Angevin kings we are on both firmer and more interesting ground. The jurisdiction of the king, however, to which we have just referred, was long in forming itself into what we call courts of law under the Norman kings. “The king's justice was still extraordinary; the local courts were those to which men went; the king's court was not in permanent session." "Under the two Williams the name curia Regis seems to be borne only by those great assemblages that collect round the king thrice a year when he wears his crown, on the great festivals of the Church. It was in such assemblages that the king's justice was done under his own eye, and no doubt he got his way; still it was not for him to make the judgements of his court. Under Henry I. something that is more like a permanent tribunal, a group of justiciars presided over by a chief justiciar, becomes apparent. Twice a year this group, taking the name of the exchequer,' sat round the chequered table, received the royal revenue, audited the sheriffs' accounts, and did incidental justice. From time to time some of its members would be sent through the counties to hear the pleas of the crown, and litigants who were great men began to find it worth their while to bring their cases before this powerful tribunal. We cannot say that these justiciars were professionally learned in English law: but the king chose for the work trusty barons and able clerks, and some of these clerks, besides having long experience as financiers and administrators, must have known at least a little of the new canonical jurisprudence. But for all this when Henry died little had yet been done towards centralising in one small body of learned men the whole work of justice" (c).

(c) History of English Law, Vol. I. p. 86.

We have to go forward for more than half a century before we can really find national and recognised courts of justice; for it is in what is sometimes termed, perhaps a little fancifully, the age of Glanville-in other words, in the reign of Henry II.—that the system of English justice becomes visible in distinct and clearly defined forms.

Glanville was, indeed, a conspicuous figure in the reign of Henry II., but it is doubtful if he wrote the book—" A Treatise on the Laws and Customs of England, composed in the time of Henry the Second, while the Honourable Ranulph Glanvill held the Helm of Justice "—which is associated with his name. Indeed, the probabilities are in favour of the work being that of some clerk who had followed Glanville's decisions, rather than of a man who was a statesman and a soldier, as well as a lawyer—if lawyer even a chief justice may be called in the twelfth century. Glanville came of an old Suffolk family. In 1163 he was made sheriff of Yorkshire; eleven years later, being then sheriff of Lancashire, he defeated the Scots. near Alnwick, capturing their king. "From that time forward he was a prominent man, high in the King's favour, a man to be employed as general, ambassador, judge, and sheriff. In 1180 he became chief justiciar of England-prime minister, we may say, and viceroy." He went with Richard to the crusades, and died at Acre in 1190. The book which has been called after him seems to have been composed before the death of Henry II. in 1189. It is highly improbable that a man with the important duties which were cast on Glanville would have the time, even if he had the inclination, to carry out a task more fitted for the scholar and the clerk than the man of

action and the judge. On the other hand, nothing is more likely than that some competent secretary or clerk should associate such a book with the name of his master-" cujus sapientia conditæ sunt leges subscriptæ," says Hoveden. That legal wisdom it would be the natural desire of an industrious subordinate to perpetuate. And some one has done so, leaving us a notable landmark in the history of English law-a book in which we see procedure and substantive law gradually emerging out of an early legal obscurity. The elementary divisions of what we now term civil and criminal law also become apparent. It is a book, however, which helps us to realise the importance of the reign of Henry II. in the history of our law, rather than one which perpetuates the fame of a jurist.

We must resume, however, our review of the legal history of the time, and we may say shortly that at the end of the above reign we find still somewhat uncertain in its character, but yet clearly established-a central and permanent court, wherein the king dispensed justice through the agency of skilled men, and also a system of courts held by itinerant justices who were acting for the king. The number and personnel of these justices was uncertain, the procedure of the courts was not established, but yet we may say that before the end of the reign there is a permanent central tribunal of persons expert in the administration of justice-of sworn judges. It can be distinguished from the courts held by the itinerant justices, for though every such court is curia Regis, this is capitalis curia Regis. It can be distinguished from the exchequer, for though it often sits at the exchequer, and though its principal justices will be also the principal

barons of the exchequer, it has a seal of its own and may well sit away from Westminster, while the fiscal business of the exchequer could hardly be transacted elsewhere. It can be distinguished from those great councils of prelates and nobles that the king holds from time to time; questions too great for it are to be reserved for such councils. Probably it is already getting the name of 'the bench,' and its justices are justices residing at the bench. Though it is curia Regis and capitalis curia Regis, it is not necessarily held coram ipso Rege. Apparently the writs that summon litigants before it bid them appear before the king or before his justices,' that is to say, before the king if he happens to be in England and doing justice, and if not, then before his justices. No doubt when the king is in this country he will sometimes preside in court, but whether the justices will then follow the king in his progresses we cannot say for certain; as a matter of fact during the last eight years of his reign the king's visits to England were neither very frequent nor very long. On the whole Westminster seems to be becoming the fixed. home of this tribunal; but as yet all its arrangements are very easily altered” (d).

When we arrive at another period-"the age of Bracton," which coincides with the beginning of the reign of Edward I.-we have reached a time when the courts of law had taken that final form which they were to retain for six centuries, until by modern lawyers they were thrown back into that cumbrous whole from which by the necessities of advancing civilisation they had gradually evolved themselves. The

(d) History of English Law, Vol. I. p. 133.

reforms of 1873 were carried out with perhaps too little regard to the course of history and the modern tendency to specialisation, and in the present Supreme Court of Judicature we see the form of the ruder age of the twelfth century.

If we look at what were formerly called the courts of common law, we note at this time three distinct tribunals. The Exchequer was in a less defined state as a legal tribunal than the other courts to which we shall presently refer. It was "in part a judicial tribunal, in part a financial bureau." Its duty as a government department, if we may use a modern phrase, was the real reason for its action as a court of law, though it is a curious fact that the dual character which the Court of Exchequer afterwards came to possess as the forum in which disputes about the revenue were settled and as an ordinary court of law was already becoming apparent. Its duty was primarily to find what was due to the king, and to compel the payment of it. It was natural that from this rather limited jurisdiction should grow a correlative onenamely, of adjudicating on claims against the king. Thus, when a man "thinks that he has a claim against the king, either in respect of some debt that the king owes him or in respect of some land that the king has seized, he will (this is the common practice of Edward I.'s day) present a petition to the king and council, and a favourable response to this petition will generally delegate the matter to the treasurer and barons, and bid them do what is right" (e).

(e) History of English Law, Vol. I. p. 171.