Clerical justice

Church and lay courts existed side by side in Plantagenet England and, to an extent unparalleled in modern times, a man's political power went hand in hand with his right to try offenders in his own court. It was, therefore, inevitable that the great power of the Church was expressed in a complicated hierarchy of ecclesiastical courts.

By the mid-12th centry all Henry II's subjects must have been familiar with the way in which many offences could lead to a summons to the court of a bishop of his chief subordinate, the archdeacon, with the further possiblity of appeals to the archbishop and even to the court of the pope himself. Although it was generally accepted that these courts should confine themselves to 'causes touching the rule of souls', such causes were notoriously hard to define.

Cases involving sexual immoralty or irregularities in making wills and testaments were undoubtedly matters for the spiritual authorities; while the king's monopoly over serious crimes such as treason, murder, violent robbery, arson and false coining was undeniable. But there were many other offences over which clerical and royal lawyers competed incessantly for jurisdiction.

The influences of Church and State were so inextricably combined that neither side could hope to win the struggle outright. However, by the end of the 12th century -- not least as a result of the confrontation between Henry II and Thomas Becket -- England's Church and lay courts settled down to a comparatively peaceful coexistence for the rest of the Middle Ages.