If this be a correct view of the ancient Courts de more, the contemporary historians, who speak of them, have represented them in colours very unlike the truth. The Saxon Annalist, who flourished under the Conqueror, and lived at his court, describes what have been called the Courts de more, in the following manner. 'Thrice a year did the King wear his crown, ' when he was in England; in Easter he wore it at Winches'ter; in Whitsuntide at Westminster; and in Midwinter at 'Gloucester: And then were with him all the great men over all England; Archbishops and Bishops, Abbots and Earls, Thegns and Cnihts.' It will hardly be said, that this description suits a convocation of mere Judges and Cabinet Ministers. The account of Malmsbury, who lived under Henry I. and Stephen, is not more favourable to the hypothesis of the Committee. After informing his readers that William, when in England, always kept his Christmas at Gloucester, his Easter at Winchester, and his Whitsuntide at Westminster, the historian adds, omnes eò cujuscunque professionis magnates regium edictum accersebat, ut exterarum gentium legati speciem multitudinis apparatumque deliciarum mirarentur. + Every one knows, that the term Magnates is one of the expressions used to describe the Members of the Common Council; and the multitude said to have been assembled on these occasions, is hardly reconcileable with a meeting of none but Judges and Cabinet Councillors. If from these general descriptions of the Courts de more we pass to particular accounts of these assemblies, we shall have still less reason to adopt the sentiments of the Committee. In the 19th of William I., says Henry of Huntingdon, the Conqueror held his Court de more at Gloucester. § The historian does not inform us of what persons it was composed; but the Saxon Chronicle tells us, it was attended by his Witanthe expression usually employed in that venerable monument of our history to designate the Common Council of the realm. It happened once upon a time, says Eadmer, in his account of Rufus, cum gratiá dominicæ nativitatis omnes regni primores ad curiam regis, pro more, venissent. ‡ Anselm, says the same historian, having gone to Court on a Christmas festival, hilariter a rege totaque regni nobilitate suscipitur. In Christmas 1109, regnum Angliæ ad Curiam Regis Lundoniæ pro more convenit. We leave our readers to decide, whether these descriptions of

*Chron. Saxon. 190. H. Hunt. 212. Eadmer, 15.

Ib. 105.

**

the Courts de more agree with the theory of the Lords' Committees.

One error frequently leads to another. Having settled that the Courts de more were mere assemblies of Judges and Councillors of State, the Committee were led to the supposition, that immediately after the Conquest, a Supreme Court of Judicature, distinct from the Legislature, was erected by the Conqueror; and whenever the term Curia Regis occurs in our ancient historians or records, they interpret it to mean, not the Legislature or Common Council of the realm, but a Court of Justice sitting in the King's palace, the members of which were appointed and removed at his pleasure. It is important,' they observe, always to bear in mind that the word Curia Regis 'did not denote originally a Legislative Assembly, but only the 'King's Select Council and Supreme Court of Justice.' This view of our ancient government we apprehend to be altogether

6

erroneous.

The phrase Curia Regis signified originally the King's palace or place of residence, or rather the hall, court, or chamber of his palace, where he convened his subjects for the discussion and determination of public affairs. It was afterwards used to express the assembly so convened; and it is only from the context, or from extraneous sources of information, that we can collect, what was the description of persons assembled on any particular occasion, what authority they possessed, or for what purposes they were brought together. Now, so far is it from being true, that the term Curia Regis, in the time of the Conqueror and his immediate successors, meant the King's High Court of Justice, as distinguished from the Legislature, that it is doubtful whether such a court then existed.

The term Curia Regis frequently occurs in the time of the Conqueror and his sons. It is sometimes used for the King's court or residence-more frequently for meetings there convened-but never, as far as we have remarked, is it employed in the limited acceptation given to it by the Committee. It is applied indifferently to all public assemblies held in his palace, whether for legislative or judicial purposes, or merely as a council of advice in the ordinary administration of his government. Nor is there any reason to believe, that, when used to express a meeting convened solely or principally for judicial business, it designated a different description of persons from those who consti

The term Curia Regis is supposed to have been introduced by the Normans; but, in its primitive signification, it is repeatedly used by Asser in his Life of Alfred, pp. 5. 19.

tuted the Legislature. Take the following instances. William I. summoned the Earls of Norfolk and Hereford to stand their trial in the Curia Regis, and for that purpose omnes ad curiam suam regni proceres convocavit. At a subsequent period he accused his brother Odo before the primores regni in aula regali convocatos, and called upon them to judge and pronounce sentence upon him. § There are accounts of many judicial assemblies held in presence of Rufus, the members of which are designated as fermè totius regni nobilitas-totius regni adunatio-as consisting of archbishops, bishops, and principes terræ, or proceres regni. The same prince, after suppressing a rebellion of the Earl of Northumberland, issued a general summons, directed to all his tenants in chief, commanding them, if they desired to live in his peace, to attend his Curia at Christmas. When they met, we are told, that he adjourned the court to the middle. of January, and then proceeded with his witan to the trial of the offenders. In 1102, Henry I. summoned Robert de Beles.ne to his Curia, and accused him, before all his barons, of various misdemeanours; and, in 1107, he again assembled his proceres, et Robertum de Monteforti placitis de violata fide propulsavit. ↑ The continuator of Ingulphus describes a judicial assembly, under the same prince, as Baronum maximus conventus. ‡ Eadmer repeatedly gives an account of judicial proceedings in the same reign, before the bishops and principes or proceres regni,-the same terms which he employs to describe the members of the Legislature. ¶¶ On the 19th of March, 1116, the earls and barons of all England were assembled at Salisbury, to determine judicially the controversy subsisting between the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. 5

The same phraseology continued in use in the reign of Stephen. National councils, whether convoked for justice or advice, were indifferently termed meetings of the Curia Regis. The Norman Chronicle declares it an infamous act of that monarch, to have arrested in his Curia, and committed to custody, the Bishops of Salisbury and Ely, nihil recti recusantes. ||| The Earl of Chester, according to another chronicle, having come to the Curia Regis at Northampton, in order to solicit the aid of his sovereign against the Welsh, was unexpectedly required to surrender the royal castles and demesnes, which, it was pretend

ed, he had usurped; and on his requesting time to prepare an answer to this charge, he was instantly accused of treason, and committed to prison. The same prince, congregatis per edic tum regium apud Sanctum Albanum proceribus regni, arrested Godfrey de Magnavilla as soon as he appeared in the Curia Regis. +

The High Court of Justice, to which the Committee would restrict the appellation of Curia Regis, and of which such frequent mention is made under that name, in our early records and books of law, was confirmed and fully established by Henry II., if not originally instituted by that prince; and yet, in the reign of that monarch, and in the reigns of his sons, we still find the term Curia Regis applied to the Common Council of the realm,—the supreme judicature, as well as the supreme legislature of the kingdom. Soon after his accession, Henry II., we are told, held his Curia at Bermondsey, cum principibus suis de statu regni et pace reformanda tractans. In the subsequent annals of his reign, meetings of the Common Council of the realm, for the despatch of judicial business, frequently occur; and by the 11th constitution of Clarendon, it was expressly enacted, that all persons holding in chief of the Crown by barony, were bound interesse judiciis Curiæ Regis. The great Council at Northampton was a judicial assembly for the trial of various civil actions on the part of the Crown against Becket; and is repeatedly termed Curia Regis in the account of its proceedings. Yet it was attended, not only by the Bishops, Earls, and Barons, but by the Sheriffs and Barons secundæ dignitatis, whoever these last may have been. § The kings of Castille and Navarre, having referred their differences to the arbitration of Henry, and given surety standi judicio curiæ suæ, that monarch convoked a common council of his realm, submitted to its members the claims of the contending parties, and gave judgment in pursuance of their advice-habito cum episcopis, comitibus et baronibus nostris cum deliberatione consilio-adjudicavimus. A controversy between William de Cahannes and the Earl of Leicester, about the tenure of land, was referred by the same prince to his bishops, earls and barons; and a dispute having arisen about the succession of Hugh Bigod, which was submitted to his decision, he promised to do justice to the parties consilio comitum et baronum suorum. ¶

* Duchesne, 970.

Gervas, 1377.

+ W. Neubr. 35, 37. § Stephanid. 35—46

Chron. Brompt. ap. Twysden. col. 1124-Fœdera, i. 34-Benedict. Abbas, 171.

Benedict. Abbas, 165-180.

We shall give one other instance, from the time of Richard I., of the sense in which the term Curia Regis was still occasionally employed. An official paper, published by Hoveden, describes the Curia Regis as the highest tribunal of the kingdom; and a subsequent transaction, related by the same historian, explains to us of what members that supreme court was composed. The chancellor having been guilty of a gross outrage on the archbishop of York, received a citation from Prince John, Earl of Moreton, ut juri staret in curia regis super injuria illa; and when he put off his appearance from day to day, the Earl of Moreton, the archbishop of Rouen, the bishops et principes regni statuerunt illi diem peremptorium apud Radinges. Ad diem autem illum venerunt illuc Comes Moretonii et fere omnes episcopi et comites et barones regni. * A copy of the writ of summons to this council is preserved in a contemporary chronicle, and is probably the oldest writ, the words of which are extant. It is addressed to the Bishop of London by Prince John, and requires him, sicut diligitis honorem Dei et Ecclesiæ, et domini regis et regni, et meum, to be at the bridge of Lodon, between Reading and Windsor, on the Saturday after Michaelmas, tractaturi de quibusdam magnis et arduis negotiis domini regis et regni. + We shall only add, that the judicial proceedings at Nottingham, after the return of Richard from his captivity, were held in a common council of the realm, at which a general tax was imposed, and a variety of other public business transacted. ||

From these instances, it appears to us quite clear, that the Committee are mistaken in supposing that the term Curia Regis was exclusively or originally appropriated to the king's court of justice, which sat in his palace for the ordinary despatch of judicial business. But their mistake, we apprehend, lies deeper than we have yet pointed out. If they had looked into our Saxon institutions, they would have seen, that the Witenagemote was not only the king's legislative assembly, but his supreme court of judicature. We shall not fatigue our readers with proofs or illustrations of this point; but refer them to Mr Turner's history of the Anglo-Saxons, where they will find ample information on the subject. The truth is, that the separation of legislative from judicial business, and their allotment to distinct assemblies, are refinements of a later and more civilized age than that of our Saxon or Norman ancestors. In all rude and semibarbarous communities, which are not subject to the arbitrary will of a single chief, the same public assemblies unite Hoveden, 736.

Hoveden ap. Savile, 701. + Diceto, 663.