Law Courts 213
who were also ecclesiastics, and, like the Chancellor,
learned in the Roman law. The first important objection
to the issuing of new writs was when Henry III. made Ms
unfortunate attempt to rule without ministers and writs
were being issued without a Chancellor in an irresponsible
and unusual way. The common-law courts were be-
coming established with their benches of judges. These
judges were not always ecclesiastics, as formerly; and
there had gradually formed a body of men, who might not
very improperly be termed professional lawyers. There
were already a body of law and a procedure that, in the
eyes of such men, could not lightly be modified, and prece-
dent was becoming very important in the administration
of justice. The objection soon went beyond the matter
of the irregular issue of writs: the Chancellor, on his sole
authority, must not make new writs. To make new writs
was to make new law, and the idea was growing that the
law was nearly complete. By the Provisions of Oxford,
1258, the Chancellor was to swear **that he will seal no
writ, excepting writs of course, without the commandment
of the king and of his council who shall be present.*Sl
Moreover the judges took it upon themselves to decide
whether or not writs issued by the Chancellor were inno-
vations; they did this by refusing, if they saw fit, to allow
the use of such novel writs in the actions for which they
were issued. This was such an arbitrary and mischievous
checking of the law's natural growth that a sort of com-
promise was attempted in 1285 & ^e Statute of West-
minster, the Second:
And whensoever from henceforth it shall fortune in the
chancery, that in one case a writ is found, and in like case
falKng under the law, and requiring like remedy, is found none,
the clerks of the chancery shall agree in making the writ, or
shall adjourn the plaintiffs until the next parliament and write
the cases in which they cannot agree, and refer them to the
next parliament, and by consent of men learned in the law,
*A. andS.t p. 58,