Constitutions of Clarendon

Introduction to and Chapter List for the Constitutions of Clarendon

Search This Blog [this will launch a new window]

The Constitutions of Clarendon was a formal document, a set of laws which king Henry II of England had drawn up and set down in writing in January 1164. Henry tried to force Thomas Becket archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops of the English Church to give recognition to his legal programme and their consent to the items in the document by affixing their seals to the parchment on which the laws were written.

The document contained a list of Henry's so-called 'Customs of the Kingdom', the royal and legal rights which he claimed over the Church in England, which he asserted as having been in force during and from his grandfather's time (Henry I). All Henry maintained what he was doing was setting these down in writing, as a kind of constitutional statute [per assisam regni], so that there would or could be no doubt as to exactly what they were. Many of the clauses, however, contradicted and conflicted with the Catholic Church's own Canon Law. As a consequence Becket refused to affix his seal to the parchment until after he had a chance which to consult with the Pope, and only reluctantly, after considerable pressure, gave his consent and endorsement to them verbally, which he later retracted, and for which later the Pope was to absolve him of his obligations to the Church regarding this. This made king Henry furious, and effectively had him declared as a traitor later on that same year.

The Consitutions of Clarendon did not take place in a political vacuum. The Roman Catholic Church for some time, at least a century before 1164 had adopted a principle of Libertas Ecclesiae [or Freedom of the Church] which meant that the Church demanded absolute autonomy and freedom from interference by and from the secular authorities in the questions of the appointment [investiture] of bishops, control of their own people [the clergy], their own courts and the supremacy of the Pope in spiritual matters. The Constitutions of Clarendon were a manifestation or example of the latest struggle in England between Church and State [sacerdotium v. imperium]. Earlier example of this kind had been the troubles of William Rufus and Henry I with Archbishop [St.] Anselm, and the Investiture Controversy.

Some have seen the Constitutions of Clarendon as the most important document of its time as providing a foundation for the separation of church and state, as the most important legislative enactment by the most important king in English constitutional history. Herbert of Bosham, one of Becket's contemporary hagiographers/biographers, describes them as the full cause of the dissension between King Henry II and Becket and the reason for Becket's exile and subsequent martyrdom. The Constitutions brought to the front deep questions about the evolving nature of judicial authority in England, Church [ecclesiastical] versus State [royal] power, and the formalization of the relationship between the two sovereignities. More specifically they were part of Henry II's intended reform of government in England following the long anarchy of King Stephen's reign, and reflect his personal will to assume and reclaim power for the throne.
An examination of Henry I's motives for issuing the Constitutions of Clarendon which were part of his reform of legal system in England might include the following:

a) Centralisation of the justice system in England under his authority, namely the beginning of a programme to bring reform to the legal system in the country, bringing it more fully under his control. For there to be one single and uniform system of justice and judicial procedures and their administration in the land, one system of law common to all people throughout the kingdom. For there to be one last and final court of appeal in England, namely himself.

b) Reduction of the power of the barons by enforcing his authority over the justice system in England, and reducing their rights to hold courts and decide cases.

c) Increasing royal revenues by ensuring that the fines and income from the royal courts came to the royal exchequer.

d) To establish his right to do this claiming that all he was doing was assuming his rights based on the customs of his grandfather's (Henry I's) time and by extension those of his predecessor kings of England, principally Edward the Confessor and King Cnut.

e) To establish his authority over the Church in England, and to reduce the authority and influence of the Pope in ecclesiastical affairs in England.

The principal customs which Henry regarded as belonging to him, but which were contentious, were: his right to collect monies from the Church's vacant sees and abbacies, control over the right of appeal of churchmen to the Pope in Rome, control over the right of the Church to excommunicate the King's barons and other servants of the crown, and his right to have ecclesiastics who had committed felonies to be tried in his own royal courts.

Indeed Henry's whole reign might be seen as one of his wanting obsessively to assert his claims and rights as king of England or lands and rights in France. His mother, the Empress Matilda, had lost her right to rule England to her cousin Stephen of Blois [King Stephen], who had usurped the kingdom. When she eventually won the civil war that ensued, after defeating Stephen, it was Henry who was to inherit the kingdom instead of her. But she was always there in the background and probably in the early years of his reign had a strong influence on his policies, almost certainly to the extent of recognising he was the rightful successor of Henry I of England. Perhaps it was her who was pushing him. She was an extremely strong-willed woman. Indeed one might see the Constitutions of Clarendon as part of Henry II's programme for renovatio regni [renewal of the kingdom] of Henry I of England, after the Anarchy of the Reign of King Stephen to use part of Henry II's [973-1024] Holy Roman Emperor's motto. The latter sought Restoration of the Frankish Kingdom Our Angevin Henry II king of England really did wish to seek restoration of Henry I's kingdom. his mother Matilda had been once empress of the Holy Roman Empire, and one of his names used to refer to him was Henry FitzEmpress.

Others, Hume in particular, have argued that Henry had made a very poor choice in selecting Becket for Archbishop of Canterbury. He should have realised, that Becket, who had been an excellent Chancellor, the best possible from the King's point of view, would use his new position as head of the Church in England, that is his ambition would drive him to want to increase the power of the church, the moment he became its leader.

Some have seen the Constitutions of Clarendon as one among a series of steps in an undisclosed plan or programme of Henry II's to unite Church and State in England, in which his very first step was to appoint his favourite, his chancellor, Thomas Becket, as archbishop of Canterbury. Henry perhaps wanted to make Becket a junior partner in the management of his kingdom, where Henry was to manage the temporal and Becket the ecclesiastical. Should Becket have been grateful for this great honour? Or was his ingratitude treacherous? This was a programme which Henry ultimately failed to bring about. Or did he? Did perhaps Becket know or understand Henry's real intentions beforehand, and decided to resist them once he became archbishop. Or did Becket stand his ground because the king's so-called customs were an attempt to take away more rights from the Church than either Henry I or any previous king of England had hitherto claimed as theirs. Becket feared that acceptance of these Constitutions might eventually come to mean that England would end up having a totally secular clergy appointed by the King or a Church wholly under the King's control. Did Becket really protect the Liberty of the Church or did his intransigence ultimately destroy it?

This blog is the story of the Becket Controversy and the events which led to the Council of Clarendon in January 1164, at which the Constitutions were announced. It is about Becket's subsequent trial as a traitor at Northampton in October 1164, and his ensuing escape into exile to France, after which there followed many years of negotiation between Henry and Becket, involving the Pope and the king of France among others, before he was able to return to England. It is the story of Becket's return and his ensuing murder (martyrdom) in his own cathedral at Canterbury in December 1170. This story has all the dramatic features of a classical Greek tragedy: the politics, the interacting dialogue between a protagonist and an antagonist, the chorus of bishops, and the Pope as deus ex machina. It is the story of Becket's murder (martyrdom) and his subsequent elevation to sainthood. It is about the Cult of Becket that followed, and the pilgrimages to Canterbury made famous by Geoffrey Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. Becket was perhaps the most famous personage of his time and about whom a huge number of Lives (hagiographies) and biographies have been written.

The Becket Dispute also involved his relationship with his fellow bishops in England, and the issue concerning the primacy of Canterbury in the kingdom, or whether the archepiscopacy of York was independent from that of Canterbury.

It is one in the many stories of the power struggles between Church and State which took place during the 11th, 12th and subsequent centuries. It is about the rise in the power of the Pope. It is set in the context of the large empires under powerful monarchs who ruled over vast tracts of Western Europe. The period also marks the beginning of centuries of struggle between the kingdoms of France and England. It coincides with the emergence of the formulation of the Common Law in England. Indeed many of the clauses of the Constitions of Clarendon deal with the limits of the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts relative to the king's own courts. It takes place at a time between, but largely unaffected by either of, the second and third crusades, except perhaps the requirement conceived at the Reconciliation of Avranches in 1172, that Henry was told to provide 200 knights for a year [of the monetary equivalent] for the defence of Jerusalem as purgation for his part in the murder of Becket.

Indeed, St. Thomas Becket is still honoured today by the Catholic Church, as the example par excellence of the necessity of every member of the church to show obedience to Rome, to the Pope and the principles of the Catholic Church, its fathers and the canon laws, and its very being, its organisation, its methods, rights to control the faith centrally, its hierarchy and authority, and so forth. Becket honoured the central authority that the Catholic Church asserted it had, and still has, and the Church, in turn, honoured him with the title of Saint following his murder in his cathedral. Becket gave his life for the principles laid down in the Reform of the Church as instigated by Pope Gregory VII. Once he had decided that he would do that it became clear that he could not serve two masters. In the end this decision cost him his life and quite possibly changed the course of English history.

Saturday, 3 July 2021

Table of Contents

Introduction to and Chapter List for the Constitutions of Clarendon

Letter John of Salisbury to Becket, early July 1170

Settlement of Fréteval, July 22nd 1170