Bancroft's History of the United States, Part II [pp. 252-277]

1883.J BAArc~oFT's HisTo~ Y OF TLrE UArJTED STA T~S. 275
sustaining their side. At this juncture the whole controversy
was amicably arranged in England between Lord Baltimore, the
proprietary of the province, and Father More, the provincial of'
the Jesuits, whereby the jurisdiction of the canon law and the
benefit of clergy were surrendered and abandoned by the Society, and the Jesuits remained in undisputed possession of their
beloved mission.
The canon law, or corpus jaris canonici, has never been proclaimed or enfoa~ced in this country, nor are we aware of any
other instance where the benefit of clergy has ever been claimed;
but in some particular sections of our country the canon hw is
considered as applicable and in force as far as circumstances will
permit, in consequence of those sections having been colonized
by European countries in which the canon law at the time of
the colonization was in full force, and having received their ecclesiastical organization therefrom. In England the claim of
the benefit of clergy was resisted with traditional animosity from
Catholic times, and from the time' of Henry VIII. the English lawyers and legislators had a superstitious hatred and fear
of the lOng.extinguished pretension equal to that entertained by
Lucifer for holy water; and it was customary, in preparing
English statutes of a criminal nature, to add after the denunciation of the punishment the w~rds "without benefit of clergy," even
within a recent time. Some of the old colonial statutes of this
country contained the same meaningless formula. In England
the benefit of clergy was utterly abolished by the statutes of
7 and 8 George IV. Although benefit of clergy never existed
in the United States, we find, singularly enough, an act of Congress of April 30, 1790, wherein it is expressly provided that
there shall be no benefit of der~y for any capital offences under
the statute.
The United States have always been and still remain a missionary country under the jurisdiction of the Propaganda, as distinguished from countries in which the full organization of the
church is perfected and canon law prnmulgated and enforced.
Beyond an occasional newspaper discussion and one or two cases'
in which a priest, resisting his bishop, appealed to the courts of
law and claimed the benefits of the canon law, that system of
ecclesiastical jurisprudence has seldom been even discussed or
attempted to be introduced here. In recent years, however, the
Propaganda has introduced a system of ecclesiastical tribunals
into this country, by which in`each diocesejudfres causarurn were
selected from among the priests of the diocese to hear and report