English Legal History
2/11/2009
Outline

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regnum and Sacerdotium, 1066–1189

 

1.

The Traditional View

2.

The Problems with this View

3.

The Reform Movement of the Eleventh Century

 

a.

Integration of regnum and sacerdotium under a sacral king—the abuses to which this leads

 

b.

Monastic reform—Cluny, Henry II of Germany

 

c.

Clerical reform—Leo IX, Gregory VII: simony, lay investiture, lay ownership of churches, clerical celibacy, general moral reform, primacy of the papacy

 

d.

The controversy over lay investiture

4.

 

The Conqueror and Lanfranc

 

a.

Council of London (1075)

 

b.

Letter to Gregory VII (1073 X 1085, probably earlier in that span)
“To Gregory, the most noble shepherd of the Holy Church, William, by the grace of God renowned king of the English, and duke of the Normans, greeting with amity.”

 

c.

Division of the courts  (1066 X 1087, probably later in that span)
“If any one refuses to come to justice before the bishop ... let him be excommunicated; and should there be need to enfoce this ban, let the power and justice of the king or of the sheriff be invoked.”

5.

The investiture controvery in England—Anselm (1093-1107)

6.

The events of Stephen’s reign—Gratian (c. 1140), Archbishop Theobald (1138-1161), Vacarius (?1120–?1200), John of Salisbury (c.1120–1180), the Cistercians

7.

Henry II

 

a.

The Constitutions of Clarendon (1164)
[c.9] “If a claim is raised by a clergyman against a layman, or by a layman against a clergyman, with regard to any tenement which the clergyman wishes to treat as free alms, but which the layman [wishes to treat] as lay fee, let it, by the consideration of the king’s chief justice and in the presence of the said justice, be settled through the recognition of twelve lawful men whether the tenement belongs to free alms or to lay fee.  And if it is recognized as belonging to free alms, the plea shall be [held] in the ecclesiastical court; but if [it is recognized as belonging] to lay fee, unless both call upon the same bishop or [other] baron, the plea shall be [held] in the king’s court.  But if, with regard to that fee, both call upon the same bishop or [other] baron, the plea shall be [held] in his court; [yet] so that, on account of the recognition which has been made, he who first was seised [of the land] shall not lose his seisin until proof [of the title] has been made in the plea.”

[c.1] “If controversy arises between laymen, between laymen and clergymen, with regard to advowson and presentation to churches, it shall be treated or concluded in the court of the lord king.”

[c.3] “Clergymen charged and accused of anything shall, on being summoned by a justice of the king, come into his court, to be responsible there for whatever it may seem to the king’s court they should there be responsible for; and [to be responsible] in the ecclesiastical court [for what] it may seem they should there be responsible for—so that the king’s justice shall send into the court of Holy Church to see on what ground matters are there to be treated.  And if the clergyman is convicted, or [if he] confesses, the Church should no longer protect him.”

[c.8] “With regard to appeals, should they arise—they should proceed from the archdeacon to the bishop, and from the bishop to the archbishop.  And if the archbishop fails to provide justice, recourse should finally be had to the lord king, in order that by his precept the controversy may be brought to an end in the court of the archbishop; so that it should not proceed further without the assent of the lord king.”

[c.15] “Pleas of debt, owed under pledge of faith or without pledge of faith, belong to the king’s justice.”

 

b.

The Becket controversy

 

c.

The compromise of Avranches of 1172—the constitutions of Clarendon are under a cloud; appeals to the pope are allowed; crimous clerks will be punished by the church and not by secular authority, but how the procedure is to work is not settled; nothing is said about advowsons and debts, and much else remains unsettled.

8.

An attempt to summarize at the macro level

 

a.

An attempt at a “constitutional” document before the time is ripe?

 

b.

The reason why the west developed the notion of the rule of law?

9.

An attempt to summarize at the micro level

 

a.

Introduction of bifurcated proceedings (possessory vs. proprietary)?

 

b.

Jurisdictional division on the basis of substance rather than persons.

 

 

 

 

Download this outline.


[Home Page] [Syllabus] [Announcements] [Lectures]


Please send comments to Rosemary Spang

URL:  http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/cdonahue/courses/echfas/lecture/l05.out.html
last modified:  03/05/09

Copyright ©  2009 Charles Donahue, Jr.