Part 21

One of the many branches of Henry’s continental policy was the cultivation of an alliance with those small but important states which lay on the border-land between Italy, Germany, and that old Aquitanic Gaul over which he claimed dominion in his wife’s name. The most important of these was the county of Maurienne, a name which in strictness represents only a small mountainous region encircled to east and south by the Graian and Cottian Alps, and to west and north by another chain of mountains bordering the outermost edges of two river-valleys, those of the Isère and the Arc, which again are severed from each other by a line of lesser heights running through the heart of the district. In the southern valley, that of the Arc, stood the capital of the county, S. Jean-de-Maurienne, the seat of a bishopric from the dedication of whose cathedral church the town itself took its name. In the northern valley, at the foot of the Little S. Bernard, some few miles above the source of the Isère, the counts of Maurienne were advocates of the abbey of S. Maurice, which long treasured the sacred symbol of the old Burgundian royalty, the spear of its patron saint. The power of the counts of Maurienne, however, was not bounded by the narrow circle of hills which stood like an impregnable rampart round about their native land. On the shore of the lake of Bourget they held Chambéry, guarding the pass of Les Echelles, through which southern Gaul communicated with the German lands around the lake of Geneva; the county of Geneva itself was almost surrounded by their territories, for on its western side their sway extended from Chambéry across the valley of the Rhône northward as far as Belley, while eastward they held the whole southern shore of the lake. To north-east of Maurienne, again, the great highway which led from Geneva and from the German lands beyond it into Italy, through the vale of Aosta by the passes of the Pennine Alps or up the valley of the Isère by S. Maurice under the foot of the Little S. Bernard, was in their hands; for Aosta itself and the whole land as far as Castiglione on the Dora Baltea belonged to them. Across the Graian Alps, their possession of the extreme outposts of the Italian border, Susa and Turin, gave them the title of “Marquises of Italy,”[630] and the command of the great highway between Italy and southern Gaul by the valley of the Durance and through the gap which parts the Cottian from the Maritime Alps beneath the foot of the Mont Genèvre; while yet further south, on either side of the Maritime Alps where they curve eastward towards the Gulf of Genoa, Chiusa, Rochetta and Aspromonte all formed part of their territories.[631] In one word, they held the keys of every pass between Italy and north-western Europe, from the Great S. Bernard to the Col di Tenda. Nominally subject to the Emperor in his character of king of Burgundy, they really possessed the control over his most direct lines of communication with his Imperial capital; while the intercourse of western Europe with Rome lay almost wholly at their mercy;[632] and far away at the opposite extremity of Aquitania the present count Humbert of Maurienne seems to have claimed, though he did not actually hold, one of the keys of another great mountain-barrier, in the Pyrenean county of Roussillon on the Spanish March.[633]

[630] “Comes Maurianensis et Marchio Italiæ” is Count Humbert’s style in the marriage-contract of his daughter with John: _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 36.

[631] All these places are named in the marriage-contract of John and Alice of Maurienne; _Gesta Hen._ (as above), pp. 36–40.

[632] As says Rob. Torigni, a. 1171: “Nec aliquis potest adire Italiam, nisi per terram ipsius” [sc. comitis].

[633] _Gesta Hen._ (as above), p. 37. Humbert “concedit eis” [_i.e._ to John and Alice, in case he himself should have a son who must oust them from Maurienne] “in perpetuum et hæredibus eorum Russillun cum toto mandato suo sive pertinentiis suis omnibus,” as if he actually had it in his own hands. I have however failed to discover any connexion between Roussillon and Maurienne.

In 1171[634] Henry’s diplomatic relations with the Alpine princes bore fruit in a proposal from Humbert of Maurienne for the marriage of his eldest daughter with the king’s youngest son. Humbert himself had no son, and by the terms of the marriage-contract his territories, Alpine and Pyrenean, were to be settled upon his daughter and her future husband,[635] in return for five thousand marks of English silver.[636] The contract was signed and ratified before Christmas 1172,[637] and soon afterwards Henry summoned his eldest son to join him in a journey into Auvergne for a personal meeting with Humbert. They reached Montferrand before Candlemas, and were there met not only by Humbert and his daughter but also by the count of Vienne,[638] the count of Toulouse and the king of Aragon.[639] How high the English king’s influence had now risen in these southern lands may be judged by the fact that not only King Alfonso of Aragon, a son of his old ally Raymond-Berengar, but also his former enemy Raymond of Toulouse, could agree to choose him as arbiter in a quarrel between themselves.[640] Raymond in truth saw in Henry’s alliances with Aragon and Maurienne a death-blow to his own hopes of maintaining the independence of Toulouse. Hemmed in alike to south and east by close allies of the English king whose own duchy of Aquitaine surrounded almost the whole of its north-western border, the house of St.-Gilles felt that it was no longer possible to resist his claim to overlordship over its territories. Henry carried his guests back with him to Limoges; there he settled the dispute between Raymond and Alfonso; and there Raymond did homage to the two Henrys for Toulouse,[641] promising to do the like at Whitsuntide to Richard as duke of Aquitaine, and pledging himself to military service and yearly tribute.[642]

[634] Rob. Torigni _ad ann._

[635] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 36–40.

[636] _Ib._ p. 36.

[637] Rog. Howden (Stubbs, vol. ii. p. 44), in copying from the _Gesta Hen._ (as above, p. 40) an account of the ratification of the contract, heads the paragraph “De adventu nunciorum comitis Mauriensis _in Angliam_.” If he is right, it must have taken place in April; but he may mean only “to the king of England.”

[638] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 353.

[639] _Ibid._ _Gesta Hen._ (as above), pp. 35, 36.

[640] This seems to be the meaning of _Gesta Hen._ (as above), p. 36: “Venerunt etiam illuc ad regem rex Arragoniæ et comes de S. Ægidio, qui inimici erant ad invicem, et rex duxit eos secum usque Limoges, et ibi pacem fecit inter eos.”

[641] _Ibid._ Rog. Howden (as above), p. 45. R. Diceto, as above, says only “fecit homagium regi Anglorum Henrico patri regis Henrici.” Geoff. Vigeois, l. i. c. 67 (Labbe, _Nova Biblioth._, vol. ii. p. 319), gives the date, the first Sunday in Lent, February 25.

[642] _Gesta Hen._ as above. “Sed quia Ricardus dux Aquitaniæ, cui facturus esset homagium comes S. Egidii, præsens non erat, usque ad octavas Pentecostes negotii complementum dilationem accepit,” says R. Diceto (Stubbs, vol. i. pp. 353, 354). The _Gesta_ and Rog. Howden make Raymond do homage to the two Henrys and to Richard all at once. They alone give full details of the services promised.

The infant heiress of Maurienne was now placed under the care of her intended father-in-law;[643] Henry’s political schemes seemed to have all but reached their fulfilment, when suddenly Count Humbert asked what provision Henry intended to make for the little landless bridegroom to whom he himself was giving such a well-dowered bride.[644] That question stirred up a trouble which was never again to be laid wholly to rest till the child who was its as yet innocent cause had broken his father’s heart. Henry proposed to endow John with the castles and territories of Chinon, Loudun and Mirebeau.[645] But the Angevin lands, with which the younger Henry had been formally invested, could not be dismembered without his consent; and this he angrily refused.[646] The mere request, however, kindled his smouldering discontent into a flame[647] which seems to have been fanned rather than quenched by the suggestions of Eleanor; yet so blind was the indulgent father that, if we may venture to believe the tale, nothing but a warning from Raymond of Toulouse opened his eyes to the danger which threatened him from the plots of his own wife and children. Then, by Raymond’s advice, he started off at once with a small escort, under pretence of a hunting-party,[648] and carried his son back towards Normandy with the utmost possible speed. They reached Chinon about Mid-Lent; thence young Henry slipped away secretly by night to Alençon; his father flew after him, but when he reached Alençon on the next evening the son was already at Argentan; and thence before cock-crow he fled again over the French border, to the court of his father-in-law King Louis.[649] Henry in vain sent messengers to recall him: “Your master is king no longer--here stands the king of the English!” was the reply of Louis to the envoys.[650]

[643] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 36.

[644] _Ib._ p. 41.

[645] _Ibid._ Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 242, turns these into “tria castella in Normanniâ.”

[646] _Ibid._

[647] According to Rob. Torigni, a. 1173, the young king was further offended because his father removed from him some of his favourite counsellors and friends, Hasculf of St. Hilaire and some other young knights.

[648] Geoff. Vigeois, l. i. c. 67 (Labbe, _Nova Biblioth._, vol. ii. p. 319).

[649] _Gesta Hen._ (as above), pp. 41, 42. R. Diceto (as above), p. 355. The chronology is here in great confusion. The _Gesta_ tell us that the two kings reached Chinon just before Mid-Lent (which in 1173 was on March 16), that young Henry was next day at Alençon, the day after that at Argentan, and that on the third night, “circa gallicantum,” he went off again, “octavâ Idus Martii, feriâ quintâ ante mediam Quadragesimam.” (In the printed edition by Bishop Stubbs--vol. i. p. 42--the word _mediam_ has been accidentally omitted; see note to his edition of R. Diceto, vol. ii. pref. p. xxxvi, note 6). It is of course impossible to make anything of such a contradiction as this. On the other hand, R. Diceto gives only one date, that of the young king’s flight from Argentan, which he places on March 23. Now in 1173 March 23 was the Friday after Mid-Lent Sunday. Reckoning backwards from this--_i.e._ from the night of Thursday-Friday, March 22–23, for it is plain that the flight took place before daybreak--we should find the young king at Alençon on Wednesday, March 21, and at Chinon on Tuesday, March 20; that is, four days after Mid-Lent. It looks very much as if the author or the scribe of the _Gesta_ had written “ante” instead of “post” twice over.

[650] Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 27 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 170).

Henry at once made a circuit of his Norman fortresses, especially those which lay along the French border, put them in a state of defence, and issued orders to all his castellans in Anjou, Britanny, Aquitaine and England, to do the like.[651] Before Lent had closed the old prophecy which Henry’s enemies were never weary of casting in his teeth was fulfilled: his own “lion-cubs” were all openly seeking to make him their prey.[652] Whether sent by their mother, with whom they had been left behind in Aquitaine, or secretly fetched by their eldest brother in person,[653] both Richard and Geoffrey now joined him at the French court.[654] Eleanor herself was caught trying to follow them disguised as a man, and was by her husband’s order placed in strict confinement.[655] Louis meanwhile openly espoused the cause of the rebels; in a great council at Paris he and his nobles publicly swore to help the young king and his brothers against their father to the utmost of their power, while the three brothers on their part pledged themselves to be faithful to Louis, and to make no terms with their father save through his mediation and with his consent.[656] Young Henry at once began to purchase allies among the French feudataries and supporters among the English and Norman barons, by making grants of pensions and territories on both sides of the sea: grants for which the recipients did him homage and fealty,[657] and which he caused to be put in writing and sealed with a new seal made for him by order of Louis[658]--his own chancellor, Richard Barre, having loyally carried back the original one to the elder king who had first intrusted it to his keeping.[659]

[651] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 42.

[652] See the quotation from Merlin’s prophecy, and the comment on it, _ib._ pp. 42, 43.

[653] The first is the version of the _Gesta Hen._ (as above); the second that of Will. Newb. (as above, pp. 170, 171).

[654] _Gesta Hen._ (as above), p. 42. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 355. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 242.

[655] Gerv. Cant. as above. He adds a comment: “Erat enim prudens femina valde, nobilibus orta natalibus, sed instabilis.”

[656] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 44.

[657] See the list, _ib._ pp. 44, 45; and cf. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 243.

[658] _Gesta Hen._ (as above), pp. 43 and 45.

[659] _Ib._ p. 43.

Nearly three months passed away before war actually broke out; but when the outburst came, the list of those who were engaged in it shews that the whole Angevin empire had become a vast hotbed of treason; though, on the other hand, it shews also that the treason was almost entirely confined to one especial class. Its local distribution, too, is significant. The restless barons of Aquitaine, still smarting under their defeat of 1169, were but too eager, at the instigation of their duchess and their newly-crowned duke, to renew their struggle against the king. Foremost among them were, as before, the count of Angoulême,[660] the nobles of Saintonge, and Geoffrey of Lusignan, beside whom there stood this time his young brother Guy, now to begin in this ignoble strife a career destined to strange vicissitudes in far-off Palestine.[661] The heart of the old Angevin lands, Anjou itself, was in the main loyal; we find there the names of only five traitors; and three of these, Hugh, William and Jocelyn of Ste.-Maure, came of a rebellious house, and were only doing over again what their predecessors had done in the days of Geoffrey Plantagenet’s youth.[662] The same may be said of Henry’s native land, Maine; this too furnished only seven barons to the traitor’s cause; and five of these again are easily accounted for. It was almost matter of course that in any rising against an Angevin count the lord of Sablé should stand side by side with the lord of Ste.-Maure. Brachard of Lavardin had a fellow-feeling with undutiful sons, for he was himself at strife with his own father, Count John of Vendôme, a faithful ally of Henry II.; the same was probably the case of Brachard’s brother Guy.[663] Bernard of La Ferté represented a family whose position in their great castle on the Huisne, close to the Norman border, was almost as independent as that of their neighbours the lords of Bellême, just across the frontier. Hugh of Sillé bore a name which in an earlier stage of Cenomannian history--in the days of the “commune,” just a hundred years before--had been almost a by-word for feudal arrogance; and whether or not he inherited anything of his ancestor’s spirit, he had a personal cause for enmity to the king if, as is probable, he was akin to a certain Robert of Sillé, whose share in the southern revolt of 1169 was punished by Henry, in defiance of treaties, with an imprisonment so strict and cruel that it was speedily ended by death.[664]

[660] _Ib._ p. 47.

[661] _Ib._ p. 46. The other Aquitanian rebels, besides the count of Angoulême and the two Lusignans, were Geoffrey of Rancogne, the lords of Coulonges and Rochefort in Saintonge, of Blaye (“Robertus de Ble”--this might possibly be Blet in Berry) and Mauléon in Gascony, and of Chauvigny in Poitou, with Archbishop William of Bordeaux and Abbot Richard of Tournay (_ib._ pp. 46, 47); to whom we may add Ralf of Faye.

[662] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 46, 47. The other Angevin rebels are Vivian and Peter of Montrévault: to whom may be added John of Lignières and Geoffrey of La Haye in Touraine. _Ibid._ p. 46.

[663] _Ib._ pp. 47, 63.

[664] “Robertum de Selit quâdam occasione captum rex Henricus crudeliter ferro indutum, pane arcto atque aquâ breve cibavit donec defecit.” Geoff. Vigeois, l. i. c. 66 (Labbe, _Nova Biblioth._, vol. ii. p. 318). “Robertus de Silliaco redeat in mentem ... quem nec pacis osculum publice datum, nec fides corporaliter regi Francorum præstita, fecit esse securum.” Ep. dcx., Robertson, _Becket_, vol. vii. p. 178. Cf. Epp. dcvi., dcxliv., _ib._ pp. 165, 247. The other Cenomannian rebels are Gwenis of Palluau and Geoffrey of Brulon; _Gesta Hen._ (as above), p. 46.

Across the western border of Maine, in Geoffrey’s duchy, Ralf of Fougères was once more at the head of a band of discontented Breton nobles, chiefly, it seems, belonging to that old seed-plot of disturbance, the county of Nantes.[665] The true centre and focus of revolt, however, was as of old the duchy of Normandy. Almost all the great names which have been conspicuous in the earlier risings of the feudal baronage against the repressive policy of William and of Henry I. re-appear among the partizans of the young king. The house of Montfort on the Rille was represented by that Robert of Montfort[666] whose challenge to Henry of Essex ten years before had deprived the king of one of his most trusty servants. The other and more famous house of Montfort--the house of Almeric and of Bertrada--was also, now as ever, in opposition in the person of its head, Count Simon of Evreux.[667] He, like his fellow-traitor the count of Eu,[668] to whom, as after-events shewed, may be added the count of Aumale, represented one of those junior branches of the Norman ducal house which always resented most bitterly the determination of the dukes to concentrate all political power in their own hands. The counts of Ponthieu[669] and of Alençon[670] inherited the spirit as well as the territories of Robert of Bellême. Count Robert of Meulan[671] was the son of Waleran who in 1123 had rebelled against Henry I., and the head of the Norman branch of the great house of Beaumont, which for more than half a century had stood in the foremost rank of the baronage on both sides of the sea. The chief of the English Beaumonts was his cousin and namesake of Leicester, soon to prove himself an unworthy son of the faithful justiciar who had died in 1168; while the countess of Leicester, a woman of a spirit quite as determined and masculine as her husband’s, was the heiress of the proud old Norman house of Grandmesnil[672]--a granddaughter of that Ivo of Grandmesnil who had been banished by Henry I. for trying to bring into England the Norman practice of private warfare. Of the other English rebels, Hugh of Chester[673] was a son of the fickle Ralf, and had at stake besides his palatine earldom in England his hereditary viscounties of Bayeux and Avranches on the other side of the Channel. Hugh Bigod, the aged earl of Norfolk, untaught by his experiences of feudal anarchy in Stephen’s day and undeterred by his humiliation in 1157, was ready to break his faith again for a paltry bribe offered him by the young king.[674] Earl Robert of Ferrers, Hamo de Massey, Richard de Morville, and the whole remnant of the great race of Mowbray--Geoffrey of Coutances, Roger de Mowbray and his two sons--were all men whose grandfathers had “come over with the Conqueror,” and determined to fight to the uttermost for their share in the spoils of the conquest. All these men were, by training and sympathy, if not actually by their own personal and territorial interests, more Norman than English; and the same may probably be said of the rebels of the second rank, among whom, beside the purely Norman lords of Anneville and Lessay in the Cotentin, of St.-Hilaire on the Breton frontier, of Falaise, Dives, La Haye and Orbec in Calvados, of Tillières, Ivry and Gaillon along the French border, we find the names of Ralf of Chesney, Gerald Talbot, Jordan Ridel, Thomas de Muschamp, Saher de Quincy the younger, Simon of Marsh, Geoffrey Fitz-Hamon, and Jocelyn Crispin, besides one which in after-days was to gain far other renown--William the Marshal.[675]

[665] Hardwin of Fougerai, Robert of Tréguier, Gwiounon of Ancenis, Joibert of La Guerche; _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 46, 47. To these we afterwards find added several others; _ib._ pp. 57, 58.

[666] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 45.

[667] _Ib._ p. 47.

[668] _Ib._ p. 45.

[669] _Ibid._

[670] Called simply “William Talvas” in the _Gesta Hen._ (as above), p. 46, and “John count of Sonnois” by R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 371. John was his real name.

[671] _Gesta Hen._ and R. Diceto, as above.

[672] Rob. Torigni, a. 1168.

[673] R. Diceto, as above.

[674] Young Henry promised him, and received his homage for, the hereditary constableship of Norwich castle; _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 45. This writer adds the honour of Eye; Rog. Howden, however (Stubbs, vol. ii. p. 46), says this was granted to Matthew of Boulogne.

[675] All these names are given in the list of the young king’s partizans in _Gesta Hen._ (as above), pp. 45–48. The remaining names are: William de Tancarville the chamberlain of Normandy, of whom more presently; Eudo, William, Robert, Oliver and Roland Fitz-Erneis (see _Liber Niger_, Hearne, pp. 142, 295, and Eyton, _Itin. Hen. II._, pp. 186 and 251); Robert of Angerville (he seems to have been the young king’s steward or seneschal--see quotations from Pipe Roll a. 1172 in Eyton, as above, pp. 166, 167, 168); Solomon Hostiarius (probably also an attendant of young Henry); Gilbert and Ralf of Aumale: “Willelmus Patricius senior” (he appears in Pipe Rolls 3 Hen. II., Hunter, p. 81, 4 Hen. II., p. 118--Berks and Wilts); William Fitz-Roger (Pipe Roll 4 Hen. II., p. 172, Hants); Robert “de Lundres” (is this some mighty London citizen?); Peter of St.-Julien (may be either St.-Julien in Gascony, in eastern Touraine, or in the county of Nantes); Hugh “de Mota” (La Mothe on the lower Garonne, La Motte Archard in the county of Nantes, or La Motte de Ger in Normandy); Robert of Mortagne (possibly the Norman Mortagne, possibly a place of the same name in Anjou close to the Poitevin border); William of “Tibovilla” (probably Thiberville in the county and diocese of Lisieux); John and Osbert “de Praellis” (possibly Pradelles in Auvergne, more likely Préaux in Normandy); Almeric Turel, Robert Bussun, Guy of Curtiran, Fulk Ribule, Adam de Ikobo, Robert Gerebert, William Hagullun, Baldric of Baudemont, Geoffrey Chouet, “Bucherius,” and William de Oveneia, whom I cannot identify.

One other rebel there was who stood indeed on a different footing from all the rest, and whose defection had a wider political significance. The king of Scots--William the Lion, brother and successor of Malcolm IV.--had long been suspected of a secret alliance with France against his English cousin and overlord. The younger Henry now offered him the cession of all Northumberland as far as the Tyne for himself, and for his brother David confirmation in the earldom of Huntingdon,[676] with a grant of the earldom of Cambridge in addition, in return for the homage and services of both brothers:--offers which the king of Scots accepted.[677] Only three prelates, on either side of the sea, shewed any disposition to countenance the rebellion; in the south, William, the new-made archbishop of Bordeaux;[678] in the north, Arnulf of Lisieux[679] and Hugh of Durham. Arnulf’s influence at court had long been on the wane; all his diplomacy had failed, as far as his personal interest with King Henry was concerned; but he possessed the temporal as well as the spiritual lordship of his see; and the man’s true character now shewed itself at last, justifying all Henry’s suspicions, in an attempt to play the part of a great baron rather than of a bishop--to use his diplomatic gifts in temporizing between the two parties, instead of seeking to make peace between them or to keep his straying flock in the path of loyalty as a true pastor should. He did but imitate on a smaller scale and under less favourable conditions the example set by Hugh of Puiset in his palatine bishopric of Durham, where he had been throughout his career simply a great temporal ruler, whose ecclesiastical character only served to render almost unassailable the independence of his political position. It was the pride of the feudal noble, not the personal sympathies of the churchman, that stirred up both Hugh and Arnulf to their intrigues against Henry. Personal sympathies indeed had as yet little share in drawing any of the barons to the side of the boy-king. What they saw in his claims was simply a pretext and a watchword which might serve them to unite against his father. Young Henry himself evidently relied chiefly on his foreign allies--his father-in-law, the counts of Flanders and Boulogne, and the count of Blois, the last of whom was bribed by a promise of an annual pension and the restitution of Château-Renaud and Amboise; while to Philip of Flanders was promised the earldom of Kent with a pension in English gold, and to Matthew of Boulogne the soke of Kirton-in-Lindsey and the Norman county of Mortain.[680]

[676] To which, as will be seen later, there was a rival claimant who adhered to Henry II.

[677] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 45. Jordan Fantosme, vv. 268, 269 (Michel, p. 14) adds Carlisle and Westmoreland to the young king’s offers, and relates at great length how William hesitated before accepting them, how he sent envoys to the elder king begging for a new cession of Northumberland from him, and only upon Henry’s defiant refusal, and after long debate with his own barons, entered upon the war. _Ib._ vv. 372–426 (pp. 14–22).

[678] “Willelmus archiepiscopus.” _Gesta Hen._ (as above), p. 47. This can be no one else than William, formerly abbot of Reading, appointed to Bordeaux in February 1173; Geoff. Vigeois, l. i. c. 67 (Labbe, _Nova Biblioth._, vol. ii. p. 319); but I find no further account of his political doings.

[679] _Gesta Hen._ (as above), p. 51, note 4.

[680] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 44, 45. Roger of Howden, as has been said above (p. 139, note 1), adds the honour of Eye to Matthew’s intended possessions.

The first hostile movement was made directly after Easter by a body of Flemings who crossed the Seine at Pacy; but they had no sooner touched Norman soil than they were driven back by the people of the town, and were nearly all drowned in attempting to recross the river.[681] Henry meanwhile, after spending Easter at Alençon,[682] had established his head-quarters at Rouen, where he remained till the end of June, apparently indifferent to the plots that were hatching around him, and entirely absorbed in the pleasures of the chase.[683] In reality however he was transacting a good deal of quiet business, filling up vacant sees in England;[684] appointing a new chancellor, Ralf of Varneville, to the office which had been in commission--that is, virtually, in the hands of Geoffrey Ridel--ever since S. Thomas had resigned it ten years before;[685] and writing to all his continental allies to enlist their sympathies and if possible their support in the coming struggle.[686] One of them at least, his future son-in-law William of Sicily, returned an answer full of hearty sympathy;[687] neither he nor his fellow-kings, however, had anything more substantial to give. The only support upon which Henry could really depend was that of a troop of twenty thousand Brabantine mercenaries, who served him indeed bravely and loyally, but by no means for nothing;[688] and if we may trust a writer who, although remote from the present scene of action, seems to have had a more intimate acquaintance than most of his fellow-historians with all matters connected with the Brabantines, Henry’s finances were already so exhausted that he was obliged to give the sword of state used at his coronation in pledge to these men as security for the wages which he was unable to pay them.[689] Yet he could trust no one else in Normandy; and as yet he scarcely knew his own resources in England.

[681] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 367. He says they were drowned because the bridge was “a quâdam mulierculâ effractus.”

[682] _Gesta Hen._ (as above), p. 45.

[683] “Rex pater eo tempore morabatur Rothomagi, ut populo videbatur æquo animo ferens quæ fiebant in terrâ; frequentius solito venatui totus indulgens” [see extracts from Pipe Roll 1173 illustrating this, in Eyton, _Itin. Hen. II._, p. 173]; “venientibus ad se vultum hylaritatis prætendens, aliquid extorquere volentibus patienter respondens.” R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 373, 374. Cf. Jordan Fantosme, vv. 118, 119 (Michel, p. 6).

[684] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 366–368. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 243, 245.

[685] R. Diceto (as above), p. 367.

[686] Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 47. He says Henry wrote “_imperatoribus_ et regibus,” which we must take to include the Eastern Emperor.

[687] Letter in _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 55, note 2; Rog. Howden (as above), p. 48.

[688] Rog. Howden (as above), p. 47. Cf. Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 27 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 172). The latter does not mention their number; Jordan Fantosme, v. 67 (Michel, p. 4) makes it only ten thousand; the _Gesta Hen._ (as above), p. 51, says “plus quam decem millia.”

[689] I suppose this to be the meaning of Geoff. Vigeois, l. i. c. 67 (Labbe, _Nova Biblioth._, vol. ii. p. 319): “Adeo Rex multis thesauris exhaustis nauseatus est, ut Brabantionibus qui ei parebant pro mercede Spatham regiæ coronæ in gagium mitteret.”

Early in June Robert of Leicester and William of Tancarville, the high-chamberlain of Normandy, sought license from the justiciars in London to join the king at Rouen. Immediately on landing, however, they hastened not to Henry II., but to his son.[690] The justiciar himself, Richard de Lucy, was in such anxiety that he seems to have had some thoughts of going in person to consult with the king.[691] The consultation however was to be held not in Normandy but in England. In the last days of June or the first days of July, while the counts of Flanders and Boulogne were easily overcoming the mock resistance of Aumale and Driencourt, and Louis of France was laying siege to Verneuil,[692] Henry suddenly crossed the sea, made his way as far inland as Northampton, where he stayed four days, collected his treasure and his adherents, issued his instructions for action against the rebels, and was back again at Rouen so quickly that neither friends nor foes seem ever to have discovered his absence.[693]

[690] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 370. He gives no date; but it must have been quite in the beginning of June, for Mr. Eyton says (_Itin. Hen. II._, p. 172, note 5): “The Dorset Pipe Roll of Michaelmas 1173 shews that the Earl of Leicester’s manor of Kingston (now Kingston Lacy) had been confiscated four months previously (Hutchins, iii. 233).”

[691] “Et in liberacione ix navium quæ debuerunt transfretare cum Ricardo de Luci, et Ricardo Pictaviæ archidiacono, et Gaufrido Cantuariensi archidiacono et aliis baronibus, precepto Regis £13: 15s. per breve Ricardi de Luci.” Pipe Roll a. 1173 (Southampton), quoted by Eyton, _Itin. Hen. II._, p. 174. See Mr. Eyton’s comment, _ib._ note 4, which points to the conclusion that the ships made the voyage--doubtless with the other passengers--but that Richard “probably thought it wise to adhere to his post of viceroy.”

[692] R. Diceto (as above), pp. 373, 374. _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 49. Rob. Torigni, a. 1173.

[693] “Et item in liberacione Esnaccæ quando transfretavit in Normanniam contra Regem £7: 10s. per breve Regis. Et in liberacione xx. hominum qui fuerunt missi de cremento in Esnacchâ 40s. per breve Regis. Et in liberacione iv. navium quæ transfretaverunt cum Esnacchiâ £7: 10s. per idem breve. Et pro locandis carretis ad reportandum thesaurum de Hantoniâ ad Wintoniam duabus vicibus 9s. Et pro unâ carretâ locandâ ad portandas Bulgas Regis ad Winton. 9d.” Pipe Roll a. 1173 (Southampton), quoted in Eyton, _Itin. Hen. II._, p. 173. “Et in corredio Regis apud Norhanton per iv dies £32: 6: 5 per breve Regis.” Northampton, _ibid._ “Et in soltis per breve Regis ipsi vicecomiti [of Northamptonshire] £72: 11: 9, pro robbâ quam invenit Regi.” _Ibid._ On the Southampton entries Mr. Eyton remarks: “The above charges, from their position on the roll, would seem to have been incurred after July 15.” But surely if Henry had been in England during the siege of Leicester, which lasted from July 3 to July 28, we must have had some mention of his presence; and there is scarcely time for it later, between the capture of Leicester and his own expedition to Conches on August 7. Is it not much more natural to conclude that the visit took place earlier--at the end of June--and that the orders for the Leicester expedition, which Rog. Wend. (Coxe, vol. ii. p. 372) expressly says were given by the king, were issued to Richard de Lucy in a personal interview?

Hurried, however, as was the king’s visit to England, it did its work in bracing up the energies and determining the action of the vassals who were faithful to him there. In personal and territorial importance indeed these were very unequally matched with the rebels. The fidelity of the Welsh princes, David Ap-Owen and Rees Ap-Griffith,[694] could not balance the hostility of the King of Scots. Among the loyal English barons, the most conspicuous were a group of the king’s immediate kinsmen, none of whom however ranked high among the descendants of the ducal house of Normandy:--his half-brother Earl Hameline of Warren, his uncle Reginald of Cornwall, his cousin William of Gloucester;[695] besides Earl William of Arundel the husband of his grandfather’s widow Queen Adeliza, his son William, and his kinsman Richard of Aubigny. The earl of Essex, William de Mandeville, was a son of that Geoffrey de Mandeville who had accepted the earldom of Essex from both Stephen and Matilda, and who had been one of the worst evil-doers in the civil war; but the son was as loyal as the father was faithless; he seems indeed to have been a close personal friend of the king, and to have well deserved his friendship.[696] The loyalty of Earl Simon of Northampton may have been quickened by his rivalry with David of Scotland for the earldom of Huntingdon. That of William of Salisbury was an inheritance from his father, Earl Patrick, who had earned his title by his services to the Empress, and had fallen honourably at his post of governor of Aquitaine in the rising of 1168. The loyal barons of lesser degree are chiefly representatives of the class which half a century before had been known as the “new men”--men who had risen by virtue of their services in the work of the administration, either under Henry himself or under his grandfather. Such were the justiciar Richard de Lucy and the constable Humfrey de Bohun; William de Vesci, son of Eustace Fitz-John, and like his father a mighty man in the north; his nephew John, constable of Chester;--the whole house of Stuteville, with Robert de Stuteville the sheriff of Yorkshire at its head;[697]--and Ralf de Glanville,[698] sheriff of Lancashire, custodian of the honour of Richmond,[699] and destined in a few years to wider fame as the worthy successor of Richard de Lucy. The Glanvilles, the Stutevilles and the de Vescis now wielded in Yorkshire as the king’s representatives the influence which had been usurped there by William of Aumale before his expulsion from Holderness; while in Northumberland a considerable share of the power formerly exercised by the rebellious house of Mowbray had passed to servants of the Crown such as Odelin de Umfraville[700] and Bernard de Bailleul,[701] whose name in its English form of Balliol became in after-times closely associated with that borne by two other loyal northern barons--Robert and Adam de Bruce.[702] To the same class of “new men” belonged Geoffrey Trussebut, Everard de Ros, Guy de Vere, Bertram de Verdon, Philip de Kime and his brother Simon.[703]

[694] In _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 51, note 4, the names are given as “David et Evayn reges Walliæ”--a blunder probably caused by the writer’s greater familiarity with David, owing to his later family alliance with the English king. In the present war, however, Rees proved the more active ally of the two, as we shall see later.

[695] It will however appear later that Gloucester’s fidelity was somewhat doubtful.

[696] William de Mandeville is constantly found, throughout his life, in the king’s immediate company. See Eyton, _Itin. Hen. II. passim._

[697] All these names are in the list in the _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 51, note 4.

[698] _Ib._ p. 65. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 60. Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 33 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 184).

[699] Escheated on the death of Duke Conan of Britanny.

[700] _Gesta Hen._ as above, pp. 51, note 4, 66.

[701] _Ib._ pp. 65, 66. Will. Newb. as above.

[702] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 51, note 4.

[703] _Ibid._ The Trussebuts, de Roses and de Veres appear under Henry I. Bertram de Verdon and Philip de Kime were employed in the Curia Regis and Exchequer under Henry II.; see Eyton, _Itin. Hen. II._, pp. 185, 76, 130, etc. Another name among the loyalists in the _Gesta Hen._ (as above)--that of Richard Louvetot--seems to have got in by mistake; cf. _ib._ p. 57, where he appears among the rebels at Dol.

Some half-dozen of the king’s English adherents--William of Essex, William of Arundel, Robert de Stuteville and the elder Saher de Quincy, besides two who had lately come over from Ireland, Richard of Striguil and Hugh de Lacy--either returned with him to Rouen or had joined him there already,[704] thus helping to swell the little group of loyalists who surrounded him in Normandy. That group contained no Norman baron of the first rank, and consisted only of a few personal friends and ministers:--Richard of Hommet the constable of the duchy, with all his sons and brothers;[705] William de Courcy the seneschal;[706] Richard Fitz-Count, the king’s cousin;[707] Hugh de Beauchamp[708] and Henry of Neubourg,[709] sons of the loyal house of Beauchamp which in England looked to the earl of Warwick as its head; Richard de Vernon and Jordan Tesson;[710]--while two faithful members of the older Norman nobility, Hugh of Gournay and his son, had already fallen prisoners into the hands of the young king.[711] It was in truth Henry’s continental dominions which most needed his presence and that of all the forces which he could muster; for the two chief English rebels, the earls of Leicester and Chester, were both beyond the Channel, and their absence enabled the king’s representatives to strike the first blow before the revolt had time to break forth in England at all. On July 3 the town of Leicester was besieged by Richard de Lucy and Earl Reginald of Cornwall at the head of “the host of England.”[712] After a three weeks’ siege and a vast expenditure of money and labour,[713] the town was fired, and on July 28 it surrendered.[714] The castle still held out, its garrison accepting a truce until Michaelmas; the gates and walls of the city were at once thrown down; the citizens were suffered to go out free on payment of a fine of three hundred marks;[715] but it was only by taking sanctuary in the great abbeys of S. Alban or S. Edmund that their leaders could feel secure against the vengeance of the king.[716]

[704] Essex and Arundel had both been with him since the very beginning of the year, for they witnessed the marriage-contract of John and Alice of Maurienne; _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 39. Robert de Stuteville and Saher de Quincy seem to have been with him in the summer of 1173 (Eyton, _Itin. Hen. II._, p. 174). Hugh de Lacy was at Verneuil, defending it for the king in July (_Gesta Hen._, vol. i. p. 49); and Richard of Striguil was of the party which went to its relief in August (R. Diceto, Stubbs, vol. i. p. 375).

[705] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 51, note 4.

[706] _Ib._ p. 39. Cf. Eyton, _Itin. Hen. II._, pp. 170, 177.

[707] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 51.

[708] _Ib._ p. 49.

[709] _Ib._ p. 52.

[710] _Ib._ pp. 51, 52.

[711] Hugh of Gournay and his son, with eighty knights, fell into the young king’s hands, “non tam inimicorum virtuti quam insidiis intercepti,” quite early in the war; R. Diceto (as above), p. 369.

[712] “Cum exercitu Angliæ,” _i.e._ the national not the feudal host. _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 58. The date comes from R. Diceto (as above), p. 376.

[713] See some illustrations in the Pipe Roll of 1173, as quoted by Eyton (as above), p. 175.

[714] R. Diceto (as above), p. 376. He seems to make the fire accidental, and the surrender a consequence of it. In the _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 58, the victors seem to fire the town after they have captured it.

[715] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 376.

[716] Mat. Paris, _Chron. Maj._ (Luard), vol. ii. p. 289.

Three days before the capture of Leicester, an arrow shot by one of Henry’s Brabantine cross-bowmen gave Matthew of Boulogne his death-wound, and thereby caused the break-up of the Flemish expedition against Normandy.[717] A fortnight later Henry set out at the head of all his available forces to the relief of Verneuil, which Hugh de Lacy and Hugh de Beauchamp were defending against the king of France. By a double treachery Louis, under cover of a truce, gained possession of the town, set it on fire, and retreated into his own domains before Henry could overtake him.[718] Henry marched back to Rouen, taking Gilbert of Tillières’s castle of Damville on the way,[719] and thence despatched his Brabantines to check the plundering operations which Hugh of Chester and Ralf of Fougères were carrying on unhindered throughout the border district which lay between Fougères and Avranches. The interception of an important convoy and the slaughter of its escort by the Brabantines drove the rebel leaders to retire into the fortress of Dol. Here they were blockaded by the Brabantines, backed by the populace of the district of Avranches,[720] who clearly had no sympathy with the treason of their viscount. The siege began on August 20; on the morrow Henry received tidings of it at Rouen; on the 23d he appeared in the midst of his soldiers; and on the 26th Dol and its garrison, with Ralf of Fougères and Hugh of Chester at their head, surrendered into his hands.[721] This blow crushed the Breton revolt; the rest of the duchy submitted at once.[722] Louis of France was so impressed by Henry’s success that he began to make overtures for negotiation, while Henry was holding his court in triumph at Le Mans. Shortly before Michaelmas a meeting took place near Gisors; Henry shewed the utmost anxiety to be reconciled with his sons, offering them literally the half of his realms in wealth and honours, and declaring his willingness virtually to strip himself of everything except his regal powers of government and justice.[723] That, however, was precisely the reservation against which the French king and the disaffected barons were both alike determined to fight as Henry himself had fought against S. Thomas’s reservation of the rights of his order. The terms were therefore refused, and the earl of Leicester in his baffled rage not only loaded his sovereign with abuse, but actually drew his sword to strike him. This outrage of course broke up the meeting.[724] Leicester hurried through Flanders, collecting troops as he went, to Wissant, whence he sailed for England on Michaelmas day.[725] Landing at Walton in Suffolk, he made his way to Hugh Bigod’s castle of Framlingham; here the two earls joined their forces; and they presently took and burned the castle of Haughley, which Ralf de Broc held against them for the king.[726]

[717] R. Diceto as above, p. 373. He alone gives the date, attributes the wound to a shot “a quodam marchione,” and places the scene on the invaders’ march from Driencourt to Arques. The _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 49, Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 246, and Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 28 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 173) make it occur during the siege of Driencourt (William calls it by its more modern name, “Neufchâtel”), but as the former has told us that this siege began about July 6 and was ended within a fortnight, this is irreconcileable with the date given by R. Diceto. Gervase says Matthew was shot “a quodam arcubalistâ.”

[718] See the details of the story, and the disgraceful conduct of Louis, in _Gesta Hen._ as above, pp. 51–54; Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 50; R. Diceto as above, p. 375; and another version in Will. Newb. as above (pp. 174, 175).

[719] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 56.

[720] Rob. Torigni, a. 1173. “Itaque obsessa est turris Doli a Brebenzonibus et militibus regis et plebe Abrincatinâ.”

[721] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 378; _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 57, 58; Rob. Torigni, a. 1173; Will. Newb. l. ii. c. 29 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 176). The _Gesta Hen._ gives the date, and a list of the captured. According to Rob. Torigni, Ralf of Fougères escaped to the woods, and his two sons were taken as hostages. The Chron. S. Albin. a. 1173 (Marchegay, _Eglises_, p. 42), says he was taken, together with Hugh (whom the Angevin monk transforms into “comitem Sceptrensem”) and a hundred knights.

[722] Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 52.

[723] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 59. Rog. Howden as above, p. 53.

[724] Rog. Howden as above, p. 54.

[725] R. Diceto as above, p. 377. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 246, and _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 60, say he came over about S. Luke’s day; but this is irreconcileable with R. Diceto’s careful and minute chronology of the subsequent campaign. R. Niger (Anstruther), p. 175, says “in vigiliâ S. Mauricii,” _i.e._ September 20.

[726] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 60, 61, with an impossible date; see _ib._ p. 60, note 12. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 246. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 377, gives the correct date of the capture of Haughley, October 13.

[Illustration: Map IV.

Map to Illustrate the REBELLION of 1173–1174.

_Royal Strongholds underlined thus: Alnwick._

Rebel Stronholds: (S) _Scottish_. (H D) _Hugh of Durham_. (M) _Mowbrays_. (H B) _Hugh Bigod_. (H C) _Hugh of Chester_. (H M) _Hamo de Massey_. (R M) _Richard de Morville_. (R L) _Robert of Leicester_. (R F) _Robert of Ferrers_.

Wagner & Debes’ Geogˡ. Estabᵗ. Leipsic. London, Macmillan & Co. ]

At the moment of Leicester’s arrival the representatives of the king were far away on the Scottish border. At the close of the summer William of Scotland had gathered his motley host of Lowland knights and wild Galloway Highlanders, marched unhindered through the territories of the see of Durham, and was just beginning to ravage Yorkshire after the manner of his forefathers when Richard de Lucy and Humfrey de Bohun hastily reassembled their forces and marched against him with such promptitude and vigour that he was compelled to retreat not merely into Lothian but into the safer shelter of the Celtic Scotland beyond it. The English host overran Lothian,[727] and had just given Berwick to the flames when tidings reached them of Earl Robert’s doings in Suffolk. The king of Scots was begging for a truce; the English leaders readily consented, that they might hurry back to their duties in the south.[728] Richard de Lucy returned to his post of viceroy, and the supreme military command was left to the constable Humfrey de Bohun, assisted by the earls of Cornwall and Gloucester and by Earl William of Arundel,[729] who had now come to give the help of his sword in England as he had already given it in Normandy. The constable and the three earls, with three hundred paid soldiers of the king, posted themselves at S. Edmund’s, ready to intercept Earl Robert on his way from Framlingham to join the garrison of Leicester.[730] He made a circuit to the northward to avoid them, but in vain. They marched forth from S. Edmund’s beneath the banner of its patron saint, the famous East-Anglian king and martyr, overtook the earl in a marsh near the church of S. Geneviève at Fornham,[731] and in spite of overwhelming odds defeated him completely. His Flemish mercenaries, who had gone forth in their insolent pride singing “Hop, hop, Wilekin! England is mine and thine,”[732] were cut to pieces not so much by the royal troops as by the peasantry of the district, who flocked to the battle-field armed with forks and flails, with which they either despatched them at once or drove them to suffocation in the ditches.[733] His French and Norman knights were all made prisoners;[734] he himself took to flight, but was overtaken and captured;[735] and his wife, who had accompanied him throughout his enterprise, was made captive with him.[736] The victors followed up their success by posting bodies of troops at S. Edmund’s, Ipswich and Colchester, hoping that Hugh Bigod, thus confined within his own earldom, would be unable to provide for the large force of Flemish mercenaries still quartered in his various castles, and that these would be starved into surrender. The approach of winter however disposed both parties for a compromise; a truce was arranged to last till the octave of Pentecost, Hugh consenting to dismiss his Flemings, who were furnished with a safe-conduct through Essex and Kent and with ships to transport them from Dover back to their own land.[737]

[727] R. Diceto as above, p. 376. Cf. _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 61.

[728] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 61. R. Diceto as above, p. 376. Jordan Fantosme, vv. 478–838 (Michel, pp. 22–38), has a long account of this first Scottish invasion, but it is far from clear, and some parts of it, _e.g._ the statement that Warkworth was taken by the Scots, seem incompatible with after-events.

[729] _Gesta Hen._ as above.

[730] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 377. _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 61. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 54.

[731] _Gesta Hen._ as above. Rog. Howden (as above), p. 55. The date, according to R. Diceto (as above, p. 378) is October 17; the _Gesta_ (as above, p. 62) make it October 16.

[732] Mat. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ (Madden), vol. i. p. 381. “Hoppe, hoppe, Wilekin, hoppe, Wilekin, Engelond is min ant tin.”

[733] Jordan Fantosme, vv. 1086–1091 (Michel, p. 50).

[734] R. Diceto as above, pp. 377, 378. _Gesta Hen._ as above, pp. 61, 62. Rog. Howden as above, p. 55. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 246. Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 30 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 179). The number of Robert’s Flemish troops is surely exaggerated by all these writers; still, even at the lowest computation, the odds seem to have been, as R. Diceto says, at least four to one.

[735] Gerv. Cant. as above.

[736] Will. Newb. as above. R. Diceto as above, p. 378. She had been with her husband in France, and returned with him to England; _ib._ p. 377. According to Jordan Fantosme, vv. 980–992 (Michel, p. 46), it was she who urged him to the march which led to his ruin, in defiance of his own dread of the royal forces. See also in Jordan, vv. 1070–1077 (Michel, p. 50) the story of her trying to drown herself in a ditch to avoid being captured; and that in Mat. Paris, as above, of her throwing away her ring. This latter seems to be only another version of Jordan’s; cf. his v. 1072.

[737] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 378. He gives the number of these Flemings as fourteen hundred.

The earl and countess of Leicester were sent over to Normandy by the king’s orders, there to be shut up in company with Hugh of Chester in prison at Falaise.[738] Their capture filled the French king and the rebel princes with dismay, and none of them dared to venture upon any opposition against Henry when at Martinmas he led his Brabantines into Touraine, forced some of its rebellious barons into submission,[739] reinstated his ally Count John of Vendôme in his capital from which he had been expelled by his own son,[740] and returned to keep the Christmas feast at Caen.[741] An attack upon Séez, made at the opening of the new year by the young king and the counts of Blois, Perche and Alençon, was repulsed by the townsfolk,[742] and led only to a truce which lasted till the end of March.[743] The truce made by Richard de Lucy with the king of Scots was prolonged to the same date--the octave of Easter--by the diplomacy of Bishop Hugh of Durham, who took upon himself to purchase this delay, apparently without authority and for his own private ends, by a promise of three hundred marks of silver to be paid to the Scot king out of the lands of the Northumbrian barons.[744]

[738] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 62. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 55. See also quotations from Pipe Roll a. 1173 on this matter, in Eyton, _Itin. Hen. II._, p. 177.

[739] _Gesta Hen._ as above, pp. 62, 63. The chief rebels were Geoffrey of La Haye--apparently that same La Haye which had formed part of the dower-lands of the first countess of Anjou, and is known now as La Haye Descartes--and Robert of “Ble” (see above, p. 136, note 6{661}) who held Preuilly and Champigny. A list of the garrisons of these castles is given; two names are worth noting--“Hugo le Danais” and “Rodbertus Anglicus.”

[740] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 63.

[741] _Ibid._ Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 246. According to Rob. Torigni, however (a. 1174--i.e. 1173 in our reckoning) he kept it at Bures.

[742] R. Diceto as above, p. 379.

[743] _Gesta Hen._ as above, pp. 63, 64.

[744] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 64. King and bishop met in person at “Revedale”--or, as Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. pp. 56, 57, says, “in confinio regnorum Angliæ et Scotiæ apud Revedene.”

The issue proved that Hugh’s real object was simply to gain time for the organization of a general rising in the north; and in this object he succeeded. The old isolation of Yorkshire was not yet a thing of the past; and its few lines of communication with southern England were now all blocked, at some point or other, by some stronghold of rebellion. Earl Hugh’s Chester, Hamo de Massey’s Dunham[745] and Geoffrey of Coutances’ Stockport commanded the waters of the Dee and the Mersey. South of the Peak, in the upper valley of the Trent, the earl of Ferrers held Tutbury and Duffield; further to south-east, on the opposite border of Charnwood Forest, lay the earl of Leicester’s capital and his castles of Groby and Mount Sorrel.[746] By the time that the truce expired Roger de Mowbray had renewed the fortifications of Kinardferry in the Isle of Axholm,[747] thus linking this southern chain of castles with those which he already possessed at Kirkby Malzeard, or Malessart, and Thirsk;[748] and Bishop Hugh had done the like at Northallerton.[749] Further north stood the great stronghold of Durham; while all these again were backed, far to the north-westward, by a double belt of fortresses stretching from the mouths of the Forth and the Tweed to that of the Solway:--Lauder, held by Richard de Morville; Stirling, Edinburgh, Berwick, Jedburgh, Roxburgh, Annan and Lochmaben, all in the hands of the king of Scots.[750]

[745] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 48. Hamo de Massey had another castle called Ullerwood; where was this?

[746] _Ibid._

[747] _Ib._ p. 64. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 379.

[748] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 48.

[749] Rog. Howden as above, p. 57.

[750] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 48. Annan and Lochmaben belonged to Robert de Bruce; _ibid._ No doubt William had seized them when Bruce joined Henry.

Between this northern belt of rebel strongholds, however, and the southern one which stretched from Chester to Axholm, there lay along the river-valleys of Cumberland and Northumberland a cluster of royal castles. Nicolas de Stuteville held Liddell, on the river of the same name. Burgh[751] stood on the Solway Firth, nearly opposite Annan; the whole valley of the Eden was guarded by Carlisle, whose castellan was Richard de Vaux,[752] and Appleby, which like Burgh was held by Robert de Stuteville for the king.[753] The course of the Tyne was commanded by Wark, under Roger de Stuteville,[754] Prudhoe, under Odelin de Umfraville,[755] and by the great royal fortress of Newcastle, in charge of Roger Fitz-Richard;[756] further north, between the valleys of the Wansbeck and the Coquet, stood Harbottle, also held by Odelin, with Roger Fitz-Richard’s Warkworth[757] and William de Vesci’s Alnwick[758] at the mouths of the Coquet and the Alne. This chain of defences William of Scotland, when at the expiration of the truce he again marched into England, at once set himself to break. While his brother David went to join the rebel garrison of Leicester,[759] he himself began by laying siege to Wark. This fortress, held in the king’s name by Roger de Stuteville--apparently a brother of the sheriff of Yorkshire--occupied a strong position in the upper valley of the Tyne, on the site of an earlier fortress which under the name of Carham had played a considerable part in the Scottish wars of Stephen’s time, and had been finally taken and razed by William’s grandfather King David in 1138.[760] William himself had already in the preceding autumn besieged Wark without success;[761] he prospered no better this time, and presently removed his forces to Carlisle,[762] where he had also sustained a like repulse six months before.[763] Carlisle, as well as Wark, was in truth almost impregnable except by starvation; and William, while blockading it closely, detached a part of his host for a series of expeditions against the lesser fortresses, Liddell, Burgh, Appleby, Harbottle and Warkworth, all of which fell into his hands.[764] His brother’s arrival at Leicester, meanwhile, seemed to have revived the energies of its garrison; under the command of Earl Robert of Ferrers they sallied forth very early one morning, surprised and burned the town of Nottingham, made a great slaughter of its citizens, and went home laden with plunder and prisoners.[765]

[751] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 65.

[752] _Ib._ p. 64.

[753] _Ib._ p. 65. Jordan Fantosme, v. 1467 (Michel, p. 66), gives us the name--a very interesting one--of the acting commandant--“Cospatric le fiz Horm, un viel Engleis fluri.”

[754] Jordan Fantosme, vv. 478–483 (Michel, pp. 22–24).

[755] _Ib._ vv. 594–603 (p. 28), _Gesta Hen._ as above.

[756] Jordan Fantosme, vv. 566, 567 (Michel, p. 26).

[757] _Ib._ vv. 562–565 (p. 26). _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 65. See above, p. 149, note 3{728}.

[758] Jordan Fantosme, vv. 538, 539 (as above).

[759] _Gesta Hen._ as above. Cf. Jordan Fantosme, vv. 1113–1136 (Michel, p. 52).

[760] See above, vol. i. pp. 287, 292.

[761] Jordan Fantosme, vv. 478–530 (Michel, pp. 22, 26).

[762] _Ib._ vv. 1191–1351 (pp. 54–62).

[763] Jordan Fantosme, vv. 610–760 (pp. 28–36).

[764] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 64, 65. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 60. Will. Newb., l. ii. cc. 30, 31 (Hewlett, vol. i. pp. 177, 180), seems to have confused this campaign with that of the preceding autumn; and so has, apparently, Jordan Fantosme, vv. 1145–1511 (Michel, pp. 52–68). “Banesburc” in v. 1158 (p. 54), though it looks like Bamborough, surely ought to be _Burgh_.

[765] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 69. Nottingham was commanded by Reginald de Lucy; what relation to the justiciar?

Meanwhile the king’s representatives in the south were not idle. Knowing however that he was powerless to rescue the north, Richard de Lucy made an attempt to draw off in another direction the forces both of the Scot king and of his brother by laying siege to David’s castle of Huntingdon.[766] Huntingdon had been held ever since 1136 either by the reigning king of Scots or by one of his nearest kinsmen, in virtue of their descent from Waltheof, the last Old-English earl of Huntingdon and Northampton, through his daughter Matilda, the wife of King David. In each case, however, the fief seems to have been held not as an hereditary possession but by a special grant made to the individual holder for his life. The house of Northampton, sprung from an earlier marriage of the same Matilda, were thus enabled to maintain a claim upon it which had never been entirely barred, and which Earl Simon of Northampton now seized his opportunity to urge upon the king.[767] Henry answered that Simon might keep Huntingdon if he could win it;[768] thus securing for Richard de Lucy his support and co-operation in the siege, which began on May 8.[769] Three days before this, however, a severe blow had been dealt at the northern rebels. The king’s eldest son Geoffrey, who a year before had been appointed to the bishopric of Lincoln, gathered up the forces of Lincolnshire, led them into Axholm and laid siege to Kinardferry. Robert of Mowbray, who was commanding there, seeing his garrison threatened with the want of water, slipped out to seek aid of his friends at Leicester, but was surrounded and made prisoner by the country-folk at Clay.[770] On May 5 Kinardferry surrendered; after razing it, Geoffrey marched northward to York; here he was joined by the forces of the archbishop and of the shire; with this united host he took Mowbray’s castle of Malessart,[771] closely menaced that of Thirsk by erecting a rival fortification at Topcliff, and having intrusted the former to Archbishop Roger and the latter to William de Stuteville, marched back to Lincoln in triumph.[772] His victory was scarcely won when a new peril arose in East-Anglia. Three days after Pentecost some three hundred Flemish soldiers, forerunners of a great host with which Count Philip of Flanders had sworn to invade England at Midsummer on behalf of the young king, landed at the mouth of the Orwell.[773] Hugh Bigod, whose truce with the king’s officers, made when he dismissed his other Flemish troops in the preceding autumn, expired four days later, at once received them into his castles.[774] For a whole month, however, no further movement was made save by the garrison of Leicester, who after the close of Whitsun-week made a successful plundering raid upon the town of Northampton.[775] On June 18 Hugh Bigod and his Flemings marched upon Norwich, took it by assault, committed a vast slaughter of men and women, and finally sacked and fired the city.[776] They seem to have returned to Framlingham by way of Dunwich, which was still a flourishing seaport, of sufficient wealth to tempt their greed; but its stout fisher-folk met them with such a determined front that they were compelled to retire.[777]

[766] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 384.

[767] See the story in the tract “De Judithâ uxore Waldevi comitis,” in M. F. Michel’s _Chroniques Anglo-Normandes_, vol. ii. pp. 128, 129.

[768] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 71. The case seems to have been tried in the Curia Regis; _ibid._, and _Chron. Anglo-Norm._, as above.

[769] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 384.

[770] “A rusticis del Clay.” _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 68. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 58, alters “rusticis” into “hominibus.” The place is perhaps Clay Cross in Derbyshire.

[771] Kirkby or Kirby Malzeard, near Ripon.

[772] _Gesta Hen._ as above, pp. 68, 69. Cf. R. Diceto as above, and Gir. Cambr., _Vita Galfr. Archiep._, l. i. cc. 2, 3 (Dimock, vol. iv. pp. 364–367).

[773] “Apud Airewellam.” R. Diceto (as above), p. 381.

[774] _Ibid._ Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 247.

[775] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 68.

[776] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 68. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 381 (to whom we owe the date). Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 248.

[777] Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 30 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 178). “Insignum vicum maritimum, variis opibus refertum, qui dicitur Donewich,” he calls it. He gives an account of the entire East-Anglian campaign, but he has mixed up the doings of this summer of 1174 with those of the preceding autumn. Jordan Fantosme, vv. 845–897 (Michel, pp. 40–42), has done the same. He explains, however, the otherwise unaccountable facility with which Norwich was taken, by telling us that “Uns traïtres Lohereng la trahi, pur ço si fud surprise.”

Richard de Lucy was all this while busy with the siege of Huntingdon. Provoked apparently by a vigorous assault which he made upon it at midsummer,[778] the garrison set fire to the town; Richard then built a tower to block their egress from the castle, and left the completion of the siege to the earl of Northampton.[779] For himself it was time once more to lay down the knightly sword and resume that of justice. While the justiciar’s energies were absorbed in warfare with the barons, the burgher-nobles of the capital had caught from their feudal brethren the spirit of lawlessness and misrule, and London had become a vast den of thieves and murderers. Young men, sons and kinsmen of the noblest citizens, habitually went forth by night in parties of a hundred or more, broke into rich men’s houses and robbed them by force, and if they met any man walking in the streets alone, slew him at once. Peaceable citizens were driven in self-defence to meet violence with violence. One man, expecting an attack, gathered his armed servants around him in a concealed corner, surprised his assailants in the act of breaking into his house with crowbars, struck off with a blow of his sword the right hand of their leader Andrew Bucquinte, and raised an alarm which put the rest to flight. Bucquinte was captured and delivered next morning to the justiciar; on a promise of safety for life and limb he gave up the names of his accomplices; some fled, some were caught, and among the latter was one of the noblest and richest citizens of London, John Oldman,[780] who vainly offered five hundred marks of silver to the Crown to purchase his escape from the gallows.[781] The revelation of such a state of things in the capital apparently drove Richard de Lucy and his colleagues almost to desperation. They had already sent messenger after messenger to intreat that the king would return; getting however no certain answer, they now determined that one of their number should go to Normandy in person to lay before him an authentic account of the desperate condition of his realm.[782]

[778] “Appropinquante autem nativitate S. Johannis Baptistæ, Ricardus de Luci magnum congregavit exercitum et obsedit castellum de Huntendoniâ.” _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 70. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 60, substitutes for the first words “in festo Nativitatis S. Johannis.” This is the first time that either writer mentions the siege, but see R. Diceto as above, p. 376.

[779] _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 71.

[780] “Johannes Senex.”

[781] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 155, 156. The story is there told in connexion with that of the murder of a brother of the earl of Ferrers in 1177, and said to have happened “three years before.” The wording of the latter part, where it is said that John “obtulit quingentas marcas argenti _domino regi_ ... sed ... noluit denarios illos accipere, et præcepit ut judicium de eo fieret,” seems to imply that the king himself came to England between the capture of Bucquinte and the execution of John. In that case the date of the affair would be about June or July 1174. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 131, mentions the hanging of John Oldman, but puts it after the murder of De Ferrers in 1177 and omits the whole story which in the _Gesta_ intervenes, thereby also omitting to shew the true sequence of events and chronology.

[782] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 381.

Henry had spent the spring in a successful progress through Maine and Anjou to Poitiers, where he kept the Whitsun feast. He had just rescued Saintes from a band of rebels who had seized it in Richard’s name[783] when he was called northward again by a rumour of the Flemish count’s scheme for the invasion of England. By S. Barnabas’s day he was back again on the borders of Britanny and Anjou; he took and fortified Ancenis, and then, leaving Anjou to the charge of a faithful baron, Maurice of Craon,[784] went to meet the castellans of the Norman border in a council at Bonneville on Midsummer-day. Their deliberations were interrupted by the appearance of Richard of Ilchester--now bishop-elect of Winchester--on his errand from England to recall the king.[785] Richard’s pleadings however were scarcely needed. Henry knew that his eldest son was at that very moment with the count of Flanders at Gravelines, only awaiting a favourable wind to set sail for the invasion of England,[786] and that, whatever might be the risk to his continental realms, he must hasten to save the island.[787] He at once took measures for the security of the Norman castles and for the transport of those prisoners and suspected persons whom he dared not venture to leave behind him--his queen,[788] the earl and countess of Leicester, the earl of Chester,[789] the young queen Margaret,[790] and the affianced brides of his three younger sons; besides the two children who were still with him, Jane and John.[791] The wind which thwarted the designs of his foes was equally unfavourable to him; it was not till July 7 that he himself embarked at Barfleur, and even then the peril of crossing seemed so great that the sailors were inclined to put back. Henry raised his eyes to heaven: “If I seek the peace of my realm--if the heavenly King wills that my return should restore its peace--He will bring me safe into port. If He has turned away His Face from me and determined to scourge my realm, may I never reach its shores!” By nightfall he was safe[792] at Southampton.[793]

[783] _Ib._ p. 380. Cf. _Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 71, and Chron. S. Albin. a. 1174 (Marchegay, _Eglises_, p. 43).

[784] R. Diceto and _Gesta Hen._ as above.

[785] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 381, 382. Cf. Jordan Fantosme, vv. 1530–1633 (Michel, pp. 70–74).

[786] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 72. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 61.

[787] Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 248. Cf. Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 32 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 181).

[788] R. Diceto as above, p. 382. _Gesta Hen._ as above.

[789] R. Diceto (as above) has “comitem Cestrensem, Legecestrensem comitissam”; Mat. Paris, _Chron. Maj._ (Luard), vol. ii. p. 292, turns this into “comitem Legecestrensem et comitissam.” We may surely combine the two versions.

[790] R. Diceto and _Gesta Hen._ as above.

[791] R. Diceto as above, p. 382. “Uxores filiorum suorum” must mean Adela of France, Constance of Britanny and Alice of Maurienne, all of whom are known to have been in Henry’s custody.

[792] R. Diceto as above, pp. 382, 383.

[793] _Ib._ p. 383. _Gesta Hen._ as above. Cf. Pipe Roll a. 1173, quoted by _Itin. Hen. II._, p. 180. R. Niger (Anstruther), p. 176, puts the voyage two days later.

His first care was to bestow his prisoners and hostages in safe custody.[794] That done, he set off at once on a pilgrimage to the grave of his former friend and victim at Canterbury. Travelling with the utmost speed, and feeding only on bread and water, he reached Canterbury on July 12; before the church of S. Dunstan, outside the west gate, he dismounted, exchanged his kingly robes for the woollen gown of a pilgrim, and made his way with bare and bleeding feet along the rough-paved streets to the cathedral church. Here, surrounded by a group of bishops and abbots who seem to have come with him, as well as by the monks of the cathedral chapter and a crowd of wondering lay-folk, he threw himself in an agony of penitence and prayer on the martyr’s tomb, which still stood in the crypt where his body had been hastily buried by the terrified monks immediately after the murder. The bishop of London now came forward and spoke in the king’s name, solemnly protesting that he had never sought the primate’s death, and beseeching absolution from the assembled prelates for the rash words which had occasioned it. The absolution was given; the king then underwent a public scourging at the hands of the bishops and monks; he spent the whole night in prayer before the shrine; early on the morrow he heard mass and departed, leaving rich gifts in money and endowments, and rode back still fasting to London, which he reached on the following morning.[795] The next few days were spent in collecting forces, in addition to a large troop of Brabantines whom he had brought over with him,[796] and in despatching a part of these into Suffolk against Hugh Bigod; Henry himself lingering another day or two to recover from his excitement and fatigue.[797]

[794] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 72. Eleanor was placed at Salisbury (Geoff. Vigeois, l. i. c. 67; Labbe, _Nova Bibl._, vol. ii. p. 319) in charge of Robert Mauduit; the younger queen “and the hostages” were sent to Devizes under the care of Eustace Fitz-Stephen. (Eyton, _Itin. Hen. II._, p. 180, from Pipe Roll a. 1173.)

[795] For accounts of the penance see R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 383; Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 248, 249; _Gesta Hen._ as above; Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. pp. 61, 62; Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 35 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 18); E. Grim (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. ii.), pp. 445–447; Herb. Bosh. (_ib._ vol. iii.), pp. 545–547.

[796] R. Diceto as above, p. 382. _Gesta Hen._ as above. Rob. Torigni, a. 1174.

[797] Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 35 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 189), says he stayed in London in order to be bled.