or after his parents’ marriage. After the inconclusive proceedings at the realm-council of Merton (1236), when spiritual and temporal lords took opposite views, the king’s judges went a step further and thenceforward submitted this particular question to a jury. All other questions of legitimacy arising in the king’s courts were still sent for trial to the bishop and concluded by his certificate (see Pollock and Maitland, Hist. Eng. Law before Edward I. vol. i. 105-106; Maitland, ubi supra, pp. 53-56).
(b) Testamentary and in regard to succession from intestates.—Real property was not the subject of will or testament in the medieval period. But as to personal property, the jurisdiction of the courts Christian became exclusive in England. The Church, East and West, had long asserted a right to supervise those legacies which were devoted to pious uses, a right recognized by Justinian (Cod. i. 3. 46). The bishop or, failing him, the metropolitan, was to see such legacies properly paid and applied and might appoint persons to administer the funds (Pollock and Maitland, op. cit. ii. 330). This right and duty became a jurisdiction in all testamentary causes. Intestacy was regarded with the greatest horror, because of the danger to the intestate’s soul from a death without a fitting part given to pious uses (Maine, Ancient Law, ed. 1906, note by Pollock, p. 230; cf. Pollock and Maitland, op. cit. ii. 354). Hence came the jurisdiction of the ordinary in intestacy, for the peace of the soul of the departed. This head of ecclesiastical jurisdiction was in England not transferred to the secular court till 1857.
(c) Church Lands.—If undoubtedly held in frankalmoign or “free alms,” by a “spiritual” tenure only, the claim of jurisdiction for the ecclesiastical forum seems to have been at first conceded. But the Constitutions of Clarendon (c. 9) reserved the preliminary question, of “frankalmoign” or not, for a jury in the king’s court. Then, if the tenure were found free alms, the plea was to be heard in the court Christian. From the 13th century, however, inclusive, the king’s courts insisted on their exclusive jurisdiction in regard to all realty, temporal or “spiritual” (Pollock and Maitland, op. cit. i. 106).
(d) Title to present to and possession of benefices.—As to the title to present to benefices, the courts Christian at one time had concurrent jurisdiction with the temporal courts. “Advowsons” were, however, looked upon as a species of “real” property in England, and therefore the king’s court early claimed exclusive jurisdiction in disputes where the title to present was involved. The Constitutions of Clarendon provided that these causes should be heard only in the king’s court (c. 1). This rule was applied even where both litigants were “spiritual.” In the 13th century abbots sue each other in the royal court for advowsons (Selden Soc. Select Civil Pleas, i. pl. 245). In 1231, in such a suit, the bishop of London accepts wager of battle (Pollock and Maitland, op. cit. i. 105). In cases, however, where the title to present was not in question, but the fitness of the clerk presented, or, in cases of election to benefices, the validity of the election, there was jurisdiction in the courts Christian.
(e) The recovery of tithes and church dues, including in England church rates levied to repair or improve churches and churchyards.
(f) Questions concerning fabrics, ornaments, ritual and ceremonial of churches.
(g) Administration of pious gifts and revenues given to prelates or convents.—Their right application could be effectively enforced only in the courts Christian; until the rise in England of the equitable jurisdiction of the court of chancery and the development of the doctrine of “uses” at the end of the middle ages.
(h) Enforcement of contractual promises made by oath or pledge of faith.—The breaking of such a promissory oath was called “perjury” (as in classical Latin and in Shakespeare), contrary to modern usage which confines the word to false evidence before a court of justice. In regard to the execution of these promises, the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts was possibly traversed by c. 15 of the Constitutions of Clarendon; but allowed by the statute 13 Edw. I. st. 4. As just intimated, besides the enforcement of the promise, the “perjury” was treated as an ecclesiastical crime.
The criminal jurisdiction of courts Christian over laymen included, besides these “perjuries,” (a) all sexual offences not punishable on indictment; (b) Defamation of character (the king’s courts came in time to limit this to such defamation as could not be made the subject of a temporal action); (c) Offences by laymen against clerks (i.e. against all “tonsured” persons, supra); (d) Offences in regard to holy places—“brawling” and such like; (e) Heresy, schism, apostasy, witchcraft.
In regard to “clerks,” there was (1) all the criminal jurisdiction which existed over laymen, and (2) criminal jurisdiction in regard to professional misconduct. Concerning “felonious” clerks the great questions discussed were whether the courts Christian had exclusive jurisdiction or the king’s court, or whether there was a concurrent jurisdiction. The subject was dealt with in the Constitutions of Clarendon, formally revoked after the murder of St Thomas of Canterbury. In the 13th century it was recognized that a “clerk” for felony was subject only to ecclesiastical trial and punishment; punishment which might involve lifelong imprisonment. For “misdemeanours,” as yet unimportant, he had no exemption from secular jurisdiction (Pollock and Maitland, op. cit. ch. iv.). At some indeterminate later period, the “clerk” was tried for felony by a jury in the king’s court and then “pleaded his clergy,” after conviction there, and was remitted to the ordinary for ecclesiastical punishment. “Clerks” for the purpose of “benefit of clergy” included not only persons in minor orders, but all “religious” persons, i.e. monks, friars, nuns, &c. Later the custom arose of taking “clerk” to include any “literate,” even if not in orders or “religious” (cf. Stephen, Hist. Crim. Law, i. 461). The statute 4 Hen. VII. c. 13 took away benefit of clergy, if claimed a second time, from persons not “within orders,” in certain bad cases. 4 Hen. VIII. c. 2 (a temporary act) took away “clergy,” in certain heinous crimes, from all persons not in “holy” orders. This statute was partly renewed by 22 Hen. VIII. c. 13. Other changes were introduced by 23 Hen. VIII. c. 1 and later acts. In time, “benefit of clergy” became entirely diverted from its original objects.
In France, till 1329, there seems to have been no clear line of demarcation between secular and ecclesiastical jurisdictions. Beaumanoir (Coutume de Baulvoisis, ch. xi., cited Gaudry, op. cit. i. 22) had laid down the principle that spiritual justice should meddle only with spiritual things. In the year named the secular courts complained to the king, Philip of Valois, of the encroachments of the courts Christian. The “cause” was solemnly argued before that monarch, who decided to leave things as they were (Migne, Dict. du droit canon., s.v. “Officialités”). In 1371 Charles V. forbade spiritual courts to take cognizance of “real” and “possessory” actions even in regard to clerks (Migne, loc. cit.; cf. Gaudry, ubi sup.). From this period the parlements began the procedure which, after the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VII., in 1438 took regular shape as the appel comme d’ abus (supra; Migne, loc. cit.). Testamentary causes at first were subject to the concurrent jurisdiction of the spiritual and secular courts. After the 14th century, the latter had exclusive jurisdiction (Van Espen, op. cit. lib. iii. tit. ii. cc. 2, 15, 16). In regard to marriage the secular jurists distinguished between the civil contract and the sacrament, for purposes of separating the jurisdiction (Dict. eccl., Paris, 1765, s.v. “Mariage”). The voluntary jurisdiction as regards dispensations was kept for the Church. The contentious jurisdiction of the courts Christian was confined to promises of marriage, nullity of marriage caused by “diriment” impediments only, validity or invalidity of the sacrament, divorce a thoro (ibid.). Questions in regard to the property in a benefice were for the courts Christian; in regard to its possession, for the king’s courts. But if a “possessory” action had been brought in the latter, a subsequent suit in the courts spiritual for the property was deemed “abusive” and restrained (ib., s.v. “Pétitoire”) Breach of faith or of promise confirmed by oath was matter for the court Christian (Fournier, pp. 95, 99, 109, 125). This
