John in the king’s name forbade all interference with the primate.[337] Amid the rapturous greetings of the people who thronged to welcome their chief pastor, he rode on to Canterbury; there some of the royal officials came to him in the king’s name, demanding the absolution of the suspended and excommunicate bishops. Thomas at first answered that he could not annul a Papal sentence; but he afterwards offered to take the risk of doing so, if the culprits would abjure their errors in the form prescribed by the Church. Gilbert and Jocelyn were inclined to yield; but Roger refused, and they ended by despatching Geoffrey Ridel to enlist the sympathies of the young king in their behalf, while they themselves carried their protest to his father in Normandy.[338] [332] Will Fitz-Steph. as above, pp. 106, 107. [333] On Ralf de Broc see Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), p. 75; Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._), p. 360; Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.) p. 65; E. Grim (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 404; Epp. lxxviii. (_ib._ vol. v. p. 152), cccxli., ccccxcviii. (_ib._ vol. vi. pp. 278, 582), dccxviii., dccxxiii. (_ib._ vol. vii. pp. 394, 402). In the last place Thomas says that Ralf “in ecclesiam Dei ... per septem annos licentius debacchatus est”; and the writer of the _Thomas Saga_ (Magnusson), vol. i. p. 321, seems to have understood this as meaning that Ralf had had the stewardship of the Canterbury property throughout the archbishop’s exile. This, however, does not appear to have been the case. Ralf certainly had the stewardship for a short time at first; but it was, as we have seen, soon transferred to Gilbert Foliot, and only restored to Ralf when Gilbert resigned it early in 1167. [334] Epp. dccxx., dccxxii. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. vii. pp. 397–399). [335] Ep. dccxxiii., dccxxiv. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. vii.), pp. 403, 410. Cf. Will. Cant. (_ib._ vol. i.), pp. 87–89; Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol. iii.), p. 117; Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._), pp. 471, 472; Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 68; Anon. II. (_ibid._), p. 123; Garnier (Hippeau), pp. 161, 163. The version in _Thomas Saga_ (Magnusson), vol. i. p. 483, seems founded on a confusion between the delivery of these Papal letters and that which Berengar delivered in S. Paul’s on the Ascension-day of the previous year. [336] Will. Fitz-Steph. (as above), p. 118. Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._) p. 476. Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 68. Garnier (Hippeau), p. 164. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 339. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 222. _Thomas Saga_ (as above), pp. 489–491. The date is from Will. Fitz-Steph., R. Diceto and the Saga; Gervase makes it November 30, and Herbert “two or three days after the feast of S. Andrew.”