by a declaration of de Vere, that the king would refer the subject to the

Roger, who had calculated on the strenuous support of his order, and had firmly withstood misfortune, while a prospect of redress remained, sunk under his disappointment. Regret for lost power, indignation at the cruel persecutions of a monarch, for whom he had sacrificed his integrity, remorse for his ingratitude towards his deceased benefactor, preyed on his broken spirit, and hurried him to the grave. After suffering a short time under a quartan ague, he died in a frenzy, in December, 1139; a memorable example of that instability of power, and caprice of fortune, which our great dramatic poet has so feelingly described:

"This is the state of man; to-day he puts forth
The tender leaves of hope, to-morrow blossoms,
And bears his blushing honours thick upon him:
The third day comes a frost, a killing frost;
And when he thinks, good easy man, full surely
His greatness is a ripening, nips his root,
And then he falls, as I do. I have ventur'd
Like little wanton boys, that swim on bladders,
These many summers in a sea of glory;
But far beyond my depth: my high blown pride
At length broke under me, and now has left me,
Weary and old with service, to the mercy

Of a rude stream, that must for ever hide me."

HEN. VIII. Act 3, Sc. 2.

* Malmsb.-Henry of Huntingdon. Sav. p. 181, 389. Brady's History of England, p. 275.-Lyttleton's Henry II. v. 1, 4to.

On the death of Roger, king Stephen endeavoured to procure the election of his chancellor, Philip de Harcourt, dean of Lincoln; but the canons of Sarum rejected the recommendation, and were supported by the bishop of Winchester, who had acquired considerable interest in the chapter, by his defence of the deceased prelate, as well as by his character of papal legate. Unfortunately both for the monarch and his kingdom, this disappointment was not the only effect of his overweening rapacity. His brother even prompted Maud to repair to England, and assert her right to the crown. The miseries and horrors of this destructive contest are too well known in our national annals to need a place in local history. Stephen himself fell into the hands of his enemies, and, for a moment, the diadem of Henry seemed fixed on the head of his daughter. When, however, the tide of fortune was turned against Maud, by the intrigues of the bishop of Winchester, and when Stephen was released from captivity, a compromise took place, relative to the vacant see of Sarum. It was conferred on Joceline de Bailul, who is said to have been recommended by the earl of Meulan; but, from his situation as archdeacon of Winchester, there can be little doubt, that he owed his appointment to the prelate, who had taken so unbecoming a part in the late revolutions. Joceline is described by some authors as a Lombard by descent, though, from his name, it is not improbable that he belonged to the great norman family of Bailul.

After the storm of civil war had subsided, Joceline recovered the honours and possessions which had been lost during the preceding troubles. By the interposition of the pope, in 1148, he obtained the restitution of

Cannings and Potterne, belonging to his see, and various dependencies of the cathedral establishment, which had been likewise seized by the empress or her partisans.

To remove all future causes of dissention with the crown, Joceline, in 1157, renounced the pretensions of his see to the castle and town of Devizes. In return, he obtained the restitution of thirty libratas + of land, and the churches of Westbury, Figheldean, Odhiam, Godalmin, and Bedminster, which belonged to his cathedral. The castle of Sherborne, another appurtenance of the see, was tacitly relinquished; but recovered at a subsequent period. The custody of the royal fortress of Sarum was,

however, again committed by the king to lay hands. §

After the termination of the civil feuds, and the accommodation of all disputes with the king, Joceline naturally looked forward to an interval of tranquillity. But he was reserved for trials of another and severer kind.

The clergy had availed themselves of the different changes of government, since the conquest, and particularly of the recent confusion, to extend

* Deed of restitution from the empress Maud, dated at Faleise, 10th June, 1148-Chapter Records.

† A librata of land contained fifty-two acres.

Chapter Records.

§ It would be foreign to the present purpose to detain the reader with a long digression on the subject of Old Sarum; but we beg leave to state our doubts whether it was ever private property, before it was granted to the Montacutes, when its importance was much diminished by the increase of the new city. Bishop Roger received it in trust, as a royal fortress, as is evident from the words of Malmsbury, who wrote at the time. "Castellum Salesberiæ, quod Regii Juris proprium esset, ab Henrico Rege impetratum, muro cinctum, Custodiæ suæ attraxerat." Novell. 1. 2." Shortly after the disgrace of this bishop, we again find it designated as a royal fortress, and intrusted to the custody of the sheriff of Wilts. In the 11th, 12th, and 15th of Hen. III, Ela, countess of Salisbury, held it in virtue of that office, as may be seen in Dugdale's Baronage, Art.-Earls of Salisbury. In the Abridgment of the Exchequer Rolls, published by Parliament, v. 1, various entries likewise occur, of similar commissions granted to different persons in the time of Henry III. and Edward I, and II.

their own power and immunities, not only to the detriment of the crown, but to the injury of civil society. Their pretensions had been countenanced by the popes, who were anxious to liberate them from the restraints of temporal government, that their spiritual obedience might be rendered more complete. Their usurpations, at first silent and gradual, were now become rapid and alarming. Not satisfied with abusing the powers of their office, they claimed an exemption from the civil jurisdiction, for the most criminal offences. The clerical character became a protection for every specious of licentiousness; and the history of the short period since the commencement of this reign, displays a black catalogue of their enormities, including extortion, theft, robbery, rapes, and even murder.

A sovereign so vigilant and able as Henry the Second, could not witness these excesses without indignation. From respect, however, for the character of Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, he adopted no measure which might lead to contention with the clergy; but he formed a resolution to remedy these crying evils on the first vacancy of the see. Accordingly, on the death of Theobald, in 1162, he procured the nomination of the celebrated Thomas à Becket, his chancellor and friend, in whose zeal, attachment, and principles, he reposed full confidence, and in whom he expected to find a powerful supporter.

He was, however, fatally mistaken in his choice. Becket, as aspiring and ambitious as he was flexible and insinuating, had no sooner attained the highest ecclesiastical dignity in the realm, than he felt all the consequence attached to his station. Disdaining to remain the dependent, when he was become almost the equal of the monarch, he evinced a decided resolution to exert his extensive powers; and, in consequence, to maintain the privileges and pretensions of his order.

Henry was conscious of the error into which he had been led by his mistaken partiality; but he did not relinquish his laudable design. After an earnest appeal to the bishops, and even to Becket himself, he summoned a great council of the realm, at Clarendon, in 1164, to devise means for checking the irregularities, and restraining the usurpations of the clergy.

Among those who supported the views of the monarch, we find, with pleasure, the name of bishop Joceline. He not only lamented the misconduct of the priesthood in general, but, from his own experience, he had sufficient cause to condemn those immunities, which were equally contrary religion, and to public morals. It is related that a priest of this diocese being accused of murder, was delivered up to the bishop, and a demand for justice, preferred both by the royal officers, and the kindred of the deceased. The priest failing to exonerate himself, according to the customs of the time, Joceline applied to the archbishop for advice and direction. Doubtless, to his surprise and indignation, he saw the criminal visited with no heavier punishment than the loss of his benefice, and confinement in a convent for life. He had even the mortification to learn, that this decision was to form a rule in all similar cases.

With such an example fresh in his recollection, our prelate took a considerable share in the arrangement of the regulations, called the Constitutions of Clarendon, the principal intent of which was to define the immunities of the clergy, and restrain the power of excommunication, which they too frequently abused. But, notwithstanding the obvious necessity of these regulations, the bishops were not easily persuaded to limit the privileges of the clerical order; and they were supported by the

* Brady, p. 389