37 
immaterial. After the Reformation (about 1550) a fundamental change 
took place in the church laws of the country. King Christian III's 
Church Ordinance of 1537 came into force here, and in 1564 Althingi 
imposed very severe penalties for adultery and incest. In 1587 a new 
law was issued on matters relating to marriage; and, finally, in 1622 
king Christian U's Church Ordinance of 1607 was adopted here, with 
the consequence that bishop Arni Thorldksson’s church laws were for 
the most part abolished. 
In 1683 king Christian V issued his code of laws for Denmark, and 
in 1687 another for Norway. Neither of these codes was intended to 
apply in Iceland, and in 1688 the King issued an order fo the effect 
that a new code of laws should be compiled for Iceland, and so far 
as possible adapted from his Norwegian code. This, however, never 
came to anything, for, though the king repeated this order many times 
during the eighteenth century, no code was ever issued. Yet these 
fruitless attempts on the part of the king to have a code of laws com- 
piled for Iceland had very serious consequences for Icelandic law, for 
in 1732, when the King repeated his order that an Icelandic code 
should be prepared, he commanded that king Christian V's Norwegian 
code should apply to and have force in Iceland and be followed in 
the administration of justice, This authorization of the Norwegian code 
in Iceland was probably meant as a provisional arrangement only, 
pending the preparation of a code for Iceland. But though this Ice- 
landic code was never introduced as law in the island, the legislature 
continued to authorize here whole sections both of Norwegian and 
Danish laws; thus in 1734 the provisions of the Norwegian code 
respecting larceny and manslaughter were introduced as law here; in 
1769 the sections treating of inheritance and the settlement of estates; 
and finally, in 1786, the sections respecling bills of exchange. Certain 
sections of Christian V's Danish code of laws were also introduced, 
as e. g., in 1831, the provisions respecting the age of majority, and, 
finally, in 1838, the entire Danish criminal law was adopted. In all 
these instances it was considered sufficient by the legislator to refer 
in the most general terms to the provisions that were to be introduced, 
without ever enumerating them. This unfortunate mode of legislation 
caused the greatest legal incertitude. Jénsbék gradually lost its autho- 
rity, and the legislation as now conducted, the influence of the Danish 
supreme court as a court of last resort in Icelandic cases, and the 
fact that Icelanders now began to study law at the university of Copen-