him to strive in every way for the promotion of the power of the clergy, or whether he was actuated by personal ambition, which could only be fully gratified, after his elevation to the see of Canterbury, by extorting such privileges in favour of the priesthood, as might serve him for steps to rise above the sovereign who had raised him, and either make him totally independent in England, or perhaps, enable him to attain the supreme rule of all, and seat himself ultimately on the papal throne. Either supposition is quite sufficient to account for the Primate's conduct; and perhaps both motives concurred, for Becket could scarcely have entered so fully into the encroaching views of the see of Rome in that age, without having felt the spirit; and yet every step of his course is so marked by personal ambition, that it is impossible to doubt the design of self-aggrandisement had its share also in all his proceedings.

Henry, on his part, had a great advantage over Becket, namely, that his object was just, reasonable, and worthy of every effort; but, on the other hand, he was embarrassed by this disadvantage, that though supported by his own people, and by the peculiar institutions of his kingdom, he was opposed by the general ignorance and superstition of the age. It was in the means he employed to attain

struggle which took place a little before this period between the Popes and Frederic Barbarossa, and that which followed shortly after between Philip Augustus and the Roman Pontiffs.

his object that he erred, carried away by the ресиliar weakness and impetuosity of his own character. His vanity had been hurt by being overreached by Becket, his indignation had been excited by that prelate's ingratitude and insolence, and he therefore suffered a great contest for principles to be affected by selfish animosity, and deviate into a personal quarrel. Becket made his great stand upon principles; and he very well knew, that however unjust those principles might be, the whole army of monks and priests, who were interested in their maintenance, would support him as their general and their leader. Henry's first error was the forcible

intrusion of Becket into the see of Canter

* How comes it that Doctor Lingard, in his laborious defence of Becket for the part of his history of England which touches on this subject can only be considered as such--how comes it that he entirely overlooks the testimony of Alanus in the Historia Quadripartita, and affirms that the Primate's reply to the Bishop of London in regard to the regularity and propriety of his election "is satisfactory?" See Lingard, vol. 2, page 205. Becket's reply might be looked upon as satisfactory, if a person who was with Becket when he joined the Pope at Sens, did not tell us, even in the midst of his praises of that prelate, that Becket had himself acknowledged to the Pope, "I went up into the fold of Christ, not by the true door, not having been called to it by a canonical election, but obtruded into it by the secular power." Becket's answer is not satisfactory; it is the answer of a man defending himself as best he may before the eyes of the world, whereas his acknowledgment to the Pope was made in a very different and more private manner, and was never, in all probability, intended to be published, but that the indiscretion of one of his friends luckily gave to the world what ought not to be suppressed.

bury; for though the favorite had always been subservient to him as long as the objects of ambition were in his hand, the King should have known very well that by the prelate's elevation he opened a new path before him, leading in a direction immediately opposite to that in which his own views were turned.

All these were errors committed by Henry; but he also committed wrongs, and the just repression and correction of the Archbishop's resistance to the constitutions of Clarendon soon deviated into persecution of the man: the punishment of a prelate's tergiversation and perjury was lost sight of in the assumed peculations or defalcations of a Chancellor, and the King entered into the arena with a subject, in the character of a rapacious, if not an unjust, creditor. At the same time the lamentable and disgraceful display of passion, to which he occasionally gave way, mingled scorn with the opposition of his enemies; his furious gestures, flashing eyes, and indecent words, shewed how much personal hatred shared in his proceedings against the Archbishop; and the looks, tones, and language of the King of England became matter for reprehension and comment through half the refectories in Europe. Besides all this, if we may credit the testimony of the best writers of that day, Henry was most unjust as well as unwise. Whether Becket did really owe him the sums that were demanded, must ever remain uncertain; but there can be no earthly doubt-for

Henry and his ministers never denied it-that the King's son and his Justiciary both declared Becket free from all obligations to the Court, at the time of his consecration; and Hoveden, who would not have dared to say such a thing had it not been true, asserts that the Barons of the Exchequer joined in the proceeding. *

The only objection urged on the part of Henry is, that Becket could not prove the King had given authority to his Justiciary to do that act; but this was surely a pitiful evasion. Prince Henry was undoubtedly present at the consecration as Custos of the kingdom. The Justiciary was there with full and extraordinary powers from the King in regard to the election-powers even sufficient to

* It is my firm conviction that the five hundred pounds, or five hundred marks as some call it, which Henry demanded of Becket as a debt, had been given to the prelate, and not lent; and in regard to the claim of exemption made by Becket, I see no reason whatsoever why we should not take the words of Hoveden in favour of the primate, as well as against him. He especially names the Barons of the Exchequer; and in speaking of the Prince Henry, he says, "Cui regnum adjuratum fuit," which I conceive can only be translated, that he was Custos of the realm during his father's absence. This office was very often bestowed upon mere children, as was the case with Edward, the son of Edward the Third. They acted with a Council, such as the Barons of the Exchequer could very well represent in the present instance; and I do not know that the legality of any public act performed by the Custos and Council, was ever called in question, unless there were other circumstances to vitiate it besides the want of the King's express orders.

threaten the Bishops with proscription and exile if they did not elect the Chancellor. The Barons of the Exchequer were there consenting; and it must be remembered that those officers possessed at that time much more important functions than they do at present. All this would seem to prove that the emancipation of Becket on his election from all pecuniary obligations to the Court was full and sufficient, though Becket should undoubtedly have pleaded it in a more orderly and formal manner. At the same time it must be remembered that more than two years had elapsed since his election and yet the King had urged no such claim during that period; and there is also much reason to believe that Richard de Lucy, who alone could have proved the orders which Henry had given him, was sent out of England into Flanders about the time of the Parliament of Northampton. It is certain that he was in Flanders before the end of the year 1164, the Parliament of Northampton having taken place in the month of November of that year. This is a very suspicious circumstance; especially as we find the Earl of Leicester acting the part of Justiciary at Northampton. At all events it is evident that Henry brought against the Primate very doubtful charges of a personal character when he had the fairest opportunity of urging against him other offences of a grave nature, by the proof and punishment of which the