l'archevêque Saxon, au lieu de son titre d'Archidiacre, a donné celui d'Archidiable. "Low-churchman (homme de la basse église, puritain, vhigh) et high-churchman (homme de la haute église, thory)—Saxon et Normand-voilà comme se reproduit l'inextinguible lutte sous le voile sombre et mystique de la théologie réformée de l'Anglicanisme!' "RUSTICUS." Happily my respected friends, with whose names and principles the imitator of M. Thierry has here taken such liberties, are now not rivals, but colleagues in the representation of the diocese.-1859. IX.-DANEGELD (p. 74). The impost which Becket resisted has been generally identified with the Danegeld, as the rate per hide of land was the same; and Carte pronounces the story" too absurd to need a serious refutation," because it is "founded upon a supposition that the two shillings an hyde levied for Danegeld was not for the King's use, but was due to the under-sheriffs that held the county courts." (i. 579.) But Grim is not (as Carte fancied) the only authority for the story; and the account which he and others give of the charge seem to show that it was something different from Danegeld. Thus Roger of Pontigny says that the nobles caused it to be paid by their vassals to the sheriffs "quatenus tali servitio et beneficio eos a gravaminibus et calumniis hominum suorum cohiberent." (113.) In like manner Garnier (whose narrative coincides remarkably with Roger's) speaks a a Mr. Morris has utterly mis- | subordinates of the sheriffs, instead understood these words, supposing, of their [the earls' and barons'] vase. g., hominum suorum to mean the sals.-p. 90. "Li baron del pais le soleient duner ces ki furent mis pur les cuntez guarder, K'il deussent lur teres e lur humes tenser, Ne que nul n'en deussent empleidier ne greuer.”—65*. and Becket's answer to the King, as reported by all the writers, agrees with this. At all events it does not appear that Henry wished (as Dr. Lingard says) to "revive" any impost which had become obsolete, or to add to the burdens of his people; he meant only to make the payment compulsory (which it probably was in effect before) and to alter its destination. As to Danegeld, the clergy had been exempt from it in Saxon times, their prayers being considered as their contribution to the defence of the country. William Rufus, however, refused to allow any such exemption (Collier, ii. 479). Danegeld was paid throughout the reign of Henry I. (Ling., ii. 40). Stephen is said to have sworn to the abolition of it (Henr. Huntingd., 1. viii., in Patrol., cxcv. 957; R. Wendover, ii. 218); but this statement is considered very doubtful by Dr. Lappenberg, ii. 303. X.—JUSTINIAN AND GRATIAN ON TRIAL OF CLERGYMEN (p. 80). William of Canterbury tells us that Becket proceeded "juxta constitutionem illam, Si crimen ecclesiasticum est, tunc secundum canones ab episcopo suo causarum examinatio et pœna procedat, nullam communionem aliis judicibus habentibus in hujusmodi causis" (S. T. C. ii. 12). This is from Gratian, P. II., causa xi. qu. 1, c. 45 (Patrol., clxxxvii.); and there are equivalent words in Justinian, Novell. 83 (ib. lxxii. 1006). But whereas Becket seems to have understood crimen ecclesiasticum as meaning any crime of an ecclesiastic, the real meaning is evidently an ecclesiastical crime-i.e., such an offence as was noticed by the laws of the Church only, and not by those of the State. Moreover, the Novel had immediately before laid down that, in the case of civil crimes, clergymen should be tried before the secular judges; and even in Gratian something of this remains. In another Novel Justinian prescribes a course substantially the same with that which Henry II. proposed, that the Bishop should inquire into a charge against a clerk, and, if the accused were found guilty, should depose him, and then hand him over to the secular judge. Novell. 123. (Patrol., lxxii. 1031.) XI.-SEPARATION OF COURTS BY WILLIAM THE The object of this law has been much disputed. Some have supposed it to be intended as confining the jurisdiction of the Bishops rather than as adding to the privileges of the clergy. Mr. Buss wishes to make out that William intended to establish the canon law in England, and, as all visible evidence is against the idea of the King's deferring to the principles of Hildebrand, Mr. Buss supposes that there must have been a continual secret and confidential communication with Rome, of an opposite tendency to that which appears! (85, 124-5, 133.) Some suppose the law intended for a temporary and special occasion (Selden, Hist. of Tithes, 14, in Works, iii. 1282). M. Thierry imagines the object to have been that the Norman prelates might help in the work of depressing the Saxons, and that now the law came to be used for the annoyance of the race in whose favour it was given (ii. 273). See Johnson's Canons, ii. 50-1; Inett, 251; Southey, Vindiciæ, 355-6. XII.—ARNULF OF LISIEUX (p. 92). Arnulf has been already mentioned as one of those by whose policy Becket was introduced to Henry (p. 26), and as conspicuous in the Council of Tours (p. 70). He had contributed to the recognition of Innocent II. as pope, by a very abusive pamphlet against the anti-pope, Anacletus; he had taken part in the Second Crusade (Will. Tyr. xvii. 1), and more recently had exerted himself in behalf of Alexander III. (See his Letters, 21, 23, 24; or Baronius, 1159, 58, sqq.) His entrance on the bishopric of Lisieux, to which he was elected in 1141, was opposed by Geoffrey, the father of King Henry; but he was recommended to Innocent in terms of high eulogy by St. Bernard (Ep. 348) and by Peter "the Venerable" of Cluny (Ep. iii. 7, Patrol., clxxxix.), and obtained possession of the see. Throughout the contest between Henry and Becket, Arnulf endeavoured to keep well with both parties-outwardly siding with the King, while he assured the Archbishop that he was with him in heart, although prevented by his debts and other necessities from openly avowing his sympathy. Thus, he told one of Becket's envoys that, when sent to the Pope in the King's interest, he had privately recommended the Archbishop's cause. (S. T. C., iv. 189.) His advice to Becket, whether sincere or not, was generally good-the substance of it being that the Archbishop should be content to make peace on condition of securing such points as were essential, without endeavouring to gain the appearance of a triumph over the King (ed. Giles, 158-160). Arnulf, however, proved to be too clever, and by his duplicity forfeited the respect which his abilities had procured for him. Herbert of Bosham speaks of him as a person whose title to the name of Christian was very doubtful, "unless perchance words, and not deeds, make a Christian' -as one "whose whole virtue is in his mouth, whose tongue is of gold and his heart of iron "-who "with his mouth spake peace to the Archbishop, and secretly laid sanres for him" (viii. 232). The debts in which he had involved himself, chiefly for the building of his cathedral, were a lasting incumbrance to him. Several of his letters are full of pitiful supplications for the restoration of the King's favour, which he had at length utterly lost. In 1182 he resigned his see, and two years later he died in the monastery of St. Victor, at Paris. The history of Arnulf forms a remarkable commentary on a passage in one of his Letters Experimento didicimus, divino quodam judicio sæpius evenire, quod hi qui, ob affectationem favoris humani, reverentiam divinæ majestatis offendunt, divini quidem dispendium faciunt, sed humanum, quem affectaverant, minime consequuntur."-Ep. 31, ad Alexandr. Papam. Some of Arnulf's letters are in Wolf's collection. His extant writings have been published by Dr. Giles, whose edition is reprinted in vol. cci. of Migne's 'Patrologia.' XIII.-CLAREMBALD AND ST. AUGUSTINE'S (p. 94). This matter does not seem to be quite fairly represented by Archdeacon Churton, who says that Becket "declined giving his pastoral blessing to a bad man named Clarembald, who had been made abbot of St. Augustine's." (Early Eng. Ch. 344.) The character of Clarembald was indeed unquestionably bad. He is described as "a fugitive and apostate monk in Normandy" (Thorn, in Twysden, 1819); and, after having kept his ground as abbot elect until 1173, was deprived, after an investigation by the Bishops of Exeter and Worcester, who had been commissioned by the Pope for the purpose. These commissioners report that they had received evidence of the most scandalous malversation in the management of his office, and of the gross |