The Constitutions of Clarendon were declared in the preamble to be "a declaration* and recognition of certain customs, liberties, and dignities of the Kings his ancestors, to wit, Henry his grandfather, and others, which ought to be observed in the realm." It does not appear that Becket at any time rested his case upon that charter, by virtue of which alone it could be pretended that the immunities in question were part of the law of the land. They were defended, not as a grant from the Sovereign, but as a privilege belonging to the order; the real object being to render that order independent of the state, to exalt the mitre above the crown, and form the clergy throughout all Christendom into a compact body, acting upon one system, animated by one spirit, and directed by one head, and every where inde * "Anno ab Incarnatione Domini millesimo centesimo sexagesimo quarto, papatus Alexandri anno quarto, illustrissimi regis Anglorum Henrici II. anno decimo, in presentiâ ejusdem regis facta est ista recordatio vel recognitio cujusdam partis consuetudinum et libertatum et dignitatum antecessorum suorum, videlicet regis Henrici avi sui, et aliorum, quæ observari et teneri debent in regno. Et propter dissensiones et discordias, que emerserant inter clerum et justicios domini regis, et baronum regni, de consuetudinibus et dignitatibus regni, facta est ista RECOGNITIO coram Archiepiscopis et Episcopis et Clero, et Comitibus et Baronibus et Proceribus regni.”—Lyttelton, iv. App, ii. p. 414. pendent of the civil power. To have appealed to the charter, would have been taking lower ground than suited the pretensions of the Romish hierarchy; and the charter would hardly have borne them out. For the object which the Conqueror appears to have had in view, was to bring persons before an ecclesiastical court who thought it a degradation* to acknowledge any such authority. It was to protect the clergy from secular invasions, by enabling them to try causes, in which ecclesiastical affairs were concerned, before a tribunal of their own. This was consistent with the character and policy of William: it is not so to suppose that he would have granted the clergy an exemption from condign punishment for all offences whatThe tenour of the charter is to arm them with useful power for their own protection,..to take from secular courts the cognizance of ecclesiastical matters,.. not to transfer to the spiritual courts cases of common law, wherein an ecclesiastic should be concerned. If such a consequence may be inferred from soever. * Si vero aliquis per superbiam elatus ad justitiam Episcopalem venire noluerit, vocetur semel, secundo et tertio; quod si nec sic ad emendationem venerit, excommunicetur: et si opus fuerit ad hoc vindicandum fortitudo et justitia Regis sive Vicecomitis adhibeatur,-Canciani, iv. 361. * the charter, it is not expressed there; though very possibly the deed may have been so drawn up by those who advised it as to bear an interpretation beyond the King's meaning. Be that as it may, it is certain that Henry, in the proceedings at Clarendon, professed only to restore the ancient custom,.. to correct an abuse which had grown up since his grandfather's days,... not to abrogate an existing law, nor to infringe upon the charter of the clergy. Supposing, however, that what he intended had actually been an infringement upon the ecclesiastical privileges, let us see to what it amounts. He would have made the clergy amenable to the law of the land for secular offences. He required (and this too with the consent of the Bishops) that ecclesiastics who were found guilty of any heinous crime, should be first degraded, and then delivered over to * ...mando et regiá auctoritate præcipio, ut nullus Episcopus, vel Archidiaconus de Legibus Episcopalibus amplius in Hundret placita teneant, nec causam quæ ad regimen animarum pertinet, ad judicium secularium hominum adducant. Sed quicunque secundum Episcopales Leges de quâcumque causâ vel culpâ interpellatus fuerit, ad locum quem ad hoc Episcopus elegerit vel nominaverit, veniat, ibique de causâ suá respondeat, et non secundum Hundret, sed secundum Canones et Episcopales Leges, rectum Deo et Episcopo suo faciat.-Canciani. iv. 361. the secular courts for punishment. He required that the Church would do with such of its own members as had committed murder or any other atrocious breach of the laws, what it was ready and eager to do with them in cases of heresy. And in this quarrel† it was that Becket first bearded his Sovereign! You have candidly admitted that what Henry required on this head was "perhaps very proper;" but you contend that it was contrary to the existing law. And concerning the Constitutions of Clarendon, you adduce Turner as an authority in your favour. "In justice to Becket," says that learned and discriminating writer, "it must be admitted that these famous articles completely changed the legal and civil state of the clergy, and were an actual subversion, as far as they went, of the papal policy so boldly introduced by Gregory VII." I am obliged to Mr. *Lyttelton, iv. 16. † Fuller has a characteristic remark upon the assertion that Becket died pro grege." He did not," says he, "die for feeding his flock, for any fundamental point of religion, or for defending his flock against the wolf of any dangerous doctrine; but merely he died for his flock: namely, that the sheep thereof (though ever so scabbed) might not be dressed with tar, and other proper, but sharp and smarting medicines."--Church History, b. iii. p. 35. + Page 86. Townsend for remarking that you have quoted one half only of this passage to prove a point which is confuted by the remainder. For the upright historian whom you have alleged, proceeds to say, "these new constitutions abolished that independence on the legal tribunals of the country, which William had unwarily permitted,† and they again subjected the clergy, as in the Anglo-Saxon times, to the common law of the land." And I have shown that these constitutions were drawn up as a recognition of the laws in use under Henry I., the object being by that recognition to put an end to immunities which had been usurped. I pass over for the present your curious remarks upon the "penitential austerities" which Becket practised immediately after his consecration. A more fitting opportunity for commenting upon that subject will occur hereafter. Some questions which you have put, Sir, it is not necessary to answer, because they can only have arisen from a misapprehension of the passage in the Book of the Church to which they allude. But when you demand with a tone of triumph, "whose memory should the present * Accusations of History against the Church of Rome, p. 75. Note. Hist. of England, i. 213. |