A translation of Glanville

by Ranulf de Glanville

IV. THE TREATISE AND THE LAW.

It is possible from Glanville’s treatise to get a rather complete picture of the common law at the end of the reign of Henry II. In the lord’s courts were regularly brought not only the suits of the villein tenants, but all suits concerning land held of the lord. Suits of the latter sort, however, must be begun by the King’s writ; if the lord refused justice, resort might be had to the county court in all suits involving freehold land; and the lord might on his own motion adjourn a question of difficulty into the King’s court. The county court had original jurisdiction of questions of villeinage and of customary service, and of any question sent to it by the King’s writ; and it had jurisdiction over writs of right removed from the lord’s court. It apparently, also, had jurisdiction of disputes as to title or possession of personal property. The ecclesiastical courts had jurisdiction of questions of marriage and legitimacy, of wills, and of disputes involving ecclesiastical questions only; the King’s court would prohibit them by writ from interfering in other matters.

The procedure in the King’s court did not differ greatly from the present procedure. A suit was begun by writ, served by the sheriff, and enforced by the distraint of the defendant’s land. The most important feature of the procedure was the elaborate system of rules governing essoins or continuances. By a skilful use of essoins the defendant or tenant could prolong proceedings on a writ of right for years; the fact that in the new possessory assises few essoins were allowed, and the proceedings were therefore much prompter, contributed greatly to the favor with which they were received. Final judgment in the King’s court was by this time enrolled; and the method of conveying land by levying a fine was in full operation.

The law of real property in its essential features was fully formed. The whole law of tenures and incidents had been finally settled; but the rules of inheritance and of transfer by will were still uncertain. The doctrines of warranty (now obsolete), according to which the grantor of a party could be called into a suit, or in the technical phrase vouched to warranty, and thus substituted for the original party, were still of the highest importance in practice. The modern mortgage, i.e. the grant on condition, was as yet unknown: Glanville’s mortgage of land, like the pledge of personalty in his time, is a mere grant of custody by way of security.

The law of personal property was little developed. Doctrines as to pledge and bailment, derived from the old Germanic law, were applied in the county courts; there, for instance, the absolute responsibility of the bailee was still enforced. Through the writ of detinue and the action on the case, the King’s courts were soon to take control of these subjects, and to establish the modern law of bailments and carriers.

Certain formal contracts were enforced by the King’s court. The writ of debt would lie as a result of a loan, a sale, or an obligation created by charter. Redress for breach of ordinary contracts could be obtained only in the ecclesiastical courts, which might deal with the sin of deceit. Not for three centuries did the King’s court work out a doctrine by which a party might be held to perform his simple contract.

No action of damages for tort would lie. There is as yet no trace of the process by which (working from appeals of felony to writ of trespass against the King’s peace and actions on the case) the King’s court would eventually work out the modern law of tort. So far as there was any remedy for torts it was in the inferior courts.

The King’s court could at this time punish all felonies except theft, jurisdiction over which it obtained by Magna Carta. It was a long time before it obtained exclusive jurisdiction over felony, or took control, as “custos morum,” of misdemeanors.

Such law, it may be admitted, was rude and unsatisfactory; but it was a long advance over what had gone before, and it had within itself the germ of the modern Common Law.

Joseph H. Beale, Jr.

Harvard University,
October, 1900.

THE TRANSLATOR
TO THE
READER.

Of Ranulph de Glanville, the reputed Author of the following Treatise, Lord Coke speaks in terms of the highest encomium. He informs us, that Glanville was Chief Justice in the Reign of Henry the Second, that he wrote profoundly on part of the Laws of England, and that his Works were extant at that day. “And,” continues his Lordship, “in token of my thankfulness to that worthy Judge, whom I cite many times in these Reports, (as I have done in my former) for the fruit which I confess myself to have reaped out of the fair field of his Labors, I will for the honor of him and of his name and posterity, which remain to this day (as I have good cause to know) impart and publish, both to all future and succeeding Ages, what I found of great antiquity and of undoubted verity, the original whereof remaineth with me at this day, and followeth in these words: Ranulphus de Glanvilla, Justiciarius Angliæ, Fundator fuit domus de Butteley, in Comitatu Suffolciæ, quæ fundata erat anno Regis Henrici, filii Imperatricis, decimo septimo, et anno Domini 1171. quo anno Thomas Becket, Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus, erat occisus. Et dictus Ranulphus nascebatur in Villa de Stratford, in comitatu Suffolciæ, et habuit Manerium de Benhall, cum toto Dominio, e dono dicti Regis Henrici. Et duxit in uxorem quandam Bertam, filiam Domini Theobaldi de Valeymz, Senioris domini de Parham: qui Theobaldus per Chartam suam dedit dicto Ranulpho et Bertæ Uxori suæ totam terram de Brochous, cum pertinentiis, in qua domus de Butteley sita est, cum aliis terris et tenementis, in libero maritagio. Prædictus vero Ranulphus procreavit tres filias de dicta Berta (viz.) Matildam, Amabiliam, et Helewisam, quibus dedit terram suam ante progressum suum versus Terram Sanctam.” The document then proceeds with a minute accuracy to trace our Author’s Descendants, and finishes the sketch by informing us—“quod præfatus Ranulphus de Glanvilla fuit vir præclarissimus genere, utpote de nobili sanguine, vir insuper strenuissimus corpore, qui provectiori ætate, ad Terram sanctam properavit, et ibidem contra inimicos Crucis Christi strenuissime usque ad necem dimicavit.”[1] The paucity of these facts may be, in some measure, remedied, by consulting the Annals of our Second Henry, where the name of Glanville not unfrequently occurs. We hear of him in 1171, as Fermour of the Honor of Earl Conan:[2]—in 1172, as having the custody of that Honor, and the Fair of Hoiland;[3]—and in 1174, as still retaining the same Honor, and accounting for the Capture and Ransoms of Prisoners, &c. taken in War.[4] In the latter year he is said to have distinguished himself, as the General who took the King of Scotland Prisoner.[5] In 1175, he still retained the Honor of Earl Conan,[6] and filled the Office of Sheriff of Yorkshire.[7] In 1176, he was made a Justice of the King’s Court, and a Justice Itinerant.[8] In the same year, he accounted for Westmoreland by the hands of Reiner, his Dapifer or Steward, a privilege conceded to the great alone.[9] In 1180, he was made Chief Justiciary of all England, as we are informed by his cotemporary Roger Hoveden, whose words are too remarkable to be omitted. Henricus Rex Angliæ pater constituit Ranulphum de Glanvilla summum Justiciarium totius Angliæ, cujus sapientia conditæ sunt leges subscriptæ, quas Anglicanas vocamus.[10] The Chief Justiciary, presided in the Curia Regis next to the King, as Chief Judge in all civil and criminal questions; and governed the Realm like a Vice-Roy, when the King was beyond Sea, an event of frequent recurrence in that age. In fine, this officer was invested with a power that placed him far above every other subject. No sooner had Glanville arrived at this elevated post, than he exerted himself to restore and confirm many ancient Laws calculated for the good of the Realm.[11] How much to the satisfaction of Henry the Second Glanville filled this arduous situation, we may infer, from finding additional honors heaped upon him by that able and politic Prince. In 1183, our Author held the place of Dapifer to the King,[12] and, in the same year, he was appointed Fermour of Yorkshire:[13] situations, it is to be presumed, not incompatible with that of Chief Justiciary, which he appears to have retained, until the death of Henry the Second,[14] and that with undiminished honor, if we except the imputation cast upon him for condemning Sir Gilbert de Plumptun to death, but which seems to be refuted by the confidence continued to be reposed in him by the discerning Henry.[15] Immediately after the death of that Prince, he assumed the Order of the Cross, and perished fighting valiantly at the Siege of Acon in the year 1190.[16]

But, whether the same identical person successively occupied these various situations, and, at different periods of his life, filled the rather opposite and inconsistent characters of an able General and a profound Lawyer—a skilful Courtier and an enlightened Legislator, is a doubt which has been entertained by some very respectable Writers. Nor has it passed without a question, whether the present Treatise was really composed by the person whose name it bears. Lord Littleton, indeed, is inclined to infer, that it was not written by Glanville, but by some Clergyman under his direction.[17] These doubts may serve to evince the ingenuity of those who have suggested them, but they prove nothing. When the various situations Glanville is stated to have filled are represented as incompatible, and we start at beholding the grave Lawyer divest himself of his robes to girt on the armour of the soldier, we forget the manners of the age when Glanville florished. When we suppose, that because the work is composed in Latin, it was not written by a Layman, we beg the question: and, having assumed, that no Layman, whatever his parts, whatever his application, could have been sufficiently skilled to write such Latin as our Author has employed, we pay but a sorry compliment to the age, and rather too hastily conclude that we have proved, what, indeed, we have merely taken for granted. When, in fine, we infer, that the knowledge of Law displayed in the Work, and the labor consumed in composing it, are no less inconsistent with the high and elevated station of Glanville, than incompatible with his employments, we forget, that his rise was progressive, and that, as there are but few things to which a truly great mind is inadequate, the production of a small volume upon that Law which it was daily in the habit of dispensing, ought not, whatever the merit of the work may be, to be ranked amongst the number. It must not, however, be concealed, that Mr. Selden mentions a circumstance which, at the first glance, appears to go a great way in determining the question. “I know the authority of that Treatise,” says he, in speaking of the present work, “is suspected, and some of the best and ancientest copies having the name of E. de N. which I have heard from diligent searchers in this kind of Learning affirmed to have been sometimes E. de Narbrough, and not R. de Glanvilla, it hath been thought to be another’s work, and of later time. But as, on the other side, I dare not be confident that it is Glanville’s, so I make little question, that it is as ancient as his time, if not his work. The teste of the precedents of writs under his name, the language, especially the name of Justitia always for that which we now from ancient time called Justiciarius, (and Justitia was so used in writers under Henry the Second) and the Law delivered in it tasteth not of any later age.”[18] Though the latter part of this Extract may be reasonably thought to furnish a sufficient answer to the doubt expressed in the former part, the Translator cannot but observe upon the singularity, that none “of the best and ancientest copies” are forthcoming in support of the fact they are said to prove.

With respect to the Work itself now submitted to the Public in an English dress, it is said to be the first performance that has any thing like the appearance of a Treatise on the subject of Jurisprudence, since the dissolution of the Roman Empire.[19] But this is not correct, if the Assises of Jerusalem, compiled, as we are informed in the preamble, in 1099—the System of Feudal Law, composed by the two Milanese Lawyers in 1150, and the Decretum of Gratian, published about the same time, be considered as Treatises on Law. It seems, however, to be unquestionable, that the present Treatise is the earliest and most ancient work on the subject of English Jurisprudence, from which any clear and coherent account of it is to be obtained. Dr. Robertson, indeed, informs us, “that in no country of Europe was there at that time, any collection of Customs, nor had any attempt been made to render Law fixed. The first undertaking of that kind was by Glanville, Lord Chief Justice of England, in his Tractatus de Legibus et consuetudinibus,[20] composed about the Year 1181.”[21]

It has been thought, that Glanville drew up this compendium of the Laws of England for the public use, by the express command of Henry the Second, a conjecture which, Mr. Madox observes, is not only favored by a certain MS. remaining in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, written in a hand of the age of Edward the Second, in which there is a Treatise entituled Leges Henrici Secundi, agreeing in many passages with the printed copy of Glanville, but also by the manner of our Author’s writing, especially in the Prologue.[22] There is also in the Cottonian collection a MS. of Glanville, which bears the Title of Laws of Henry the Second. But Mr. Reeves informs us, this manner of entituling Treatises was not then uncommon.[23]

The present work appears to have remained in MS. until the Year 1554, when, as Sir Edward Coke apprises us, it was, by the persuasion and procurement of Sir William Stanford, a grave and learned Judge of the common Pleas, first printed.[24] With many peculiar circumstances, however, to create an Interest in its favor, the fate of the work has been most singular. Indebted to its intrinsic merit alone for the high compliment it has long enjoyed, in being looked up to as an authority from which there was no appeal, curiosity has given way to an opinion, that whilst it was venerable for its antiquity, it was also useless, for it was obsolete. That many parts of it are obsolete, it would be idle to deny; but that the work itself is by no means so entirely obsolete as generally assumed, will be fully evident to every impartial and candid Reader. But were it entirely obsolete, it would not necessarily follow, that it would be useless, the terms not being, at least in the science of Jurisprudence, either convertible or synonymous, however fashionable, or, more properly speaking, convenient it may be to esteem them such. Multa ignoramus quæ nobis non laterent, si Veterum lectio nobis esset familiaris. The Law of Modern Times is intimately connected with that of our Forefathers, and the decisions of the present day are not unfrequently built upon principles that are enveloped in the almost impervious mist of far distant ages. But to these principles must the Student ascend, if he would merit the name of a Lawyer; and, if the labor be severe, he must reconcile it to himself by reflecting, that it was submitted to by a Coke, a Hale, a Blackstone. Led by the soundness of their judgments, to investigate the earlier ages of our Jurisprudence, those great men considered nothing useless, though it possibly might happen to be obsolete, which tended to enlighten their minds, and shew them the fundamental principles of those Laws, which they afterwards no less admirably illustrated, than ably administered. But the brightness of the example instead of exciting emulation seems to have depressed it: and Glanville, Bracton, and Fleta have been suffered to crumble on the shelf, whilst Edition has rapidly followed Edition of those more modern Authors, who have advocated their cause, by drawing so deeply from the rich and inexhaustible mines, which their pages present to the English Lawyer.

It remains to speak of the Translation now submitted to the Public. Fidelity has been the principal object of the Translator. If more be demanded, he would shelter himself under the high name of Sir William Jones. “Elegance, on a subject so delicate as Law, must be sacrificed, without mercy, to exactness.” Next to fidelity, simplicity has been aimed at, as most in unison with the original, and, perhaps, the best adapted for transfusing its spirit into the English Language. Not that with these two objects immediately before him, the Translator would be understood as conceding, that he has sacrificed any beauty, any elegance of expression generally abounding in, or spread over, the original work. He could not sacrifice that which never existed. The style of Glanville, destitute of every grace, and dry and harsh in the extreme, professedly aims at the peculiar qualities which characterise it. Stilo vulgari et verbis curialibus utens ex industria, ad notitiam comparandum eis, qui hujusmodi vulgaritate minus sunt exercitati, are the very terms in which he describes his own manner of writing. So successfully has he accomplished his object, that he imposes upon his Translator a Task not altogether unlike that of acquiring a new language. Yet to these difficulties the Translator reluctantly alludes, for though they may, in some measure, atone for those errors into which he is apprehensive he has often fallen, he is conscious, the merit of his attempt is not to be estimated by its arduousness, but its utility.

With respect to the Annotations, it was the Translator’s original intention to have confined himself to a mere explanation of the obsolete Terms. But, anxious to render the work more extensively useful, he has not unfrequently departed from his first design. Among the works occasionally referred to, the Reader will recognise the Regiam Majestatem—so termed from the words with which it commences. This work has been sometimes received, as containing the genuine ancient Law of Scotland—sometimes rejected, as a mere spurious fabrication. Among the names in collision on this point are those of Skene, Erskine, Lord Kaims, Houard, Dalrymple, Craig, Lord Stair and Dr. Robertson. Nor has there been less dispute whether Glanville, or the Regiam Majestatem be the original work. But this question is said to be satisfactorily disposed of by Mr. Davidson, who has published a pamphlet expressly on the subject, and has proved, if it were necessary to prove, what is rendered indubitable by the internal Evidence of the two Works, that Glanville is the original; observing, at the same time, “that Glanville is regular, methodical, and consistent throughout; whereas the Regiam Majestatem goes out of Glanville’s method for no other assignable reason, than to disguise the matter, and is thereby rendered confused, unsystematical, and in many places contradictory.” The Translator has not been able to meet with Mr. Davidson’s work, but is indebted to the [preface] attached to the last Edition of Glanville for this Summary of it. “To this observation upon the method of the Regiam Majestatem,” says Mr. Reeves, “it may be added, that, on a comparison of the account given of things in that and in Glanville, it plainly appears, that the Scotch Author is more clear, explicit, and defined; and that he writes very often with a view to explain the other, in the same manner in which the writer of our Fleta, explains his predecessor Bracton. This is remarkable in numberless instances all through the Book, and is, perhaps, as decisive a mark of a copy as can be. The other Scotch Laws, which follow the Regiam Majestatem in Skene’s collection, contribute greatly to confirm the suspicion. These, as they are of a later date than several English Statutes which they resemble, must be admitted to be copied from them; and so closely are the originals followed, that the very words of them are retained. This is particularly remarkable of the Reign of Robert the Second, in which is the Statute of quia Emptores, and others plainly copied from our Laws, without any attempt to conceal the imitation. These Laws, at least, can impose upon no one; and when viewed with the Regiam Majestatem at their head, and compared with Glanville and the English Statute Book, they seem to declare very intelligibly to the world, that this piece of Scotch Jurisprudence is borrowed from ours.”[25] Nor is the enlightened and liberal Historian Dr. Robertson more favorably disposed towards that claim, which some of his countrymen have put in, for the originality of the Regiam Majestatem. “The Regiam Majestatem ascribed to David the first seems,” he observes, “to be an imitation and a servile one, of Glanville. Several Scottish Antiquaries, under the influence of that pious credulity, which disposes men to assent without hesitation to whatever they deem for the honor of their native country, contend zealously, that the Regiam Majestatem is a production prior to the Treatise of Glanville; and have brought themselves to believe, that a nation, in a superior state of improvement, borrowed its Laws from one considerably less advanced in its political progress. The internal Evidence (were it my province to examine it) by which this theory might be refuted is in my opinion decisive. The external circumstances, which have seduced Scottish Authors into this mistake, have been explained with so much precision and candor by Sir David Dalrymple, in his Examination of some of the arguments for the high antiquity of the Regiam Majestatem, Eding, 1767. 4to, that it is to be hoped, the controversy will not be again revived.”[26]

In dismissing this subject, it may be remarked in the words of Mr. Reeves, that it seems unnecessary to contend for the originality of the Regiam Majestatem, whilst a doubt of much more importance remains unsettled—whether that Treatise, as well as the others in the publication of Skene, are now, or ever were, any part of the Law of Scotland, on which, as we have already observed, so many eminent men differ. On the other hand, the authenticity of Glanville, as the code of Law existing in this country during the Reign of Henry the Second, has been admitted, either expressly or impliedly by all the English Lawyers, who have florished in the long interval which has elapsed from that period to the present, and never has been questioned, if we except a solitary dictum, which, as it equally affected the credit of Bracton, and was totally unauthorised, is refuted by a thousand circumstances, if it were an object to mention them.[27] But to return from this digression.

Though the Translator had not the good fortune to meet with Mr. Davidson’s Pamphlet, he was more successful in discovering Skene’s translation of the Regiam Majestatem, deposited in Lincoln’s Inn Library. The Translator intended to have noticed such parts of the Regiam Majestatem, as coincided with Glanville. But, after having, with some attention, perused the former Book, he found the similarity between the two works so very general, and the correspondence so exact, that the Regiam Majestatem might frequently be taken verbal Translation of Glanville, or, at least, as another Edition of the same Treatise, in which the writer had made some slight additions and alterations, and had capriciously amused himself in contriving an arrangement totally different, though far less happy and systematical. The Translator has, therefore, generally contented himself with noticing those deviations between the two works, which were more immediately relevant to his subjects. Nor has he always stopped here, but has availed himself of the Regiam Majestatem, whenever it was less ambiguous, or more decided than Glanville, which from the very circumstance of its being a posterior publication, it sometimes naturally will happen to be. In addition to the Regiam Majestatem, reference has been occasionally made to the Grand Custumary of Normandy, Bracton, Fleta, Britton, Coke, Hale, &c. &c. Some of these references serve to corroborate—some to illustrate the Text: some tend to shew that a Law was not peculiar to this Country, and some that a similar Rule has been adopted even in Modern Times by a neighboring State. In consulting the Laws of that state, and noticing those instances of strong or faint resemblance between them and the Code of Henry the Second, the Translator acted in deference to the suggestions of a Gentleman, who, though possessed of the most profound legal knowledge, is yet more entitled to our admiration for his singular liberality of sentiment, and urbanity of manners. If the more enlightened mind derive no benefit from the plan which has been adopted in the notes, and anticipate the Result; yet, it is hoped, the Student may receive some advantage from it. But, if the Translator has been too diffuse in some instances, he has, on other occasions, contented himself with a bare reference. He has been averse to swell the [Notes], where a bare citation would serve to direct the Student, if disposed to extend his inquiries. In addition to the Translator’s own [Notes], the Reader is furnished with a few annotations extracted from a copy of Glanville, formerly belonging to Mr. Justice Aland, and now deposited in the collection of the Royal Institution. Yet, should it be observed, it is not perfectly clear whether these annotations were made by that learned Judge, or by the Reverend Mr. Elstob, a gentleman deeply versed in Anglo-Saxon Literature. By way of distinction, these Annotations are particularised by (Al. MS.)

In order to render the work as complete as the limited ability of the Translator would allow, he has subjoined the more important, and only the more important various Readings, as furnished by the Bodleian, the Cottonian, the Harleian and Dr. Milles’s MSS. The MS. of Glanville deposited in Lincoln’s Inn Library has not been consulted.

The Translator concludes these cursory observations with a brief summary of the contents of Glanville, availing himself, in some measure, of that contained in Mr. Reeves’s History.

Our Author in general confines himself to such matters only as were the objects of jurisdiction in the Curia Regis, and divides his work into fourteen Books. The two [first] of which treat of the Writ of Right, when originally commenced in the Curia Regis, and of all its stages, the Summons—Essoins—Appearance—Pleadings—Duel or Grand Assise—Judgment and Execution. The [third] speaks of vouching to Warranty, which with the two former Books, comprises a lucid account of the proceedings in a Writ of Right for the recovery of Land. The [fourth Book] is employed upon rights of Advowson, the [fifth] upon Villenage, and the [sixth] upon Dower. The [seventh] treats upon Alienation, Descents, Succession, Wardship, and Testaments. The [eighth] is upon final Concords, and Records in general. The [ninth] is upon Homage, Relief, Fealty, Services, and Purprestures. The [tenth] treats of Debts and matters of Contract; and the [eleventh] upon Attornies. Having thus disposed of Actions commenced originally in the Curia Regis, our author, in his [twelfth Book], speaks of Writs of Right, when brought in the Lord’s Court, and the manner of removing them from thence to the County Court and Curia Regis, which leads him to mention some other Writs determinable before the Sheriff. In his [thirteenth Book], he treats of Assises, and Disseisins. The [last Book] is wholly taken up in discussing the doctrine of Pleas of the Crown.

JOHN BEAMES.

It was intended to have added the names of all those Gentlemen, who subscribed for the work. But the list having been consumed in the fire which destroyed Mr. Reed’s Premises, and many of the names having been thereby lost, it is become impossible.