L'Abbé: Acta conciliorum

Extract from

Catholic Church. Councils; Jean Hardouin; Philippe Labbe; Catholic Church. Pope, Gabriel Cossart, France. Conseil d'Etat (1714). Acta conciliorum et epistolae decretales, ac constitutiones summorum pontificum: pt. 1. Ab anno 872 ad annum 1085. Ex Typographia Regia. pp. 311–.

 

Constitutions of Clarendon

Extract from

Robert Brady (1685). A Complete History of England: From the First Entrance of the Romans Under the Conduct of Julius Cæsar, Unto the End of the Reign of King Henry III.. In the Savoy, Printed by T. Newcomb for S. Lowndes. pp. 41–. 

 

 

Gervase of Canterbury; William Stubbs . The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury. Council of Clarendon 1164: Cambridge University Press. pp. 176–. ISBN 978-1-108-05159-0.

Another translation

The Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology. Articles of Clarendon 1164: 1851. pp. 50–.

Lyttleton's Comments: Constitutions Clause 15

George Lyttelton (1767). The History Of The Life of King Henry the Second,  Notes to the Second and Third Books.  Sandby and Dodsley. pp. 142-3.

Pleas of debt, whether they be due by faith solemnly pledged, or without faith so pledged, belong to the king's judicature. 

The clergy of England began first in the reign of King Stephen to extend their jurisdiction in the spiritual courts to the trial of persons for breach of faith (pro laesione fidei) in civil contracts by which means they drew thither a vast number of causes which belonged to the civil courts, and of which they had no proper cognisance. To this encroachment they were instigated by the bishops of Rome, and therefore Alexander condemned the above-recited statute, which was made to prevent it.

Contracts in Early English Law
by Frederick Pollock
Harvard Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 8 (Mar. 15, 1893), pp. 389-404
Published by: The Harvard Law Review Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1321304

In other words the Constitutions of Clarendon Clause 15 forbade church courts to pass judgement on cases involving the litigation on contracts (principally cases of debt) merely because an oath had sealed the contract. It was the job and jurisdiction of the King's courts and justice to settle matters and issues concerning contracts.

Sir William Blackstone; Edward Christian; Joseph Chitty (1851). Commentaries of the laws of England: in four books; with an analysis of the work. W. E. Dean. pp. 43–. 

Lyttleton's Comments: Constitutions Clause 8

George Lyttelton (1767). The History Of The Life of King Henry the Second, Sandby and Dodsley. pp. 142–.

Concerning appeals if any shall arise, they ought to proceed from the archdeacon to the bishop, and from the bishop to the archbishop. And, if the archbishop shall fail in doing justice, the cause shall at last brought to our lord the king, that by his precept the dispute may be determined in the archbishop's court; so that it ought not to proceed any further without the consent of our lord the king. 

In a letter of the bishop of London to the pope concerning the dispute between the king and Becket he explains this constitution as being no prohibition of appeals to Rome, but only a check on their being carried thither unnecessarily, and without the leave of the king. His words are these : " In appellationibus ex antiqua regni sui consuetudine id sibi vindicat (rex scilicet) honoris et oneris, ut ob civilem causam nullus clericorum regnisui ejusdem regni fines exeat, nisi, an ipsius authoritate et mandato jus fuum obtinere queat, experiendo cognoscat. Quod si nec sic obtinuerit, ad excellentiam vestram, ipso in nullo reclamante, cum volet quilibet appellabit." Without question there is not in the words of this constitution any direct prohibition of appeals to Rome; it being only declared, that, upon an appeal from the archdeacon, the cause ought not to proceed any further than the archbishop's court without the consent of the king. But in effect this restraint would generally have stopt the cause in that court; and it manifestly asserted the royal supremacy, by subjecting the power of appealing to Rome, in ecclesiastical causes, to the will and pleasure of the king: whereas the pope claimed the right of receiving such appeals as inherent in his see. Henry's desire of gaining the consent of the bishops to this constitution was the reason of his avoiding an express prohibition: but he intended it should have the same operation, and the pope saw that intent.

Lyttleton's Comments: Constitutions Clause 7

No tenant in chief of the king, nor any officer of his household or of his demesne, shall be excommunicated, nor shall the lands of any of them be put under an interdict, unless application shall first have been made to our lord the king, if he be in the kingdom; or, if he be out of the kingdom, to his justiciary; that he may do right concerning such person, and in such manner as that what shall belong to the king's court shall be there determined, and what shall belong to the ecclesiastical court shall be sent thither that it may there be determined.

One reason assigned for this by the authors of those times, is that the king should not ignorantly be exposed to converse with an excommunicated person. But to prevent that, a bare notice given of it to the king would have been sufficient; whereas the constitution itself declares intention to be, that the king may do right concerning such person. And it not only secures the persons of the king's tenants and officers from excommunication, but also their lands from an interdict without application to him. It appears from a passage in one of Becket's own letters, that he himself understood the sense of it to import, not only that notice ought to be given to the king of the excommunication or interdict; but that his leave must be obtained. In truth it was meant as a check upon the power of the spiritual court, and (as appears from Eadmer) was coeval with the establishment of that court in England. Yet the latter part of it shews, that it did not take from thence all power of inflicting the discipline of the church on scandalous sinners because the held of the king, or served him, as his officers; but only prevented the exercise of that jurisdiction over his tenants and officeres, without a reasonable cause, or in cases not properly cognizable there, but belonging ti his courts of civil or criminal justice. The only fault of this law seems to have been the limitaion of it, in making the privilege of one class of the people, which was right due to all.

Sir Matthew Hale: The history of the common law of England

Title             The history of the common law of England: and An analysis of the civil part of the law Author        Sir Matthew Hale Publisher     H. Butterworth, 1820 Sir Matthew Hale (1820). The history of the common law of England: and An analysis of the civil part of the law. H. Butterworth. pp. 165–

Lyttleton's Comments: Constitutions Clause 5

Persons excommunicated ought not to give any security by way of deposit &c 

The words in the original are non debent dare vadium ad re manens, which being somewhat obscure have been differently translated by different authors. I have rendered them according to the best information I could gain of their legal sense.