others to a certain court, how can he expect that court to take any cognizance of the actions of others towards him? It is he who virtually outlaws himself. I concede to him the privilege of doing so if he likes it; but if he requires me to protect him, he must recognise my laws in full." But Henry knew that if he pronounced such an ordinance, however just, a terrible massacre of the clergy would assuredly take place, and he was never inclined to sanguinary proceedings. Without declaring the principle, then, upon which he acted, he left the law regarding the presence of a bishop or his official, in cases concerning ecclesiastics, to have its natural effect, and suffered the immunities which the clergy claimed to gall them.

Thus at an after period we find the Archbishop of Canterbury declaring, “If a Jew, or the meanest layman be murdered, sentence of death is immediately pronounced against the murderer; but if a clergyman, whatever is his rank, be murdered, the church, content with excommunicating the murderer, does not call in the aid of the material sword;" and further, "the King claims to himself the vengeance of such enormous crimes, but we, at the risk of our salvation, reserve it to ourselves; the effect of which is that impunity is established, and the swords of the laity are whetted by us against our own throats."

It is true that Henry did not altogether suffer offences against ecclesiastics to go unpunished; and

thus we find that, about this very time, he visited severely upon various persons injuries offered to men in orders. The clergy themselves likewise endeavoured to obviate the inconveniences, which Henry's regulations imposed upon them, by a hypocritical evasion of one of their own strictest regulations; frequently satisfying their consciences in regard to taking part in criminal trials, by withdrawing when the sentence was about to be pronounced.

Another point to be remarked in the concessions made by Henry to Cardinal Huguson is, that he still clearly and distinctly maintained the great principle of the constitutions of Clarendon; that great principle against which the priesthood had so vehemently struggled,—namely, that they were amenable to the secular courts. It is true that he only adheres to this point in regard to offences against the forest laws; but having once established the right of trying them for any secular offence, it was evident that he would soon be able to bring them into his courts for all other but spiritual crimes.

At the parliament of Northampton, where the

*It seems from the words of Ioveden that Cardinal Huguson fully and entirely confirmed the laws of Clarendon, so far as regarded subjection of the clergy to the secular power, in cases of offences against the forest laws. He says distinctly," Prædictus autem Hugezun Cardinalis, et Apostolicæ sedis Legatus, dedit domino Regi licentiam implacitandi clericos regni sui, de forestis suis, et de captione venationis."-Hoveden, p. 547.

constitutions of Clarendon were reenacted, a number of additional statutes and regulations were proposed by the King, and received the sanction of the Great Council. Amongst these a very important arrangement was made, by which the kingdom greatly benefited. The whole country was divided into six circuits for the regular administration of justice by itinerant judges; and though the number of circuits was afterwards reduced to four, this mode of carrying the law into effect in all parts of the land has descended to the present times with very little variation."* appears to be ascertained beyond all doubt, that itinerant judges had been previously sent into various parts of the country, and that their functions were very similar to those ascribed to the persons now appointed. But it is also clear that their visitations were irregular, and that no certain districts were appointed to them. The division of the country into circuits, and the nomination of

It

* The laws enacted at Clarendon are generally known in history as the Constitutions of Clarendon; the confirmation of them by the Parliament of Northampton, including the additions made to them by the Council held in that city, is called "the Assize of Northampton." To each of the Six Circuits three Judges were appointed, and the whole is thus related by Hoveden. "Post natale domini in festo conversionis sancti Pauli venit dominus Rex pater usque Notingam, et ibi celebravit magnum concilium, de statutis regni sui, et coram Rege filio suo, et coram archiepiscopis, episcopis, comitibus, et baronibus regni sui communi omnium concilio, divisit regnum suum in sex partes; per

certain persons to dispense justice therein, is a much more striking mark of the progress which

quarum singulas, tres justitiarios itinerantes constituit, quorum nomina hæc sunt.

It will be remarked above that the name of the place where this parliament was held is written Nottingham instead of Northampton, whether from an error in the original manuscript or not I do not know, but it is afterwards corrected in the title of the Assize.

had been made in society, than is apparent at the first glance. The advance of civilisation is more strongly evinced, perhaps, by efforts for the establishment of regularity and order in all things, than by any other circumstance, except, perhaps, the clear definition of rights.* At the accession of Henry the Second, little, if any, regularity existed in any proceedings. Society was issuing out of that state of uncertainty and confusion, which the rise of a completely new institution naturally produced; nothing was clear; nothing was ascertained; nothing was orderly. The vast multitude of tenures and the existence of allodial lands in the midst of feudal countries; the want of written laws, the diversity of customary laws, the uncertainty of the rules regarding succession, the extreme dubiety of every question affecting property, all show that society was at that time nothing in fact but a chaos, the elements of which were just beginning to separate themselves from each other, and take some form and order.

*

My friend Dr. Taylor, in his excellent work on the Natural History of Society, observes, "that the primary element of civilization, according to the common sense of mankind, is progress, not from one place to another, but from one condition to another, and always in advance." Without entering into the question whether civilization be a state or an action, I agree with him if by the words "in advance," he means towards improvement, as, indeed, I am sure he does. There is no mistake more common however than to confound activity with energy, and suppose that movement is progress.