the victor used all his art and industry to incorporate them into this kingdom. And the more effectually to make both people become one nation, he made marriages between the English and Normans; transplanting many Norman families hither, and many English families thither. He kept his court sometimes here and sometimes there; and by those means insensibly derived many Norman customs hither, and English customs thither, without any severe imposition of laws on the English, as conqueror. And by this method he might easily prevail to bring in, even without the people's consent, some customs and laws, that prehaps were of foreign growth; which might the more easily be done, considering how, in a short time, the people of both nations were intermingled.--They were mingled in marriages, in families, in the church, in the state, in the court, and in councils; yea, and in parliaments, in both dominions.-Though Normandy became, as it were, an appendix to England, which was the nobler dominion, and received a greater conformity of their laws to the English, than they gave to it.

Fourthly, but the greatest mean of the assimilation of the laws of both kingdoms was this. The kings of England continued dukes of Normandy till king John's time, and he kept some footing there, notwithstanding the confiscation thereof by the king of France, as aforesaid. And during all this time, England, which was AN ABSOLUTE MONARCHY (a), had the prelation, or preference, before Normandy, which was but a FEUDAL DUCHY, and a small thing in respect of England.-By this means Normandy became, as it were, an appendant to England, and successively received its laws and government from England; which had a greater influence on Normandy, than THAT could have on England. Insomuch that oftentimes there issued precepts into Normandy, to summon persons there to answer in civil causes bere; yea, even for lands and possessions in Normandy. As placito 1 Johannis-a precept issued to the seneschal of Normandy, to summon Robert Jeronymus, to answer to John Marshal, in a plea of land, giving him forty days warning; to which the tenant appeared, and pleaded a recovery in Normandy. The like precept issued, for William de Bosco, against Jeoffry Rusham, for lands in Corbespine in Normandy.

(a) Hale, cannot mean, that England was an absolute monarchy, in the common use of the term. He means

no more than what Bracton says, that the king of England is under no one— save God and the law.

And on the other side, Trin. 14 Johannis, in a suit between Francis Borne and Thomas Adorne, for certain lands in Ford, the defendant pleaded a concord made in Normandy, in the time of king Richard I. upon a suit there before the king, for the honour of Bonn in Normandy, and for certain lands in England, whereof the lands in question were parcel, before the seneschal of Normandy, anno 1099. But it was excepted against, as an insufficient fine, and varying in form from other fines; and therefore the defendant relied upon it as a release.

By these, and many the like instances, it appears as follows, viz.

First, that there was a great intercourse between England and Normandy, before and after the Conqueror; which might give a great opportunity of an assimilation and conformity of the laws in both countries. Secondly, that a much greater conformation of laws arose AFTER the Conqueror, during the time that Normandy was enjoyed by the crown of England, than before. And thirdly, that this similitude of the laws of England and Normandy, was not by conformation of the laws of England to those of Normandy, but by conformation of the laws of Normandy to those of England,-which now grew to a great height, perfection, and glory. So that Normandy became but a perquisite, or appendant, of it.

And as the reason of the thing speaks it, so the very fact itself attests it: for

First, it is apparent, that in point of limitation in actions ancestral, from the time of the coronation of king Henry II. it was anciently so here in England in Glanville's time, and was transmitted from hence into Normandy. For it is no way reasonable to suppose the contrary, since Glanville mentions it to be enacted here concilio procerum. And though this be but a single point, or instance, yet the evidence thereof makes out a criterion, or probable indication, that many other laws were in like manner so sent hence into Normandy.

Secondly, it appears, that in the succession of the kings of England, from king William I. to king Henry II. the laws of England received a great improvement and perfection, as will plainly appear from Glanville's book written in the time of king Henry II. especially if compared with those sums, or collections, of laws, either of Edward the Confessor, William I. or Henry I. whereof hereafter.

So that it seems, by use, practice, commerce, study, and improvement of the English people, they arrived in Henry the second's time, to a greater improvement of the laws; and that in the time of king Richard I. and king John, they were more perfected, as may be seen in the pleadings, especially of king John's time; and though far inferior to those of the times of succeeding kings, yet they are far more regular and perfect than those that went before them. And now, if any do but compare the Coutumier of Normandy, with the tract of Glanville, he will plainly find that the Norman tract of laws, followed the pattern of Glanville, and was writ LONG AFTER it, when possibly the English, laws were yet more refined and more perfect. For it is plain beyond contradiction, that the collection of the customs and laws of Normandy was made after the time of king Henry II.-for it mentions his coronation, and appoints it for the limitation of actions ancestral,-which must at least have been thirty years after. Nay, the Coutumier appears to have been made after the act of settlement of Normandy in the crown of France; for therein is specified the institution of Philip king of France, for appointing the coronation of king Richard I. for the limitation of actions, which was AFTER the said Philip's full possession of Normandy.

Indeed, if those laws and customs of Normandy, had been a collection of the laws they had had there, BEFORE the coming-in of king William I. it might have been a probability that their laws, being so near like ours, might have been transplanted from thence thither. But the case is visibly otherwise. For the Coutumier is a collection AFTER the time of king Richard I.-yea, after the time of king John, and POSSIBLY AFTER Henry the third's time; when it had received several repairings, amendments, and polishings, under the several kings of England, William I. William II. Henry I. king Stephen, Henry II. Richard I. and king John; who were either knowing themselves in the laws of England, or were assisted with a council that were knowing therein.

And, as in this tract of time, the laws of England received a great advance and perfection, as appears by that excellent collection of Glanville, written even in Henry the second's time (a), when yet there were near thirty years to acquire unto a further

(a) Vide cap. vii.

improvement before Normandy was lost; so from the laws of England, thus modelled, polished, and perfected, the same draughts were drawn upon the laws of Normandy; which received the fairest lines from the laws of England, as they stood at least in the beginning of king John's time; and were in effect, in a great measure, the defloration of the English laws, and a transcript of them; though mingled and interlarded with many particular laws and customs of their own, which altered the features of the original in many points.

CHAP. VII.

Concerning the progress of the laws of England, after the time of king William I. until the time of king Edward II.

THAT which precedes in the two foregoing chapters, gives us some account of the laws of England, as they stood in and after THE GREAT CHANGE which happened under king William I. commonly called the Conqueror. I shall now proceed to the history thereof in the ensuing times, until the reign of king Edward II. (a)

William I. having three sons,-Robert the eldest, William the next, and Henry the youngest, disposed of the crown of England to William his second son (b), and the duchy of Normandy to Robert (c), his eldest son. And accordingly William II. commonly called William Rufus, succeeded his father in this kingdom. We have little memorable of him in relation to the laws, only that he severely pressed and extended the forest. laws.

Henry I. son of William I. and brother of William II. succeeded his said brother in the kingdom of England, and afterwards expelled his eldest brother Robert out of the duchy of Normandy also. He proceeded much in the benefit of the laws (d), viz.

on

(a) See the last chapter of Mr. Justice Blackstone's Commentaries "the rise, progress, and gradual im"provements of the laws of England."

(b) William the conqueror, in his last illness, wrote to Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, desiring him to crown William, his second son, king of England. Gul. Gemet. p. 292. Order. Vital. p. 659. Chron de Mailr. P. 161. Malmes. p. 112. H. Hunt. p. 371. Hoveden, p. 460. M. Westm. P. 250. But see Lord Lyttelton's Hist. Hen. II. 1 v. oct. 75. The three successors of the Conqueror-William, Henry, and Stephen, in the estimation of many, were no better than usurpers;

they certainly reigned with disputed titles.

(c) He left HIM Normandy and Maine, and bequeathed to Henry nothing but the possessions of his mother Matilda; but foretold, that he would, one day, surpass both his brothers in power and opulence. Order. Vital. 659. Gul. Neustr. 357. Fragm, de Gul. Conq. 32.

(d) Henry executed justice, and that with rigour; the best maxim which a prince in that age could follow. Stealing was first made capital in this reign; and false coining, which was then a very common crime, and by which the money had been extremely debased,