In criminal cases a great change was likewise effected.  Henceforth twelve men from each hundred, with four from each township,—­sixteen at least,—­acting as a grand jury, were to present all suspected criminals to the circuit judges.[3] The judges sent them to the Ordeal (S91); if they failed to pass it, they were then punished by law as convicted felons; if they did pass it, they were banished from the kingdom as persons of evil repute.  After the abolition of the Ordeal (1215), a petty jury of witnesses was allowed to testify in favor of the accused, and clear them if they could from the charges brought by the grand jury.  If their testimony was not decisive, more witnesses were added until twelve were obtained who could unanimously decide one way or the other.  In the course of time[1] this smaller body became judges of the evidence for or against the accused, and thus the modern system of Trial by Jury was established about 1350.

[3] See the Assize of Clarendon (1166) in Stubbs’s “Select Charters.” [1] The date usually given is 1350; but as late as the reign of George I juries were accustomed to bring in verdicts determined partly by their own personal knowledge of the facts.  See Taswell-Langmead (revised edition), p.179.

These reforms had three important results:  (1) they greatly dimished the power of the barons by taking the administration of justice, in large measure, out of their hands; (2) they established a more uniform system of law; (3) they brought large sums of money, in the way of court fees and fines, into the King’s treasury, and so made him stronger than ever.

But meanwhile Henry was carrying on a still sharper battle in his attempt to bring the Church courts—­which William I had separated from the ordinary courts—­under control of the same system of justice.  In these Church courts any person claiming to belong to the clergy had a right to be tried.  Such courts had no power to inflict death, even for murder.  In Stephen’s reign many notorious criminals had managed to get themselves enrolled among the clergy, and had thus escaped the hanging they deserved.  Henry was determined to have all men—­in the circle of clergy or out of it—­stand equal before the law.  Instead of two kinds of justice, he would have but one; this would not only secure a still higher uniformity of law, but it would sweep into the King’s treasury may fat fees and fines which the Church courts were then getting for themselves.

By the laws entitled the “Constitutions of Clarendon,” 1164 (S165), the common courts were empowered to decide whether a man claiming to belong to the clergy should be tried by the Church courts or not.  If they granted him the privilege of a Church-court trial, they kept a sharp watch on the progress of the case; if the accused was convicted, he must then be handed over to the judges of the ordinary courts, and they took especial pains to convince him of the Bible truth, that “the way of the transgressor is hard.”  For a time the Constitutions were rigidly enforced, but in the end Henry was forced to renounce them.  Later, however, the principle he had endeavored to set up was fully established.[2]