there is not one word in regard to the abolition of anything but the new customs which had been introduced in that monarch's own time. Now the constitutions of Clarendon, had been declared by the Parliament of England, the Bishops, Abbots, and the Barons of the kingdom, to be the ancient laws of the land, and Henry had always maintained that they were the same which had been in force in the time of his grandfather, Henry the First. By this agreement, therefore, he gave up not one single point of that policy to which he had invariably adhered.

Neither is there the slightest allusion in this document, nor in any of those which may be relied upon, that can afford a shadow of cause for believing that Henry engaged, as a condition of his reconciliation with the Church, to perform those extraordinary penances at the tomb of Becket, which have so generally and falsely been looked upon as an act of sub

*It is distinctly stated, in the letter of the Cardinals themselves, and in all the contemporary historians, I believe without more than one exception, that the only customs which Henry promised to abolish, were the new customs which had been introduced in the Church in his own times. Hoveden, who seems from the way in which he describes the document, to have seen it, if not to have been present when the act took place, distinctly marks, that they were only the new customs introduced in his own time; Gervase has the same clause distinctly; and Diceto, who was present at very many of the acts which I have detailed, though he varies the language, keeps the meaning quite clear. The only one who differs from this account, is the Monk Alanus, who represents Henry as promising unreservedly to repeal the constitutions of Clarendon.

mission to Rome. The Cardinals assert indeed, in a letter to the Archbishop of Ravenna, that the King promised in private, various things that were not expressly put down; but we can scarcely suppose that they were matters of very great importance, for had they been so, the Cardinals would not have failed to ensure the performance thereof, by exacting an oath from the King to that effect. It must be acknowledged, however, that it is a most extraordinary fact, that the legates should not require at the hands of the King the punishment of the murderers of the Archbishop. It has been a matter of marvel, indeed, that the King of England did not punish them in the very first instance; nor is the account given of his motives by William of Newbury, at all satisfactory to me. That writer says that Henry was afraid of being blamed for whatever course he pursued. Many would be found to say if he spared the assassins that he had encouraged the commission of the crime; and if he punished them, it would be said that he first instigated them to do it, and then smote them for the act, making himself doubly guilty. But that Henry should suffer the straightforward course of justice to be perverted, from the fear of any such censure, is not at all to be reconciled to the other parts of his character. He had marched with an army to punish less offences; and the great cause of his quarrel with Becket was his persevering maintenance of the grand rule, that no class of men whatsoever should escape punishment for crime.

It would certainly appear very extraordinary also, that the punishment of the murderers should form no part of the solemn conditions exacted by the legates; for though their holy functions prevented their requiring blood as an atonement, yet the Church of Rome has never wanted means of causing the temporal, as well as the spiritual sword to fall upon its enemies; and they might at all events have stipulated that the four knights who committed this foul deed should be sent to Rome to submit to the correction of the supreme Pontiff. They were indeed so sent by Henry himself, but that he should send them formed no part of his agreement with the Cardinals. The Pope dealt as leniently with the actual murderers as he did with the King, and merely enjoined them to go to the Holy Land, and do penance for their great offence. This, they did, we are told, with much devotion and remorse; and there is reason to believe that three years after Becket's assassination only one out of the four survived.

Some obscurity exists, in regard to the farther proceedings of Henry with the legates, nor can I reconcile all the facts as stated by contemporaries, with the account of Lord Lyttleton. It is certain however that this agreement was signed at Avranches, and sworn to by the King,* on the twenty

* Hoveden gives the date so precisely, that I cannot doubt that he was correct as to the day on which the oath was taken by

seventh of September; at which period his son Henry was with him; and yet we find that in the preceding month, the young King was once more crowned, together with his wife, in the cathedral of Winchester. Strange to say, after all the dissensions which had taken place on account of the coronation of the same prince by the Archbishop of York, the ceremony was on this occasion performed by the Archbishop of Rouen, a foreign prelate. It is to be remarked, however, that the see of Canterbury was now vacant, and likely to be so for some time, while the King of France pressed eagerly for the coronation of his daughter, and the young King himself, from motives which will be explained hereafter, was anxious to render his recognition as King by the people of England, as solemn as possible. If the young King did indeed accompany his father to France, as is generally stated, he must have returned to England very speedily, and after his coronation have rejoined Henry in Normandy; in which case the negociations concerning the absolution of the King must have been much longer, and probably more difficult, than the legates thought fit to state in their epistle to the Archbishop of Ravenna; which supposition is borne out by the account of

Henry, and the agreement signed: but the legates in their letter, declare, that they were met by Henry, at Avranches, on the fifth Sunday after Easter.

VOL. I.

с с

Diceto, and by the time which elapsed between their meeting Henry at Avranches, and the conclusion of the affair.

As soon as he had witnessed the absolution of his father, the young King hastened back to England, with his wife; and whether Henry the Second had become by this time somewhat jealous of his son's favour with a great number of the English barons, or whether he wished to gratify the King of France, I know not, but certain it is, that in a very short time after his landing in England, the Prince was sent for once more into Normandy, and on the first of November 1172, again passed the seas, all contemporary writers say, most unwillingly. He was sent immediately however, with the young Queen, to the court of the King of France; but a certain degree of uneasiness is evident at this time in Henry's conduct, which leads me to believe that he had remarked something in the demeanour of his son which gave him cause for apprehension.

Before the end of the year, the English monarch summoned the young King from the court of Louis; and he might very well have cause for suspicion, though that cause was not sufficient to justify him in taking any measure of precaution more vigorous than that of separating his son from evil counsellors. That the King of France was such, Henry had soon reason to know; for scarcely had the Prince rejoined

* He says, "Post longos tandem et immensos tractatus."