standing the release; and, moreover, that Becket was unable to prove the King's consent to it (537). Foliot afterwards made a jest of the Archbishop's fancying "that as in baptism sins are forgiven, so in promotion debts are released” (S. T. C., iv. 271); and, which seems important, Herbert of Bosham represents the idea of pleading the release as having only occurred to the Bishop of Winchester after a long deliberation with the other bishops ("tandem recordatus est," vii. 138). Hence it seems doubtful whether the release was understood as an acquittance of all pecuniary claims, until such an interpretation was devised by way of meeting claims actually made. It would appear that nothing was expressly said as to money at the time of the election. The King, according to the Lambeth biographer, announced the release to the Pope when asking him to send Becket the pall (ii. 97), and thus made the act his own, even if he had not authorised it beforehand. But what did he suppose it to import, since he reckoned on Becket's continued services as Chancellor? Nay, what did Becket himself understand it to amount to, since he retained the charge of Eye and Berkhampstead? It would seem to be the income from these castles that he alludes to, when, at a later time, he tells the Pope that the King no longer calls for the accounts of his Chancellorship, “but asks for that only which he says that I received of his property in the time of my archiepiscopate." As to this, however, the Archbishop declares that he is not bound, inasmuch as he had already rendered his account for it (iii. 35).

XVIII.-ORDER OF SEMPRINGHAM (p. 133).

The foundation of the Order of Sempringham (which included recluses of both sexes) is variously dated from 1131 to 1148. It was confirmed by Pope Eugenius III.

A life of the founder, Gilbert, and the statutes of the Order, may be found in the Monasticon, vol. vi., pt. 2. The author of the Life tells us that St. Thomas of Canterbury appeared to one of his old retainers, saying, “I am Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, whom men call Saint Thomas." "Thanks be to God," said the old man, "who hath vouchsafed to do such great things for thee, my Lord; for never, methinks, hath there been, or will there be, in our land one from whom so great joy shall arise." "I tell you," replied the Saint, "there will be one;" and, on being asked the name, he answered by the single word " Gilbert, whom," adds the biographer, "we take to be none other than this Gilbert of ours" (p. xv.). [It would seem that Bishop Foliot was not considered to be a likely rival, and few, perhaps, would now advance a claim for Bishop Burnet.] St. Gilbert of Sempringham died in 1188.

66

XIX.-MEMORABLE TUESDAYS IN BECKET'S LIFE (p. 134)..

Herbert tells us that All Souls' Day was Tuesday, and that Tuesday was the day of the week on which the most remarkable events in the Saint's life took place-his trial and flight, his crossing the sea, his return, and his martyrdom; to which Garnier adds his birth, and Diceto his first translation. (Herb., vii. 164; Garnier, 158; Diceto, 556.) Herbert also states that this Tuesday was a fortnight after that on which he "fought with beasts" at Northampton. It would appear, however, that in 1164 All Souls' Day fell on a Monday, and that it wanted but one day of three weeks since the last day of the Council. (See Nicolas, Chronology, p. 60.) The editor of William of Newburgh (i. 132) makes a needless difficulty as to dates, by supposing that Diceto speaks of the Council as having begun on October 13, whereas he really names that as the day of the trial about the Chancellorship. The addition of

Becket's baptism, and of a remarkable vision which he had at Pontigny (R. Gloucest., 126), to the memorable events of his Tuesdays (see Stanley, 58, ed. 3) was probably a later" development."

XX.-WHITENESS OF BECKET'S HANDS (p. 137).

Mr. Froude, as we have seen (p. 11), refers this personal characteristic to the Archbishop's supposed "Asiatic extraction." Ever since the time of St. Jude's grandchildren (Hegesipp. ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl., iii. 20), at least, the appearance of the hands has occasionally served. as a test of condition. Thus it is related, in the Life of Adalbero, Archbishop of Treves in the 12th century, that some sailors among whom he fell " cœperunt pulcherrimas manus ejus considerare, et ex hoc perpendere quod homo plebeius non esset" (Patrol., cliv. 1314); and the insurgent peasantry of Languedoc, in the minority of Charles VI., massacred all who had not "callous hands." (Martin, Hist. de France, v. 349, ed. 4.) There is a story of a Jacobite belonging to Lord Forbes's family who, after the battle of Culloden, disguised himself as a labourer, and when charged by some soldiers with being a gentleman in hiding, escaped by holding out his hands, which were naturally very large and rough, and asking, "Are these the hands of a gentleman?" Becket's opponent, King Henry, might have in like manner defied the test."Manus ejus," says Peter of Blois, "quadam grossitia sua hominis incuriam protestantur; earum enim cultum prorsus negligit; nec unquam, nisi aves deferat, utitur chirothecis" (Ep. 66).

XXI. THE RESIGNATION OF THE ARCHBISHOPRIC (p. 153).

The story of the resignation is told by all modern. writers, and I have not ventured in the text to deviate from the usual track. Among the older biographers, however, the incident does not appear by any means so distinct and certain. Nothing is said of it either by Roger (whose acquaintance with Becket is supposed to have begun immediately after, on the Archbishop's settling at Pontigny) or by Garnier. The dicitur" with which Fitzstephen introduces his statement (i. 244) does not much bespeak our confidence, neither do even the "ut mihi pro certo dictum est" of Grim (i. 52), or the "ut pro certo cognitum est" of another writer (ii. 259); while, on the other hand, the account given by Alan, which has been here chiefly followed, has even too much of detail. But the most remarkable circumstance is the silence of Herbert, who was himself with Becket at Sens. He tells us of the audience at which the Constitutions were exhibited; and then he states that on the following day many cardinals and other politicians of the court remonstrated with the Archbishop on the unreasonableness of quarrelling with the King while the Church was suffering from a schism; to which censure the biographer replies by a very long discourse, which is put into the mouth of his hero (vii. 182-195); but of the resignation he says nothing whatIt is hardly worth while to mention small variations in the story; as, that Alan makes the reading of the Constitutions to have been at a public audience, and the resignation in the Pope's chamber, whereas Herbert expressly states that the Constitutions were read in the chamber; that Grim represents the whole as having taken place at one interview, while Alan makes two; that, according to Alan, the restoration of the see was on the

ever.

same day with the resignation, whereas Fitzstephen tells us that there was an interval of three days; that Herbert speaks of Becket as having himself chosen Pontigny for a residence, and as having petitioned to be placed there, while Alan represents him as having no choice in the matter; and so forth. On the whole, I must think the story of the resignation extremely doubtful. Herbert was, indeed, as capable of suppressing a fact as others were of inventing a falsehood; but Herbert's narrative has here a much greater air of probability than Alan's. What motive could Herbert have had for suppression? or what likelihood is there that Alan should have been so very circumstantially informed as to an incident of which Fitzstephen and Grim speak so uncertainly? And if the scene took place, as Alan describes it, in the presence of the cardinals, many of whom were in Henry's interest, how could there have been any mystery or uncertainty about it? Surely it would in such circumstances have very soon become universally known. Becket himself, in a letter to Cardinal Hyacinth, A.D. 1167, alludes to something which had taken place at Sens: "partes vestras diligentius interponatis, ut confirmationem primatiæ nostræ, quam in primo adventu nostro Senonis D. Papa nobis concessit, per vos obtineamus” (iii. 132): this, however, evidently means, not that the Pope restored him to his archbishopric, but that he promised him a formal confirmation in certain privileges as attached to it. Fitzstephen mentions that he obtained privileges at Sens (i. 244), and from a letter to Cardinal Manfred we learn distinctly that the "primacy " here spoken of means the superiority of Canterbury over York. (iii. 144.) If the story of the resignation is untrue, one of Lord Lyttelton's charges against Becket will fall to the ground, viz., that while to the Pope he professed to consider his election uncanonical, he yet, in writing to the English bishops, maintained its perfect regularity and validity. (Ep. 75; Lyttelton, ii. 401.) Fuller represents the resignation as