Number of
ecclesiasti-
cal courts.
Prohibitions
issued by
the king’s
court.
Complaints
of the clergy
against pro-
hibitions.
Restriction
of ecclesias-
tical juris-
diction.
The writ
‘ eireuɪn-
specte
agatis∕
358 Constitutional History. [chap.
chinery of judicature; the archbishops in their prerogative
courts, the bishops in their consistories, the archdeacons in
some cases, and even the spiritual judges of still smaller dis-
tricts, exercised jurisdiction in all these matters ; in some
points, as in probate and administration, co-ordinately, in others
by way of delegation or of review and appeal.
With the constitution of these courts the secular power
meddled little. It does not appear that the secular courts were
ever invoked to compel the ecclesiastical courts to do their
duty : such a proceeding would have been contrary to the legal
idea of the middle ages. With the proceedings, however, of the
courts Christian, whenever due cause was shown, the temporal
judicature might interfere by prohibitions issued by the king’s
courts of law or equity1; and the claim of the kings that none
of their vassals or servants should be excommunicated without
their leave exempted a large number of persons from the juris-
diction of the church courts. The prohibitions were a standing
grievance with the clergy, and were probably granted in many
cases without due consideration. They were indeed frequently
a sort of protest made by the temporal courts against the
assumptions and encroachment,? of the courts Christian. The
councils of the thirteenth century constantly complained of
these vexatious proceedings2, although by their own attempts
to extend their jurisdiction they as constantly provoked retalia-
tion. In 1246 Henry III charged Grosseteste as the author
of these attempts which he refused to sanction; and in 1247
he endeavoured to restrict this branch of ecclesiastical juris-
diction to matrimonial and testamentary causes, and Edward I
acted upon that rule3. The writ of ‘ circumspecte agatis,’ by
defining the exercise of the royal power of prohibition, succeeded
in limiting the functions of the church courts. This writ, which
was regarded as a statute, directed that prohibitions should not
be issued in cases of spiritual correction, neglect of churchyards,
subtraction of tithes, oblations, mortuaries, pensions due to
ɪ Blackstone, Comm. iii. 112 ; Gibson, Codex, pp. xix, 1064, sq.
'- Ann. Burton, pp. 254 εq. ; 403 sq. ; 413 s∙q. ; 422 sq.
3 See above, vol. ii. p. 66 ; anil the forms of prohibition in Prynne⅛
Jtecords, iii. 780 ; Britton, i. 90, ii. 284,
XIX.]
Prohlbjliions.
359
prelates, assault of clergymen, defamation, and breach of oath.
In cases which concerned the right of patronage, tithe suits
between parsons for more than a fourth part of the tithe of
a parish, and pecuniary penances, prohibitions were to be en-
forced. In cases of assault on a clerk the injured person might
appeal to the king’s courts on account of the breach of the
peace, and likewise to the bishop’s court for sentence of ex-
communication ; and in cases of defamation the spiritual court
might commute penance for pecuniary payment in spite of
prohibition1. The later statutes of 1316, 1340, and 1344, are
amendments and expansions of the principles here laid down.
402. The jurisdiction of the spiritual courts over spiritual
men embraced all matters concerning the canonical and moral
conduct of the clergy, faith, practice, fulfilment of ecclesiastical
obligations, and obedience to ecclesiastical superiors. For these τheb⅛hopβ'
° ’ ɪ prisons,
questions the courts possessed a complete jurisprudence of their
own, regular processes of trial, and prisons in which the con-
victed offender was kept until he had satisfied the justice of
the church. In these prisons the clerk convicted of a crime,
for which if he had been a layman he would have suffered death,
endured lifelong captivity2; here the clerk convicted of a treason
or felony in the secular court, and subsequently handed over to
the ordinary, was kept in safe custody. In 1402, when Henry Tendency
IV confirmed the liberties of the clergy, the archbishop under-
took that no clerk convicted of treason, or being a common
thief, should be admitted to purgation, and that this should be
secured by a constitution to be made by the bishops3. These
prisons, especially after the alarms consequent on the Lollard
movements, were a grievance in the eyes of the laity, who do
not seem to have trusted the good faith of the prelates in their
* Statutes, i. ɪoɪ, 102; above, vol. ii. p. 124. It is worth while com-
paring the law under the assizes of Jerusalem, ii. 28; the points marked
out by Beaumanoir, for the competence of spiritual courts, are ; ɪ. Accu-
sations of faith; 2. Marriage; 3. Gifts to churches and alms ; 4. Religious
properties; 5. Crusaders; 6. Widows; 7. Wills; 8. Holy places; 9. Bas-
tardy; ɪo. Sorcery; H. Tithes; Beaumanoir, xi. p. 56. And on testa-
mentary jurisdiction, see Assizes, ii. 124.
2 See Boniface’s Constitution of I26t ; Johnson, Canons, iɪ. 208.
3 See Wilkins, Cone. iii. 271, 272.