But that the collection was not made by one (whoever he were) very partial to that primate, appears from the tenor of them, where there are many passages very little favorable to him, insomuch that the editor of them at Brussels, a Jesuit, thought proper to publish them with great omissions, particularly of this letter of Folliot's.
Perhaps Becket made no answer at all, as not deigning to write to ah excommunicated person, whose very commerce would contaminate him; and the bishop, trusting to this arrogance of his primate, might calumniate him the more freely.6.Though the sentence pronounced on Becket by the great council, implies that he had refused to make any answer to the king's court, this does not fortify the narrative of Folliot.

For if his excuse was rejected as false and frivolous, it would be treated as no answer.

Becket submitted so far to the sentence of confiscation of goods and chattels, that he gave surety, which is a proof that he meant not at that time to question the authority of the king's courts.7.It may be worth observing, that both the author of Historia Quadrapartita, Gervase, contemporary writers, agree with Fitz-Stephens; and the latter is not usually very partial to Becket.

All the ancient historians give the same account.] [Footnote 19: NOTE S, p.392.Madox, in his Baronia Anglica, (cap.

14,) tells us, that in the thirtieth year of Henry II., thirty-three cows and two bulls cost but eight pounds seven shillings, money of that age; five hundred sheep, twenty-two pounds ten shillings, or about tenpence three farthings per sheep; sixty-six oxen, eighteen pounds three shillings; fifteen breeding mares, two pounds twelve shillings and sixpence; and twenty-two hogs, one pound two shillings.