Saturday, 26 January 2013

The case of Philip de Brois , about July 1163


The most infamous case concerning a Criminous Clerk, was that of Philip de Brois. Relations between Becket and king Henry II came to a crisis over this matter. This matter occurred in or around July 1163, at a time when Henry and Becket were both in London. 

Simon Fitz-Peter, one of the king's justices in eyre (circuit judge) in Bedfordshire, complained that he had been insolently treated by a cleric, called Philip de Brois.  The latter had been accused of the murder of a knight, tried in the court of the bishop of Lincoln and acquitted. But one of the king's officers, wishing, from an old grudge he bore him, that the cleric should be ruined, brought up the charge again and insisted that it should be heard in the lay or king's court. Philip de Brois refused to be tried again on the grounds that he was a cleric, and poured abuse upon the justice. The justice formally complained about the abuse he had been given to the king. 

The various different chroniclers each give a very different account of the story this case. In summary we can state the following. King Henry insisted that the man should be tried again for the murder, and anew for his insulting language. Becket claimed the trial for his own court at Canterbury, and there the accusation, which had already been heard and judged, was, of course, dismissed; while for the abuse a sentence of scourging was given, together with a heavy pecuniary punishment. King Henry was dissatisfied with this sentence and declared that the bishops who had judged the case had had more respect for the archbishop than for him. "By God's eyes," he said, "you shall make oath to me that you gave a just judgment and spared the man not because he was a clerk."



William FitzStephen's account

Item, erant regis justitiarii itinerantes aliquando apud Dunstapulam : orta est aliqua altercatio inter Simonem filium Petri et quendam canonicum Bedefordiae Philippum de Brois. Questus est postea Simon regi, quod eum Philippus, in obsequio ipsius et magna audientia, turpiloquio inhonorasset. Coram archiepiscopo Philippus super hoc a rege redargutus, cum negare non posset, respondit, se convitiis provocatum calore iracundiae dixisse, non animi judicio. Exegit rex judicium. Clerus ad regem mitigandum decrevit, per annum beneficio praebendae suae simul et regni inhabitatione Philippum privandum. Ita factum est : nec tamen regi satisfactum est.

Also, at one time there were some the king's itinerant justices at Dunstable. an altercation broke out between [one of them] Simon fitzPeter and a canon of Bedford, Philip de Brois. Simon later complained to the king that whilst in the king's service, and in front of a large audience, Philip had dishonoured him using foul language. In the presence of the Archbishop Philip contradicted the king,  but when he could not deny it, he answered that he had been provoked by the heat of anger, and spoken without the judgement of the mind. The king demanded justice [retrial]. The clergy in order to please the king decreed that Philip should lose his benefice [prebend] for one year and likewise be deprived of his habitation.  So it was done: however the king was not satisfied.

Roger de Potigny's [Anonymous I's] account


Nec multo post tempore facta est iterim inter eos contentio vehemens, pro quodam canonico nomine Philippo de Broc; qui super interfectione cujusdam militis a quibusdam fuerat impetitus. Is enim quum coram episcopo suo super objecto sibi homicidio sufficienter respondisset ; et deficientibus in causa adversariis ; ipse ad innocentiam suam certius comprobandam se sacramento purgasset : iterum eum in causam revocare nitebatur quidam Simon, filius Petri, quem rex in partibus Pedefordiae, ubi idem Philippus morabatur, judicem constituerat. Philippus autem de causa jam finita et ordine judiciario terminato iterum respondere noluit : praesertim ante laicam justitiam : quinimo ipsum Simonem pertinacius instantem cum indignatione a se repulit, multis eum afficiens convitiis et contumeliis. Rege itaque apud Londonias constituto ; accessit ad eum memoratus Simon, retulitque ei omnia qum sibi Philippus intulerat.  Quibus auditis rex in furiam versus, solito suo more per oculos Dei terribiliter jurabat ; sic se habere convitia illa militi suo illata, ac si sibi ipsi intulisset Philippus: quapropter absque mora eum judicari praecepit. 

Archiepiscopus autem quum praesens esset, et haec audiret. "Nequaquam," ait, "ita fiet nam clericorum judices laici esse non possunt. Quicquid autem iste vel alius quilibet de clero excesserit, in ecclesiastica debet emendari curia. Quapropter quicquid est illud quo rex laesum se queritur, vel miles ejus, Cantuariam veniat vel mittat, indeque plenam justitiam ex ecclesiastica auctoritate reportabit.  Rex vero vehementer irascens et multa dicens, tandem licet invitus quosdam episcopos et proceres ad diem sibi ab archiepiscopo constitutam Cantuariam transmisit, qui quum venissent, Philippum de veteri querela homicidii instanter impetebant. Quumque causam ecclesiastico judicio terminatam iterari non debere judicatum fuisset, ventum est tandem ad contumelias regio militi illatas. 

Quod cum Philippus minime inficiari dignaretur, (erat namque vir magnus et de magno genere,) adversarii ejus prosilientes in medium, "Judicium," inquiunt, "de evidenti et non negata injuria postulamus."  Et cum Philippus se ad spontaneam satisfactionem offerret, nihilominus tamen eum judicari oportuit. Diffinitum est igitur, ut Philippus per biennium praebendam suam in manu regis admitteret, et rex iterum de reditibus ejus quod vellet faceret; ipse vero ante militem, nudum se, secundum morem patrim satisfacturus, offerret. Revertentibus autem qui missi fuerant et quod gestum erat conferentibus; rex honorem suum laesum que abjudicatum esse respondit. Episcopi vero cum se juste judicasse dixissent excepto quod Philippum ultra quam meruisset, pro pace et honore regis gravassent, rex magis inardescens, "Per oculos," ait, "Dei, vos ipsi mihi jurabitis, quod verum expresseritis judicium." Sed nimis longum erit, si per singula prosequi voluerimus, qum vel a rege improbe vel ab archiepiscopo constanter dicta seu facta sunt : quapropter iis omissis, ad communem ecclesiae causam accedamus.


Not a long time after this [the Council of Woodstock, 1163] it came to pass again that another violent struggle arose between them, over a certain canon by the name of Philip de Broc, who had been accused by some of the killing of a certain knight. Philip had already sufficiently answered the case of the murder before the bishop; and that the cause of his adversaries had been deficient, further he had himself proved his innocence with a greater certainty, by the sacrament of purging his soul. However a certain Simon fitzPeter, whom the king had appointed as judge in the district of Bedford, in the same district where Philip resided, tried to have the case recalled, and for Phillip to face the charge again. Phillip, however, answered that he was unwilling to respond to the case for a second time as it had already been concluded, and that all judicial matters had been determined, and especially he refused to appear before a lay justice.  But further, at the same time that he persistently rejected this, this same Simon was confronted with Philips anger, and distressing insults, and the many abuses that were hurled at him.

The King was in London and Simon approached him. He mentioned and referred the king to everything that this Phillip had said and done. Upon hearing this the king flew into a fury, and in his usual fashion he most  terribly did swear "by the eyes of God"; anyone whom had abused a knight of his was to be treated as if they had insulted him personally, such as that which this Philip had done, wherefore he ordered him to be held and judged without delay.

However, the archbishop, who was also present, heard this . "By no means," he said "can clerics be brought before lay judges. Whatever, whether this case or that, for which any cleric might have been accused, this must be in an ecclesiastical court corrected. Therefore, for whatever reason about that which the king complains of or has been offended by, or his knights, let him come or be sent to Canterbury, and there answer before the full justice of the ecclesiastical authority."

The king truly became exceedingly angry, and after saying much, at last reluctantly allowed that some bishops and noblemen to be sent to Canterbury, where on the day appointed by the archbishop,  after they had arrived, they were urgently to deal with the prior charge of the murder committed by Philip. But as soon as it was concluded that the case must not be adjudged a second time by ecclesiastical justices, they came finally to the case of the insults brought by the royal knight. But since Philip deigned little enough to deny this, (inasmuch as he was an important man and a descendant from an important family,) his adversaries jumped up in the middle of the proceedings declaring, "We demand justice based on the evidence and undenied injury that has been done." But since Philip was offering himself for a voluntary penalty, likewise how yet he ought to be judged. It was therefore held, that for two years Philip's prebend was to be delivered into the hands of the king, for to the king to receive all the income he might make from this; and that then truly before the knight [he had insulted], he was to bare himself, according to the custom of the land, so that he may offer satisfaction. However, the outcome which had been sent back and which the decision had been reached in conference, the king replied that his honour had been injured, and he rejected it. The bishops truly said they had rightly judged, except that beyond that which Philip had deserved, for the peace and honour of the king they had made worse, the king greatly glowed, "by the eyes of God, " he said, "you will swear to me that you have pronounced truth in this judgement." But it would take a very long time if we were to follow through all that was said, either that which was shamelessly uttered by the king, or that which came firmly from the archbishop: wherefore with these matters laid aside, we can now come to the common cause of the Church [and the dealings which took place at the  Council of Clarendon, January 1164].

Roger of Wendover's account

Extracted from

The Clergy subjected to lay jurisdiction.
Quod rex decrevit, ut a laicis clerici punirentur. 

Eodem anno rex Henricus volens in singulis, ut dicebat, maleficia debita cum severitate punire, et cujuscumque ordinis dignitatem ad quum trahi dispendium, incongruum esse asseruit, clericos a suis justiciariis in publico flagitio deprehensos episcopo loci tradere impunitos decrevit enim, ut quos episcopi invenirent obnoxios, praesente regis justiciario, exauctorarent, et post curiae regis traderent puniendos. In contrarium sentiebat archiepiscopus, ut quos exauctorent episcopi a manu laicali postmodum non punirentur, quia bis in id ipsum puniri viderentur. Huic controversiae praestitit occasionem Philippus de Broc, canonicus Bedefordensis, qui, tractus in causam propter homicidium in regis justiciarium verbum protulit contumeliosum ; quod cum negare coram archiepiscopo non posset, praebendum suae beneficio multatus est et per biennium a regno pulsus ; et hic nono loco apparuit perturbatio regis contra archiepiscopum.

Notes 
This chapter taken verbatim from Diceto, col. 536.
De Broc is  de Brois in Stephan. p. 32, and Quadrilog. p. 32. 

Translation by J.A. Giles

Extracted from

How the king decreed that the clergy should receive punishment from the laity. 

The same year king Henry, wishing always, as he asserted, to punish crimes with due severity, and that the dignity of all orders should be treated fairly, asserted it was un-reasonable that his justices should be obliged to hand over clerks, when convicted of crimes, to the bishop of the diocese, without punishment ; and he ordered that all clerks whom their bishops found guilty, should be deprived of their orders, in presence of the king's justiciary, and afterwards be delivered over for punishment to the king's court. The archbishop maintained the opposite opinion, that none, who were deprived of their order for a crime by their bishop, should receive any further punishment from a lay tribunal, which would look like inflicting a double punishment for a single offence. This controversy owed its origin to Philip de Broc, canon of Bedford, who, when arraigned on a charge of murder, used contumelious language towards the judge. This he was unable to deny when he was had up before the archbishop, wherefore he was deprived of his prebend, and banished the kingdom for two years. This was the ninth cause of bad feeling between the king and the archbishop.

To this Matthew Paris adds: —" Pope Octavian died, and the emperor Frederic substituted another in his place. Reading abbey was dedicated this year by the archbishop, in presence of the king and the bishops." 



Ralph de Diceto's description

Rex Anglorum volens in singulis, ut dicebat, maleficia debita cum severitate punire, et ordinis dignitatem ad iniquum trahi compendium incongruum esse considerans, clericos a suis judiciariis in publico flagitio deprehensos episcopo loci reddendos decrevat ut quos episcopus inveniret obnoxios, praesente justiciario regis exauctoret, et curiae traderet puniendos. In contrarium sentiebant episcopi, quos enim exauctorarent a manu laicali contendebant protegere, alioquin bis judicaretur in idipsum. Huic controversiae praestitit occasionem Philippus de Broc, canonicus de Bedeford, qui tractus in causam propter homicidium, in justiciarium regis verbum protulit contumeliosum. Quod cum coram archiepiscopo negare non posset, praebendae suae multatus est beneficio, pultus est a regno per biennium.

The King of the English in particular wanted, as he was saying, that crimes should be punished with all due severity. Regardless of dignity or rank he considered that for a more consistent and just outcome, clerics seized by his own justices in public disgrace should be rendered to the bishop of the district to be judged, and if the bishop determines they were guilty and  having been degraded, they should then be presented before the King's justice and delivered to his court for punishment. The bishops felt quite the opposite; they contended that those indeed who had been degraded, should be protected from the hand of lay justice, otherwise it would seem as if they had been judged twice for the same crime.

This controversy became apparent on the occasion of Philip de Broc, canon of Bedford, who, when he had been dragged into a case concerning murder, had proferred profanities in front of the king's justiciar.  And when he was not be able to deny this, in the presence of the archbishop, he was deprived of the benefit of his prebend as punishment, and banished from the kingdom for two years.


Edward Grim's account

Selden Society (1991). English lawsuits from William I to Richard I. Selden Society. p. 100.

Great Britain. Public Record Office (1965). Rerum Britannicarum Medii Ævi Scriptores: Or, Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland During the Middle AgesIssue 67, Volume 2. pp. 374–6.



DE NOVO NOCENDI GENERE ARCHIEPISCOPO.

Novo autem praemeditato nocendi genere subintroducitur contra derieum Philippum de Broii nomine ab olim consopita calumnia, siquidem de morte militis cujusdam fuerat appellatus, sed in audientia Lincolniensis episcopi quum ventilata fuisset causa, ecclesiastico jure purgatur, et soluta controversia liber a parentibus clamatus est. Rursum vero minister regis, ad cujus providentiam illud pertinebat negotium, volens clericum deperire ex antiquo odio, causam revocavit in medium, et calumniam reiteravit. Clericus autem ut vir ingenuus, dolore tactus et indignatione, convitiis vicecomitem aggressus est, qui quum regi detulisset illatam sibi u clerico contumeliam, gavisus, ut creditur, rex accepta occasione saeviendi in clericum, conceptam commotionem refudit in Philippum. Et facta quaestione de clerico in praesentia archiepiscopi, protestatur rex, quod plenaria fiet justitia et de homicidio pariter et de convitio, nec stabit penitus solutio facta. Archiepiscopus vero infra curiam suam et tuitionem ecclesiae clericum recepit, ut ibi pro se loquatur, et respondent calumnianti. Missis igitur a rege episcopis aliisque ordinis utriusque, qui clericum judicarent, negat ille homicidium, asserens non debere cogi ulterius super eo responsum reddere, nec haberi in legibus causam revocari in medium, quam purgatio solemnis terminarat, et pax inita cum adversariis sepelivit :

"Quod autem regis ministrum dehonestavi, animi victus amaritudine, fateor, inqiiit, sed plenam pro maledicto polliceor emenditionem, tantum rationis metas correptio non excedat. Et nos, inquiunt, decernimus ut biennio maneat sub manu regis praebenda tua, et possessiones, omniaque quae in reditibus habes ad nutum ipsius eroganda pauperibus."

Adjungunt adhuc nuntii, quod nudus astaret ministro regis, laicali more, et ipsi offerret arma pro injuria, et in illius viveret subjectione.

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k503197/f439.image
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k503197/f440.image


Hutton's translation
Extract from
William Holden Hutton (1899). S. Thomas of Canterbury. D. Nutt. pp. 35–6

1163. The case of Philip de Brois.

Edw. Grim. Materials ii., p. 374.

A new method of attacking a clerk, Philip of Brois by name, was resorted to by the resuscitation of a charge that had long been forgotten. He had been accused of the murder of a certain knight, but when the case had been heard in the audience of the bishop of Lincoln he was acquitted by ecclesiastical law, and, the matter ended, he was claimed as free by his kinsfolk. Later on, however, one of the king's officers to whom that duty belonged, wishing, from an ancient grudge he bore him, that the clerk should be ruined, brought forward the case again and repeated the charge of murder. But the clerk, being a man of high birth, overwhelmed with grief and indignation, attacked the sheriff with abuse. The sheriff reported this contumelious language to the king, who, glad (as it was thought) to have an occasion of venting his spleen on a clerk, poured upon Philip the wrath that he had conceived. When the question was raised about the clerk in the presence of the archbishop, the king protested that full justice should be done both about the homicide and about the insult, and that the acquittal would not stand. But the archbishop received the clerk into his court under protection of the Church that he might there answer for himself and reply to the charge. Bishops and others of either order were accordingly sent by the king to judge the clerk. He denied the charge of homicide, asserting that he ought not to be compelled to make any further answer to it, and that there was no legal right to try a case over again, a case which had been ended by the solemn purgation and which the peace he had made with his opponents had buried. 

"I confess," he said, "that in the bitterness of my heart I have abused the king's officer, but I promise a full amendment for my misdeeds ; yet let not the correction exceed the bounds of reason." 

"And we decree," said they, "that your prebend remain under the king's hand for two years, and your possessions and all your incomings to be distributed at his will and pleasure to the poor." 

They added that he was to stand naked before the king's official, just as a layman might, and offer him his arms for the injury he had done him and live in subjection to him.. The clerk submitted to the judgment, glad to have escaped the sentence of death which the king threatened. The king, on the other hand, wishing to condemn the man to death, contended that an injury had been done to himself and to the prejudice of his court. He exclaimed that the bishops had had respect of the person because of the archbishop, and had not judged according to equity, and he added,

 "By the eyes of God, you shall swear to me that you judged a just judgment and did not spare the man because he was a clerk." 

[This, says Grim, led up immediately to the Council of Westminster.]

Herbert of Bosham's Account

Extract from


Herbert (of Bosham) (1845). Herberti de Boseham S. Thomæ Cantuariensis clerici a secretis opera quæ extant omnia. Apud J.H. Parker. pp. 100–

17. DE INITIO DISSENSIONIS INTER BEGEM ET ARCHIPRAESULEM 
...
Illud etiam minime praetereundem quod circa idem tempus Philippus quidam, cognomento de Brois, in sede episcopali Lincolniensi canonicus, justitias regis, quae vulgo errantes in terra dicuntur, probrosis quibusdam affecerat contumeliis. Propter quod rex non solum adversus ipsum sed potius adversus totum regni clerum exasperatus videbatur. Solet quippe mox in totam cujusvis officii professionem conferri si quid forte turpiter vel enormiter ab aliquibus de professione admittatur. Sed revera irae seu invidiae sicut citum nimis et inconsideratum judicium hoc, tanquam si in aliqua vel exigua corporis particula macula reperta fuerit et ob id mox totum corpus naevorum sorde judicetur respersum. Et in contumeliis illis et probris constat quidem clericum deliquisse non modicum, verum querela ad archipraesulem delata, citatus clericus etiam supra modum delicti ut vel sic regis facilius quiesceret indignatio, punitus est: publica virgarum disciplina clerico adjudicats et ipso per annos, quot tamen non recordor, ab omni ecclesiastico beneficio quod in regno habebat suspenso, verum regi irato necdum etiam plene pro irati voto satisfactum in hoc. Istud enim est quartum illud quod inter alia emimerat sapiens, quod donec penitus extinguatur, videlicet irae ignis, nunquam dicit sufficit, verum quum regi non sufficeret hoc, videbatur rex potius reum clericum ad aliquam pœnam corporalem deposcere, sed verebatur hoc exprimere, jam advertens archipraesulis rigorem non posse flecti ad hoc. Arctabatur itaque rex, arctabatur et pontifex. Rex etenim populi sui pacem, sicut archipraesul cleri sui zelans libertatem, audiens sic et videns et ad multorum relationes et querimonias accipiens per hujuscemodi castigationes talium clericorum, immo verius caracterizatorum demonum, flagitia non reprimi, sed potius in dies per regnum deterius fieri, archipraesulem el comprovinciales pontifices et reliquum regni clerum Londoniae apud Westmunstier celebriter convocat.
...


It should also be by no means passed over the fact that around about the same time a certain Philip, whose surname was de Brois, a canon in the episcopal see of Lincoln, had hurled some scandalous insults at some justices of the king, those whom are called in the common parlance, men who err in the land [Justices in Eyre]. As a result of this, the king was seen as becoming exasperated, not only at this, but rather at all the clergy in the kingdom. It is obvious and common that if a hugely shameful act is admitted by any member of a profession, that the blame for it is soon conferred upon the whole of that profession. But indeed, out of either anger or jealousy, by the very speediness and thoughtlessness of this judgment, it seemed as though that because on some small part of the body a small blemish was found, that that whole body was adjudged to be covered with filthy moles.  But it was a result of these reproaches and insults it was. indeed, evident that this cleric had greatly transgressed, so the complaint was referred to the Archbishop to judge the truth of the case. He summoned the clerk so that king might rest more easily and also that the above offense could be punished more suitably for the indignation and the degree of the crime: the cleric was sentenced to be publicly beaten with staves, the same punishment to be repeated every year (however I do not remember for how many), and he was to lose all of the ecclesiastical benefices which he held in the kingdom. But even this was truly not enough to satisfy the king in this matter. And this indeed was counted the fourth time among others, that the fire of anger, which, until it has been completely extinguished,  the wise say  "never saith it is enough." But when this was not enough for the king, it seemed preferable to him to ask for the cleric to receive some further corporal punishment,  but he was afraid to articulate this, already noting that he was not able to bend the rigidity of the Archbishop on this matter.  The king therefore became defensive and the archbishop became defensive too. Just as the king wanted peace for his people, so the archbishop was zealous for the liberty of his church.  But hearing and seeing so many reports and complaints received and the castigations throughout the kingdom for unchecked crimes committed by such clerics who could only be more accurately described as devils, this seemed daily to become worse.  The archbishop together with the co-bishops of his province and the remainder of his clergy therefore repaired to London to attend the celebrations which he had convoked at Westminster.

Extract From

c. July [1163]. The King and Becket are in London.

Simon fitz Peter, a Justiciar recently in Eyre in Bedfordshire, complained to the King of having been insulted in Court at Dunstable, by one Philip de Broc (or Brois), a Canon of Lincoln, whom having been acquitted of homicide by the Court Spiritual of the Diocese, the Justiciar had attempted to re-arraign, and had been resisted with insolence.

The King now insisted on a new Trial, while Becket carried the point that such new Trial should be in Court Spiritual. (De Broc was soon after tried at Canterbury by such a Court. He was acquitted of homicide, but heavily sentenced for contempt of a King's Officer).

S.T.C. Fitz Stephen, i. 214, Potigny, i. 114, Grim. i. 22. Boseham, vii. 101.



References and Sources

William Holden Hutton (1899). S. Thomas of Canterbury. pp.35-6 D. Nutt.
http://archive.org/details/sthomascanterbu02huttgoog

John Morris (1859). The life and martyrdom of saint Thomas Becket archb. of Canterbury. Longman, Brown. pp. 91–.

James J. Spigelman (1 June 2004). Becket & Henry: The Becket Lectures. James Spigelman. pp. 106–8. ISBN 978-0-646-43477-3.

Michael Staunton (7 December 2001). The Lives of Thomas Becket. Manchester University Press. pp. 77–. ISBN 978-0-7190-5455-6

Michael Staunton (2006). Thomas Becket and His Biographers. Boydell Press. pp. 99–. ISBN 978-1-84383-271-3

John Lingard; Prudence-Guillaume Roujoux (1825). Histoire d'Angleterre, depuis la première invasion des Romains. Carié De La Charie. pp. 344–

Edward Grim. Materials ii p. 374
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k503197/f439.image
Saint Thomas (à Becket) (1845). "Edwardo Grim: Vita Sancti Thomae". In J.A. Giles. Opera. Parker. pp. 22–.

Guernes (de Pont-Sainte-Maxence) (1859). La vie de saint Thomas le martyr: archevêque de Canterbury. C. A. Aubry. pp. 30–


Simon (Dunelmensis); Roger Twysden (1652). "Radolfo de Diceto: Ymagines Historiarum"Historiae Anglicanae scriptores decem. Bee. p. 537.

Baron George Lyttelton Lyttelton (1769). The history of the life of King Henry the Second: and of the age in which he lived. Printed for J. Dodsley. pp. 369–.

The Publications of the Selden Society. Selden Society. 1990

Saint Thomas (à Becket) (1845). Opera. Parker. pp. 22–.

William Fitzstephen. Materials iii p.45

Saint Thomas (à Becket) (1845). "Willelmo Filio Stephani: Vita Sancti Thomae". In J.A. Giles. Opera. Parker. pp. 214–.

Anonymous I. Materials iv, p. 24-5
Saint Thomas (à Becket) (1845). "Rogerio De Pontiniaco: Vita Sancti Thomae". In J.A. Giles. Opera. Parker. pp. 114–

of Bosham Herbert; John Allen Giles (1846). Herberti de Boseham S. Thomæ Cantuariensis clerici a secretis opera quæ extant omnia: Liber melorum, epistolæ, &c. apud J.H. Parker. pp. 101–

Carl Rikard Unger (1869). Thomas saga Erkibyskups. B.M. Bentzen. pp. 57–.

Matthaeus (Parisiensis) (1606). Historia maior. pp. 98–.


Frederic William Maitland (1911); ed. Herbert Albert Laurens Fisher, Frederic William Maitland. The Collected Papers of Frederic William Maitland; Downing Professor of the Laws of England. CUP Archive. pp. 237–. GGKEY:4SE7FBBDXUP. 

Thursday, 24 January 2013

Pope Alexander receives Becket and condemns the Constitutions

Extract from
William Holden Hutton (1899). S. Thomas of Canterbury. pp. 100-2. D. Nutt.

The Pope receives Thomas and condemns the Constitutions. 
Garnier pp. 81-84.
Verses 467-478
Lines 2331-2390
 
Within four days after to Sens S. Thomas came, 
To the hostel he went, for of wandering he was weary;
With his clerks he took counsel, who never deceived him. 
Who should plead his cause ; they all remained silent, 
None of them would plead it for bidding or for begging. 
For none of them dared plead it for fear of K. Henry, 
For they never would have his friendship again, they said; 
The archbishop took it up himself, who had God to his friend. 
The next day when he had served our Lord 
He went to the Pope and fell at his feet. 
The custom is that they who come there offer as a gift, 
At the Pope's feet, some good things : silver or gold. 
Rich plate or good jewel. 
The king's chirograph the archbishop takes. 
And at the Pope's feet spreads it out with his two hands* 

"This is the cause wherefor I am bound to suffer exile ; 
" Sire, behold it here ! ye shall hear it well. 
" Such laws the king wisheth to establish in his realm, 
" And would make Holy Church hold them by force, 
" But I will not consent thereto against God.
 
" Wherefor, sire, I am come hither that I may show it 
" to you." 
Then the Pope hath made him speak before them all. 
And ordered the laws to be read and heard ; 
And the saint began to prove word by word 
Where the king by these laws was wishing to tend and go. 
 
A cardinal was listening there who greatly loved the king, 
William of Pavia (thus was he named, I think). 
All the cardinals the king hath drawn over to himself, 
For he hath given them so much and done so much
That they maintained his cause openly and secretly. 

When the archbishop began to speak 
And to set forth his cause in Latin fairly, 
He [William] began to traverse it right through, 
He thought that he would have made him stop his case, 
And that if he were disturbed he would not know how to finish it off. 

Saint Thomas was very prudent, the Holy Ghost was in him. 
And whatever he [William] said he had understood it well, 
And he answered it all through word by word. 
In fair Latin at once he hath solved each point; 
He had taken up quite a half day with his cause. 
 
And when he had solved these questions well 
He came back to his own points, as if he were Solomon 
He pleaded forth his cause with many fair reasons ; 
Quite half a day the dispute between them has lasted. 
For he was all through point by point close upon him. 
 
When the archbishop had fairly finished his speech 
And destroyed the laws by solid reason, 
And had shown all through reasoning and proof; 
Both clerks and laymen have heard his words fairly. 
And the Pope had followed him over all the points. 

The Pope sat him down by himself at once, 
And "Welcome let him be" he bade him often. 
And thanketh him greatly for undertaking such a great deed 
As to defend Holy Church against an earthly king. 
All through he should be helped, as far as reason alloweth ! 

The archbishop Thomas often thanked him 
For his fair welcome that honoured him so ; 
Then the Pope excommunicated the laws, 
And him, whomsoever he was, that should ever hold them, 
And with his anathema confirmed it for ever.

 
In Norman French
 


 
References
Garnier de Pont Sainte Maxence (1859). La vie de saint Thomas le martyr, publ. par C. Hippeau. pp. 81–4.
Collection des poètes français du moyen âge. Aubier. 1859. pp. 82–.Guernes de Pont-Sainte-Maxence (1859). La vie de Saint Thomas le martyr archevêque de Canterbury. Aubry. pp. 82–.
http://archive.org/details/laviedesainttho00unkngoog
http://archive.org/details/laviedesainttho00hippgoog
http://archive.org/stream/laviedesaintthom00gueruoft#page/79/mode/1up

The Pope annuls the Northampton sentence

Extract from Hutton (1899) p. 111
http://www.archive.org/details/sthomascanterbu02huttgoog
 
June, 1165. — The Pope annuls the Northampton sentence.
Alexander III. to the Abp. Cant.
Materials v., p. 178. Epistle 94.
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k503224/f211.image 
 
That the less cannot judge the greater, and especially him to whom he
is known by law to be subject and is held bound by the chain of
obedience, laws as well human as Divine declare, and especially is it
clearly laid down in the statutes of the holy fathers. Wherefore we to
whom it belongs to correct the things that are erroneous and to amend
those which if not corrected would leave a pernicious example to
posterity, having pondered these things with anxious care and
considering that through the fault of an individual the Church ought
not to sustain hurt or loss, do adjudge the sentence presumptuously
passed upon you by the bishops and barons of England because you did
not obey the king's first summons - in which sentence the said bishops
and barons adjudged a forfeiture of all your moveables contrary to the
form of law and against ecclesiastical custom, especially since you
have no moveables except the goods of your Church — to be utterly
void, and do quash the same by Apostolic authority, ordering that for
the future it have no force, nor shall avail to bring any prejudice or
hurt hereafter to you or your successors or to the Church committed to
your rule.
 
References
Louis Bail (1672). Summa conciliorum omnium. pp. 409–.
Roger (of Wendover); Matthew Paris; John Allen Giles (1841). Roger of Wendover's Flowers of history: Comprising the history of England from the descent of the Saxons to A.D. 1235; formerly ascribed to Matthew Paris. H. G. Bohn. pp. 311–.

Migne Patrologiae Latinae. Tomus 200, p.378.

Wednesday, 23 January 2013

The Constitutuions: Hutton's Translation and Commentary

Extract from
William Holden Hutton (1899). S. Thomas of Canterbury. pp. 50-9 D. Nutt.

Jan. 1164. - Council of Clarendon.

[The archbishops and bishops gave a general promise to
observe the customs. The king ordered that a formal
document should be drawn up embodying the customs of
his grandfather, Henry I. It appears that the task was
undertaken by Richard de Lucy, the justiciar, and Jocelin
de Balliol. The following are the articles. For the
meaning of the most important clauses see Professor
Maitland's Essay on Henry II. and Criminous Clerks.]

The Constitutions of Clarendon.
Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, vol. v., p. 71.

Because of the dissensions and discords which arose
between the clergy and the justices of the lord king
and the barons of the realm concerning the customs
and dignities, the recognition was made in the presence
of the archbishop and bishops and clergy and
earls and nobles of the realm. And these customs,
by the recognition of the archbishops and bishops
and earls and barons and the men of nobility and
age, were agreed to by Thomas archbishop of
Canterbury, Roger archbishop of York, Gilbert
bishop of London, Henry bishop of Winchester,
Nigel bishop of Ely, William bishop of Norwich,
Robert bishop of Lincoln, Hilary bishop of Chichester,
Jocelin bishop of Salisbury, Richard bishop
of Chester, Bartholomew bishop of Exeter, Robert
bishop of Hereford, David bishop of S. David's,
and Roger bishop of Worcester, and in the word
of truth they firmly promised that they should be
held and observed, to the king and his heirs, in
good faith and without evil intent, - in the presence
of Robert earl of Leicester, Reginald earl of Cornwall,
Conan earl of Bretagne, John earl of Eu, Roger
earl of Clare, earl Geoffrey of Mandeville, Hugh
earl of Chester, William earl of Arundel, earl Patrick
of Salisbury, William earl of Ferrars, Richard de
Lucy, Reginald of S. Valery, Roger Bigot, Reginald
of Warenne, Richer of Laigle, William of Braos,
Richard of Camville, Nigel of Mowbray, Simon of
Beauchamp, Humfrey of Bohun, Matthew of Hereford,
Walter of Medwin [Methuen], Manasses Biset
butler, William Malet, William of Curcy, Robert of
Dunstanville, Jocelin of Balliol, William of Lanval,
William of Cheyney, Geoffrey of Vere, William of
Hastings, Hugh of Morville, Alan of Neville, Simon
Fitz-Peter, William Malduit chamberlain, John
Malduit, John Marshal, Peter de Mare, and many
other nobles of the realm as well as clerks as lay. Of
the customs and dignities of the realm, according to
recognition, a certain part is contained in this
writing.* Of the which the heads are as follows.
[* From this and the statement at the beginning of the
preamble it would appear that a sort of general recognition
of the common law was made, of which only the
part relating to the Church was recorded and received.]

I.  Concerning the advowson and presentation of
churches if a dispute shall arise between laymen, or
between laymen and clerks, or between clerks, it
shall be tried and concluded in the king's court.
[Probably the Curia Regis, the highest tribunal of the
country, at once the judicial session of the king's chief
advisers and the great council of the baronage in its
judicial aspect, is here referred to. This appears now to
be a permanent court, and it probably already had a
staff of judges, as was certainly the case from 1178. The
Church claimed the suits as appertaining to the care of
souls; the State as questions of the right to property.
Undoubtedlyin in the last reign they had frequently been heard
in ecclesiastical courts, for very many letters of
John of Salisbury, as secretary to Archbishop Theobald,
refer to appeals to the Pope on rights of presentation.]

II.  Churches in the fee of the lord king may not
be granted in perpetuity without his assent and
consent.
[To this there was no objection on the part of the
Church. The Churches are those on the king's estates,
and the object of the order is to preserve the feudal
services. Later the kings would allow no episcopal jurisdiction
over their free chapelries, but issued writs of
prohibition from the king's bench.]

III.  Clerks charged and accused concerning any
matter, having been summoned by the king's justiciar
shall come into his court to answer there concerning
this matter if it shall seem meet to the king's court
that it be answered there, and in the ecclesiastical
court if it seem meet that it be answered there, so
that the king's justiciar shall send into the court of
Holy Church to see in what manner the suit be
therein tried And if the clerk shall be convicted
or shall confess the Church ought no longer to shield
him.
[Accused clerks are to answer before the king's justiciar
for a crime at common law, in Church courts for a crime
in ecclesiastical law. See Professor Maitland's article
above referred to.]

IV. — Archbishops. bishops, and beneficed clerks
mav not leave the kingdom without the licence of
the lord king. If they go abroad, if the lord king
pleases, they shall give security that neither in going
nor in tarrying nor in returning will they procure ill
or hurt to  king or kingdom.
[The right of closing the ports was an ancient prerogative.
Its exercise in this clause, taken in connection with
clause 8 is evidently designed to check, if not altogether
to abolish, appeals to Rome. It was thus interpreted by
the archbishop and strongly opposed. Robert of
Gloucester, writing a century later, explains its meaning
to be that the king should be "in the pope's stead."]
V. — Excommunicate persons ought not to give 
security for the future, nor to take oath, but only 
sufficient security and pledge to abide the judgment 
of the Church that they may be absolved. [In this clause there is a difficulty in the interpretation of 
the expression Vadium ad remaneus (cf. the practice of Roman 
Law ; Institutes, ed. Moyle, vol. i., p. 670. Poste's Gaius, lib. 
iv., sect. 185). It may mean "henceforeward give security," or 
"give security for future good behaviour." In the former 
case the pledge is merely to remain in the same parish. It refers 
to the custom of exacting an oath, on absolution, to obey the 
Church's decisions. The question became important during the 
last days of Becket's life and at the time of the murder, when 
he refused to absolve the bishops unless they took the customary 
oath of submission to the pope's judgment.]
VI.—  Laymen ought not to be accused save by 
certain and legal accusers and witnesses in the pre- 
sence of the bishop, so that [nevertheless] the arch- 
deacon lose not his right nor aught that he should 
have therein. And if the criminals be such that no 
one will or dare accuse them, the sheriff being re- 
quired by the bishop shall make to swear twelve 
legal men of the neighbourhood or township, in 
presence of the bishop, that therein they will mani- 
fest the truth according to their conscience. [Legal or law-worthy men - those regarded by the law as 
capable of bearing witness and taking an oath. Up to the 
Norman Conquest all freemen were " lawful " or "legal" men. 
The twelve men are a jury of presentment or accusation — a 
custom found in early English law (cf. Ethelred, III., cap. 3).
The custom was developed or revived by Henry II., and is 
substantially the same as the modern grand jury.] 
VII. — No one who holds of the king in chief nor 
any of his servants shall be excommunicated, nor 
shall the lands of any of them be put under interdict 
unless the lord king, if he be in the country, or his 
justiciar, if he be without the realm, be first informed. 
That he may do right by him : and so that what per- 
tains to the king's courts shall be there concluded, 
and what belongs in the ecclesiastical court shall be
sent thereto that it may be tried there. [This is an extension of the custom of William I, referred to 
above, p. 34. Here the prohibition is extended to include an 
interdict on the land. By excommunication of their attendants
without notice kings might be indirectly struck at, for by contact,
with an excommunicate they would become excommunicate also.]
VIII. - Concerning appeals when they shall arise, 
they ought to got from the archdeacon to the bishop, 
from the bishop to the archbishop. And if the 
archbishop shall fail in showing justice, resort should 
be had lastly to the king, so that by his order the . 
question be concluded in the archbishop's court: so 
that it should go no further without the king's assent. 
[This shows the existence of a regular system of appeals in 
ecclesiastical suits, though no regular system of appeals in lay 
courts existed at this time. The clause acted as a prohibition 
of appeals to Rome, and may be regarded as the definite 
declaration of a position never wholly abandoned, and finally 
assumed at the Reformation. It will be observed that the final 
decision is not left to the king but he remits the casue to the - 
archbishop's court for reconsideration.]*I.e., the possessor shall not lose possession until the suit be ended.
 IX. — If an action occur between a clerk and a lay- 
man, or between a layman and a clerk, concerning 
any holding which the clerk wishes to attach to free 
alms,* and the layman to lay fief, it shall be concluded 
by the recognition of twelve legal men under view 
of the king's chief justiciar, whether the holding 
belong to ecclesiastical or lay tenure, in the presence 
of the said justiciar. And if it be decided by recog- 
nition that it belongs to ecclesiastical tenure the suit 
shall take place in the ecclesiastical court; but if to 
lay tenure (unless the suitors both hold of the same 
bishop or baron) it shall take place in the king's 
court : so that on account of the recognition made he 
shall not lose seisin who was seised of it** until it be 
decided by plea.
[In the case referred to in this clause two questions are spoken 
of as requiring decision : first, whether a particular holding is
held on ecclesiastical or lay tenure, and second, which of the two
claimants, a clerk and a layman, has the right to the possession
of it. It is ordered that the first question should be always 
decided in the king's court, and the second in church or king's 
court according to the decision of the first. To this the eccle- 
siastical lawyers, always anxious to secure the trial of suits
concerning property, made strong opposition. The clause shows 
the use of juries for the decision of fact in civil suits, a custom
derived from the Norman inquest on oath from persons acquainted 
with facts (cf. Domesday). From the Norman Conquest such 
suits had been decided by wager of battle; but Henry II., 
during the chancellorship of Becket, introduced, by his Grand
Assize, the custom as here mentioned. Cf, Glanvill, De legibus Angliae, lib ii.]
* Ecclesiastical tenure
** I.e. The possessor shall not lose possession until the suit be ended. 

X.— If anyone belonging to a city or castle or town
or manor of the king, being cited by the archdeacon
or bishop for any crime for which he is obliged to
answer, will not, at their citations, give satisfaction,
it shall be lawful to put him under interdict, but not
to excommunicate him until the chief officer of the
king in his township be informed, in order that he
may compel him to give satisfaction. And if the
king's officer shall fail therein he shall be at the
king's mercy, and then shall the bishop be able to
coerce the accused by ecclesiastical law.
XI. — Archbishops, bishops, and all beneficed clergy 
of the realm who hold of the king in chief have their 
possessions of the lord king as a barony, and answer 
therefor to the justices and ministers of the king, 
and follow and do all royal rights and customs, and 
like other barons ought to be present at the judg- 
ments of the king's court, with the barons, till there 
shall come into judgment matter concerning mutila- 
tion or death.
[To this the Church made no objection. Ecclesiastics who 
hold of the king in chief are to hold according to ordinary feudal 
law. The clause refers to property not status, and has no 
bearing on the title by which the bishops sat in the Great 
Council. By the law of the Church ecclesiastics were bound to 
retire when a "question of blood" came on.]
XII. — When an archbishopric shall be vacant, or a 
bishopric, or abbacy, or priory on the king's demesne, 
it shall be in his hand and he take all revenues and 
outgoings as his own. And when counsel shall be 
taken of the Church the lord king shall command 
the greater persons of the Church, and the election 
shall be in the chapel of the lord king by assent of 
the lord king and counsel of those ecclesiastics whom 
he shall have called for the purpose. And there shall 
the elect do homage and fealty to the lord king as 
his liege lord, in his life and limbs and earthly honour, 
saving his order, before he be consecrated. 
[This, says Bishop Stubbs (Select Charters, p. 136), is " in 
conformity with the usage of Henry I. and with the practice of 
the West Saxon kings of England. But the right of election had 
long been claimed for the clergy of the Church whose vacancy 
was to be supplied. As early as the 8th century the letters of 
Alcuin give proof that such liberty was possessed by the clergy 
of York, and the subsequent restriction was probably owing to 
the example set by the emperors in France and Germany. 
Generally the Anglo-Saxon bishops were appointed by the king 
and witan, but there are traces, from the date of Theodore to 
the Conquest, of free elections occasionally allowed and con- 
stantly claimed. It was the peace of Anselm and Henry I. that 
"gave the king an absolute and legal influence in this matter." 
Fitz Stephen records that during Becket's chancellorship sees 
were not kept vacant and elections were canonical. Materials
iii., 23, translated above, p. 15.]
XIII. — If any one of the great men of the realm 
shall have failed to show justice, either concerning 
himself or his men, to archbishop or bishop or arch- 
deacon, the lord king ought to bring him to justice. 
And if perchance a clerk shall have failed in his duty 
to the lord king the archbishops and bishops and 
archdeacons ought to bring him to justice so that he 
may make satisfaction to the king. 

XIV.— The goods of those who are under forfeit of 
the king, no church or cemetery is to retain against the 
king's justice, because they are the king's, whether 
they be found within churches or without. 
XV.— Pleas concerning debts which are due with or without pledging of faith are in the king's justice. [To this the Church objected. Ecclesiastical lawyers treated debts as involving an oath or pleading of credit, and thus under the moral jurisdiction of the Church.]
XVI.— Sons of villeins ought not to be ordained with- 
out the assent of the lord on whose land they were born. 
[To this the Pope assented. The order, aimed at preventing 
the loss of villein services to the lords, is in principle as old as 
the so-called Constitutions of the Apostles. An indignant pro- 
test against this is made by Garnier [p. 89]. "God," he says, 
"has called is all to his service. Much more worth is the vil- 
lein's son who is honourable than a son of a noble who is false."].

Record was made of the aforesaid royal customs 
and dignities by the aforesaid archbishops and 
bishops, and earls and barons, and men of nobility 
and age at Clarendon the fourth day before the 
Purification of the Blessed Mary the Virgin, the lord 
Henry being present with his father the lord king. 
But there are also other many and great customs and 
dignities of holy mother Church, and the lord king, 
and the barons of the realm, which are not contained 
in this writing. The which shall be preserved to 
holy Church and to the lord king and his heirs and 
the barons of the realm, and shall be inviobly ob- 
served for ever.

In Latin

M. HOUARD (1779) 
Anciennes loix des françois conservées dans les coutumes engloises recueillies. 
p.272
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32298/32298-h/32298-h.htm


Aliud Exemplar ejusdem Concilii e Libro de Vita & Passione S. Thomæ Cantuariensis (Quadrilogus nuncupato) Parisiis impresso, An. 1495. desumptum.
Rescriptum illarum consuetudinum quas avitas vocant, quoniam quando & coram quibus facta est recognitio regalium consuetudinum 300.
Note 300: (retour) Quadrilog. lib. 5. in exordio.
273
Anno ab incarnatione Domini millesimo centesimo sexagesimo quarto, Papatus Alexandri anno quarto, illustrissimi Regis Anglorum Henrici secundi anno decimo. In præsentia ejusdem Regis facta recordatio & recognitio cujusdam partis consuetudinum & libertatum, & dignitatum antecessorum suorum videlicet Regis Henrici avi sui, & aliorum quæ observari & teneri debent in regno. Et propter dissensiones & discordias quæ emerserant inter Clerum & justitias Domini Regis, & Barones regni de consuetudinibus & dignitatibus. Facta est ista recognitio coram Archiepiscopis & Episcopis, & Clero & Comitibus & Baronibus & Proceribus regni. Et easdem consuetudines recognitas per Archiepiscopos & Episcopos, & per Barones, & per Nobiliores & Antiquiores regni, Thomas Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus, & Rogerus Eboracen. Archiepiscopus, & Gilbertus Londoniensis Episcop. & Henricus Wintoniensis Episcopus, Nigellus Eliensis Episcopus, & Willelmus Norwicensis Episcopus, & Robertus Lincolniensis Episcopus, & Hilarius Cicestrensis Episcopus, Jocelinus Saresberiensis, & Richardus Cestrensis Episcopus, & Bartholomæus Oxoniensis Episcopus, & Robertus Herefordensis Episcopus, & David Menevensis Episcopus, & Rogerus Wirgorniensis electus concesserunt, & in verbo veritatis viva voce firmiter promiserunt tenendas & observandas Domino Regi & Hæredibus suis, bona fide & absque malo ingenio; præsentibus istis: Roberto Comite Rochestriæ, Reginaldo Comite Cornubiæ, Conano Comite Britanniæ, Johanne Comite de Haugo, Rogerio Comite de Clare, Comite Gauffrido de Mandeville, Hugone Comite Cestriæ, Willermo Comite de Arundell, Comite Patricio, Willermo Comite de Ferrariis, Richardo de Luci, Reginald de sancto Walerico, Rogerio Bigot, Reginaldo de Warenner, Richerio de Aquila, Willermo de Bransa, Richardo de Canivilla, Nigello de Monbray, Simone de Bello Campo, Humphrido de Boun, Matheo de Herefordia, Waltero de Meduana, Maneter de Biseht Dapifero, Willermo Maleth, Willermo de Curti, Roberto de Dunestavilla, Jocelino de Baillolio, Willermo Lanualis, Willermo de Laisneto, Gauffrido de Veu, Willermo de Hastinga, Hugone de Moravilla, Alano de Neuvil, Simone filio Petri, Willermo Mallevit Camerario, 274Johanne Malevit, Johanne Marescallo, Petro de Mara, & multis aliis Proceribus & Nobilibus regni tam Clericis quam Laicis. Consuetudinum vero & dignitatum regni recognitarum, cujus quædam pars præsenti Scripto continetur, cujus partis capitula hæc sunt.
Capitulum primum.
De advocatione & præsentatione Ecclesiarum si controversia emerserit inter Laicos, vel inter Laicos & Clericos, vel inter Clericos in Curia Domini Regis tractetur & terminetur.
Cap. 2. Ecclesiæ de feudo Regis non possint in perpetuum dari absque assensu & concessione ipsius.
Cap. 3. Clerici citati & accusati de quacunque re sive moniti a justitia Regis veniant in Curiam ipsius, responsuri ibidem, de hoc unde videbitur Curiæ quid ibi sit respondendum, & in Curia Ecclesiastica unde videbitur quid sit ibi respondendum. Ita quod justitia Regis mittet in Curiam sanctæ Ecclesiæ, ad videndum qua ratione res ibi tractabitur. Et si Clericus convictus vel confusus fuerit non debet eum de cætero Ecclesia tueri.
Cap. 4. Archiepiscopis Episcopis, personis regni non licet exire de regno absque licentia Regis, & si exierint, si Domino Regi placuerit, assecurabunt quod nec in eundo nec in moram faciendo nec in redeundo perquirent malum vel damnum Regi vel regno.
Cap. 5. Excommunicati non debent dare vadium ad remanens nec præstare juramentum, sed tantum vadium & plegium standi judicio Ecclesiæ ut absolvantur.
Cap. 6. Clerici non debent accusari nisi per certos & legales accusatores & testes in præsentia Episcopi, ita quod Archidiaconus non perdat jus suum; nec quicquam quod inde habere debeat. Et si tales fuerint qui culpantur, quos nec velit, nec audeat aliquis eos accusare: Vicecomes requisitus ab Episcopo faciet jurare duodecim legales homines de vicineto seu de villa coram Episcopo quod inde veritatem secundum conscientiam suam manifestabunt.
Cap. 7. Nullus qui de Rege teneat in capite, nec aliquis Dominicorum Ministrorum ejus excommunicetur; nec terræ alicujus 275illorum sub interdicto ponantur, nisi prius Dominus Rex si in terra fuerit conveniatur, vel justitia ejus si extra regnum fuerit ut rectum est de ipso faciat, & ita id quod pertinebat ad Curiam regiam ibidem terminetur, & de eo quod spectabit ad Ecclesiam ad eandem mittatur ut ibidem tractetur.
Cap. 8. De appellationibus si emerserint ab Archidiacono debent procedere ad Episcopum, ab Episcopo ad Archiepiscopum, & si Archiepiscopus defuerit in justitia exhibenda, ad Dominum Regem est perveniendum postremo, ut præcepto ipsius in Curia Archiepiscopi controversia terminetur ita quod non debet ulterius procedere absque assensu Regis.
Cap. 9. Si calumnia emerserit inter Laicum & Clericum vel inter Clericum & Laicum de ullo tenemento quod Clericus ad Eleemosynam velit attrahere, Laicus vero ad Laicum feudum, recognitione duodecim hominum legalium per capitalis Regis justitiæ considerationem terminabitur, utrum tenementum sit pertinens ad Eleemosynam sive ad Laicum feudum coram ipsa justitia Regis. Et si recognitum fuerit ad Eleemosynam pertinere placitum erit in Curia Ecclesiastica. Si vero ad Laicum feudum (nisi ambo de eodem Episcopo vel Barone advocaverint) erit placitum in Curia Regis; sed si uterque advocaverit de feudo illo ante eundem Episcopum vel Baronem, erit placitum in Curia ipsius ita quod propter factam recognitionem saisinam non amittat qui prius saisitus fuerat.
Cap. 10. Qui de Civitate, Castello, vel burgo, vel dominico manerio Regis fuerit, si ab Archidiacono vel Episcopo de aliquo delicto citatus fuerit unde debeat iis respondere, & ad citationem eorum noluit satisfacere, bene licet eum sub interdicto ponere. Sed non debet excommunicari priusquam capitalis minister villæ illius conveniatur, ut justificet eum ad satisfactionem venire. Et si minister Regis inde defecerit, ipse erit in misericordia Regis, & exinde poterit Episcopus ipsum accusatum justitia Ecclesiastica coercere.
Cap. 11. Archiepiscopi & personæ universæ regni qui de Rege tenent in capite habent possessiones suas de Rege sicut Baroniam, & inde respondent justitiis & ministris Regis, & sequentur & facient omnes rectitudines, & consuetudines regias, & sicut Ba 276Barones cæteri debent judiciis Curiæ Regis cum Baronibus interesse usque dum perveniatur in judicio ad diminutionem membrorum vel mortem.
Cap. 12. Cum vacaverit Archiepiscopatus vel Abbatia vel Prioratus de dominio Regis debet esse in manu ejus, & inde percipiat omnes reditus & exitus sicut dominicos, & cum venerit ad consulendam Ecclesiam debet Dominus Rex mandare potiores personas Ecclesiæ & in capella ejus debet fieri electio assensu Regis & consilio personarum regni, quas ad hoc faciendum vocaverit. Et ibidem faciet electus homagium & fidelitatem Regi sicut ligio Domino suo de vita sua, de membris & honore terreno, salvo ordine suo priusquam sit consecratus.
Cap. 13. Si quisquam de Proceribus Archiepiscopis vel Episcopis, vel Archidiaconis, de se vel suis justitiam exhibere renuerit Rex debet justificare. Et si forte aliquis deforciaret Regi rectitudinem suam Archiepiscopi & Archidiaconi debent eum justificare ut Regi satisfaciat.
Cap. 14. Catalla eorum qui sunt in forisfacto Regis non detineat Ecclesia vel coemeterium contra justitiam Regis sive in Ecclesiis, sive extra fuerint inventa.
Cap. 15. Placita de debitis quæ fide interposita debentur, vel absque interpositione fidei sint in justitia Regis.
Cap. 16. Filii rusticorum non debent ordinari absque assensu Domini de cujus terra nati sunt sive esse dignoscuntur.
Concil. Clarend. 1164.Concilium apud Clarendoniam 8 Cal. Februar. A. D. 1164. id est, 11. Henr. II. præsidente Johanne de Oxonia de mandato ipsius Regis præsidentibus etiam ipsis Archiepiscopis, viz. Thoma Cant. & Rogero Eboracens. Episcopis Abbatibus Prioribus Comitibus Baronibus, &c.301
Note 301: (retour) V. Capitt. Mat. Par. pag. 96, & Nic. Trivet. & Ger. Dor.
In hoc Concilio discisæ sunt plurimæ radices Ecclesiasticæ potestatis, ex quo diu cum nutasset ipsa arbor, tandem corruit. Sexdecim Capitulis.
Hunc Johannem de Oxonia excommunicavit postea Thomas 277Archiepiscopus Cant. (vulgo Becket) ut patet in Epistola ipsius ad suffraganeos suos apud Hoved. pa. 99.
Novarum rerum & gravissimarum perturbationum tempestas in Ecclesiam Archipræsulemque ejus jam irruit, quam profusius & lugubriter canunt istius sæculi authores, sed expressius habeas ex Epistolis ipsorum agentium & patientium. Quæ cum plurimæ & ab Hovedeno magna ex partæ concinnatæ; sine obsecro ut te illi relegam, ne ab instituto nostro plus satis abripiar.


References
Thomas. - Littleton (1779). Anciennes loix des François: conservées dans les coutumes angloises ; suivies des Additions aux remarques sur les coutumes angloises. Le Boucher. pp. 272–

Baron George Lyttelton Lyttelton (1772). The history [of the  life of King Henry the Second, and of the age in which he lived: To which is prefixed, A history of the revolutions of England, from the death of Edward the Confessor to the birth of Henry the Second]. Printed by and for G. Faulkner. pp. 204–http://books.google.com/books?id=M8UBAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA20 Anciennes Loix Des Francois Conservées Dans Les Coutumes Angloises: Avec des Observations historiques & critiques, .... pp. 272–. 
Dorothy Whitelock; Arthur West Haddan (1981). Councils & synods, with other documents relating to the English church: A.D. 871-1204. Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-822394-8
Bodleian Library; Francis Douce (1840). Catalogue of the printed books and manuscripts bequeathed by Francis Douce, to the Bodleian library. p 48/ University Press. pp. 1–
William Stubbs (1870). "A.D. 1164. Constitutions of Clarendon."Select charters and other illustrations of English constitutional history from the earliest times to the reign of Edward the First. Clarendon Press. pp. 129–
Eadmer Historia novorum in Anglia
[Hist. Nov. i .6]