Business Ethics Now 4th Edition

Andrew Ghillyer Solutions Manual

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://testbankdeal.com/download/business-ethics-now-4th-edition-andrew-ghillyer-s
olutions-manual/
Business Ethics Now 4th Edition Andrew Ghillyer Solutions Manual

Chapter 02 - Defining Business Ethics

CHAPTER 2

Defining Business Ethics

Table of Contents

Chapter Summary and Learning Outcomes 2-2

Learning Outcomes 2-2
Frontline Focus: “The Customer is Always Right” Questions 2-2
Learning Outcome 1 2-3
Learning Outcome 2 2-3
Learning Outcome 3 2-4
Learning Outcome 4 2-5
Learning Outcome 5 2-5
Learning Outcome 6 2-6
Life Skills 2-6
Progress ✓Questions 2-7
Ethical Dilemma 2-10
Frontline Focus: “The Customer is Always Right—Carol Makes a Decision” Questions 2-13
Key Terms 2-13
Review Questions 2-14
Review Exercises 2-15
Internet Exercises 2-16
Team Exercises 2-16
Thinking Critically 2-19

2-1
Copyright © 2014 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill
Education.
Visit TestBankDeal.com to get complete for all chapters
Chapter 02 - Defining Business Ethics

Chapter Summary

This chapter begins by defining how ethics are applied to business behavior. It describes and
explains who the stakeholders are in an organization, their interests in the organization, and the
impact on them from unethical behavior. Many people, because of the track record over the past
two decades, believe that business ethics is an oxymoron, the combination of two contradictory
terms. This chapter also discusses the history of business ethics and the dramatic changes that
have taken place in the business environment over the last five decades. It continues going into
deeper detail about the definition and resolution of ethical dilemmas. It discusses four commonly
held rationalizations that can lead to misconduct. In conclusion, this chapter begins looking at the
aspects in building and operating an ethical business.

Learning Outcomes

After studying this chapter, the student should be able to:

1. Define the term business ethics.

2. Identify an organization’s stakeholders.
3. Discuss the position that business ethics is an oxymoron.
4. Summarize the history of business ethics.
5. Identify and propose a resolution for an ethical dilemma in your work environment.
6. Explain how executives and employees seek to justify unethical behavior.

Extended Chapter Outline

Frontline Focus
“The Customer is Always Right” Questions

1. Look at Figures 2.1 and 2.2, and identify which stakeholders would be directly impacted by
Dave’s plan to sabotage the new healthy menu.

The stakeholders that would be directly impacted by Dave’s plan would include customers,
employees, and stockholders or shareholders.

2. Describe the ethical dilemma that Carol is facing here.

Carol is faced with the ethical dilemma of whether to abide or not to abide by Dave’s new
plan.

2-2
Copyright © 2014 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill
Education.
Chapter 02 - Defining Business Ethics

3. What should Carol do now?

Carol must decide if her values are strong enough to stand up to this dilemma. She could go
along with Dave’s plan and limit the number of new items and push side items and desserts;
or, if her values do not agree with Dave’s, Carol could leave the company or could express
her opinion to Dave’s boss.

Learning Outcome 1: Define the Term Business Ethics.

 Business ethics is the application of ethical standards to business behavior.

 Students of business ethics can approach the topic from two distinct perspectives:
o A descriptive summation of the customs, attitudes, and rules that are observed within
a business.
o A normative (or prescriptive) evaluation of the degree to which the observed
customs, attitudes, and rules can be said to be ethical.
 In either case, business ethics should not be applied as a separate set of moral standards or
ethical concepts from general ethics.
o Ethical behavior, it is argued, should be the same both inside and outside a business
situation.
 By recognizing the challenging environment of business, people are acknowledging the
identity of the key players impacted by any potentially unethical behavior—the
stakeholders.
o In addition, people can identify the troubling situation where their personal values
may be placed in direct conflict with standards of behavior they feel are expected of
them by their employer.

Learning Outcome 2: Identify an Organization’s Stakeholders.

 Figure 2.1 maps out the relevant stakeholders for any organization and their respective
interests in the ethical operation of that organization—stockholders or shareholders,
employees, customers, suppliers/vendor partners, retailers/wholesalers, federal
government, creditors, and community.
 A stakeholder is someone with a share or interest in a business enterprise.
 Not every stakeholder will be relevant in every business situation.
o Not all companies use wholesalers to deliver their products or services to their
customers.
o Customers would not be involved in payroll decisions between the organization and
its employees.

2-3
Copyright © 2014 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill
Education.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of A translation of Glanville
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will
have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using
this eBook.

Title: A translation of Glanville

Author: Ranulf de Glanville

Commentator: Joseph Henry Beale

Translator: John Beames

Release date: July 7, 2023 [eBook #71142]

Language: English

Original publication: United States: John Byrne & Co, 1900

Credits: Linda Cantoni and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at

https://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from scanned
images of public domain material from the Google Books
project.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A

TRANSLATION OF GLANVILLE ***
 Legal Classic Series
VOLUME ONE

GLANVILLE

Index

Legal Classic Series

GLANVILLE
Introduction by Joseph Henry
Beale, Jr., A.M., LL.B.

LITTLETON’S TENURES
Introduction by Eugene
Wambaugh, LL.D.

BRITTON
Introduction by Hon. Simeon E.
Baldwin.

MIRROUR OF JUSTICE
Introduction by Hon. William C.
Robinson.
also
FLETA, and others.
 A TRANSLATION

OF

GLANVILLE
BY

JOHN BEAMES, ESQ.

OF LINCOLN’S INN, BARRISTER AT LAW

TO WHICH ARE ADDED NOTES

Multa ignoramus, quæ nobis non laterent, si

Veterum lectio
nobis esset familiaris. M .

WITH AN INTRODUCTION
BY

JOSEPH HENRY BEALE, J .,

A.M., LL.B.
PROFESSOR OF LAW IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.
JOHN BYRNE & CO.
LAW PUBLISHERS AND BOOKSELLERS
1900

C , 1900
BY
JOHN BYRNE & COMPANY.

TO
SIR SAMUEL ROMILLY,
THE FOLLOWING WORK
IS INSCRIBED
AS A MARK OF THE HIGH RESPECT
WITH WHICH
HIS ABILITIES, AS A SENATOR,
AND HIS
TALENTS, AS AN ADVOCATE,
ARE VIEWED BY
THE TRANSLATOR.
 A TREATISE

ON

THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS

OF THE

KINGDOM OF ENGLAND

COMPOSED IN THE TIME OF KING HENRY THE SECOND

The illustrious Ranulph de Glanville, who of all in that

age was the most skilled in the Laws of the Realm,
and the ancient Customs thereof, then holding the
helm of Justice.
The present work contains those Laws and Customs only,
according to which Pleas are determined in the
King’s Court, the Exchequer, and before the
Justices, wheresoever they may be.
 INTRODUCTION.

BY JOSEPH HENRY BEALE, JR., A.M., LL.B., PROFESSOR

OF LAW IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

I. RANULPH DE GLANVILLE.

R G was born in the Suffolk Stratford, about 1130

. . He is believed to have been the son of Sir Hervey de Glanville,
Chamberlain to King Stephen, and the grandson of that Ranulph de
Glanville who came over with the Conqueror. The family was an
important one, owning much land in the counties of Suffolk and Norfolk.
Glanville’s public life began in 1164, when he was appointed sheriff of
Yorkshire; an office which he continued to hold for six years. In 1171 he
was appointed Governor of Richmond Castle, and in 1174, sheriff of
Lancashire. The Scots having invaded England in that year, he led the
forces of Lancashire and Richmond against them, and (joining the sheriff
of Yorkshire and his forces) surprised and routed the Scots at Alnwick,
and took King William the Lion prisoner. For this victory Glanville
deserved, as he certainly received, the credit; and from that time no man
stood higher than he in the favor of King Henry II. He was sheriff of
Westmoreland from 1175 to 1179; sheriff of Yorkshire a second time,
from 1177 to his death; judge of the King’s Court in 1176, and Chief
Justiciar in 1180. He was also employed in many distinguished public
services. In 1177 he was sent as ambassador to Flanders. In 1182 he led
an army against the Welsh. In 1184, with Archbishop Baldwin, he was
sent as ambassador to Rice ap Griffin, Prince of South Wales. In his next
Welsh expedition, a few years later (again with Baldwin), he preached a
crusade. In 1186 he was ambassador to the King of France, and was
active in negotiating the peace of Gisors. In 1189, while Henry was
struggling with his rebellious sons and with Philip of France in
Normandy, he was sent to Canterbury to treat with the Chapter; was soon
again in Normandy with Henry; and finally returned to England to raise
an army for his master’s service, a work in which he was engaged at the
time of Henry’s death.
These great offices were due to his personal merit and to the great
services he rendered to his country; but they appear to have been the
result, also, of the personal friendship and affection of the King. He was
one of the witnesses to Henry’s will, and a trustee of the King’s bequest
of 5,000 marks of silver to certain religious and charitable institutions,
and of 300 marks of gold for marrying poor free women of England. He
was named by Henry as custodian of Queen Eleanor, and as treasurer of
his private fortune. A pretty picture of the King’s feeling toward him
occurs in the account of the arrival of Glanville’s messenger in London,
after the battle of Alnwick. The messenger arrived at midnight and
insisted on seeing the King. Being admitted to the royal chamber he
boldly approached the King’s bed and roused him from sleep. He,
springing up, cried, “Who is it?” “I am the messenger of Ranulph of
Glanville, your faithful subject, and I come from him to your highness as
a bearer of good tidings.” “Is our Ranulph well?” cried the King, moved
less by the promised good tidings than by his love for the sender of them.
“My lord is well,” was the answer, “and he holds your enemy, the King
of the Scots, a prisoner at Richmond.”
Upon the death of Henry, Glanville’s position was a difficult one. Henry,
conservative, though a reformer, had established the government of his
kingdom on a foundation of law and justice, and had created an effective
and pure administrative machine. The new King appeared to have no
sympathy with his father’s principles of government. He was rash,
radical and careless of regular details of administration, and Glanville, in
the words of a contemporary, “In his old age saw the King doing many
things in a newfangled way, without wisdom or forethought.” He was
present at the coronation of Richard, and was sent by him to quell a riot
against the Jews which disgraced the ceremony. About his next acts we
have different accounts. He had taken the cross in 1186. Whether he
asked and received his dismissal from Richard in order to join the army,
then about to start for the Holy Land, or whether, as another account has
it, he was removed and imprisoned by Richard and obliged to purchase
his freedom by a fine of 15,000 pounds of silver, we cannot certainly tell.
At any rate, he set out for Palestine together with Baldwin, Archbishop
of Canterbury, and his nephew Hubert, then bishop of Salisbury; the
three were placed in command of the English forces by Richard (who
was obliged to delay his own departure), and Glanville in 1190 died
before Acre, by disease, the result of the unhealthy climate. He left one
son and three daughters, whom he had already enriched from his great
fortune. He founded the priory of Butley, the Abbey of Leiston, and a
hospital at Somerton.
Glanville impressed his contemporaries as a man strong both in body and
in mind. A man of integrity and prudence, “most faithful in fortune or
misfortune,” “Wise, grave and eloquent,” “The King’s eye;” “A name
above every name, who spoke among the princes and was adored by the
people.” He was a man wise, just and charitable, whose fellowship was
sought and opinions valued by wits and by scholars. One scandal only
attacked him. He is charged with falsely condemning to death for rape
Sir Gilbert de Plumpton, in order that his widow might be married to
Glanville’s friend and steward, Rainer; Sir Gilbert’s punishment was
commuted by the King to imprisonment for life. The tale is quite
inconsistent with all we know of Glanville’s character and with his
position in the King’s affection, and may safely be disbelieved.
His family shared in his success. No less than seven of his near relatives
held high judicial position under Henry or his sons. Few other families
have rendered greater service to England than that of Ranulph de
Glanville, ambassador, administrator, general, judge and jurist.
[Incidents of Glanville’s life and character are reported in
all the chroniclers of the time. Especially valuable are the
accounts in Hoveden, Benedictus Abbas, Giraldus
Cambrensis, Newburgh, Richard of Devizes, and Diceto.
The fullest modern sketch of his life is by Professor
Maitland, in the Dictionary of National Biography. Other
modern biographies are those of Foss (Judges of England,
i, 376); Thomas Wright (Biographia Britannica, 275);
Lord Campbell (Lives of the Chief Justices, i, 19); and
Professor Gross (Sources and Literature of English
History, 315).
Many interesting documents bearing on Glanville’s
genealogy and his property are printed in Glanville-
Richards’ “Records of the Anglo-Norman House of
Glanville.”]

II. THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE TREATISE.

T following “Treatise on the Laws and Customs of the Kingdom of
England,” was published between 1187 and 1189; it mentions a fine
made in the former year, and it is filled with references to Henry, as then
King. It had a high contemporary reputation. Copies of the book were
multiplied, and many manuscripts still exist. It forms part of several
collections of laws made by contemporaries of Glanville himself. It was
translated, or partly translated, into French immediately after Glanville’s
death, and it was revised and an attempt made to bring it down to date
two generations later. It was finally superseded by Bracton’s completer
and more elaborate treatise.
The work itself is anonymous, the manuscripts stating only that it was
composed in the time of Henry II., “Glanville then holding the helm of
justice.” Early tradition, however, asserts that it was written by Glanville
himself, and that fact was accepted as undoubted from the thirteenth to
the nineteenth century. Modern scholars have expressed doubt of it.
Littleton’s objection (in his “Life of Henry II.”) that Glanville could not
have written the book because he was not in orders, may be dismissed at
once. The greater officers of the administration, whether in orders or not,
must have had sufficient Latin to dictate a Latin treatise to a clerk, and
Glanville was particularly commended for his eloquence by more than
one contemporary. Hunter’s objection (in the preface to his “Fines”) is
that Glanville, at the time the treatise was written, was too busy in public
affairs to have composed such a work, and he suggests that the author
may have been William de Glanville, a justice in the next reign; who
was, in fact, Glanville’s son, and (from 1186) his secretary. But this is the
merest guess. Professor Maitland conjectures (for a rather fanciful
reason, perhaps) that the author may have been Hubert Walter.
Liebermann, on the other hand, defends Glanville’s authorship. Certainly
there is little external proof that Glanville was the author of the treatise,
though it must have been written by some one in high position and
repute to have obtained so immediate a success. The internal evidence
does not lead us much further. The style is that of a person speaking with
authority, but not necessarily the authority of the Chief Justiciar himself.
The claim of Hubert Walter to the authorship cannot be dismissed
without further examination.
Hubert was a nephew of Glanville’s wife; according to one account, of
Glanville himself, Glanville’s younger brother having married his wife’s
sister. Whether Hervey Walter, Hubert’s father, was really, as this
account has it, Hervey de Glanville or not, it is certain that Hubert was
brought up in intimacy with Glanville’s family, became his secretary, and
was regarded by him as a valued counsellor. He was made Dean of York
in 1186, being succeeded as secretary by Glanville’s son William. He
soon became Bishop of Salisbury, Archbishop of Canterbury, and later
Chief Justiciar and Chancellor of the Kingdom. He is described as a man
of foresight and wisdom; it is said of him that his heart was in human
affairs rather than divine, and that he knew all the laws of the kingdom.
He was, however, a man “of little eloquence;” indeed, one chronicler
ridicules his Latin style.
Did Glanville write the whole treatise? or did Hubert Walter write it? Or
did they collaborate on it? Perhaps we can reach a conjectural conclusion
by a more careful examination of the treatise itself.
The most striking feature of the treatise is, that it is based upon a
collection of writs. Omitting the Introduction and the last book, on Pleas
of the Crown, just one-third of the chapters into which it is divided
consists of writs. These are of all kinds, directed to Lords’ Courts, to
County Courts, and to Ecclesiastical Courts, as well as writs returnable
in the King’s Courts. Later writers have made free use of writs, but here
they are the skeleton of the whole treatise. They fulfil the function of
judgment-rolls in Bracton’s book, and of decisions in Coke and later
writers. The collection of these eighty writs must have been a work of
several years, since some of the writs were certainly of rare occurrence.
The Chief Justice, or his clerk, attested all the writs, and either of them
had both opportunity and reason for making such a collection; hardly
another man in the kingdom would have been likely to do it.
A large part of the treatise is written in a crabbed and inelegant, though
usually a clear style. In a few passages, however, near the beginning of
the book, we find an elevation of thought and elegance of diction often
admired and imitated. The Introduction, in particular, and the seventh
chapter of the second book, in praise of the assize (which, according to
tradition, Glanville had a hand in inventing, or, at least, in establishing),
are worthy of a man “sapiens simul et eloquens”; in sharp contrast with
other parts of the work, which indicate an author who “omnia regni novit
jura,” but was surely “non eloquio pollens.”
The first ten books of the treatise are carefully written, the commentary
is full, the subject well developed. The last four books, on the other
hand, seem to have been hurriedly thrown together. The proportion of
writ to text is more than twice that in the preceding books; indeed, in the
book devoted to the County Courts (in which Glanville had presided for
years, and must have become as familiar with the law and procedure as
with those of the King’s Courts), there is almost no comment. It seems
possible that a proposed full commentary on the County Court practice,
for which an elaborate collection of writs was at hand, was abandoned.
The exact date of the work is fixed by the only two dated documents—
two fines, of June 27 and about November 1, 1187. Fines were then
novel, and they were described carefully. It seems likely that the passage,
which occurs toward the end of the treatise, was written soon after the
dates of enrollment. Both fines were enrolled in Glanville’s presence.
We may now conjecture that the author, or authors, of the treatise had for
years been collecting writs, either for preservation as useful precedents,
or possibly with the object of composing a commentary upon them. The
collection finished, it would not be a matter of much time or difficulty
for one who knew the law, writs in hand, to dictate his commentary to a
secretary also learned in the law. If the collector was Glanville, and the
secretary Hubert, we may suppose that the actual work of composition
was begun in 1185, or 1186; not, apparently, a time of strenuous labor for
either. Passages of particular importance or of especial interest to
Glanville would be composed by him with care; the actual form of the
remainder might safely be left to his competent secretary, subject only to
revision by himself. In 1186 the Dean of York died, and the succession
was given to Hubert; and Glanville soon set out on his embassy to the
King of France. In spite of this, however, time still remained for the
completion of the work in the rather less polished form of the later
books. In February, 1187, Glanville and Hubert were sitting together in
the Court at Westminster; and from that month to the beginning of 1189
(with the exception of Lent, 1188, when Glanville was preaching his
crusade in Wales), both appear to have remained in England, without
serious interruption from public business. The year 1188, in fact, seems
to have been one of the least busy of Glanville’s official life; and, until
his time was absorbed by the troubles of the closing year of the reign,
there was nothing to prevent a continuance of the work. The last hurried
chapters may well, therefore, have been completed in 1188.
There is, then, nothing against the early and persistent tradition that
Glanville wrote the treatise, and much in its favor; though most of the
actual composition may have been the work of Hubert Walter.
 [The fullest discussion of the authorship of “Glanville”
may be found in Pollock and Maitland’s “History of the
English Law,” i, 163. Reeves’ discussion (“History of the
English Law,” Finlayson’s Edition, i, 254) and Foss’s
(“Judges of England,” i, 180) are also worth consulting
upon this point. Liebermann (“Einleitung,” p. 73) supports
the theory of Glanville’s authorship; and in the
“Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie,” xix, 81, he gives
interesting proof of the early popularity of the treatise. See
also Professor Maitland’s article, “Glanville Revised,” in
the Harvard Law Review, vi, 1.
The life and character of Hubert may be found in the
“Actus Pontificum Cantuariensium” of Gervase.
Glanville’s and Hubert’s itineraries may be found in
Eyton’s “Itinerary of Henry II.”]

III. THE CHARACTER OF THE TREATISE.

“A T on the Law and Customs of the Kingdom of England” is the

earliest systematic treatise on law written in modern times. A few
collections of law and decretals, like the Decretum of Gratian and the
“Assises of Jerusalem,” had, to be sure, been published earlier; but they
were not, like this book, regular expositions of an existing system of law.
Bracton’s work was modelled on Glanville, and, through Bracton,
Glanville thus fixed the type of the modern commentary on law. An
imitation, in many parts an exact copy, of this book was later published
in Scotland under the title “Regiam Majestatem,” and the claim was
vigorously made for a time that it was the original, Glanville the
imitation. This notion, improbable on its face, was absolutely disproved
by arguments set forth in Beames’ Introduction.
The first edition of the treatise was printed by R. Tottel in small 12mo,
about the year 1554. Coke says that this was done by suggestion of Sir
William Stanford, the learned judge and author. The second edition was
printed by Thomas Wright in 1604. The text was corrected by the
collation of “various manuscripts.” This edition was exactly reprinted,
omitting the preface, in 1673. The treatise was again printed in the first
volume of Houard’s “Traités sur les Coutumes Anglo-Normandes” in
quarto, Rouen, 1776. The last Latin edition was published by John
Rayner, 8vo, 1780, collated with the Bodleian, the Cottonian, the
Harleian and Doctor Milles’s manuscripts by J.E. Wilmot. The Latin text
is also printed as an appendix to Phillips’s “Englische Reichs und
Rechtsgeschichte,” ii, 335: Berlin, 1828. A collation of Glanville with
the “Regiam Majestatem” may be found in the Acts of the Parliament of
Scotland, i, 133. An English translation by John Beames, with notes, was
published in octavo, London, 1812, and is reprinted in the present
edition.
This treatise is more than a mere law book. It is a monument to the
genius of one of the greatest legal reformers of all time. Henry II. came
to the throne, after a long period of anarchy, to find countless systems of
law administered by a confused and confusing mass of popular courts
and feudal courts. He at once set himself to bring order and unity out of
anarchy and chaos. He made the King’s Court the common court of the
land; he determined its jurisdiction as against the church, the lords and
the sheriffs; and he made it the guardian of a King’s peace, which should
protect high and low throughout the whole land. The establishment of
peace was in fact the chief object of his stormy career. Glanville’s
treatise shows us the method he took to secure his object.
By a free use of writs running from the King or his Justiciar, he limited
the jurisdiction of all other courts, and subordinated them to the King’s
Court. By a regular system of removal from lord to county, and from
county to King, he secured the gradual unification of the law. The lord’s
courts had administered the customs of each manor; each county court,
too, had its customs, all based upon the Germanic law, but differing
materially in the several counties, and especially in the several ancient
divisions of the kingdom. The King’s Court now began to develop a
common law, partly Anglo-Saxon in its origin, partly Norman, but
molded largely by Henry’s formal or informal legislation, and tempered,
as Glanville several times asserts, by equity.
To increase the influence of the King’s courts and to bring them to the
people, Henry relied on an already existing institution, the iter or eyre;
but he so improved the system as to make it almost a new invention. The
Kingdom was divided into circuits, each made up of a number of
neighboring counties; and judges were appointed to ride each circuit,
holding a King’s court in each county, and thus bringing every part of the
Kingdom under the direct control of the King. Glanville himself became
one of the first judges of the Northern Circuit.
One of the most important of Henry’s provisions for securing the King’s
peace was the invention of writs for the protection of peaceful seisin, and
the prevention of disseisin, even by the true owner. These writs put an
end to forcible self-help, and brought every legal dispute over
dispossession into the King’s Court. The writs of novel disseisin, of mort
d’auncestor, and of darrein presentment, established by Henry’s
legislation, became the basis of the land law.
Another reform, of even more far-reaching consequence, was his
invention of a more rational method of establishing the truth of facts. In
place of trial by ordeal, by compurgation, or by battle, he provided the
assise (soon followed by the jury) as a means of eliciting truth. Trial by
jury in the King’s Court, by favor or by right, became so popular as
eventually to deprive the other courts of their litigation; and so
satisfactory as to cultivate in the people of England a respect for law and
a willingness to abide by its decisions that have been characteristic of the
race for centuries.
The doctrine of res judicata seems to have been adopted at this time as
another rule tending to the preservation of peace. When Glanville wrote,
it had not been fully settled that the judgment even in a writ of right was
necessarily final; Glanville’s strong opinion that it was so no doubt
settled the law as we now have it.
In the work of reform Henry appears to have found in Glanville an
enthusiastic and an able helper. This treatise is full of praise of the King
and his legislation. The peaceful governing of its people is a great object
of regal power, it is asserted. The king, who loves peace and is the author
of it, conducts himself justly, discreetly, and mercifully toward his
subjects. His will is law, if promulgated as such by the advice of his
nobles; that and reasonable customs, long used, form the Laws of
England, which may usefully, in part at least, be reduced to writing.

IV. THE TREATISE AND THE LAW.

I is possible from Glanville’s treatise to get a rather complete picture of

the common law at the end of the reign of Henry II. In the lord’s courts
were regularly brought not only the suits of the villein tenants, but all
suits concerning land held of the lord. Suits of the latter sort, however,
must be begun by the King’s writ; if the lord refused justice, resort might
be had to the county court in all suits involving freehold land; and the
lord might on his own motion adjourn a question of difficulty into the
King’s court. The county court had original jurisdiction of questions of
villeinage and of customary service, and of any question sent to it by the
King’s writ; and it had jurisdiction over writs of right removed from the
lord’s court. It apparently, also, had jurisdiction of disputes as to title or
possession of personal property. The ecclesiastical courts had jurisdiction
of questions of marriage and legitimacy, of wills, and of disputes
involving ecclesiastical questions only; the King’s court would prohibit
them by writ from interfering in other matters.
The procedure in the King’s court did not differ greatly from the present
procedure. A suit was begun by writ, served by the sheriff, and enforced
by the distraint of the defendant’s land. The most important feature of the
procedure was the elaborate system of rules governing essoins or
continuances. By a skilful use of essoins the defendant or tenant could
prolong proceedings on a writ of right for years; the fact that in the new
possessory assises few essoins were allowed, and the proceedings were
therefore much prompter, contributed greatly to the favor with which
they were received. Final judgment in the King’s court was by this time
enrolled; and the method of conveying land by levying a fine was in full
operation.
The law of real property in its essential features was fully formed. The
whole law of tenures and incidents had been finally settled; but the rules
of inheritance and of transfer by will were still uncertain. The doctrines
of warranty (now obsolete), according to which the grantor of a party
could be called into a suit, or in the technical phrase vouched to
warranty, and thus substituted for the original party, were still of the
highest importance in practice. The modern mortgage, i.e. the grant on
condition, was as yet unknown: Glanville’s mortgage of land, like the
pledge of personalty in his time, is a mere grant of custody by way of
security.
The law of personal property was little developed. Doctrines as to pledge
and bailment, derived from the old Germanic law, were applied in the
county courts; there, for instance, the absolute responsibility of the bailee
was still enforced. Through the writ of detinue and the action on the
case, the King’s courts were soon to take control of these subjects, and to
establish the modern law of bailments and carriers.
Certain formal contracts were enforced by the King’s court. The writ of
debt would lie as a result of a loan, a sale, or an obligation created by
charter. Redress for breach of ordinary contracts could be obtained only
in the ecclesiastical courts, which might deal with the sin of deceit. Not
for three centuries did the King’s court work out a doctrine by which a
party might be held to perform his simple contract.
No action of damages for tort would lie. There is as yet no trace of the
process by which (working from appeals of felony to writ of trespass
against the King’s peace and actions on the case) the King’s court would
eventually work out the modern law of tort. So far as there was any
remedy for torts it was in the inferior courts.
The King’s court could at this time punish all felonies except theft,
jurisdiction over which it obtained by Magna Carta. It was a long time
before it obtained exclusive jurisdiction over felony, or took control, as
“custos morum,” of misdemeanors.
Such law, it may be admitted, was rude and unsatisfactory; but it was a
long advance over what had gone before, and it had within itself the
germ of the modern Common Law.
J H. B ,J .
H U ,
October, 1900.
 THE TRANSLATOR
TO THE
READER.

O R G , the reputed Author of the following

Treatise, Lord Coke speaks in terms of the highest encomium. He
informs us, that Glanville was Chief Justice in the Reign of Henry the
Second, that he wrote profoundly on part of the Laws of England, and
that his Works were extant at that day. “And,” continues his Lordship,
“in token of my thankfulness to that worthy Judge, whom I cite many
times in these Reports, (as I have done in my former) for the fruit which
I confess myself to have reaped out of the fair field of his Labors, I will
for the honor of him and of his name and posterity, which remain to this
day (as I have good cause to know) impart and publish, both to all future
and succeeding Ages, what I found of great antiquity and of undoubted
verity, the original whereof remaineth with me at this day, and followeth
in these words: Ranulphus de Glanvilla, Justiciarius Angliæ, Fundator
fuit domus de Butteley, in Comitatu Suffolciæ, quæ fundata erat anno
Regis Henrici, filii Imperatricis, decimo septimo, et anno Domini 1171.
quo anno Thomas Becket, Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus, erat occisus. Et
dictus Ranulphus nascebatur in Villa de Stratford, in comitatu Suffolciæ,
et habuit Manerium de Benhall, cum toto Dominio, e dono dicti Regis
Henrici. Et duxit in uxorem quandam Bertam, filiam Domini Theobaldi
de Valeymz, Senioris domini de Parham: qui Theobaldus per Chartam
suam dedit dicto Ranulpho et Bertæ Uxori suæ totam terram de
Brochous, cum pertinentiis, in qua domus de Butteley sita est, cum aliis
terris et tenementis, in libero maritagio. Prædictus vero Ranulphus
procreavit tres filias de dicta Berta (viz.) Matildam, Amabiliam, et
Helewisam, quibus dedit terram suam ante progressum suum versus
Terram Sanctam.” The document then proceeds with a minute accuracy
to trace our Author’s Descendants, and finishes the sketch by informing
us—“quod præfatus Ranulphus de Glanvilla fuit vir præclarissimus
genere, utpote de nobili sanguine, vir insuper strenuissimus corpore, qui
provectiori ætate, ad Terram sanctam properavit, et ibidem contra
inimicos Crucis Christi strenuissime usque ad necem dimicavit.”[1] The