This petition led to the disgrace and punishment of the chancellor, the Earl of Southampton (Wriothesley), for having issued a commission without warrant and without consulting his fellow-executors of King Henry’s will. With Somerset’s motives for thrusting Southampton aside we are not concerned. (See Pollard, England under the Protector Somerset, pp. 31-33.) That he had any desire to protect the common lawyers we must not assume; but the petition itself deserves attention. The commissioners to whom Southampton had delegated judicial powers were Robert Southwell (master of the rolls), John Tregonwell, John Oliver, and Anthony Bellasyse (masters of chancery). Tregonwell, Oliver and Bellasyse were all doctors of the civil law (Dict. Nat. Biog.).
Common law and the Pilgrimage of Grace.
In 1536 during the Pilgrimage of Grace one of the demands of the catholic insurgents was ‘that the common laws may have place as was used at the beginning of the reign and that no injunctions be granted unless the matter has been determined in chancery.’ This comes at the end of a long reactionary programme, which desires the restoration of the monasteries, of the papal supremacy and so forth: also the repeal of the statute ‘That no man shall not will his lands’ [Statute of Uses]. The heretical bishops [Cranmer and his like] are to be burnt; Cromwell is ‘to have condign punishment.’ Also ‘a man is to be saved by his book,’ i.e. there is to be no infringement of the benefit of clergy. The heresies to be suppressed are those of ‘Luther, Wyclif, Husse, Malangton, Elicampadus [Oecolampadius], Bucerus, Confessa Germaniae [Augsburg Confession], Apolugia Malanctons, the works of Tyndall, of Barnys, of Marshall, Raskell [Rastell, the printer of law books], Seynt Germayne [author of Doctor and Student] and such other heresies of Anibaptist.’ As I understand the protest against injunctions, it means that the chancery may interfere with an action at common law, only if that action is opening a question already decided in the chancery. It will be seen that in 1536 the cause of ‘the common laws’ finds itself in very queer company: illiterate, monkish and papistical company, which apparently has made a man of ‘Anibaptist.’ (For this important manifesto, see Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. XI., pp. 506-507.)
Elbow-room in the courts of law.
[52] Stow, Annals, ed. 1615, p. 631: ‘This yeere (1557) in Michaelmas terme men might have seene in Westminster hall at the Kinges bench barre not two men of law before the iustices; there was but one named Fostar, who looked about and had nothing to doe, the iudges looking about them. In the common place [Court of Common Pleas] no moe sergeants but one, which was sergeant Bouloise [Bendlowes?], who looked about him, there was elbow roome enough, which made the lawyers complaine of their iniuries in that terme.’ In 1536 John Rastell the lawyer and printer of law books complains to Cromwell that in both capacities he is in a bad way: he used to print from two to three hundred reams every year but now prints not a hundred reams in two years; he used to make forty marks a year by the law and now does not make forty shillings (Ellis, Original Letters, Ser. III., vol. II., p. 309). On such stories as these little stress is laid; but until the judicial records of the Tudor reigns are statistically examined, scraps of information may be useful.
Examination by civilians in criminal cases.
[53] For an instance see the examination of a servant of the Abbot of Sawley by Drs Layton, Legh and Petre (Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. XII., pt. 1, p. 231).
The doctors of law and the Peasants’ War.
[54] As to the evil done to the peasants in Germany by the Reception of Roman law, see Egelhaaf, Deutsche Geschichte (Zeitalter der Reformation), vol. I., pp. 544 ff.; Lamprecht, Deutsche Geschichte, vol. V., pp. 99 ff. Dr Brunner (Grundzüge der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, 1901, p. 216) has lately said that Roman jurisprudence ‘auch wenn sie nicht geradezu bauernfeindlich war, doch kein Verständnis besass für die Mannigfaltigkeit der bäuerlichen Besitzformen des deutschen Rechtes.’ One of the revolutionary programmes proposed an exclusion of all doctors of civil or canon law from the courts and councils of the princes. See Egelhaaf, op. cit., pp. 499, 598. The following is a pretty little tale:—‘So geschah es wirklich einmal zu Frauenfeld im Thurgau, wo die Schöffen einen Doctor aus Constanz, der sich für die Entscheidung eines Erbschaftsstreites auf Bartolus und Baldus berufen wollte, zur Thüre hinauswarfen mit den Worten: “Hört ihr, Doctor, wir Eidgenossen fragen nicht nach dem Bartele und Baldele. Wir haben sonderbare Landbräuche und Rechte. Naus mit euch, Doctor, naus mit euch!” Und habe, heisst es in dem Berichte weiter, der gute Doctor müssen abtreten, und sie Amtleute haben sich einer Urtel verglichen, den Doctor wieder eingefordert und ein Urtel geben wider den Bartele und Baldele und wider den Doctor von Constanz.’ (Janssen, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, vol. I., p. 490.) It is a serious question what would have become of our English copyholders if in the sixteenth century Roman law had been received. The practical jurisprudence of this age seems to have been kinder to the French than to the German peasant; perhaps because it was less Roman in France than in Germany. See E. Levasseur in Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire générale, vol. IV., p. 188: ‘Des jurisconsultes commencèrent à considérer l’inféodation comme une aliénation et le colon censitaire comme le véritable propriétaire de la terre sur laquelle le seigneur n’aurait possédé qu’un droit éminent.’ The true Romanist, I take it, can know but one dominium, and is likely to give that one to the lord.
England and Germany.