esses 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