User:Rtmisst/sandbox

Constitutions of Clarendon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Constitutions of Clarendon were a set of legislative procedures passed by Henry II of England in 1164 at Clarendon Palace, Wiltshire, the royal hunting lodge from which they take their name. The Constitutions played a significant role in the Becket Controversy; the strife between Henry II and Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Constitutions were composed of 16 articles and represent an attempt to restrict ecclesiastical privileges and curb the power of the Church courts and the extent of Papal authority in England. In the anarchic conditions of Henry II's predecessor, Stephen (reigned 1135–54), the church had extended its jurisdiction by taking advantage of the weakness of royal authority. Whether the Constitutions, as they claimed were to restore the judicial customs observed during the reign of Henry I (1100–35), or whether they were a part of Henry II's larger expansion of royal jurisdiction into the Church and civil law, which was a defining aspect of his reign, has been debated by historians.

Background
The Constitutions of Clarendon, written in the later half of the 12th century, were produced in a period of rapid legal development.

Clarendon
Around the 25 January 1164, Henry II called both his secular nobles and the bishops to Clarendon. There, under pressure from the King, the bishops were induced to formally accept the "customs of the realm" before the King and his barons. Possibly after extreme pressure, Becket and the bishops agreed "in the word of truth" to the customs. The king, with only his clerks, then drew up, the Constitutions of Clarendon. However, once the Constitutions were codified, Becket, although he took a copy of the Constitutions, refused to affix his seal to the document. He resisted the Constitutions, especially the clause concerning "criminous clerks". Thus central to the conflict was the relationship between the law and the clergy and the problem of clerical exemption.

The Constitutions
The Constitutions were comprised of 16 clauses and a introduction, which explained that the 14 attending bishops had agreed to the Constitutions before witnesses.

The Constitutions dealt with the relationship between the secular and the ecclesiastical and the controversial issue of "criminous clerks": clergy who had been accused of committing a serious secular crime but were tried in ecclesiastical courts by "benefit of Clergy".

Unlike royal courts, these ecclesiastical courts were strictly limited in the punishments to which a convicted felon could be subjected; in particular the spilling of blood was prohibited. An ecclesiastical case of murder often ended with the defendant being defrocked (dismissed from the priesthood). In a royal court, murder was often punished with mutilation or death.

The Constitutions of Clarendon were Henry II's attempts to deal with these problems (and conveniently increase his own power at the same time) by claiming that once the ecclesiastical courts had tried and defrocked clergymen, the Church could no longer protect the individual, and convicted former clergy could be further punished under the jurisdiction of secular courts. Eight of the constitutions dealt with the power of ecclesiastical courts, on the basis of custom in the reign of Henry I. Clause 3 particular dealt with the matter of clerical exemption.

If the culprit proved to be a clerk, the case was to be tried in the ecclesiastical court, but an officer of the King's Court was to be present. The officer, if the accused was found guilty, was to conduct him back to the King's Court after degradation, where he would be dealt with as an ordinary criminal and adequately punished.

The king's contention was that flogging, fines, degradation, and excommunication, beyond which the spiritual courts could not go, were insufficient as punishment. The archbishop urged that, apart from the principle of clerical privilege, to degrade a man first and to hang him afterwards was to punish him twice for the same offence. Once degraded, he lost all his rights, and if he committed another crime, he might then be punished with death like any other felon.

While not all the clauses attacked the freedoms of the Church, several did.

Clause 3

Much of the historiographical debate regarding Clause 3, centres around whether or not there was precedent for this as a 'custom' as Henry II claimed. F. W. Maitland argued that this compromise fitted better with canon law and thus Henry II was on better legal ground than Beckett. However, this assertion, has since been variously challenged and supported by many historians, including Charles Duggan and Richard Fraher. Anne Duggan argues that Clause 3 is ambiguously written and thus potentially dangerous, for the wide sweep of what it allowed.

Clause 8

Attendees

 * Henry II, King of England
 * Richard of Hastings, a Templar
 * Hostes of Saint-Omer, a Templar

Bishops

 * Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury
 * Roger de Pont L'Évêque, Bishop of York
 * Gilbert Foliot, Bishop of London
 * Henry of Blois, Bishop of Winchester
 * Nigel, Bishop of Ely
 * William de Turbeville, Bishop of Norwich
 * Robert de Chesney, Bishop of Lincoln
 * Hilary of Chichester, Bishop of Chichester
 * Jocelin de Bohon, Bishop of Salisbury
 * Richard Peche, Bishop of Chester (Lichfield)
 * Bartholemew Iscanus, Bishop of Exeter
 * Robert of Melun, Bishop of Hereford
 * David Fitzgerald, Bishop of St David's
 * Roger of Worcester, Bishop of Worcester

Witnesses to the Constitutions
Both the Beebe White (1995) and Henderson (1896) translations list numerous witnesses to the Constitutions, however, the names they list are not always comparable. Some of the most significant secular nobles, do however, appear in both lists:
 * Richard de Luci, Chief Justiciar of England
 * Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester
 * Reginald de Dunstanville, 1st Earl of Cornwall
 * Conan IV, Duke of Brittany
 * John, Count of Eu
 * Roger de Clare, 2nd Earl of Hertford
 * Geoffrey de Mandeville, 2nd Earl of Essex
 * Hugh de Kevelioc, 5th Earl of Chester
 * William d'Aubigny, 1st Earl of Arundel
 * Patrick, 1st Earl of Salisbury
 * William de Ferrers, 3rd Earl of Derby

Consequences
Becket's refusal to accept the Constitutions was an act which not only set Becket against the King, but some of his fellow Bishops, notably Gilbert Foliot, the Bishop of London. [INCLUDE DETAIL HERE TO THE DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN FOLIOT & BECKET] Rotrou, Bishop of Évreux, attempted to mediate the following crisis between the King and Becket. An appeal was sent to Pope Alexander III, who refused to approve a number of the constitutions (the six he allowed were 2,6,11,13,14 and 16).

Within the year, Becket was on trial at Northampton and fled fled into exile with his family. The controversy resulted, becoming so bitter that Becket was murdered on 29 December 1170. After this Henry felt compelled to revoke the two controversial clauses, which went against canon law. However, the rest stayed in effect as law of the land.