[277] Epp. cciv., ccv. (_ib._ vol. v.), pp. 403–413. Cf. Ep. ccix. (_ibid._), p. 241, and Will. Cant. (_ib._ vol. i.), pp. 56, 57. The bishop of Exeter consented to appeal, but in a fashion of his own, of which however there is no trace in the letter actually sent to the Pope. Two prelates were absent: Walter of Rochester, who pleaded illness, and Henry of Winchester, who wrote in excuse: “Vocatus a summo Pontifice, nec appello nec appellare volo.” The others thought he meant that the Pope had cited him; “ipse vero summum Pontificem, summum Judicem intelligebat, ad cujus tribunal jamjam trahebatur examinandus, tanquam qui in multis diebus processerat et vitæ metis appropinquaret.” So says Will. Cant.; but John of Salisbury says distinctly that the letter of appeal was sealed by London, _Winchester_ and Hereford (Ep. cclii., Robertson, _Becket_, vol. vi. p. 65). Can William have founded his pretty story on the old confusion (which is perpetually breaking out in his favourite authority, Garnier, and in other writers who have less excuse for it) between _Wincestre_ and _Wirecestre_--and was Roger of Worcester the real absentee? He certainly did not share in the obloquy which this appeal brought upon Robert of Hereford, with whom hitherto he had usually been coupled by Thomas; on the contrary, he and Bartholomew of Exeter are henceforth always coupled together as fellow-sufferers for their loyalty to the primate. [278] Epp. ccxxiii., ccxxiv. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. v. pp. 490–520). [279] The famous “Multiplicem nobis et diffusam.” Ep. ccxxv. (_ib._ pp. 521–544).