said that the clergy who were guilty of crimes should be tried in the Royal Courts, but Becket held that they came under the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts. The King's ruling was against the law, as put in force by the Conqueror. From a moral point of view, however, he was in the right, for priests tried in the Ecclesiastical Courts did not always receive the punishment commensurate with their crimes. A great Council was held at Westminster, in the year 1163, to consider the burning question. No satisfactory conclusion was arrived at. This led both parties to appeal to the Pope and, as had often happened before, the Pope decided in the Archbishop's favour. This fact, you see, led to another forfeiture of our Church's liberty.
Such troubles as I have now related, in the year 1164 led to another important Council, held at Clarendon, where sixteen constitutions were drawn up, relative to matters affecting the Church of England. The general tenor of the articles was to restrain the authority of the Church, and to make the clergy punishable by the Civil Courts. But they also resisted and restrained the influence of the Pope of Rome in England. They reasserted the old principle that the papal interference should be opposed. Prelates were not allowed to quit England without the permission of the king. Becket seemed to play a double part in his opinion of these constitutions. He swears his consent to them, but refused to give his signature, and then he sought absolution from his oath from the Pope of Rome. As he heard the constitutions read, he declared that now [1]"Christ was to be judged anew before Pilate." Here I must leave this remarkable man.
- ↑ Hore, p.133. Ibid.
