The  king  conceded  that  the  court  Christian  had  the  right  to


614


try  the  accused  clerk,  but  insisted  that  having  first  arrested
the   offender  the  royal  court  had  gained  a  prior  seisin  of
the  criminal  and  the  case,   and  so  had  a  right   to  investigate
the  facts,  and  if  they  established  guilt   should  then  turn
him  over  to  the  bishop's  court.     But  the  king  did  not  stop
at  that.     He  fixrther  claimed  that  the  control  which  his
prior  seisin  of  the  case  gave   to  him  justified  him  in  watch-
ing the  progress  of  the  ecclesiastical  court  to  see  that
justice  was  done;  and  if  by  that   tribunal  the  culprit  was
flound  guilty  and  degraded  from  the  priestly  office,  then
the  king's  court  might  resume   its  suspended  seisin,  and  try
the  accused  becmae  a  layman  and  hang  him  if  need  bg^
Against  this  claim  Becket  bit^^erly  protested,  resting  his
argument  upon  the  msixim  that  no  one   could  be  twice  put   in
jeopardy  for  the  same  offence;  to  which  the  king  retorted
that  the  meixim  had  no  application  to  the  case.     Indeed
Becket 's  successor  gave  a  sufficient  answer  when  he  said
that  it  was  no  double  trial  when  what  was  begun  by  one  was
finished  by  another.     Henry  carried  the  constitutions  of
Olgurendon,  and  results  followed  almost   comical   in  the
jealous  watch  of  each  over  the  other.     The  bishop  sent   his
men  to  the  law  courts,  and  when  one  of  their  order  was  ac-
cused demanded  that  he  be  delivered  over  to  the  ordinary,
but  royal   officers  followed  him  into  the  courts  of  the


615


ch\axch,  and  if  degraded  from  his  office,  carried  him  back
to  the  king's  court  to  be  punished  as  it  layman.     The   struggle
was  a  long  one,  but  always  in  some  degree  the  benefit  of
clergy  remained  and  worked  its  abominations  for  a  long
period.
