular court will be found in Reeves, Hist. of Engl. Law c 16, 3rd Ed. III, 138; cf. further e.g. Annales Paulini (Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 76) I, 355, year 1332.

37 Cf. below, near notes 69 ff.

38 A restriction on these exceptions is contained in 18 Ed. III (1344) st. 3 c 1: qe nul Ercevesqe ne Evesque ne soit empeschez devant noz Justices par cause de crime, si nous ne le comandons especialment, tantqe autre remedie ent soit ordeignez. Cf. here the order of Henry IV, 28th Jan. 1400 (Rymer, Foedera 3rd Ed. III Pt. IV p. 176).

39 That the accused could also demand to be delivered up to the bishop, is several times expressly admitted; especially in the charter of Edward IV, 1462 (in appendix IX). Cf. further e.g. 18 Ed. III (1344) st. 3 c 2. But in other places we find the necessity of application by the bishop referred to. Cf. Gibson, Codex 1124; Reeves, as quoted, III, 138; Letters of archbishop Peckham (13th and 29th March, 1284), in Rer. Brit. Ser. No. 77, II, 690, 699. Robert de Marisco (below, note 43), on the other hand, declares that only a generale, not a speciale, mandatum of the bishop was required.-See also Bracton, Book V, tract. 5 c 13 § 6 (VI, 240): Et secundum quod dicitur, quod laicus non poterit renunciare foro seculari in praejudicium regiae dignitatis, eodem modo videtur quod nec clericus, si velit in causa criminali vel alia cujus cognitio pertineat ad ecclesiasticam dignitatem et ordinem clericalem, Similarly Mirrour aux Justices c 3 s 4.

40 Cf. Stubbs, Const. Hist. III, 355 c 19 § 399.--Complaint of the clergy at the synod of London, 1257 (Wilkins, Conc. I, 726) c 15: Item clerici sic capti [super

41

limitation that neither bishop nor accused could demand surrender before any examination had been held, but that condemnation by the secular courtwhich, however, was not binding for the ecclesiastical court -must precede surrender.42 The introduction of preliminary civil proceedings was a later realization of the relevant part of the provision in the constitutions of Clarendon.42a

The first arrest of the criminous clerk could, at all times, be effected by the civil authorities.+3

aliquo crimine, furto vel homicidio, vel aliqua alia felonia] plerumque in habitu clericali, inventi, antequam ab ordinariis ecclesiasticis repetantur, seu repeti possint, suspenduntur; et quandoque capita eorum raduntur, ut clerici non appareant et sicut laici judicantur. Quandoque cum repetuntur, differtur eorum liberatio ad tempus, et interim suspenduntur de nocte, vel hora prandii, ne ad notitiam ordinariorum valeat pervenire.

It is probably to the case mentioned in the text, where no surrender was demanded, that we must refer the following statements (not otherwise reconcilable with the passage cited below, note 44) of Bracton (circ. 1230-57), in which he denies to the secular court the right of enforcing a penalty against clerks in criminal cases: Book V, tract. 5 c 2 § 5 (VI, 164): quamvis sunt qui dicant, quod de nullo placito tenentur (the clerks) respondere, nec ratione rei, contractus vel delicti coram judice seculari, et salva pace eorum, videtur quod fit in omnibus actionibus et placitis civilibus et criminalibus, praeterquam in executione judicii in causa criminali, ubi laicus condemnandus esset ad amissionem vitae vel membrorum, et quo casu, quamvis judex secularis habet cognitionem ut cognoscat de crimine, tamen non habet potestatem exequendi judicium sicut in causis civilibus, non enim possit degradare clericum, ; c 9 § 3 (VI, 206): Si autem criminaliter (in contrast to civiliter) agatur et super crimine, judex ecclesiasticus non habebit jurisdictionem, licet habere debeat judicii executionem. In casu enim sanguinis judicare non potest nec debet, ne committat irregularitatem. Pertinet igitur (ut videtur) ad judicem secularem cognitio, et ad judicem ecclesiasticum judicii exe

cutio

Cf. also complaint of the clergy and king's answer, 1279-85 (Northern Registers; Rer. Brit. Ser. No. 61, p. 70) c 15: Item clerici incarcerati ex quacumque causa, civili vel criminali, sive delicto, non liberantur ordinariis, nisi primo per laicos, prolato judicio contra eos. Ad quintum decimum articulum respondetur sic: Rex deliberabit. Letter of Peckham of 10th March, 1286 (Rer. Brit. Ser. No. 77; III, 919): coram justiciariis convictus, nobisque ordinario suo ipsorum justiciariorum judicio, ut moris est, liberatus carcerali custodiae mancipandus

41 Cf. the contention of the clergy in 9 Ed. II st. 1 (1315/6) Art. Cleri c 16: quamquam confessio, coram illo qui non est judex confitentis, non teneat nec sufficiat ad faciendum processum, vel sentenciam proferendum 42 Hobart 289 and Keling 100, cited in Gibson, Codex 1124. These authorities are at variance whether in earlier times clergy might be prayed either before or after conviction (so Hobart), or only before conviction (so Keling, in Lisle's case). They agree in saying that in Henry VI's reign the practice had been introduced of requiring an offender to answer for his felony and then, after conviction, of allowing him, on demand, his clergy. See also Reeves, Hist. of Engl. Law c 22; 3rd Ed. III, 421. In regard to clerks in holy orders (that is: ordines majores) the contrary is laid down in Edward IV's charter of 1462 (append. IX). Cf. further preamble to 23 Hen. VIII c 1 (in note 44).

42 Cf. above, note 26.

43 Treatise of Robert de Marisco on the privilegium clericorum in Ann. de Burton (Rer. Brit. Ser. No. 36; Ann. Monastici) I, 425, year 1258: Nullus laicus debet clericum in custodia publica vel privata, etiam sine violentia et laesione, detinere, nec in publicam sive privatam custodiam aut carcerem detrudere; quod si quis facere praesumpserit, in canonem incidit latae sententiae, nisi clericus in graviori, puta furto, homicidio, incendio, et similibus

Preliminary civil proceedings were of importance because they led to the demand that a person convicted in the civil (secular) court should not be allowed by the ecclesiastical court to escape unpunished. That demand was, indeed, raised; but never completely realized in practice.*

44

deprehensus fuerit: deprehensi enim in delictis gravioribus comprehendi possunt et detineri in custodia, dummodo interveniat mandatum praelatorum quorum jurisdictioni sunt subjecti. Consuetudo tamen regni Angliae est, quae revera corruptela est, quod suspecti de gravioribus criminibus comprehendi possunt per ballivos regios, et in custodia publica detineri, donec episcopis fuerint liberati; nec requiritur speciale mandatum praelatorum, sed generale

Cf. complaint of clergy and king's answer (circ. 1245? Cole, Documents 356) art. 11: Item gravantur eo quod aliquando contingit quod Clerici sine delectu personarum, quamquam in facto deprehensi non fuerint, tanquam facinorosi vel suspecti de crimine vel injuria personali capiuntur per potentiam laicalem et in carcere detinentur nec redduntur ordinariis suis eos petentibus secundum canones judicandi. Responsio: Clerici propter homicidia et alia hujusmodi flagicia in facto deprehensi aut alii appellati seu puplice de hujusmodi notati et accusati, arestantur per potestatem secularem cum de subtractione vel fuga ipsorum timetur, et suis Prelatis ad eorum requisicionem judicandi postea liberantur.

Writ of Edward I, 18th March, 1297 (Lib. Custum., Rer. Brit. Ser. No. 12, II, 213): cum Ecclesia hanc libertatem habuerit ab antiquo, videlicet, quod nulli laici (?laico) liceat presbyteros seu clericos capere nec imprisonare, sine mandato nostro speciali, nisi fuerit pro aliquo quod contra pacem nostram seu prohibitionem nostram fuerit perpetratum In this writ it is prohibited that the night watchmen in London should arrest chaplains and other ecclesiastics for fornication and adultery and confine them in the Tun; quorum sc. criminum correctio ad Forum Ecclesiasticum, et non ad Forum Laicum, manifeste dinoscitur pertinere. The restriction contained in this writ was at the end of the fourteenth and in the first half of the fifteenth century no longer observed. (Riley, l.c. p. xxix, note 1 and glossary p. 831 s.v.q.e. Tonellum.)

The provisional arrest of clerks in holy orders is forbidden in Edward IV's charter of 1462 (append. IX).

44 Bracton. De Legibus etc. (circ. 1230-57) lib. III, tract. 2 c 9 (Rer. Brit. Scr. No. 70, II, 298 ff.): § 1. Cum clericus cujuscunque ordinis vel dignitatis, captus fuerit pro morte hominis, vel alio crimine et imprisonatus, et de eo petatur curia Christianitatis ab ordinario loci sicut archiepiscopo vel episcopo vel eorum officiali, vel aliis literas praedictorum deferentibus, imprisonatus ille statim eis deliberetur, sine aliqua inquisitione inde facienda, non tamen ut omnino deliberetur ut vagans sit per patriam, sed salvo custodiatur, vel in prisona ipsius episcopi vel ipsius regis, si ordinarius hoc voluerit, donec a crimine sibi imposito se purgaverit competenter, vel in purgatione defecerit, propter quae debeat degradari. § 2. Cum autem clericus sic de crimine convictus degradetur, non sequitur alia poena pro uno delicto, vel pluribus ante degradationem perpetratis. Satis enim sufficit ei pro poena degradatio quae est magna capitis diminutio, nisi forte convictus fuerit de apostasia, autem sit aliquis ordinarius qui in curia Christianitatis, clerico sic ei liberato, purgationem indicere (sine accusatore coram eo de novo accusante) noluerit, tunc fiat ei breve ex parte domini regis in hac forma. § 3. Rex tali ordinario salutem. Audivimus quod cum quidam clericus de morte hominis rectatus. vel appellatus vel indictatus coram justitiariis nostris productus esset, et ibi vobis sicut clericus liberatus, ut se coram vobis purgaret, et se inde redderet innocentem si posset, non vultis (ut dicitur) ad purgationem procedere, nisi sit aliquis, qui de novo coram vobis in foro ecclesiastico versus eum prosequatur, et instituat accusationem. Et quoniam per accusationem factam in curia nostra, de morte illa satis habetur suspectus, et per talem diffamationem

Si