because of his deceit in acting contrary to his own deed. And let the judges be punished  because they held the plea to the prejudice of the king,12<and in the same way the  creditor, because he drew the debtor into a forbidden forum.>34<Just as there is a  rule that a layman cannot renounce the secular forum to the prejudice of the royal  dignity, so it is evident that a clerk, if he wishes to [renounce the ecclesiastical forum]  cannot do so, in a criminal action or any other whose cognisance belongs to the  ecclesiastical dignity and the clerical order; the reason is almost the same in both  cases.> <An ecclesiastical judge, if he gives judgment concerning a lay fee, cannot  order execution of his judgment, for if he entrusts it to the sheriff for execution he is  not to be obeyed. If he executes it by himself or by his people, novel disseisin will lie.  Similarly it is evident that if a layman takes cognisance in a criminal case concerning  a clerk, where degradation follows, if he gives judgment against the clerk (whether  he has put himself on the inquest of his own free will or not) what is done will not  be valid, because a bishop will never proceed to degrade a clerk at the order of a  secular judge,5 or the king,6 [and] therefore another conviction will be necessary,  in the ecclesiastical forum, that he take cognisance and judge who may order the  execution of his judgment.7 For that reason, whenever in an action of this kind a  clerk is claimed by the bishop, he must be delivered to him, because the king has no  prison for one whom he cannot judge.8 In civil causes, however, where there is no  question of degredation, it seems that clerks may not save themselves from answering  in the secular forum in pleas which belong to the crown and dignity of the king,  because the king can order execution of the judgment without prejudice to the  ecclesiastical dignity,9 especially if it is his will that answers be made to clerks in civil  actions of this kind in the secular forum, because10 such pleas belong to the royal  crown and dignity by reason of the thing and by reason of the delict.>
How an exception is to be raised against the jurisdiction of a superior justice.
 We have explained above how jurisdiction is revoked, by an exception raised against  it, when one has been drawn to a forbidden court and an improper judge, that is, to  the ecclesiastical forum in pleas and actions the cognisance of which belongs to the  royal crown and dignity. Now we must see how an exception is to be raised against  the jurisdiction of a justice who bears himself as judge in pleas and actions which  belong to the royal crown and dignity, when one has been drawn into plea before  him. It is clear that first of all, in order that