Law Courts 189
the second place, the theory that part of the jurisdiction
was exercised by royal grant, and part by manorial right,
was so emphasised that it soon became an established
principle. This principle resulted hi a distinction between
courts that must next be examined,
Private courts had been quick to adopt the new royal
procedure of jury presentment and trial, though the lim-
ited number of suitors on some manors interfered with
this. For private courts in England were, for the most
part, manor courts.* A distinction began to be made in
the judicial work which the lord did in these courts.
He might be doing work analogous to that of the sheriff
in his tourn, if by grant or prescription it had come to
him. But this was criminal jurisdiction and view of
frankpledge; it was, according to the view we have just
noticed, a strict regality and could only be carried on
under royal commission. Hence a court which did this
was a royal court, a court of record; it must be sharply
distinguished from a court which the lord held as of his
own right, which he held because he had tenants. A new
and distinguishing name, that of Leet9 was applied to it.
This name, whose earlier history is very obscure, was
probably first used in this connection in the reign of
Edward I. From that time, we hear of Leets, the adjec-
tive use of the word, as in Court Leet, not appearing
until well into modern times. Here, then, was one part
of the old, private jurisdiction, modified in its content
and procedure by innovations from the king's courts, and
finally taken up into, and made a part of, the royal judi-
cial system; the lord's steward who conducted this court
now conducted it as a royal officer. Thus it passes out
1 The courts of great honours, the feudal courts made up of vassals,
had always been less important in England than on the continent; and
now they were practically extinct, not only through the invasion of the
royal courts and the limitations placed upon grants of justice, but through
an important series of legislative acts of Edward L which checked subia-
feudation and tended to break down the feudal hierarchy. A careful study
should be made of documents 39, 40, 42, and 45 in A. and S. For a dis-
cussion of these acts, see Stubbs, Constitutional History, § 179, passim;
also Medley, English Constitutional History, pp. 313, 314.