g.

The new Archbishop's presentiment of trouble soon proved true. Becket
had hardly taken his seat when a quarrel broke out between him and the
King. In his need for money Henry levied a tax on all lands, whether
belonging to the barons or to churchmen. Becket opposed this tax.[1]
He was willing, he said, that the clergy should contribute, if they
desired to do so, but not that they should be compelled to pay the
tax.

[1] See page 76, note 1, on Clergy.

The King declared with an oath that all should pay alike; the
Archbishop vowed with equal determination that not a single penny
should be collected from the Church. From that time the King and
Becket never met again as friends.

164. The Second Quarrel.

Shortly afterward, a much more serious quarrel broke out between the
King and the Archbishop. Under the law made by William the Conqueror,
the Church had the right to try in its own courts all offenses
committed by monks and priests (S118). This privilege, in time, led
to great abuses, since even in cases of the commission of the gravest
crimes the Church had no direct power to inflict the penalty of
death. On the contrary, the heaviest sentence it could give was
imprisonment in a monastery, with degradation from the clerical
office; while in less serious cases the offenders generally got off
with fasting and flogging.

On this account some criminals who deserved to be hanged escaped with
a comparatively slight penalty. Such a case now occurred. In one
instance a priest had committed an unprovoked murder. Henry commanded
him to be brought before the Kings' court; Becket interfered, and
ordered the case to be tried by the bishop of the diocese. The bishop
simply sentenced the murderer to lose his place for two years.

165. The Constitutions of Clarendon, 1164.

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