Besides, the truth is (and my lord of SALISBURY will not be displeased with me for telling it), the ecclesiastics of that time were much indevoted to the court. They considered the king as the wickedest of all tyrants. He had brought them into subjection by their baronies, and had even set the pope himself at defiance. In this state of things, there was no hope of engaging the clergy in his plot. But when a separation of the two tribunals was made, and the civil courts were solely administered by his own creatures, the laws, it was thought, would speak what language he pleased to require of them.
Such appears to have been the design of this prince in his famous distinction of the ecclesiastic and temporal courts. It was so artfully laid, and so well coloured, that the laity seem to have taken no umbrage at it. But the clergy saw his drift; and their zeal for the ancient laws, as well as their resentments, put them upon contriving methods to counteract it. They hit upon a very natural and effectual one. In a word, they all turned common lawyers; and so found means of introducing themselves into the civil courts. This expedient succeeded so well, and was so generally relished, that the clergy to a man almost in the next reign were become professors of the common law; NULLUS CLERICUS NISI CAUSIDICUS, as WILLIAM of _Malmesbury_ takes care to inform us[130].
Whatever their motive might be, the churchmen, I perceive, interposed very seasonably in the support of our civil liberties. It was a generous kind of revenge, methinks, to repay the king’s tyranny over the church by vindicating the authority of the _English_ laws.
It was so; and for this good service, I let them pass without any harsher reflection. Though the true secret is, perhaps, no more than this: Their main object was the church, of whose interests, as is fitting, we will allow them to be the most competent judges. And, as these inclined them, they have been, at different junctures, the defenders or oppressors of civil liberty.
At _some_ junctures, it may be, they have. But, if you insist on so general a censure, I must intreat Mr. SOMERS, once more, to take upon him the defence of our order.
All I intended by this instance, was, to shew the spirit of the _Saxon_ laws, which could excite the jealousy of the prince, and deserve, at such a season, the patronage of the clergy. It seems, however, for once, as if they had a little misconceived their true interests. For the distinction of the two judicatures, which occasioned their resentment, was, in the end, a great means of the hierarchical greatness and independency.