More broadly, the question can be raised whether Henry’s claim is correct that the 16 practices described in the Constitutions were in fact the practices of his grandfather’s reign. Two clauses state—and to some extent amplify—rules known to have been established by William the Conqueror, namely, clause 4, forbidding English clerics to travel outside the kingdom without the king’s permission, and clause 11, stating that ecclesiastical tenants of the king are members of his court and cases concerning their lands are justiciable in his court. Clause 12, in contrast, appears to go back to practices Henry I had abandoned in 1107. There is, however, no doubt that the earlier Henry had been able to place the men he wanted into positions of power in the church, so the degree to which the Constitutions misrepresent the actual practice of Henry I’s day is a moot question. Otherwise, it is difficult to determine what the practices of Henry I’s day were. Sources for twelfth-century England are relatively abundant, but for the first half of the twelfth century they do not address most of the issues raised in the Constitutions, so that avenue of evaluation is not available. All that can be said is that, in the whole long dispute about the Constitutions, their opponents, Thomas’s supporters, never alleged that Henry II had invented the rules he attributed to Henry I.
At Clarendon, however, there scarcely was time for reasoned arguments, whether from history or from theology. Instead, the bishops were subject to strong political pressure and even threats of violence if they did not accede to the king’s wishes. The rage of any twelfth-century king of England was a fearful thing: kings used the threat or actuality of their anger as a technique of government, and Henry was a master at the art of pressuring people into doing what he wanted. He was assisted at Clarendon by some of the lay lords. Gilbert Foliot, supporter of the king though he later was, described the bishops as “all enclosed in one chamber” for three days and menaced by “all the princes and nobles of the realm” who “blazed up in the greatest anger, roaring and brawling” and threatening them with bodily harm if they did not agree to the king’s demands. Nevertheless, the bishops held out in unison, though some of them probably already were on the king’s side and others were clearly very frightened, fearing that the king might go so far as to accuse them of treason, exile them, and confiscate their estates. Then, suddenly, Thomas announced that he would accept the Constitutions, though he managed to get the king to agree that he could postpone setting his seal to them. The bishops were nonplussed but followed their leader in his capitulation to the king.
Satisfied for the moment, Henry allowed Thomas and the other bishops to depart from Clarendon. Scarcely had he left, however, than Thomas announced that he had been wrong to give in to the king’s threats, no matter what the physical dangers of the moment. He declared that the Constitutions were a grave violation of the liberties of the church, that he was withdrawing his agreement to them, and that all his fellow bishops were to do the same.
To signify the gravity of the sin he felt he had committed in agreeing to the Constitutions, he donned sackcloth and ashes, the traditional garb of the penitent sinner seeking absolution for serious sins. The bishops understandably felt betrayed and abandoned by their leader. Despite their qualms and fears, they had held out against the king’s threats until Thomas caved. Now he had changed his mind yet again, and he expected them to brave the king’s anger by reversing their stance, too.
World History
