The Issue of Criminous Clerks: A Jurisdictional and Constitutional Crisis in Twelfth-Century England

I. Introduction: The Angevin State and the Collision of Jurisdictions

The legal and political landscape of twelfth-century Europe was dominated by the friction between two expanding and increasingly sophisticated powers: the centralized secular monarchies and the reformed, bureaucratized Papacy. Nowhere was this conflict more acute, or its consequences more enduring, than in the Angevin Empire under King Henry II. The controversy surrounding the Constitutions of Clarendon of 1164, and specifically the fierce dispute over the trial and punishment of "criminous clerks," represents a watershed moment in the history of Western law. It was a collision not merely of two strong personalities—the King and his Archbishop, Thomas Becket—but of two competing systems of jurisprudence: the nascent English Common Law and the newly systematized Canon Law of the Catholic Church.

This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the Constitutions of Clarendon, placing them within their deep historical, theological, and legal contexts. It explores the sociopolitical crisis of the "criminous clerk," the intellectual weaponry deployed by both the Royalist and Gregorian factions, the procedural mechanics of the proposed legislation, and the profound long-term legacy of the dispute. While the immediate conflict ended in the bloody martyrdom of Becket and the formal concession of the Crown at Avranches in 1172, the legal anomaly it preserved—the "Benefit of Clergy"—would survive as a central feature of English criminal law for nearly seven centuries, morphing from a protection of holy orders into a bizarre legal fiction that mitigated the severity of the penal code for the literate.

The struggle at Clarendon was fundamentally a dispute over sovereignty and the definition of the "two swords"—the spiritual and temporal authorities governing Christendom.1 Henry II, an administrator of genius and a ruler obsessed with the restoration of order, sought to extend the "King's Peace" to all his subjects, regardless of their tonsure. Becket, a convert to the rigorous ecclesiology of the Gregorian Reform, viewed this as an existential threat to the "Liberty of the Church" (libertas ecclesiae), arguing that the clergy were a distinct estate set apart by God, subject only to divine law and ecclesiastical discipline.2

II. The Ecclesiastical and Social Context of the Twelfth Century

To comprehend the scale of the crisis precipitated by the Constitutions of Clarendon, it is necessary to understand the unique demography and legal status of the clergy in twelfth-century England. The term "clerk" (clericus) encompassed a far broader segment of the population than the modern priesthood, creating a significant challenge for secular governance.

The Demographics of the Clerical Estate

In the twelfth century, the clerical estate included not only those in major orders—bishops, priests, and deacons—but also a vast number of men in minor orders: subdeacons, acolytes, exorcists, lectors, and doorkeepers.3 These men were tonsured and technically members of the clergy, yet they were often indistinguishable from laymen in their daily lives. They could own property, engage in commerce, and live in the secular world, yet they remained under the jurisdiction of the Church.5

Estimates suggest that clerics may have constituted up to one-fifth of the male population of England during this period.4 This demographic reality meant that a significant portion of the King's subjects were effectively immune from royal justice. The "criminous clerk" was not a rare anomaly; he was a pervasive social problem. Whether it was a village rector accused of theft or a minor canon involved in a drunken brawl, the secular authorities found themselves powerless to intervene.

The Courts Christian and Their Jurisdiction

The ecclesiastical courts, or Courts Christian (curia christianitatis), operated under Canon Law, a legal system that was becoming increasingly sophisticated following the compilation of the Decretum by Gratian around 1140.7 These courts claimed jurisdiction not only over spiritual matters (doctrine, liturgy) but also over a wide range of issues affecting the laity, including marriage, wills, and defamation.9

In criminal matters, the procedure of the Church courts differed radically from that of the secular courts. Canon Law was governed by the maxim ecclesia non sitit sanguinem ("the Church does not thirst for blood"). Consequently, ecclesiastical courts could not impose "blood punishments"—that is, execution or mutilation.6 The maximum penalties available to the Church were spiritual and administrative: degradation (stripping a man of his orders), flagellation, imprisonment in a monastery, or pilgrimage.2

Furthermore, the standard of proof in Church courts was often perceived by secular authorities as lenient. While the "inquisitorial" procedure was developing, many accused clerks could still clear themselves through the ancient practice of "compurgation" (canonical purgation). In this process, the accused did not need to prove his innocence through evidence but merely had to swear an oath that he was innocent, supported by a number of "oath-helpers" (compurgators) who swore that they believed him.5 To Henry II and his justices, this system appeared to be a license for lawlessness, allowing felons to escape the rigorous justice of the King’s courts—justice that frequently involved hanging or blinding—by simply claiming benefit of clergy and finding twelve friends to swear for them.

The Case of Philip de Brois

The tension over criminous clerks was not theoretical; it was driven by specific, high-profile cases that outraged the King. The most significant of these was the case of Philip de Brois (or de Broc), a canon of Bedford. Philip was accused of murdering a knight. He was tried in the ecclesiastical court of the Bishop of Lincoln and acquitted by compurgation.

However, the local sheriff was dissatisfied with the verdict and attempted to reopen the matter. When the King’s justice, Simon FitzPeter, attempted to summon Philip, the canon abused the justice with insulting language. Henry II was furious, interpreting the insult to his justice as an insult to the Crown itself. He demanded that Philip be tried not just for the insult, but for the original murder, and that he be punished by the secular court.13 Becket intervened, arguing that Philip had already been acquitted of the murder (res judicata) and could only be tried for the insult in the Church court. Philip was eventually sentenced by the Church to a heavy fine and banishment for two years, but he retained his life and limbs. For Henry II, this case exemplified the failure of the ecclesiastical justice system: a suspected murderer had escaped with his life and mocked the King's justice in the process.15 This incident was the catalyst that convinced Henry of the need to formalize the relationship between the two jurisdictions.

III. Legal Foundations: The "Ancestral Customs" and the Anarchy

The conflict at Clarendon was framed by Henry II not as a revolution, but as a restoration. His legal strategy relied heavily on the concept of avitae consuetudines—the "ancestral customs" of his grandfather, Henry I.

The Settlement of Henry I

Under Henry I (r. 1100–1135), the English Crown had maintained a firm grip on the Church, despite the disputes over investiture that had characterized the era of Archbishop Anselm. Henry I, known as the "Lion of Justice," had successfully asserted royal control over episcopal elections and limited the flow of appeals to Rome.6 During his reign, the boundaries between secular and ecclesiastical jurisdiction were maintained by a strong central authority. There is evidence that Henry I did not hesitate to bring clerics before his courts for offenses against the peace, treating the "Benefit of Clergy" as a privilege granted by the King rather than an inherent right of the Church.6

The Anarchy of King Stephen

The reign of King Stephen (1135–1154) shattered this equilibrium. The civil war between Stephen and the Empress Matilda (Henry II's mother) led to a collapse of royal authority known as "The Anarchy." In the absence of a strong king, the Church stepped into the vacuum. Church courts expanded their jurisdiction aggressively, taking on cases of debt, land disputes, and advowsons that had previously been the preserve of the royal courts.5

Crucially, the weakness of the Crown allowed the "Gregorian" ideas of clerical immunity to take deep root in England. The clergy became accustomed to governing themselves without royal interference. When Henry II ascended the throne in 1154, he found a Church that had grown powerful, independent, and resistant to secular control. His life's work was the restoration of the "ancestral customs" of his grandfather—a rollback of the ecclesiastical encroachments of the Anarchy.18

The Intellectual Revolution: Gratian and the Canon Lawyers

While Henry looked back to the customs of Henry I, the Church was looking forward to the new jurisprudence emerging from Bologna. Around 1140, Gratian completed the Concordantia discordantium canonum (Decretum), a monumental attempt to systematize Canon Law.

The Decretum became the foundational text for the Becket circle. Specifically, Causa 11, Question 1 of the Decretum addressed the issue of clerical immunity. Gratian cited ancient canons, such as those from the Council of Carthage and the pseudo-Isidorian decretals, which explicitly forbade the trial of clerics by laymen.8

• Clericum nullus praesumat pulsare... ("Let no one presume to accuse a cleric before a secular judge").
• Si quis clericus... ("If any cleric...").

These texts provided a theological and legal basis for Becket's resistance. They argued that the clergy were a separate body, the sors Domini (the Lord's portion), and that for a layman to judge a priest was a subversion of the divine order.21 The dispute at Clarendon was thus a clash between the unwritten, customary law of England (advocated by Henry) and the written, universal law of the Church (advocated by Becket).

IV. The Constitutions of Clarendon (1164): A Detailed Analysis

In January 1164, Henry II summoned the Great Council of the realm to the royal hunting lodge at Clarendon in Wiltshire. His aim was to compel the bishops to assent publicly to the "ancestral customs." The result was a document of sixteen clauses that constituted a comprehensive assertion of royal supremacy.

The Scope of the Constitutions

While Clause 3 is the primary focus of the "criminous clerks" dispute, the other clauses reveal the extent of Henry's program to curb ecclesiastical power.

• Clause 1 (Advowsons): Disputes over the right to present a priest to a benefice were declared to be the province of the King's court. This struck at the heart of the Church's property rights.22
• Clause 4 (Travel and Appeals): Archbishops and bishops were forbidden to leave the kingdom without the King's permission. This was designed to prevent appeals to the Pope and attendance at papal councils without royal approval.5
• Clause 6 (Accusations and Juries): This clause established procedural safeguards for laymen accused in Church courts. It mandated that accusations must be supported by reliable witnesses. If no individual dared to accuse a suspect (perhaps due to fear of a powerful clerk), the Sheriff was to impanel "twelve lawful men of the neighborhood" to swear to the truth of the matter. This is a critical moment in legal history, representing an early form of the jury of presentment, the ancestor of the Grand Jury.22
• Clause 9 (Assize Utrum): Disputes over whether land was held in "frankalmoign" (free alms) or as a "lay fee" were to be decided by a recognition of twelve laymen in the King's court. This effectively removed a vast amount of land litigation from the Church courts.22
• Clause 15 (Debt): Pleas concerning debts were to be heard in the King's court, even if they involved an oath (fidei laesio), which the Church had previously used to claim jurisdiction over contracts.26

These clauses collectively stripped the Church of the expanded jurisdiction it had acquired during the Anarchy. They subordinated the Church to the State in matters of property, travel, and debt. But it was Clause 3 that dealt with the bodies of the clergy themselves.

V. Clause 3 and the Procedure of Tradere Curiae Saeculari

Clause 3 of the Constitutions of Clarendon is one of the most debated legal texts of the Middle Ages. It proposed a novel mechanism for dealing with criminous clerks—a mechanism that Henry II claimed was customary, but which Becket denounced as an innovation and an abomination.

Textual Analysis of Clause 3

The Latin text of Clause 3 outlines a specific procedural sequence:

Clerici rettati et accusati de quacunque re, summoniti a Iusticia regis venient in curiam ipsius, responsuri ibidem de hoc unde videbitur curiae regis quod ibidem sit respondendum; et in curia ecclesiastica unde videbitur quod ibidem sit respondendum; ita quod Iusticia regis mittet in curiam sanctae ecclesiae ad videndum qua ratione res ibi tractabitur. Et si clericus convictus vel confessus fuerit, non debet de cetero eum ecclesia tueri..22

Translated and deconstructed, the procedure involved three distinct stages:

1. The Preliminary Hearing in the King's Court:
   The clerk is accused (rettati et accusati) and summoned by the King's Justice. He must appear in the royal court to "answer" (responsuri). This initial appearance was crucial: it established that the clerk was answerable to the King's summons. The royal court would then determine if the matter was within its jurisdiction or the Church's. For a felony, the clerk would plead his clergy ("I am a clerk").
2. The Trial in the Ecclesiastical Court: The King's court would then send the clerk to the Church court (curia ecclesiastica) for the actual trial. Crucially, the clause stipulates that a royal official (Iusticia regis) would be sent to observe the proceedings ("to see in what manner the affair will there be carried on"). This surveillance was designed to prevent the bishops from allowing easy acquittals through compurgation. The King wanted to ensure a rigorous trial.27
3. The Punishment (The "Handover"): If the clerk was convicted or confessed in the Church court, the clause states: "the church ought not to protect him further" (non debet de cetero eum ecclesia tueri). This is the pivot of the entire controversy. Under Canon Law, a convicted clerk would be degraded—stripped of his orders. Henry II argued that once degraded, the man was no longer a clerk but a layman. As the Church withdrew its protection, the royal officer (who was present in the court) would arrest the now-layman and take him outside to be punished by the secular arm (tradere curiae saeculari). This punishment would be the standard penalty for felony: hanging or mutilation.27

The Historiographical Debate: Maitland vs. Duggan

The interpretation of this clause has been the subject of a famous historiographical debate. In 1898, Frederic William Maitland argued in Roman Canon Law in the Church of England that Henry II was effectively asking the Church to apply its own rules for heresy to cases of felony.7 Maitland pointed out that the Church had a long-established procedure for handing obstinate heretics over to the secular power for burning. He argued that Henry II’s proposal was consistent with this aspect of Canon Law and that Becket’s opposition was legally weak. Maitland suggested that the "Benefit of Clergy" Becket defended was an "abuse" rather than a grounded right.

However, modern scholars, notably Anne Duggan and Charles Duggan, have challenged the "Maitland Thesis." They argue that while Maitland was technically correct about heresy, the Church treated ordinary felonies differently. The tradition of privilegium fori (benefit of clergy) for crimes like murder and theft was well-entrenched in Canon Law and supported by the Decretum. They argue that Henry II’s proposal was indeed a radical rollback of clerical immunity and that Becket’s defense was in line with the mainstream canon law of his day, not an extremist aberration.7

VI. The Theological and Legal Battle: The Arguments of the Two Swords

The dispute over Clause 3 was fought with high-level theological and legal arguments. It was a contest between the "Royalist" theology of the King's Peace and the "Gregorian" theology of Sacramental Immunity.

The Royalist Argument: The Dual Capacity and the King's Peace

Henry II’s advisors, including the learned Gilbert Foliot, Bishop of London, articulated a sophisticated defense of the Constitutions.

• The Argument of Degradation: The Royalists argued that there was no "double punishment." The Church court inflicted the spiritual penalty (degradation). This act severed the link between the man and the Church. The man who stood before the executioner was a layman, not a priest. Therefore, the King was punishing a layman for a crime committed against the King's peace. The secular punishment was merely the complement to the ecclesiastical judgment.31
• The Argument of Public Order: Henry II argued pragmatically. The Church's inability to inflict blood punishments meant that clerical criminals acted with impunity. A fine or a pilgrimage was an insufficient deterrent for murder. The King bore the sword to punish evildoers (Romans 13:4), and this duty extended to all subjects who broke the peace.2
• Levitical Precedent: The Royalists cited the Old Testament, noting that the Levites (the priesthood of Israel) were subject to death for certain crimes. If the Levites could be executed, why not Christian priests?.14

The Becket Defense: Nemo Bis in Idipsum

Becket, advised by scholars like Herbert of Bosham, rejected the Royalist logic entirely. His defense was built on three pillars:

1. The Theological Argument (Nahum 1:9): Becket’s most famous argument relied on a specific reading of the Prophet Nahum: Non iudicabit Deus bis in idipsum ("God does not judge twice for the same offense"). Becket argued that degradation—the loss of one's clerical status and livelihood—was a catastrophic punishment in itself. To degrade a man and then hang him was to punish him twice for a single crime. This violated the fundamental principle of divine justice. This argument of "double jeopardy" became the rallying cry of the Becket faction.9
2. The Ontological Argument: Becket argued that ordination conferred an indelible mark on the soul. A priest was pars Domini (the Lord's portion). Even if he sinned, his person remained sacred. To lay violent hands on a consecrated person was a sacrilege. The "handover" to the secular arm was, in Becket's view, a violation of the sanctity of the priesthood.2
3. The Patristic Argument: Becket’s team marshaled texts from the Church Fathers, specifically Jerome and Ambrose, to support the idea that spiritual jurisdiction was superior to temporal jurisdiction. They cited Ambrose’s defiance of Emperor Theodosius as a precedent for resisting royal encroachments.33 They argued that just as the soul is superior to the body, the spiritual power is superior to the secular, and the latter cannot judge the former.

Gilbert Foliot: The Voice of the Loyal Opposition

The role of Gilbert Foliot, Bishop of London, is crucial to understanding that this was not a simple binary of Church vs. State. Foliot was a rigorous ascetic and a respected scholar, yet he sided with Henry II. He viewed Becket as a vain, unstable parvenu whose intransigence was endangering the Church.35

Foliot argued that the Church’s "liberty" should not be confused with license to commit crime. He believed that the Church should focus on its spiritual mission and allow the King to maintain order. Foliot’s letters accuse Becket of recklessness and of "always being a fool." He represented a strain of English churchmanship that sought harmony with the Crown rather than confrontation. His support for the King gave Henry II’s cause significant legitimacy, preventing the dispute from becoming a unified clerical rebellion.15

VII. The Unfolding Tragedy: From Northampton to Martyrdom

The promulgation of the Constitutions in January 1164 did not end the dispute; it ignited a firestorm. Becket initially wavered, seemingly assenting to the customs, but then repented and refused to append his seal to the document. This reversal was viewed by Henry II as a personal betrayal and a breach of feudal faith.29

The Council of Northampton (October 1164)

In October 1164, Henry II summoned Becket to the Council of Northampton. Here, the King shifted his tactics. Rather than debating the theology of criminous clerks, he utilized the machinery of feudal law to crush the Archbishop. He accused Becket of:

1. Contempt of Court: For failing to answer a royal summons in the case of John the Marshal.
2. Embezzlement: For failing to account for vast sums of money that had passed through his hands during his tenure as Chancellor.4

These charges were designed to bankrupt and imprison Becket. The bishops, terrified of the King and alienated by Becket’s arrogance, urged him to resign. Becket, isolated and fearing for his life, fled Northampton in disguise. He escaped to France, beginning a six-year exile.15

The Years of Exile (1164–1170)

The years of exile were a diplomatic stalemate. Becket appealed to Pope Alexander III, who was in a precarious position. The Pope was locked in a struggle with the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa and an antipope. He needed Henry II’s financial and political support and thus could not afford to alienate the English King. Consequently, the Pope vacillated, supporting Becket in principle but urging compromise in practice.15

Meanwhile, the conflict over criminous clerks broadened into a general assault on royal authority. Becket excommunicated the royalist bishops (including Foliot) and threatened to place England under an interdict. Henry II responded by threatening to switch his allegiance to the antipope.

The Coronation Crisis and the Return

The deadlock was broken in 1170 by a grave tactical error on Henry’s part. Desperate to secure the succession, Henry had his eldest son, Henry "the Young King," crowned at Westminster. In the absence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the coronation was performed by Roger of Pont L'Evêque, Archbishop of York, assisted by Gilbert Foliot and the Bishop of Salisbury. This was a direct violation of Canterbury’s ancient right to crown the King.4

This infringement forced the Pope’s hand, and he authorized Becket to punish the bishops. Henry II, fearing an interdict, agreed to a reconciliation. He allowed Becket to return to England in December 1170. However, the peace was a sham. Becket returned not as a penitent but as an avenger. His first act upon landing was to issue letters of excommunication against the bishops who had participated in the coronation.

When news of this reached Henry II in Normandy, his rage boiled over. His famous lament—often quoted as "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" (though the contemporary sources vary)—interpreted by four of his household knights as a royal command. They crossed the Channel, rode to Canterbury, and on December 29, 1170, brutally murdered the Archbishop in his own cathedral during Vespers.39

VIII. Resolution: The Compromise of Avranches (1172)

The murder of Becket transformed the political landscape instantly. The "criminous clerk" became a martyr of the universal Church. Miracles were reported at his tomb almost immediately. Henry II, once the master of Europe, was now a pariah, facing the threat of personal excommunication and the collapse of his authority.41

In May 1172, at Avranches in Normandy, Henry II met with papal legates to negotiate his reconciliation with the Church. The "Compromise of Avranches" marked the formal resolution of the crisis.

The Fate of the Constitutions

As part of his penance, Henry II swore to abolish all "evil customs" (malae consuetudines) introduced during his reign. While he did not explicitly name the Constitutions of Clarendon, it was understood that the controversial clauses were effectively abrogated.

Regarding the specific issue of criminous clerks, the outcome was a significant concession by the Crown. Henry agreed that clerks would not be brought before secular courts for any crime, with two notable exceptions:

1. High Treason: Since treason was a crime against the King’s person and the state itself, it remained a secular matter.
2. Forest Offenses: Violations of the Forest Law (poaching, trespass in royal forests) were considered trespasses against the King’s private property and remained under royal jurisdiction.2

For all other felonies—murder, theft, rape, arson—the Church courts retained exclusive jurisdiction. The mechanism of Clause 3 was abandoned. The King could no longer demand that a degraded clerk be handed over for secular punishment. Becket’s argument of "double punishment" had prevailed politically, securing the immunity of the clergy from the gallows.

IX. The Long Shadow: The Evolution of Benefit of Clergy (1172–1827)

The victory of the Church at Avranches created a legal anomaly that would persist in English law for nearly seven centuries. The immunity secured by Becket—the "Benefit of Clergy"—evolved in ways that neither he nor Henry II could have foreseen.

From Immunity to Legal Fiction

In the immediate aftermath of 1172, the Benefit of Clergy functioned as intended: ordained clerics accused of crimes were claimed by the bishop, tried in Church courts, and subjected to penance rather than execution. However, as the centuries passed, the definition of "clerk" became increasingly fluid.

By the 13th and 14th centuries, the royal courts began to administer a test to determine clerical status. Since the clergy were historically the only literate class, the ability to read became the legal proxy for ordination. The courts adopted a specific passage from the Bible—Psalm 51:1 (Miserere mei, Deus... "Have mercy on me, O God")—as the literacy test. This verse became known as the "Neck Verse", because reading it saved one's neck from the hangman’s noose.44

The "Neck Verse" and the Expansion of the Privilege

This system effectively extended the Benefit of Clergy to any layman who could read (or memorize) the Latin verse. A murderer who could recite the Miserere would be branded on the thumb (to prevent him from claiming the benefit a second time—a reform introduced by Henry VII in 1489) and released, while an illiterate accomplice to the same crime would hang.6

In 1576, under Elizabeth I, the handover to the Church was finally abolished. "Clerks" were no longer sent to the bishop; instead, the secular court simply discharged them (often with branding or a short imprisonment). The Benefit of Clergy had transformed from a protection of the Church’s liberty into a secular statutory mechanism for mitigating the harshness of the death penalty for first-time offenders.29

The End of the Anomaly

The Benefit of Clergy survived until the legal reforms of the 19th century. As the criminal code was reformed and the mandatory death penalty for many felonies was removed, the need for this clumsy loophole diminished. It was finally abolished by the Criminal Law Act of 1827.48 Thus, the ghost of Thomas Becket haunted the English criminal justice system for over 650 years, saving thousands of "criminous clerks" (and literate laymen) from execution.

X. Conclusion: The Legacy of the Two Swords

The controversy over the Constitutions of Clarendon and criminous clerks was a defining episode in the formation of the Western legal tradition. It forced a confrontation between the competing claims of the secular state and the universal Church, resulting in a compromise that acknowledged the limits of each.

Henry II failed in his immediate objective of bringing the clergy under the full rigor of the Common Law. Clause 3, his carefully crafted mechanism for tradere curiae saeculari, was consigned to the dustbin of history (until the Reformation). Becket’s martyrdom secured the "liberty" of the Church and established a zone of immunity that the state could not penetrate.

However, in the broader sense, Henry II’s legal revolution succeeded. The administrative machinery he developed to combat the Church—the juries of presentment, the itinerant justices, the writ system—became the foundation of English law. The Constitutions of Clarendon, though partially revoked, laid the groundwork for a state defined by the rule of law. The irony of history is that the very mechanism Henry invented to accuse the clergy (the jury) became the bulwark of English liberty, while the immunity Becket died to protect degenerated into a legal loophole for the literate classes. The collision of the "two swords" at Clarendon shaped the contours of justice, sovereignty, and church-state relations for the next millennium.

Data Tables

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of the Dispute over Clause 3

Feature	Royalist Position (Henry II)	Ecclesiastical Position (Becket)
Core Principle	The King's Peace is universal; all subjects are answerable to the Crown.	Libertas Ecclesiae (Liberty of the Church); Clergy are subject only to God/Church.
Status of Clerk	A clerk holds dual status (subject and cleric).	A clerk is pars Domini (portion of the Lord), distinct from the laity.
Legal Argument	Degradation: A degraded clerk becomes a layman. Punishing a layman is not double jeopardy.	Double Jeopardy: Nemo bis in idipsum (Nahum 1:9). Degradation + Death is two punishments for one crime.
Key Authority	"Ancestral Customs" of Henry I; Levitical Law (death for Levites).	Canon Law (Gratian, Causa 11); Patristics (Jerome, Ambrose).
Proposed Procedure	Accusation (Secular) -> Trial (Church) -> Degradation -> Punishment (Secular).	Trial (Church) -> Degradation -> Penance/Imprisonment (Church). No secular handover.
Outcome	Abandoned at Avranches (1172).	Upheld (mostly) at Avranches; evolved into "Benefit of Clergy."

Table 2: The Evolution of Benefit of Clergy

Period	Status of Privilege	Mechanism
Pre-1164	Ambiguous; Church courts expanding jurisdiction during Anarchy.	Customary claims; friction with Sheriffs.
1164 (Clarendon)	Attempted abolition for felonies (Clause 3).	Tradere curiae saeculari (failed proposal).
1172 (Avranches)	Reaffirmed as exclusive Church jurisdiction (except treason/forest).	Clerks handed to Bishop; no blood punishment.
1351 (Statute)	Extended to all literate men (legal fiction).	Reading test (Psalm 51 - "Neck Verse").
1489 (Henry VII)	Restricted for laymen.	Branding of the thumb (M for murder, T for theft) to limit to one use.
1576 (Elizabeth I)	Secular punishment introduced.	Church courts removed; secular courts imprison/brand "clergy" claimants.
1827	Abolished.	Criminal Law Act 1827 ends the privilege entirely.

Table 3: Key Clauses of the Constitutions of Clarendon

Clause	Subject	Royal Demand	Outcome
1	Advowsons (Patronage)	Disputes to be settled in King's court.	Retained. Became standard English law.
3	Criminous Clerks	Clerks to be punished by secular arm after degradation.	Revoked. Church retained jurisdiction (Benefit of Clergy).
4	Travel/Appeals	Bishops need permission to leave England (block appeals to Rome).	Modified. Appeals allowed after Avranches.
6	Accusation	Laymen accused only by reliable witnesses or jury of presentment.	Retained. Precursor to Grand Jury.
9	Assize Utrum	Land disputes (alms vs. lay fee) decided by secular jury.	Retained. Became a standard writ.
15	Debt	Debts owed to/by clergy settled in King's court.	Retained. Checked Church jurisdiction over contracts.

Works cited

1. Henry II new interpretations - WordPress.com, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://politicayderechoenlaedadmedia.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/duggan-henry-ii-the-english-church-and-the-papacy.pdf
2. Thomas Becket and Clerical Immunity - CORE, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/217158281.pdf
3. Law & Order in Medieval England - Harvard Law School, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://hls.harvard.edu/today/law-order-in-medieval-england/
4. Becket controversy - Wikipedia, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becket_controversy
5. The Courts Christian in Medieval England, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2399&context=tcl
6. Benefit of Clergy--A Legal Anomaly - UKnowledge, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4977&context=klj
7. Constitutions of Clarendon, Clause 3, and Henry ii's - Brill, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://brill.com/previewpdf/book/edcoll/9789004232570/B9789004232570_002.xml
8. Judicial Torture in Canon Law and Church Tribunals: From Gratian ..., accessed on February 5, 2026, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0xd5815c
9. A Primer on the Origins and Implications of The Thomas Becket Affair, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://digitalcommons.lmunet.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=lmulrev
10. Church Courts and the People in Seventeenth-Century England, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10155415/1/Church-Courts-and-the-People.pdf
11. Constitutions of Clarendon - Wikipedia, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutions_of_Clarendon
12. Benefit of clergy Facts for Kids, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://kids.kiddle.co/Benefit_of_clergy
13. Introduction in: The lives of Thomas Becket - Manchester Hive, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://www.manchesterhive.com/view/9781526112682/9781526112682.00007.xml?rskey=51PRvY&result=2&print
14. THOMAS BECKET AND HIS BIOGRAPHERS, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://politicayderechoenlaedadmedia.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/staunton-thomas-becket-and-his-biographers-cap-9.pdf
15. Thomas Becket Archbishop and Martyr The quarrel between Henry II ..., accessed on February 5, 2026, https://echa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/2ii-Thomas-Becket-Archbishop-and-Martyr.pdf
16. Charter of Liberties - Wikipedia, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Liberties
17. The Constitutions of Clarendon - Britain Express, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://www.britainexpress.com/History/medieval/clarendon.htm
18. The Anarchy: The first English civil war, 1135-1153 - The Past, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://the-past.com/feature/the-anarchy-the-first-english-civil-war-1135-1153/
19. The Constitutions of Clarendon and the Becket affair, accessed on February 5, 2026, http://historyoflaw.co.uk/constitutions-of-clarendon-becket-affair/
20. Gratian and the Jews - Catholic Law Scholarship Repository, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1903&context=scholar
21. Introduction in: The Use of Canon Law in Ecclesiastical ... - Brill, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004387249/BP000001.xml?rskey=Q5ehBP&result=8
22. Constitutions of Clarendon. 1164. - The Avalon Project, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/constcla.asp
23. Clarendon Constitutions - McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/C/clarendon-constitutions.html
24. The Early History of the Grand Jury and the Canon Law, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1614&context=journal_articles
25. Assize of darrein presentment - Wikipedia, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_darrein_presentment
26. Constitutions of Clarendon - Oxford Reference, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095614460?p=emailAOyFUxYE/dlwE&d=/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095614460&print
27. Constitution of Clarendon - Hanover College History Department, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/344cclar.html
28. Constitutions of Clarendon (1164) - Verfassungsgeschichte.ch, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://www.verfassungsgeschichte.ch/GB_1164_Constitutions%20of%20Clarendon.pdf
29. Constitutions of Clarendon | Henry II, Church-State Relations, Royal ..., accessed on February 5, 2026, https://www.britannica.com/event/Constitutions-of-Clarendon
30. The Learned Laws in 'Pollock and Maitland' - The British Academy, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/3940/89p145.pdf
31. King Henry II and Thomas Becket: the beginnings of a reconciliation?, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://ianstone.london/2020/01/19/king-henry-ii-and-thomas-becket-the-beginnings-of-a-reconciliation/
32. The conflict between Henry II and Thomas a Becket - Britain Express, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://www.britainexpress.com/History/Thomas-a-Becket.htm
33. Mystic Paths, Inward Turns - ResearchGate, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333314059_Mystic_Paths_Inward_Turns
34. Ambrose - Wikipedia, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose
35. Constitutions of Clarendon, Henry II, The Church, Thomas Beckett, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://schoolhistory.co.uk/medieval/constitutions-of-clarendon/
36. Gilbert Foliot | Abbot of Gloucester, Bishop of Hereford ... - Britannica, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Gilbert-Foliot-Anglo-Norman-Cluniac-monk
37. Gilbert Foliot and the Two Swords: Law and Political Theory in ..., accessed on February 5, 2026, https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstreams/be8c5af7-355a-454a-baee-bb098f70770f/download
38. Thomas Becket - Wikipedia, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Becket
39. Thomas Becket, Henry II and Dover Castle | English Heritage, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/dover-castle/history-and-stories/becket-henry-dover-castle/
40. Why did King Henry II want the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas ..., accessed on February 5, 2026, https://www.quora.com/Why-did-King-Henry-II-want-the-Archbishop-of-Canterbury-Thomas-Becket-killed
41. accessed on February 5, 2026, https://medium.com/@dobsfinance/the-martyrdom-of-thomas-becket-a-clash-of-crown-and-cathedral-f7d68b5f2649#:~:text=In%20the%20immediate%20aftermath%20of,publicly%20repent%20and%20seek%20forgiveness.
42. The complicated saint: Thomas Becket and English Catholics, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://northamptondiocese.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Complicated-Saint-by-Dr-Judith-Champ.pdf
43. Compromise of Avranches - Wikipedia, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_Avranches
44. How Psalm 51 Became the 'Neck Verse' That Could Spare Your Life!, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://ucatholic.com/blog/how-psalm-51-became-the-neck-verse-that-could-spare-your-life/
45. How exactly did "Benefit of Clergy" work in criminal cases? - Reddit, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ayy9v/how_exactly_did_benefit_of_clergy_work_in/
46. The Cult of St Thomas Becket – Murder, Miracles & A Challenge to ..., accessed on February 5, 2026, https://www.exploringbuildinghistory.co.uk/the-cult-of-st-thomas-becket-murder-miracles-a-challenge-to-royal-authority/
47. redefining benefit of clergy during the english reformation, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/65455/SkousenMAThesis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
48. Benefit of clergy - Wikipedia, accessed on February 5, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_of_clergy
49. Benefit of clergy.docx, accessed on February 5, 2026, http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/5371/1/Benefit%20of%20clergy.docx