The King determined that such flagrant disregard of justice should no
longer go on. He called a council of his chief men at Clarendon, near
Salisbury, in Wiltshire, and laid the case before them. He demanded
that in future the state or civil courts should be supreme, and that
in every instance their judges should decide whether a criminal should
be tried by the common law of the land or handed over to the Church
courts.
He furthermore required that the clergy should be held strictly
responsible to the Crown, so that in case of dispute the final appeal
should be neither to the Archbishop nor to the Pope, but to himself.
In this respect he went even farther than William the Conqueror had
done (S118). After protracted debate the council, composed of a
committee of bishops and barons, passed the measures which the King
demanded. The new laws were entitled the Constitutions of Clarendon.
They consisted of sixteen articles which clearly defined the powers
and jurisdiction of the King's courts and the Church courts. Their
great object was to secure a more uniform administration of justice
for all classes of men. (See the Constitutional Summary in the
Appendix, pp. viii and xxxii.)
Becket, though bitterly oppsed to the new laws, finally assented, and
swore to obey them. Afterward, feeling that he had conceded too much,
he retracted his oath and refused to be bound by the Constitutions.
The other Church dignitaries became alarmed at the prospect, and left
Becket to settle with the King as best he might. Henceforth it was a
battle between the King and the Archbishop, and each resolved that he
would never give up until he had won the final victory (S170).