ndon). The Assize of Clarendon was the first
true code of national law; it was later expanded and made permanent
under the name of the Assize of Northampton. (See the Constitutional
Summary in the Appendix, p. vii, S8.)

In addition to the private courts which, under feudal law, the barons
had set up on their estates (S150), they had in many cases got the
entire control of the town and other local courts. There they dealt
out such justice or injustice as they pleased. The King's judges now
assumed control of these tribunals, and so brought the common law of
the realm to every man's door.

175. Grand Juries.

The Norman method of settling disputed was by Trial by Battle, in
which the contestants or their champions fought the matter out either
with swords or cudgels (S148). There were those who objected to this
club law. To them the King offered the privilege of leaving the
decision of twelve knights, chosen from the neighborhood, who were
supposed to know the facts. (See the Constitutional Summary in the
Appendix, p. vi, S8.)

In like manner, when the judges passed through a circuit, a grand jury
of not less than sixteen was to report to them the criminals of each
district. These the judges forthwith sent to the Church to be
examined by the Ordeal (S91). If convicted, they were punished; if
not, the judges considered them to be suspicious characters, and
ordered them to leave the country within eight days. In that way the
rascals of that generation were summarily disposed of.

Henry II may rightfully be regarded as having taken the first step
toward founding the system of Trial by Jury, which England, and
England alone, fully matured. That method has since been adopted by
every civilized country of the globe. (See the Constutional Summary
in the Appendix, p. vii, S8.)

176. Origin of the Modern Trial by Jury, 1350.

In the reign of Henry's son John, the Church abolished the Ordeal
(S91) throughout Christendom (1215). It then became the custom in
England to choose a petty jury, acquainted with the facts, whoch
confirmed or denied the accusations brought by the grand jury. When
this petty jury could not agree, the decision of a majority was
sometimes accepted.

The difficulty of securing justice by this method led to the custom of
summoning witnesses. These witnesses appeared before the petty jury
and testified for or against the party accused. In this way it became
possible to obtain a unanimous