should be indiscriminately exterminated, was informed by the judges that many things against public order, that is to say, robberies, rapes, homicides, were often committed by the clergy, to whom the power of the lay jurisdiction could not be extended."*

* His words are, "Rege quippe circa curam regni satagenti, et malefactores sine delectu exterminari jubenti, a judicibus intimatum est, quod multa contra desciplinam publicam, scilicet furta, rapina, homicidia, a clericis sæpius committerentur, ad quos scilicet laicæ non posset jurisdictionis vigor extendi." These are the words of a monk; and certainly this respectable and independent man, living in the midst of the scenes which he describes, may be trusted when he speaks against the prejudices of his order, which as well in this, as in the case of Becket, he does not unfrequently, condemning much of the Archbishop's conduct, and plainly showing his approbation of the King's views, even while he censures the weak violence with which Henry's pursued them. I shall have frequently occasion to cite both Newbury and Hoveden, and it may be necessary here to point out, that the latter was chaplain to Henry the Second. He had, therefore, an opportunity of knowing, fully and completely, all that took place in regard to the dispute with Becket, and most likely had studied it deeply. It may be supposed that his situation near the king's person gave him a prejudice against Becket; but we must remember that he wrote long after that prelate's death, as well as after the death of his sovereign. Becket was by that time canonized, the power of Rome completely triumphant over the weakness of John, every thing was to be gained, and nothing to be lost, by giving the most favourable view of the Archbishop's proceedings; and these circumstances, as well as the spirit of his class, which he must have shared with other ecclesiastics, may well be considered as sufficient to counterbalance any prepossession against Becket. His account, too, is simple and straightforward, and deals more with facts than opinions. This

He goes on to say, that Henry was informed of more than a hundred homicides already committed by the clergy in England under his reign. This might well move the indignation of the king, and he consequently determined to bring ecclesiastics under the arm of the civil power in cases where offences of such gravity had been perpetrated. But it was the determination of the Church of Rome, and of Becket, that such a purpose should not be effected. In the very first year after that prelate's elevation, a general council was held at Tours, and one of the avowed objects of the assembly was to provide for the liberties of the clergy, which, as it had already deviated into licence of the grossest and most abominable description, evidently wanted circumscription rather than extension. I know not, however, that this object was announced before the council had assembled, otherwise Henry must been very weak indeed to suffer the whole of his archbishops and bishops, except three, to attend the meeting at Tours, as he did at the solicitation of Alexander himself. What took place between the Pope and Becket on this occasion, can only be matter of conjecture. William of Newbury, how

part of his narrative, too, may be considered as written purely from his own knowledge. A great portion of the first part of his history is evidently taken from Huntingdon; and the Abbot of Peterborough has afforded him materials for the latter part; but between the years 1154 and 1170, Hoveden, I am convinced, drew his information from original sources.

ever, declares it was reported, that Becket, in remorse at the violent means which had been employed to force him upon the clergy of Canterbury, resigned his see into the hands of the Pope, who as a matter of course gave it back to him, and quieted his conscience by absolution. Certain it is that Alexander received him with the utmost distinction; and, between the prelate and the sovereign pontiff a bond was established, which strengthened by the superstitious zeal of Louis of France, enabled them to overthrow the wisest and most admirable purpose which the English monarch ever entertained.

In speaking as I am obliged to do on this and other occasions, I by no means intend to imply that degree of censure of Alexander and Becket which their conduct would have well merited had they lived in more enlightened times, or been placed in circumstances wherein their eyes could have seen clearly the paths of right and wrong, unobscured by the dim mists of self-interest, and undazzled by the fictitious splendour with which Rome had invested herself. Alexander, on his part, doubtless thought that he only claimed for the Church that which was the Church's right; and forgetting the more bitter degradation of crime, he might look upon it as derogatory to the clergy to submit to the judgment of laymen. Nay more: he might remember how ignorant, mercenary, and flagitious, as well as cruel and remorseless, many of the judges

of the land, and still more the Barons who acted as judges, had proved themselves, not only in England, but over the whole of Europe. He might, at a later period, have urged, that not even the greatest jurisconsult of the day, the High Justiciary of England, was free from suspicion of most iniquitous corruption. He might have put forth the principle, that all men are to be tried by their peers, and that in the age in which he lived none could bear that relation towards the clergy, but clergymen themselves. He might have pleaded many other things to support the claim which he conceived to be in every respect just to the Church, of which he was the head. But, on the other hand, Becket unfortunately, in former controversies with churchmen, had made such declarations of the authority of the crown, that his present pretensions could only be supported by a supposition that the miracle which had changed him into an Archbishop and rendered him devout instead of worldly, had at the same time opened his eyes in regard to the respective rights of kings and clergymen. From whatever source he derived his light, certain it is that he now viewed all things in a different manner, and that he returned from Tours with a full determination to resign none of those privileges which his order had so much abused. He began his proceedings, however, in an unwise manner, claiming as the property of the Church various estates belonging to English noblemen, who had held them for

several generations. His plea was, zeal for the Church; but as the proceeding was exactly in accordance with the grasping spirit which he had previously shown, while the zeal of the Archbishop had slumbered in the Archdeacon, men believed him to be actuated far more by avarice than by devotion. These, and various similar acts, not only excited the anger of the King in a tenfold degree, but called upon him the animosity of the nobles, which was certainly contrary to the policy that Becket should have pursued.

Another great error he committed, was thatinstead of taking instant measures to purify the manners of the clergy, to reform the ecclesiastical courts, and to punish with all the severity which the canons permitted, the crimes of the priesthood -he used all his authority to screen clerical offenders, and in some instances to protect persons who had committed the most dark and terrible crimes. This excited still greater anger and indignation, and Henry summoned the Bishops of his realm to meet him at Westminster, in order to employ means for putting a stop to such abuses.

In this assembly, the King did not make any direct charge against the Archbishop; but he demanded that the clergy, when proved guilty of heinous crimes, should be given over to the secular arm for punishment.* The King, however, weakly

* A modern writer, in a laborious defence of the clergy of that day, which he has woven into his history, omitting all that would