his conduct at the convention at Clarendon; and on the events which produced his murder. The former we may consider as the first, the latter as the last stage of the controversy between him and his royal master.

The monarch contended that the clergy should, in future, be tried for felonies in his courts of justice. To obtain a recognition of this claim, he summoned all the prelates of England to Westminster; and required them to acknowledge the right of his courts to try the clergy. They hesitated. He then asked, whether they would promise to abide by the antient law of the realm ? The archbishop, speaking for himself, and for the other prelates present, replied, that " they were willing to be bound by the antient law of the "realm, as far as the honour of God, and the

66

church, and the privileges of their order, per"mitted." The king required the omission of the saving words: the archbishop insisted on the retention of them. At first, the other prelates adhered to him; but the king brought them over : and, after much solicitation, the archbishop acquiesced. The monarch, to render the assent of the prelates to his claims the more solemn, summoned the convention of the spiritual and temporal lords of his kingdom to Clarendon, near Salisbury. When they met, the archbishop expressed a wish that the saving words should be retained. He consented, however, afterwards to the omission of them; requiring, at the same time, that the cus

toms should be defined. This was both prudent and honourable; for, while the customs should remain undefined, the dispute would invariably continue. Thus there could be no reasonable objection to the request of the prelate. It was acceded to by the king; and a specification of the customs was accordingly drawn up by a committee, appointed by the convention. It was exhibited in sixteen articles, called by the historians of the times "The "Constitutions of Clarendon.”

This brings us to the point :-Did the constitutions exhibit the antient customs of the realms? If they did, the archbishop and the other prelates were bound, by their promise, to recognize and observe them. If they did not, the archbishop and the other prelates were bound to neither; nor could they acknowledge that the constitutions expressed the antient customs of the realm, or bind themselves to the observance of them, as such, without incurring the guilt, both of a solemn untruth, and of treason to the constitution.

On this point, therefore, the whole question on the conduct of the archbishop, at the convention at Clarendon, rests altogether. Does it require much investigation to arrive at a proper conclusion upon it?

By one of the articles, the custody and revenues of the temporalities of every archbishopric, bishopric, abbey, or priory of royal foundation, was declared to belong, during its vacancy, to the king: this was an absolute innovation.

By another, it was provided, that civil and criminal

suits, though each or either party to them were a clergyman, should commence in the royal courts; that the justices should decide, whether they ought to be determined there, or in the ecclesiastical courts; that, in the latter case, a civil officer should attend the trial, and report of the proceedings; and that, if the person accused should be convicted, he should forfeit the privileges of his character, and receive judgment accordingly. All this was, perhaps, very proper; but all was contrary to the existing law.

Another article declared, that tenants in chief should not be excommunicated without the leave of the king; or, in his absence, of his justiciary. This was in opposition to the law of Christ; and to the law of every christian country. It is even contrary to the present law of England, and to the practice of its courts.

Another article forbade appeals to Rome. At this period of our history appeals were allowed in England, and in every other part of the christian world. It is observable, that the monarch himself, during the contest, appealed more than once to the

roman see.

Such being the state of the contest, in this stage of it, permit me to say, that it is, with something more than surprise, that I read in your work the following lines: "If these constitutions were in "direct opposition to the system of Hildebrand "and his successors, and at once removed all those encroachments which the hierarchy had made in

"this kingdom during Stephen's contested reign, "it should be remembered that they were not new "edicts, enacted in a spirit of hostility to the "church, but a declaration and recognition of the "existing law."

By this, I understand you to affirm, that, as the law of England existed in the reign of Henry II. it allowed the monarch to retain the profits of vacant sees for his own benefit; it allowed the clergy to be tried for petit treason, and less crimes, in temporal courts; it exempted tenants in chief from being excommunicated; and it inhibited appeals to Rome. Can any of these positions be supported?--In my humble opinion they cannot. Doctor Lingard* thinks with me; and so does our common friend, Mr. Sharon Turner. "In

justice to Becket," says that learned and discriminating writer, "it must be admitted that these "famous articles completely changed the legal and "civil state of the clergy; and were an actual subversion, as far as they went, of the papal policy, so boldly introduced by Gregory VIIt;" -and then completely received into the civil and ecclesiastical polity and jurisdiction of every European state.

We now reach the second stage of this important controversy. A detail of the incidents is foreign to the subject of this letter. It is sufficient

History of England, vol. 2, p. 64, 55, 66. † lbid. vol. 1, p. 213.

to mention succinctly, that, after many fruitless endeavours, a reconciliation between the archbishop and the sovereign took place at Freitville, in Normandy; that the archbishop returned to England; that, upon a complaint by him against the prelates, who had assisted at the coronation of prince Henry, the celebration of which ceremony belonged of right to the see of Canterbury, the pope excommunicated the bishops of London, Rochester and Salisbury; conferring, at the same time, a power in the archbishop to absolve them; that, on his refusal, they attended in person on the king, who was then in Normandy, to make their complaints against the archbishop; that, irritated by their representations, the king exclaimed, "Of the cowards who "eat my bread, is there not one who will free "me from this turbulent priest ?" That four knights, who heard this exclamation, bound themselves by oath to avenge the king; that they sailed for England, and proceeded to Canterbury, entered the cathedral, and, advancing to the archbishop, required him instantly to absolve the bishops; that he refused to absolve them till they made satisfaction; that, on his refusal, the four knights murdered him; that, as soon as the king was informed of it, he solemnly denied all participation in the guilt; but admitted the unguarded exclamation upon which the knights proceeded to the perpetration of the crime; and, on this account, submitted to a public and humiliating penance; and was absolved by the pope. Previously to it, he