some respect for those claims, in order to add strength to their own party.  The concessions which Henry the Second made to the ecclesiastics on the death of Becket, which were afterwards confirmed by Richard the First, gave a grievous blow to the authority of the crown; as thereby an order of so much power and influence triumphed over it in many essential points.  The latter of these princes brought it very low by the whole tenor of his conduct.  Always abroad, the royal authority was felt in its full vigor, without being supported by the dignity or softened by the graciousness of the royal presence.  Always in war, he considered his dominions only as a resource for his armies.  The demesnes of the crown were squandered.  Every office in the state was made vile by being sold.  Excessive grants, followed by violent and arbitrary resumptions, tore to pieces the whole contexture of the government.  The civil tumults which arose in that king’s absence showed that the king’s lieutenants at least might be disobeyed with impunity.  Then came John to the crown.  The arbitrary taxes which he imposed very early in his reign, which, offended even more by the improper use made of them than their irregularity, irritated the people extremely, and joined with all the preceding causes to make his government contemptible.  Henry the Second, during his contests with the Church, had the address to preserve the barons in his interests.  Afterwards, when the barons had joined in the rebellion of his children, this wise prince found means to secure the bishops and ecclesiastics.  But John drew upon himself at once the hatred of all orders of his subjects.  His struggle with the Pope weakened him; his submission to the Pope weakened him yet more.  The loss of his foreign territories, besides what he lost along with them in reputation, made him entirely dependent upon England:  whereas his predecessors made one part of their territories subservient to the preservation of their authority in another, where it was endangered.  Add to all these causes the personal character of the king, in which there was nothing uniform or sincere, and which introduced the like unsteadiness into all his government.  He was indolent, yet restless, in his disposition; fond of working by violent methods, without any vigor; boastful, but continually betraying his fears; showing on all occasions such a desire of peace as hindered him from ever enjoying it.  Having no spirit of order, he never looked forward,—­content by any temporary expedient to extricate himself from a present difficulty.  Rash, arrogant, perfidious, irreligious, unquiet, he made a tolerable head of a party, but a bad king, and had talents fit to disturb another’s government, not to support his own.