the question was, simply, whether the old laws of the realm were to be maintained or not; the fact

But if the letter, on the contrary, were really written, and sent, and contained the truth, there was every reason on earth why Becket and his friends should pass it over in silence, should affect very likely not to have received it; and, moreover, there is every reason why the Bishop of London himself should not urge the subject home upon one, who, very soon after that letter was written, being supported by the Pope, and armed with all the thunders of the Church, returned to England but to become a martyr, and to be canonized as a saint. In regard to the Popes, it was very wise of them to say nothing of the document, so long as the Bishop of London lived, and to suppress it as far as possible when he was dead. That he could not, and would not, deny that he had written it, they knew; and therefore let it slumber during his life; but by suppressing it, by banishing it from all the manuscripts of the Vatican, they judged, and judged rightly, that at some future period a document so condemnatory of their saint would either never be heard of, or would pass for a forgery. Unfortunately for this purpose, however, when they suppressed the letter in the manuscript, they forgot to erase the title from the catalogue; and the first line of Foliot's letter-of Foliot's genuine, indubitable letter to Becket-is to be found at full amongst the Vatican catalogues!! This would seem to be the only link wanting in the chain of evidence, to prove that the letter was written by Foliot, was sent, and was received.

After this, I have not the slightest hesitation in receiving the letter (Claudius, b. II., folio 92.) as the genuine letter of the Bishop of London, and asserting that it is so beyond all reasonable doubt. Neither do I scruple to affirm, that it conveys the most important account of Becket's conduct that the world has ever received; inasmuch as it is shown to be fully worthy of credit, by those contemporary historians who were not the professed advocates of the Primate. Neither did Lord Lyttleton, nor will I assert, that Foliot's evidence was to be received in op

the eldest persons present. However that may be, Becket refused to put his seal to the laws that were then promulgated, although all the other Bishops were induced to do so; and it would seem that he affected to abstain from the service of the altar, until he obtained absolution from the Pope, for the wrong he had committed in consenting to the constitutions of Clarendon. At the same time, however, he joined with various other prelates in beseeching the Roman Pontiff to confirm the ancient customs of the realm, although there cannot be the slightest doubt that he well knew the request would be at once refused. The petition was of course rejected by the ambitious priest who owed his seat in the chair of St. Peter to the favour of the King of England.

The constitutions of Clarendon-the separate articles of which would occupy too much space for consideration in this place-being thus agreed to by the bishops, and disallowed by the Pope, Henry's next object was to deprive Becket,-of whose character he had now become fully aware, and whom he hated with a degree of virulence

would have the impudence to give two bulls directly opposite to each other within the space of few weeks, and to punish those who acted upon the first. Besides, this has none of those collateral evidences of authenticity which place the genuineness of Foliot's letter beyond all doubt. No contemporary historians declare that the Pope really did permit the coronation by the Archbishop of York; neither does the title of the bull appear in the Vatican catalogues.

which could only arise from mortified vanity added to disappointed affection-of a great portion of the authority which he possessed, by obtaining for the Archbishop of York, whom, it would seem, he had entirely gained, the legatine power over all England. His application on this point Alexander could not well refuse, after all the mighty obligations which he owed to Henry; but the politic Pontiff qualified the concession in such a manner as to render it altogether impotent. He granted to Henry the legatine powers, to be delivered by him to the Archbishop of York whenever he should think fit; but with the condition that they should not be bestowed without the knowledge and consent of Becket. The latter prelate, however, became alarmed, notwithstanding the stipulation which the Pope had made, and he obtained from Alexander a promise to exempt his person, and the church and city of Canterbury, from the legatine power of the Archbishop of York. But Henry never made use of the commission entrusted to him, seeing that it would be useless in consequence of the condition with which it was clogged. His indignation towards Becket was not by any means diminished by that prelate's forced consent to the constitutions of Clarendon, and he now determined not only to proceed against the Archbishop in another manner, but to use his whole power to punish and annoy him. To this undertaking he was greatly stimulated, there can be no

doubt, both by the animosity which the barons entertained towards Becket, and by the daring attempts of that prelate himself to impede the execution of the laws which he had just sworn to observe.

Knowing the enmity with which he was regarded by the King and the nobles and fearing, not unreasonably perhaps, for his life, Becket endeavoured to make his escape from England without the King's consent, which act was in itself, as he well knew, contrary to the law of the land. He was driven back, however, by contrary winds, and returned to Canterbury just in time to prevent his temporalities from being seized by the King's officers. It does not appear that Henry proceeded any further against him for the attempt to quit the kingdom: but he had at this time another accusation to bring against the Archbishop, of a more odious nature; namely, the having refused justice in his court to an English nobleman, whom we find named John the Marshal; and in order to try this cause, Henry called a great Council at Northampton, to which Becket was formally cited. It would seem that the King had previously called upon him to present himself before him on a day fixed, but that Becket had refused to come, some say without any excuse, while others declare that the King had taken possession of his lodging, and put horses and men therein, upon which the Archbishop had refused to appear till the King's servants and horses were removed.