may difcufs the force of an abfolute agreement, when its violation may be attended with confequences fo beneficial: but, in this inftance, no agreement was violated. The caftles were to be delivered when the marriage was celebrated by the confent of the church; and, from the change in Louis's connections and circumflances, it probably might have been difputed at another time. The confent of the church was obtained from the Pope, whom Louis acknowledged, and the cafiles were delivered up. We fhould not have mentioned this circumstance, but to fhew our author's eagerness to blame the conduct of Henry in the firft fteps, which are particularly detailed.

Mr. Berington, while many circumstances of Henry's life are fhortly noticed, relates at some length the events of the Emperor's campaigns in Italy; but he returns feemingly with eagerness to his firft great object, the opponent of Henry, the celebrated Becket, the faint and martyr. We need not, at this time, fay who Becket was, or give any account of his early life, his fpirit, his ability, his generofity, or his attachment to Henry. He feems to have been contented with being the fecond man in the kingdom, till he thought he could be the firft, or equal to the firft. He then pretended to be the warm enthusiast in favour of the church. We say pretended, for in the former part of his life, while he was chancellor, his decifions were not found to be partial on this fide, and it is too late to affert, that confecration would produce a miracle: it might easily change his defigns and his conduct. Mr. Berington relates the different events of the early part of his life with fufficient impartiality, and we are not willing to detract from the merits of the faint, before his confecration; or to accufe him afterwards of any other crime than the bafest ingratitude to his benefactor, and an unreasonable, indefenfible, attachment to the church, in oppofition to the best interests of the ftate.

On the death of Theobald, the partiality, and the miftaken policy of Henry raised Beckett to the primacy. But we think our author fhould have stopped a little, at least to have difproved what Foliott bishop of Hereford (afterwards of London) has afferted, that Becket had always a defign of obtaining this station: he should have shown, by other evidence than Hoveden's, fince the fact has been difputed, that Thomas reluctantly' confented; and, though he follows the fame author in faying that oppofition (if any there was) finally gave way to the pofitive determination of the king,' candour fhould have remarked, that the faithful Gervafe, and the infufpected John of Salisbury, fpeak of great oppofition;

R 2

and

and the irrefragable evidence of dates fhow that more than a year elapfed, from the death of Theobald to his election. If the king's will was implicitly obeyed, it is not easy to explain the cause of this delay. When he became archbishop, his conduct and his manners were not the fame: he evidently appeared to be fludying a more important part, and before he could become a faint, it was necessary to make the world forget that he had been a foldier. His apologist gives a different view of his conduct.

Men, whom nature has not formed in common moulds, whofe understandings are large, and whofe hearts fwell, can only be engaged with objects commenfurate with their capacities. When Becket was the minifter of a monarch, whofe empire was extenfive and whofe views were vaft, the fituation harmonized with his character, and he could be munificent, and oftentatious, and foldier-like as he. Nor can we wonder, if the loofer manners of the age, and the occupations of the bufy fcene, fhould have more than reconciled him to employments, which feem not to have become the churchman. There were examples in the French court, and more in that of Frederick. Besides, Theobald had himfelf raised him to the ftation, who knew its offices and all its calls. But when the primacy of England was in his hands, with its fplendid honours and its thoufand duties, the charge alone was amply fufficient; and it could occupy and engrofs his thoughts. His manners and his views would naturally bend to it; and that cast of character which had fortunately carried him to the ob. jects of his ambition, would now operate to fimilar exertions in his new department. Now alfo, he might think, he was become the fervant of a greater potentate, then was Henry Plantagenet, namely, of Alexander, the Roman Pontiff. It was the prejudice of the age. And may it not be said, that religion and a fenfe of duty did likewife co-operate to the reformation of manners and the change of character, of which I am fpeaking? New features of mind, and a fternnefs of virtue might be then produced, of which before no fymptoms had been exhibited. The mind of man is a fyftem of effects. To fay then, that the archbishop was in fincere in his converfion, and affected new manners, from finister and infiduous views, is ungenerous and contrary to the declarations of the moft contemporary writers; but not to be able to fee that the tranfition was most natural, as agreeable to the ordinary phenomena of human nature, fpeaks a want of difcernment, of which who is vacant, fhould not attempt to relate events in which man is a principal agent: and to be confcious of truth, and to miftate it, from the prejudications of low bigotry, from diflike of

From April 1161 to June 1162.

characters,

characters, or from a paltry policy, is of prejudice the basest fpecies, and degrades the hiftorian.'

We have voluntarily incurred the imputation thrown on those who adopt an opinion different from our author, and, without turning to cotemporary writers for their opinion, we shall mention a fat or two which fufficiently fupport our obfervations. His refignation of the feals was the first mark of a deep-laid defign. The offices of archbishop and chancellor were not incompatible in that æra, nor were the duties of either office fo important or numerous, as to greatly interfere with thofe of the other; his refufal to refign the archdeaconry of Canterbury fhewed fufficiently that he was unwilling to give up power when it was not incompatible with what appeared to be his chief object, and his reclaiming the honours of the caftle of Tunbridge, which had been alienated from the fee by a fair exchange, and his oppofing the right of patronage of William of Eynesford, prove that his ambition was only diverted to a new channel. His difpute with the king would be alone a fufficient proof of this opinion, if no other was wanting.

The two first of these facts are indeed mentioned by Mr. Berington, but foftened by a circumftance, which we could have wished to have seen supported by better evidence, that Thomas refused to refign the archdeaconry, because he knew the king would give it to Geoffroy de Riddel, whom he difliked. If we allow the fact, would it be a fufficient excufe for Becket, who is already reprefented as having given up every worldly care? The other fact is united with fome refumptions for which there was a more defenfible plea. They were formerly the property of the church; but whatever may have been in the garb of the churchman, Thomas feems not yet to have forgotten the bufinefs of the world.

Mr. Berington, with the best hiftorians, takes up the subject of this, at its fource. Among the reforms of Henry, one of the most important and useful was the ftrict execution of penal justice; but all his labours were rendered fruitless by the grant of Stephen, who committed the perfons and property of ecclefiaftics to the bishops. It is needless to trace this grant from its unformed and qualified flate in the reigns of former princes, for it ought to have been ftrictly adhered to, if the bishops had not abused their trust: if they had abused it, Henry would have been unworthy of his crown, to have allowed their claim; nor can we avoid expreffing our furprize and indignation, that at a period like the prefent, the conduct of the clergy at that time can have found an apologist. It is enough to observe, that degrading from his office, and a

fhort banishment, or the lofs of his living, were the fevereft punishments inflicted on a churchman; and that Henry only afked, that the ecclefiaftical culprit, if found guilty by ecclefiaftics, fhould be delivered for punishment to the fecular power. Let us now attend to Mr. Berington.

Nothing to us can feem more equitable than this requifition of the king, abstractedly confidered. But when we know what then were the immunities and rights of the church, which his predeceffors of the Norman line, as we have feen, and he himself had folemnly confirmed, could any of them be legally anulled without the confent of the biflops? He applied for this confent: but furely they were free to withold it; and his application was preceded by an arbitrary decree, which it was his defign to enforce. To require that the canons of the church fhould be feverely executed against delinquents, he had authority. He might ask for more; but that implied a power of refufing. Whether they were unwife in their refufal cannot be afcertained, only by our own ideas, which were not thofe of the times I am defcribing. The prerogative of the crown, it feems, must be deemed facred; fo must the civil liberties of the people: the ecclefiaftical rights of the church alone cannot be fupported, but by a spirit of pride and priefly domination!'

Surely the original grant, with the confirmation of the Norman line, as well as the Plantagenets, muft fuppofe that juftice was equitably administered, or the bishops would no longer deferve their office of the judges of the ecclefiaftics; and our author would not contend, that the worst enormities fhould remain unpunished, becaufe this power had been given to thofe who had proved unworthy of it. Every cotemporary author, Fitz Stephens, Johannes Carnotenfis*, Gervafe, Diceto, William of Newbery, fpeak of the abuse of this power, and in more than one inftance Becket himself feems to have interpofed the fanctuary of the church between the moft atrocious culprits and civil punishment, and to have obtained a greater revenue by thefe immunities than the king poffeffed. Henry, irritated by an unexpected oppofition, abruptly afks, whether they would obferve the ancient cuftoms and laws of the realm ?

The reader will have obferved, fays our hiftorian, how, on a fudden, the first object in difcuffion being dropt, a new queftion was brought forward. The king had propofed to the prelates, that they fhould admit his new ftatute about the trial of ecclefiaftics. They refufe; when inftantly he turns to the

One of the cotemporary authors of the Quadrologus: perhaps the fame with John of Salisbury, for the accounts are nearly fimilar.

royal

royal customs. He could not mean to infinuate that there was any connection between them, (for he knew that the first pro pofal went to the abrogation of an old law, which his prede ceffors had confirmed,) and that the customs, which he now alledged, were, as he afferted, the ancient ufages of the realm.-Elfewhere I thall have occafion more than once to remark, that the king, in this perplexed controverfy, feems to have acted from no premeditated plan; but to have shifted his ground, as the wayward paffion led, and to have brought forward matter of fresh difcuffion, to ease refentment, or for the unprincely purpose of retaliation.'

Nothing feems more unfair than this infinuation, or more contradictory to the answer. It is evident from Becket's reply, that Henry had not fhifted his ground, and that Mr. Berington's former hiftorical argument was unfounded. To Stephen only were the ecclefiaftics indebted for the establishment of their exclufive power; and, when the bishops deny this rea fonable requifition, he wishes only to know whether, if they oppose him in this point, they will abide by the old customs. We hope our hiftorian did not drop the term ancient by design, Becket feems aware of Henry's meaning, for if the question, in his opinion, did not relate to the fame fubject, and if he was not aware that the claim was a recent one, why fhould he give the fame guarded anfwer, "I and my brethren will obferve your royal customs, faving our order." Royal' does not occur in the cotemporary authors that now lie before

us.

1

We have followed Mr. Berington ftep by step, in order to point out the fallacy of his foundation, and confequently the infecure fupports of his fuperftru&ture: we shall now purfue the fubject lefs minutely, for we think we have shown, that he is, as we have before called him, the apologist of Becket, rather than the biographer of Henry. When the archbishop had, by the joint intreaties of the prelates, promised to obey the customs, probably urged at the fame time by the propriety of the request, and the unpopularity which muft attend the refufal, fome time elapfed before the meeting of Clarendon. In this period, the ancient customs feem to have been examined, and the conftitutions produced are ftyled à "recollection and recognition of the customs, liberties, and dignities of our ancestors, and particularly of our grandfather Henry I." If this title was not juft, Becket might properly have oppofed it, and the attachment of the English to their old cuftoms was then fo powerful, that it would have deftroyed all the popularity of Henry, to have attempted any innovation. Becket, however, perfitts in his

R 4

refufal