their secular brethren, perhaps needing it more. How was the law to be brought to bear on a class of persons who claimed to be superior to law? King Henry's piety was above suspicion, but he was at all points a sovereign, especially impatient of anarchy. The conduct of too many ecclesiastics, regular and secular alike, was entirely intolerable, and a natural impatience was spreading through the country, with which the king perhaps showed early symptoms of sympathising. Archbishop Theobald, at any rate, was uneasy at the part which he might take, and thought that he needed some one at his side to guide him in salutary courses. At Theobald's instance, in the second year of Henry's reign, Becket became Chancellor of England, being then thirty-seven years old.

In his new dignity he seemed at first likely to disappoint the archbishop's expectations of him. Some of his biographers, indeed, claim as his perpetual merit that he opposed the bestias curiæ, or court wild beasts, as churchmen called the anticlerical party. John of Salisbury, on the other hand, describes him as a magnificent trifler, a scorner of law and the clergy, and given to scurrilous jesting at laymen's parties. 16 At any rate, except in the arbitrariness of his character, he showed no features of the Becket of Catholic tradition.

Omnipotent as Wolsey after him, he was no less magnificent in his outward bearing. His dress was gorgeous, his retinue of knights as splendid as the king's. His hospitalities were boundless. His expenditure was enormous. How the means for it were supplied is uncertain. The revenue was wholly in his hands. The king was often on the continent, and at such times the chancellor governed everything. He retained his Church benefices-the archdeaconry of Canterbury certainly, and probably the rest. Vast sums fell irregularly into Chancery from wardships and vacant sees and abbeys. All these Becket received, and never accounted for the whole of them. Whatever might be the explanation, the wealthiest peer in England did not maintain a more costly household, or appear in public with a more princely surrounding.

Of his administration his adoring and admiring biographer, the monk Grim, who was present at his martyrdom, draws a more than unfavourable picture, and even charges him with cruelty and ferocity. The persons that he slew,' says Grim, 'the persons that he robbed of their property, no one can enumerate. Attended by a large company of knights, he would assail whole communities, destroy cities and towns, villages and farms, and, without remorse or pity, would give them to devouring flames.' 17

16 Dum magnificus erat nugator in curiâ, dum legis videbatur contemptor et cleri, dum scurriles cum potentioribus sectabatur ineptias, magnus habebatur, clarus erat et acceptus omnibus.'-John of Salisbury to the Bishop of Exeter. Letters, 1166.

"Quantis autem necem, quantis rerum omnium proscriptionem intulerit, quis enumeret? Validâ namque stipatus militum manu civitates aggressus est. Delevit

Such words give a new aspect to the demand afterwards made that he should answer for his proceedings as chancellor, and lend a new meaning to his unwillingness to reply. At this period the only virtue which Grim allows him to have preserved unsullied was his chastity.

into war.

In foreign politics he was meanwhile as much engaged as ever. The anomalous relations of the king with Lewis the Seventh, whose vassal he was for his continental dominions, while he was his superior in power, were breaking continually into quarrels, and sometimes The anxiety of Henry, however, was always to keep the peace, if possible. In 1157 Becket was sent to Paris to negotiate an alliance between the Princess Margaret, Lewis's daughter, and Henry's eldest son. The prince was then seven years old, the little lady was three. Three years later they were actually married, two cardinals, Henry of Pisa and William of Pavia, coming as legates from the pope to be present on the august occasion. France and England had been at that time drawn together by a special danger which threatened Christendom. In 1159 Pope Adrian died. Alexander the Third was chosen to succeed him with the usual formalities, but the election was challenged by Frederic Barbarossa, who set up an antipope. The Catholic Church was split in two. Frederic invaded Italy, Alexander was driven out of Rome and took shelter in France at Sens. Henry and Lewis gave him their united support, and forgot their own quarrels in the common cause. Henry, it was universally admitted, was heartily in earnest for Pope Alexander. The pope, on his part, professed a willingness and an anxiety to be of corresponding service to Henry. The king considered the moment a favourable one for taking in hand the reform of the clergy, not as against the Holy See, but with the Holy See in active cooperation with him. On this side he anticipated no difficulty if he could find a proper instrument at home, and that instrument he considered himself to possess in his chancellor. Where the problem was to reconcile the rights of the clergy with the law of the land, it would be convenient, even essential, that the chancellorship and the primacy should be combined in the same person. Barbarossa was finding the value of such a combination in Germany, where, with the Archbishop of Cologne for a chancellor of the Empire, he was carrying out an ecclesiastical revolution.

It is not conceivable that on a subject of such vast importance the king should have never taken the trouble to ascertain Becket's views. The condition of the clergy was a pressing and practical perplexity. Becket was his confidential minister, the one person whose advice he most sought in any difficulty, and on whose judgment he most relied. Becket, in all probability, must have led the

urbes et oppida; villas et prædia absque miserationis intuitu voraci consumpsit incendio.'-Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, vol. ii, pp. 364–5.

There can be no doubt what

king to believe that he agreed with him. ever that he must have allowed the king to form his plans without having advised him against them, and without having cautioned him that from himself there was to be looked for nothing but opposition. The king, in fact, expected no opposition. So far as he had known Becket hitherto, he had known him as a statesman and a man of the world. If Becket had ever in this capacity expressed views unfavourable to the king's intentions, he would not have failed to remind him of it in their subsequent controversy. That he was unable to appeal for such a purpose to the king's recollection must be taken as a proof that he never did express unfavourable views. If we are not to suppose that he was deliberately insincere, we may believe that he changed his opinion in consequence of the German schism. But even so an honourable man would have given his master warning of the alteration, and it is certain that he did not. He did, we are told, feel some scruples. The ecclesiastical conscience had not wholly destroyed the human conscience, and the king had been a generous master to him. But his difficulties were set aside by the casuistries of a Roman legate. Archbishop Theobald died when the two cardinals were in Normandy for the marriage of Prince Henry and the Princess Margaret. There was a year of delay before the choice was finally made. Becket asked the advice of Cardinal Henry of Pisa. Cardinal Henry told him that it was for the interest of the Church that he should accept the archbishopric, and that he need not communicate convictions which would interfere with his appointment. They probably both felt that, if Becket declined, the king would find some other prelate who would be more pliant in his hands. Thus at last the decision was arrived at. The Empress Matilda warned her son against Becket's dangerous character, but the warning was in vain. The king pressed the archbishopric on Becket, and Becket accepted it. The Chief Justice Richard de Luci went over with three bishops to Canterbury in the spring of 1162 to gain the consent of the chapter; the chapter yielded not without reluctance. The clergy of the province gave their acquiescence at a council held afterwards at Westminster, but with astonishment, misgiving, and secret complaints. Becket at this time was not even a priest, and was known only to the world as an unscrupulous and tyrannical minister. The consent was given, however. The thing was done. On the 2nd of June (1162) Becket received his priest's orders from the Bishop of Rochester. On the 3rd he was consecrated in his own cathedral.

J. A. FROUde.

(To be continued.)

SOUTH KENSINGTON.

Does the organisation of this vast metropolis, which is constantly changing, justify so enormous an expenditure as is contemplated for a site which, twenty years hence, may be the least accessible part of town? Alas for the Royal Commission! They have sunk the money with which they were entrusted in a land speculation, and they will never get it back again. I mourn over the 150,000, the shilling surplus of the masses, sunk in a cabbage-garden at Kensington Gore.'

IN these words, with many others of similar doleful import, did a distinguished authority and critic give vent to his opinions in January 1853, immediately after the publication of the report of the Royal Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851, in which it was announced that the surplus profits of that Exhibition had been invested in the purchase of a large extent of land at Kensington Gore. The object of the present article is to give a short summary of the proceedings of the Commissioners in connection with this estate, in respect of which much misapprehension has always prevailed.

It is difficult for those of the present generation who only know the district as it now stands, with its spacious roads, stately houses, and numerous public buildings, to picture to themselves its appearance a quarter of a century ago, when first purchased by the Commissioners. At that time no carriage thoroughfare from north to south existed between Albert Gate and the Gloucester Road, a distance of just a mile; the whole frontage to Hyde Park consisted of a few old-fashioned houses, to most of which large gardens in the rear were attached, the two best known being Gore House and Grove House; a crooked footpath, bordered by high poplars, called Gore Lane, traversed the whole estate in a diagonal direction from Kensington to Brompton; two or three acres in the centre of the present Horticultural Gardens were devoted to the purpose of beating the carpets of the West-end aristocracy; the bulk of the property fulfilled the humble but useful functions of market-gardens (the cabbage-garden, in fact, so pathetically lamented in the extract above quoted); the secluded region of Brompton Park, with its fine old trees, and quaint dwellings which formed the favourite abodes of leading actors, occupied the site of the now world-known South Kensington Museum; and, in short, silence and solitude reigned VOL. I.-No. 4. Q Q

throughout a region which has since been visited by nearly 30,000,000 seekers after pleasure and instruction.'

It is entirely owing to the foresight and cool judgment of the Prince Consort, combined with his anxiety to make provision for long-needed public wants, and to anticipate their future development, that this large tract of land was rescued from the hands of a troop of speculative builders, all working for their own personal interests, and without the slightest unity of design, and preserved as an additional lung to London, in addition to forming a centre round which a new quartier has sprung up, of a far higher class than would otherwise have been the case. He had noted the constant tendency of society to travel westward, and I remember his once saying that not very much more than a century ago, George the Third had been offered the freehold of the whole area of land from Hyde Park Corner to Chelsea Bridge for 60,000l., a sum representing the merest fraction of its present annual value. The judgment of our critic already cited, to the effect that the Commissioners have wasted their funds in a ruinous land speculation, is best controverted by the fact that their property may now be valued at, and could, if necessary, be resold for, fully five or six times its original cost less than twentyfive years ago.2

The original report of the Commissioners, announcing the purchase of the estate, and setting forth the purposes to which they proposed that it should be applied, was published in November 1852. It is remarkable that of the thirty distinguished men, headed by the Prince Consort, by whom that report was signed, no less than twenty-three are now numbered with the dead. The Duke of Buccleugh, Lords Granville, Overstone, and Russell, Mr. Gladstone, Sir Thomas Bazley, and Mr. T. F. Gibson, alone remain as the connecting links with the days of the first great Exhibition.

The ultimate net profits of that Exhibition, which was visited by more than 6,000,000 persons, and the often-told history of which need not be here repeated, amounted to about 186,000l., a sum not only remarkable in itself, but standing in singular contrast to the results of all subsequent similar international displays. The gross receipts were 518,000l., and the expenses 332,000l. As might be expected, the claimants for a share in the distribution of so rich a

1 A long list might be made of the distinguished persons who have at different times lived on various parts of this estate. It may suffice to mention, at the Kensington Gore end, John Wilkes, Sir Philip Francis, Wilberforce, Whitbread, Lady Blessington, Count D'Orsay, and, more recently, Lady Franklin. At the Brompton end dwelt Oliver Cromwell, in whose honour the present Cromwell Road received its name at the special desire of the Prince Consort. And in Cromwell House, whither he had been moved for the sake of the noted pure air of the district, died Richard Burke in the arms of his father, his early death giving birth to some of the finest and most pathetic passages in the great statesman's writings.

2 The report that the Prince Consort had large private property in the neighbourhood of the Kensington Gore Estate was entirely unfounded.