Part 26

The king left England on December 11.[1416] William was consecrated, together with Richard Fitz-Nigel, on December 31,[1417] and on the feast of the Epiphany he was enthroned at Ely.[1418] Immediately afterwards he began to assert his temporal authority. At a meeting of the Court of Exchequer the bishop of Durham was turned out by the chancellor’s orders; presently after he was deprived of his jurisdiction over Northumberland. Soon after this, Bishop Godfrey of Winchester was dispossessed not merely of his sheriffdom and castles, but even of his own patrimony.[1419] For this last spoliation there is no apparent excuse; that a man should hold a sheriffdom together with a bishopric was, however, contrary alike to Church discipline and to sound temporal policy; and the non-recognition of Hugh’s purchase of Northumberland might be yet further justified by the fact that the purchase-money was not yet paid.[1420] In February 1190 Richard summoned his mother, his brothers and his chief ministers to a final meeting in Normandy;[1421] the chancellor, knowing that complaints against him would be brought before the king, hurried over in advance of his colleagues, to justify himself before he was accused,[1422] and he succeeded so well that Richard not only sent him back to England after the council with full authority to act as chief justiciar as well as chancellor,[1423] but at the same time opened negotiations with Rome to obtain for him a commission as legate[1424]--an arrangement which, the archbishop of Canterbury being bound on crusade like the king, would leave William supreme both in Church and state.

[1416] _Gesta Ric._ as above. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 73, makes it December 14.

[1417] R. Diceto as above, p. 75. Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 11.

[1418] R. Diceto as above.

[1419] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 11.

[1420] See Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. p. xxxi. and note 3.

[1421] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 105, 106.

[1422] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 12.

[1423] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 106. Cf. Ric. Devizes as above, and Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 14 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 331).

[1424] _Gesta Ric._ as above.

The new justiciar’s first act on his return was to fortify the Tower of London;[1425] his next was to punish a disturbance which had lately occurred at York. During the last six months the long-suppressed hatred which the Jews inspired had broken forth into open violence. The first pretext had been furnished by a misunderstanding on the coronation-day. Richard, who had some very strict ideas about the ceremonials of religion, had given orders that no Jew should approach him on that solemn occasion; in defiance or ignorance of the prohibition, some rich Jews came to offer gifts to the new sovereign; the courtiers and the people seized the excuse to satisfy at once their greed and their hatred; the unwelcome visitors were driven away, robbed, beaten, some even slain;[1426] and the rage of their enemies, once let loose, spent itself throughout the night in a general sack of the Jewish quarter. Richard, engaged at the coronation-banquet, knew nothing of what had happened till the next day,[1427] when he did his best to secure the ringleaders, and punished them severely.[1428] When he was gone, however, the spark thus kindled burst forth into a blaze in all the chief English cities in succession, Winchester being almost the sole exception.[1429] Massacres of Jews took place at Norwich on February 6, at Stamford on March 7, at S. Edmund’s on March 18, Palm Sunday.[1430] A day before this last, a yet worse tragedy had occurred at York. The principal Jews of that city, in dread of a popular attack, had sought and obtained shelter in one of the towers of the castle, under the protection of its constable and the sheriff of Yorkshire.[1431] Once there, they refused to give it up again; whereupon the constable and the sheriff called out all the forces of city and shire to dislodge them. After twenty-four hours’ siege the Jews offered to ransom themselves by a heavy fine; but the blood of the citizens was up, and they rejected the offer. The Jews, in desperation, resolved to die by their own hands rather than by those of their Gentile enemies; the women and children were slaughtered by their husbands and fathers, who flung the corpses over the battlements or piled them up in the tower, which they fired.[1432] Nearly five hundred Jews perished in the massacre or the flames;[1433] and the citizens and soldiers, baulked of their expected prey, satiated their greed by sacking and burning all the Jewish houses and destroying the bonds of all the Jewish usurers in the city.[1434] At the end of April or the beginning of May[1435] the new justiciar came with an armed force to York to investigate this affair. The citizens threw the whole blame upon the castellan and the sheriff; William accordingly deposed them both.[1436] As the castle was destroyed, he probably thought it needless to appoint a new constable until it should be rebuilt; for the sheriff--John, elder brother of William the Marshal--he at once substituted his own brother Osbert.[1437] Most of the knights who had been concerned in the tumult had taken care to put themselves out of his reach; their estates were, however, mulcted and their chattels seized;[1438] and the citizens only escaped by paying a fine[1439] and giving hostages who were not redeemed till three years later, when all thought of further proceedings in the matter had been given up.[1440] Even the clergy of the minster had their share of punishment, although for a different offence: William, though his legatine commission had not yet arrived, claimed already to be received as legate, and put the church under interdict until his claim was admitted.[1441]

[1425] _Ibid._

[1426] The _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 83, lay the blame on “curiales”; with Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 12, the source of the mischief is “plebs superbo oculo et insatiabili corde”; R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 69, is so ashamed of the whole business that he tries to shift the responsibility off all English shoulders alike--“Pax Judæorum, quam ab antiquis temporibus semper obtinuerant, ab alienigenis interrumpitur.” Cf. the very opposite tone of R. Coggeshall (Stevenson), p. 28, and the judicial middle course characteristically steered by Will. Newb., l. iv. cc. 1 and 9 (Howlett, vol. i. pp. 297, 298, 316, 317).

[1427] R. Diceto as above.

[1428] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 84. Rog. Howden as above. Both take care to assure us that Richard’s severity was owing not to any sympathy for the Jews, but to the fact that in the confusion a few Christians had suffered with them. Cf. a slightly different version in Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 1 (as above, pp. 297–299).

[1429] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 5.

[1430] R. Diceto as above, p. 75. Cf. Will. Newb., l. iv. cc. 7, 8 (as above, pp. 308–312), who adds Lynn to the series.

[1431] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 107, and a more detailed account in Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 9 (as above, pp. 312–314). From him we learn that the Jews of Lincoln did the same, and with a more satisfactory result.

[1432] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 107. For date--March 16--see R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 75.

[1433] R. Diceto as above.

[1434] _Gesta Ric._ as above. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 34. Cf. the somewhat different version of Will. Newb., l. iv. cc. 9, 10 (Howlett, vol. i. pp. 314–322), and also R. Coggeshall (Stevenson), pp. 27, 28.

[1435] The _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 108, say merely “post Pascha”; Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 11 (as above, p. 323), says “circa Dominicæ Ascensionis solemnia,” which fell on May 4.

[1436] _Gesta Ric._ as above.

[1437] Rog. Howden as above.

[1438] Will. Newb. as above (p. 323). Cf. Pipe Roll 2 Ric. I., quoted in Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. pp. xliv., notes 4, 5, xlv., note 1.

[1439] Will. Newb. as above.

[1440] Pipe Roll 5 Ric. I. in Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. p. xliv., note 7. Will. Newb., as above (p. 324), says that nothing further was ever done in the matter.

[1441] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 108, 109.

For the moment William’s power was undisputed even in the north; for Hugh of Durham was still in Gaul. Now, however, there came a notice from the king that he was about to send Hugh back to England as justiciar over the whole country north of the Humber.[1442] Hugh himself soon afterwards arrived, and hurried northward, in the hope, it seems, of catching the chancellor on the further side of the Humber and thus compelling him to acknowledge his inferiority.[1443] In this hope he was disappointed; they met at Blyth in Nottinghamshire.[1444] Hugh, impetuous in old age as in youth, talked somewhat too much as the chancellor had acted--“as if all the affairs of the realm were dependent on his nod.”[1445] At last, however, he produced the commission from Richard upon which his pretensions were founded;[1446] and William, who could read between the lines of his royal friend’s letters, saw at once that he had little to fear.[1447] He replied simply by expressing his readiness to obey the king’s orders,[1448] and proposing that all further discussion should be adjourned to a second meeting a week later at Tickhill. There Hugh found the tables turned. The chancellor had reached the place before him; the bishop’s followers were shut out from the castle; he was admitted alone into the presence of his rival, who, without giving him time to speak, put into his hands another letter from Richard, bidding all his English subjects render service and obedience to “our trusty and well-beloved chancellor, the bishop of Ely,” as they would to the king himself. The letter was dated June 6--some days, if not weeks, later than Hugh’s credentials;[1449] and it seems to have just reached William together with his legatine commission, which was issued on the previous day.[1450] He gave his rival no time even to think. “You had your say at our last meeting; now I will have mine. As my lord the king liveth, you shall not quit this place till you have given me hostages for the surrender of all your castles. No protests! I am not a bishop arresting another bishop; I am the chancellor, arresting his supplanter.”[1451] Hugh was powerless; yet he let himself be dragged all the way to London before he would yield. Then he gave up the required hostages,[1452] and submitted to the loss of all his lately-purchased honours--Windsor, Newcastle, Northumberland, even the manor of Sadberge which he had bought of the king for his see[1453]--everything, in short, except his bishopric. For that he set out as soon as he was liberated; but at his manor of Howden he was stopped by the chancellor’s orders, forbidden to proceed further, and again threatened with forcible detention. He promised to remain where he was, gave security for the fulfilment of his promise, and then wrote to the king his complaints of the treatment which he had received.[1454] All the redress that he could get, however, was a writ commanding that Sadberge should be restored to him at once and that he should suffer no further molestation.[1455]

[1442] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 109. This appointment is mentioned (_ib._ p. 106) among those made at the council of Rouen, where William himself was appointed; but it seems plain that it was not ratified till some time later.

[1443] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 12.

[1444] _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 109.

[1445] Ric. Devizes as above.

[1446] _Ib._ p. 13. _Gesta Ric._ as above.

[1447] Ric. Devizes as above.

[1448] _Gesta Ric._ as above.

[1449] Cf. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 83, with Ric. Devizes as above.

[1450] R. Diceto as above.

[1451] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 13.

[1452] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 109. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 35, places the submission at Southwell.

[1453] _Gesta Ric._ as above. On Sadberge see Rog. Howden as above, p. 13.

[1454] _Gesta Ric._, pp. 109, 110.

[1455] The _Gesta Ric._, p. 110, say Richard ordered the restitution of Newcastle and Sadberge; for Newcastle Rog. Howden, as above, p. 38, substitutes “comitatum Northumbriæ”; but the king’s letter, given by Roger himself (_ib._ pp. 38, 39), mentions nothing except Sadberge. For its date see _ib._ pp. 37 note 1, 39 note 3, and _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 112, note 1.

The chancellor’s first rival was thus suppressed; but already he could see other stumbling-blocks arising in his path, not a few of them placed there by the shortsighted policy of his royal master. Richard’s reckless bestowal of lands and jurisdictions would, if left undisturbed, have put the administration of at least ten whole shires practically beyond the control of the central government. The bishops of Durham, Winchester and Coventry or Chester would have had everything their own way, in temporal matters no less than in spiritual, throughout their respective dioceses. To this state of things William had summarily put an end in the cases of Northumberland and Hampshire; in those of Leicestershire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire the primate had been induced to remonstrate with Hugh of Coventry upon the impropriety of a bishop holding three sheriffdoms, and Hugh had accordingly given up two of them, though he managed to get them back after Baldwin’s death at the close of 1190.[1456] There were however still four shires in the south-west and one in Mid-England over which the king’s justiciar was not only without practical, but even without legal jurisdiction. In these, and in a number of “honours” scattered over the midland shires from Gloucester to Nottingham, the whole rights and profits of government, administration and finance belonged solely to John; for his exercise of them he was responsible to no one but the king; and thus, as soon as Richard was out of reach, John was to all intents and purposes himself king of his own territories. For the present indeed he was unable to set foot in his little realm: Richard in the spring had made both his brothers take an oath to keep away from England for three years.[1457] It was however easy enough for John to govern his part of England, as the whole of it had often been governed for years together, from the other side of the Channel. He had his staff of ministers just like his brother--his justiciar Roger de Planes,[1458] his chancellor Stephen Ridel,[1459] his seneschal William de Kahaines, and his butler Theobald Walter;[1460] the sheriffs of his five counties and the stewards or bailiffs of his honours were appointed by him alone, and exercised their functions solely for his advantage, without reference to the king’s court or the king’s exchequer.[1461] It is evident that, even though as yet the sea lay between them, John had already the power to make himself, if he were so minded, a serious obstacle to the chancellor’s plans of governing England for Richard. Moreover, before Richard finally quitted Gaul, his mother persuaded him to release John from his oath of absence;[1462] and William of Longchamp himself, in his new character of legate, was obliged to confirm the release with his absolution.[1463] In view of the struggle which he now saw could not be far distant, William began to marshal his political forces and concert his measures of defence. On August 1 he held a Church council at Gloucester, in the heart of John’s territories;[1464] on October 13 he held another at Westminster;[1465] and he seems to have spent the winter in a sort of half legatine, half vice-regal progress throughout the country, for purposes of justice and finance and for the assertion of his own authority. This proceeding stirred up a good deal of discontent. Cripple though he was, William of Longchamp seems to have been almost as rapid and restless a traveller as Henry II.; one contemporary says he “went up and down the country like a flash of lightning.”[1466] It may be however that these words allude to the disastrous effects of the chancellor’s passage rather than to its swiftness and suddenness; for he went about in such state as no minister except Henry’s first chancellor had ever ventured to assume. His train of a thousand armed knights, besides a crowd of clerks and other attendants, was a ruinous burthen to the religious houses where he claimed entertainment; and the burthen was made almost unbearable by the heavy exactions, from clerk and layman alike, which he made in his master’s name.[1467]

[1456] See R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. pp. 77, 78, and Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. p. xxxi. and note 5.

[1457] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 106. Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 15.

[1458] R. Diceto as above, p. 99.

[1459] _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 224.

[1460] Rymer, _Fœdera_, vol. i. p. 55.

[1461] See Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. pp. xxxiii and lii.

[1462] _Gesta Ric._ and Ric. Devizes as above.

[1463] Gir. Cambr. _De rebus a se gestis_, l. ii. c. 23 (Brewer, vol. i. p. 86). Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 15, says the arrangement was that John “in Angliam per cancellarium transiens staret ejus judicio, et ad placitum illius vel moraretur in regno vel exularet.” But with Eleanor in England to back her son, William could really have no choice in the matter.

[1464] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 83. On the version of this in Ric. Devizes (as above, pp. 13, 14), see Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. p. xlix.

[1465] R. Diceto as above, p. 85. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 488, makes it October 16.

[1466] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 14.

[1467] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 214. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 72. Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 14 (Howlett, vol. i. pp. 333, 334).

That master was now with Philip of France at Messina,[1468] preparing for his departure from Europe. When he would come back--whether he ever would come back at all--was felt by all parties to be doubtful in the extreme. With his ardent zeal, rash valour and peculiar health, he was little likely to escape both the chances of war and the effects of the eastern climate;[1469] and the question of the succession was therefore again becoming urgent. There was indeed not much latitude of choice; the male line of Anjou, already extinct in Palestine, had in Europe only three representatives--Richard himself, John, and their infant nephew Arthur of Britanny. By the strict feudal rule of primogeniture, Arthur, being Geoffrey’s son, would have after Richard the next claim as head of the Angevin house. By old English constitutional practice, John, being a grown man and the reigning sovereign’s own brother, would have a much better chance of recognition as his successor than his nephew, a child not yet four years old. Neither alternative was without drawbacks. Richard himself had made up his mind to the first; early in November 1190 he arranged a marriage for Arthur with a daughter of King Tancred of Sicily, on a distinct understanding that in case of his own death without children Arthur was to succeed to all his dominions;[1470] while at the same time William of Longchamp was endeavouring to secure the Scot king’s recognition of Arthur as heir-presumptive to the English crown.[1471] The queen-mother was unwilling to contemplate the succession of either Arthur or John; she was anxious to get Richard married. Knowing that he never would marry the woman to whom he had been so long betrothed, she took upon herself to find him another bride. Her choice fell upon Berengaria, daughter of King Sancho VI. of Navarre;[1472] it was accepted by Richard; early in February 1191[1473] she went over to Gaul; there she met her intended daughter-in-law, whom she carried on with her into Italy, and by the end of March they were both with Richard at Messina.[1474] On the very day of their arrival Philip had sailed.[1475] After long wrangling with him, Richard had at last succeeded in freeing himself from his miserable engagement to Adela;[1476] he at once plighted his troth to Berengaria; and when his mother, after a four days’ visit, set out again upon her homeward journey,[1477] his bride remained with him under the care of his sister the widowed queen Jane of Sicily[1478] till the expiration of Lent and the circumstances of their eastward voyage enabled them to marry. The wedding was celebrated and the queen crowned at Limasol in Cyprus on the fourth Sunday after Easter.[1479]

[1468] Richard was there from September 23, 1190, to April 10, 1191. _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 125, 162; R. Diceto as above, pp. 84, 91.

[1469] See Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 5 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 306).

[1470] Treaty in _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 133–136, and Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 61–64. It is dateless, but on November 11 Richard wrote to the Pope telling him of its provisions and asking for his sanction. _Gesta Ric._ as above, pp. 136–138; Rog. Howden as above, pp. 65, 66.

[1471] Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 14 (as above, pp. 335, 336). William represents this as an unauthorized proceeding of the chancellor’s, contrived in his own interest as against John. He seems to place it at a later date.

[1472] “Puella prudentior quam pulchra” says Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 25; but he seems to be contrasting her with Eleanor. On the other hand, Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 19 (as above, p. 346), calls her “famosæ pulchritudinis et prudentiæ virginem.” According to the _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 175, this had been Richard’s own choice for many years past.

[1473] Richard sent ships to meet her at Naples before the end of that month. _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 157.

[1474] They arrived on March 30. _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 161.

[1475] _Ibid._

[1476] _Gesta Ric._ as above, pp. 160, 161. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 99. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 86. Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 26. The actual treaty between Richard and Philip, of which more later, is in Rymer, _Fœdera_, vol. i. p. 54.

[1477] She sailed on April 2. _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 161. Cf. R. Diceto as above.

[1478] _Ibid._ Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 28.

[1479] _Gesta Ric._ as above, pp. 166, 167. Ric. Devizes, p. 39. _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 195, 196.

On her way home Eleanor stopped to transact some diplomatic business at Rome, and she seems to have remained in Gaul until the beginning of the next year. Long before she returned to England there were evident tokens that when Richard had proposed to keep John out of it, he had for once been wiser than his mother. Early in the year John, profiting by the liberty which her intercession had procured him, came over to England and there set up his court in such semi-regal state as to make it a source of extreme irritation, if not of grave anxiety, to the chancellor.[1480] Eleanor’s departure thus left William of Longchamp face to face with a new and most formidable rival; while about the same time he saw his power threatened on another side. In March 1191 tidings came that Archbishop Baldwin had died at Acre in the foregoing November.[1481] If a new primate should be appointed, it was to be expected as a matter of course that the bishop of Ely would lose the legation; he could hope to retain it only by persuading Richard either to nominate him to the primacy, or to keep it vacant altogether. Richard’s notions of ecclesiastical propriety were however too strict to admit the latter alternative; from the former he would most likely be deterred by his father’s experiences with another chancellor; so, to the astonishment of everybody, he nominated for the see of Canterbury a Sicilian prelate, one of his fellow-crusaders, William archbishop of Monreale.[1482] Meanwhile John and the chancellor were quarrelling openly; popular sympathy, which William had alienated by his arrogance and his oppressions, was on the side of John; even the subordinate justiciars, who had stood by William in his struggle with Hugh of Durham,[1483] were turning against him now; from one and all complaints against him were showering in upon the king;[1484] till at the end of February Richard grew so bewildered and so uneasy that he decided upon sending the archbishop of Rouen to investigate the state of affairs in England and see what could be done to remedy it.[1485]

[1480] See Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. pp. li., lii.

[1481] Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 488, 490.

[1482] Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 493, 494; date, January 25 [1191].

[1483] See Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), pp. 11, 12.

[1484] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 158. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 95, 96.

[1485] _Gesta Ric_. as above. Rog. Howden as above, p. 96. We get the date approximately from Richard’s letter in R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 90.

The archbishop of Rouen--Walter of Coutances--was a man of noble birth and stainless character who had been successively archdeacon of Oxford, treasurer of Rouen cathedral and vice-chancellor to Henry II.;[1486] in this last capacity he had for eight years done the whole work of head of the chancery for his nominal chief Ralf of Varneville,[1487] till Ralf was succeeded in 1182 by the king’s son Geoffrey, and next year the vice-chancellor was promoted to the see of Lincoln, which Geoffrey had resigned. A year later Walter was advanced to the primacy of Normandy.[1488] He was now with Richard, on his way to Holy Land, but commuted his vow to serve the king.[1489] He was a very quiet, unassuming person, and certainly not a vigorous statesman; but his integrity and disinterestedness were above question;[1490] and the position in which he was now placed was one in which even a Thomas Becket might well have been puzzled how to act. The only commission given him by Richard of which we know the date was issued on February 23;[1491] but it was not till April 2 that he was allowed to leave Messina;[1492] and during the interval Richard, in his reluctance to supersede the chancellor, seems to have been perpetually changing his mind and varying his instructions, some of which were sent direct to England and some intrusted to Walter, till by the time the archbishop started he was laden with a bundle of contradictory commissions, addressed to himself, to William and to the co-justiciars, and apparently accompanied by a verbal order to use one, all or none of them, wholly at his own discretion.[1493]

[1486] Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 10 (Brewer, vol. iv. p. 408).

[1487] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 367.

[1488] _Ib._ vol. ii. pp. 10, 14, 21.

[1489] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 27--very unfairly coloured.

[1490] Cf. Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 10 (Brewer, vol. iv. p. 408), and Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 15 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 336). In this place William calls Walter “virum prudentem et modestum”; but in l. iii. c. 8 (_ib._ p. 236) he displays a curiously bitter resentment against him for his abandonment of the see of Lincoln for the loftier see of Rouen.

[1491] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 90. Gir. Cambr. as above, c. 6 (p. 401), gives the date as February 20.

[1492] He and Eleanor left Messina together. _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 176.

[1493] This seems the only possible explanation at once of Walter’s conduct and of the conflicting accounts in R. Diceto as above, pp. 90, 91; Gir. Cambr. as above (pp. 400, 401); _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 158; Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 96, 97; Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), pp. 27–29; and Will. Newb. as above. See Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. pp. lx., lxi., note 1.

Before he reached England John and the chancellor were at open war. On Mid-Lent Sunday they met at Winchester to discuss the payment of John’s pensions from the Exchequer and the possession of certain castles within his territories.[1494] The discussion clearly ended in a quarrel; and this served as a signal for revolt against the unpopular minister. Gerard de Camville, sheriff of Lincolnshire by purchase from the king, was also constable of Lincoln castle in right of his wife Nicolaa de Haye. He was accused of harbouring robbers in the castle, and when summoned before the king’s justices he refused to appear, declaring that he had become John’s liegeman and was answerable only to him.[1495] At the opposite end of England Roger de Mortemer, the lord of Wigmore--successor to that Hugh de Mortemer who had defied Henry II. in 1156--was at the same moment found to be plotting treason with the Welsh. Against him the chancellor proceeded first, and his mere approach so alarmed Roger that he gave up his castle and submitted to banishment from the realm for three years.[1496] William then hurried to Lincoln; but before he could reach it Gerard and Nicolaa had had time to make their almost impregnable stronghold ready for a siege, and John had had time to gain possession of Nottingham and Tickhill[1497]--two castles which the king had retained in his own hands, while bestowing upon his brother the honours in which they stood. Nicolaa was in command at Lincoln, and was fully equal to the occasion; her husband was now with John, and John at once sent the chancellor a most insulting message, taunting him with the facility with which the two castles had been betrayed,[1498] and threatening that if the attempt upon Lincoln was not at once given up, he would come in person to avenge the wrongs of his liegeman.[1499] William saw that John was now too strong for him; he knew by this time that Pope Clement was dead,[1500] and his own legation consequently at an end; he must have known, too, of the mission of Walter of Rouen; he therefore, through some of his fellow-bishops,[1501] demanded a personal meeting with John, and proposed that all their differences should be submitted to arbitration. John burst into a fury at what he chose to call the impudence of this proposal,[1502] but he ended by accepting it, and on April 25 the meeting took place at Winchester. The case was decided by the bishops of London, Winchester and Bath, with eleven lay arbitrators chosen by them from each party. Their decision went wholly against the chancellor. He was permitted to claim the restitution of Nottingham and Tickhill, but only to put them in charge of two partizans of John; his right to appoint wardens to the other castles in dispute was nominally confirmed, but made practically dependent upon John’s dictation; he was compelled to reinstate Gerard de Camville, and moreover to promise that in case of Richard’s death he would do his utmost to secure the crown for John.[1503]

[1494] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 26.

[1495] Cf. Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 30, with Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 242, 243, and Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 16 (Howlett, vol. i. pp. 337, 338), and see Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. pp. lvi., lvii.

[1496] Ric. Devizes as above.

[1497] _Ibid._ _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 207. Will. Newb. as above (p. 338).

[1498] Ric. Devizes as above.

[1499] _Ibid._ _Gesta Ric._ as above.

[1500] He died on the Wednesday before Easter--April 10--and his successor Celestine III. was elected on Easter-day. _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 161.

[1501] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 31, makes Walter of Rouen the mediator, but we shall see that this is chronologically impossible.

[1502] _Ibid._

[1503] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), pp. 32, 33. On the date see Bishop Stubbs’s notes to _Gesta Ric._, p. 208, and Rog. Howden, vol. iii. p. 134, and pref. to latter, pp. lviii., lix.

Two days later Walter of Rouen landed at Shoreham.[1504] He was evidently not wanted now to act as a check upon William of Longchamp; he might almost expect to be soon wanted as a check upon John; but meanwhile, he could only stand aside and watch the effect of the new arrangements. His passive attitude gave, however, an indirect support to the chancellor; after midsummer, therefore, the latter ventured to repudiate the concessions wrung from him at Winchester; he again advanced upon Lincoln, and formally deprived Gerard of the sheriffdom, which he conferred upon William de Stuteville.[1505] Once more the other bishops interposed, backed now by the Norman primate. Another assembly met at Winchester on July 28,[1506] and here a fresh settlement was made. Gerard was reinstated in the sheriffdom of Lincolnshire, pending his trial in the king’s court; William and John were both bound over to commit no more forcible disseizures; the disputed castles were to be again put in charge for the king, but through the medium of the archbishop of Rouen instead of the chancellor, and John was allowed no voice in the selection of the castellans, who were chosen by the assembly then and there. If the chancellor should infringe the agreement, or if the king should die, these castles were to be given up to John; but all reference to his claims upon the succession to the throne was carefully omitted.[1507] The contest almost seemed to have ended in a drawn battle. It was strictly a contest between individuals, involving no national or constitutional interests. The barons, as a body, clearly sided with John; but, just as clearly, they sided with him from loyal motives. The authority of the Crown was never called in question; the question was, who was fittest to represent and uphold it--the king’s chancellor, or his brother. Of treason, either to England or to Richard, there was not a thought, unless--as indeed is only too probable--it lurked in the mind of John himself.

[1504] Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 497, says he landed about midsummer, and the printed text of R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 90, makes the date June 27; but see note in latter place. Bishop Stubbs (_Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. p. lix.) adopts the earlier date.

[1505] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 207.

[1506] The date comes from Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 32, who however misapplies it. See Bishop Stubbs’s notes to _Gesta Ric._, p. 208, and Rog. Howden, vol. iii. p. 134.

[1507] Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 135–137.

A drawn battle, however, could not possibly be the end of a struggle between two such men as John of Mortain and William of Longchamp. In the autumn a new element was added to the strife by the return of Archbishop Geoffrey of York. For thirty-five years Geoffrey had been the eldest living child, if indeed he was not actually the first-born, of Henry Fitz-Empress;[1508] but of the vast Angevin heritage there fell to his share nothing, except the strong feelings and fiery temper which caused half the troubles of his life. As a child he had been brought up at court almost on equal terms with his half-brothers;[1509] he seems indeed to have been his father’s favourite, till he was supplanted by the little John. When he grew to manhood, however, Henry could see no way of providing for him except by forcing him into a career for which he had no vocation. At an early age he was put into deacon’s orders and made archdeacon of Lincoln;[1510] in 1173, when about twenty years of age, he was appointed to the bishopric of the same place.[1511] The Pope, however, demurred to the choice of a candidate disqualified alike by his youth and his birth; and when the former obstacle had been outlived and the latter might have been condoned, Geoffrey voluntarily renounced an office in which he would have been secure for life, but which he had never desired and for which he felt himself unfit,[1512] in order to become his father’s chancellor and constant companion during the last eight years of his life. It was Henry’s last regret that this son, the only one of his sons whose whole life had been an unbroken course of perfect filial obedience, had to be left with his future entirely at the mercy of his undutiful younger half-brother. Richard received him with a brotherly welcome;[1513] when, however, he nominated him to the see of York, he was indeed carrying out their father’s last wishes, but certainly not those of Geoffrey himself. Richard seems to have thought that he was held back by other motives than those of conscience or of preference for a secular life; he suspected him of cherishing designs upon the crown.[1514] It can only be said that Geoffrey, so far as appears, never did anything to justify the suspicion, but shewed on the contrary every disposition to act loyally towards both his brothers, if they would but have acted with equal loyalty towards him. As soon however as the tonsure had marked him irrevocably for a priestly life,[1515] Richard’s zeal for his promotion cooled. The bishop of Durham, who was striving to make his see independent of the metropolitan,[1516] and a strong party in the York chapter with whom Geoffrey had quarrelled on a point of ecclesiastical etiquette, easily won the king’s ear;[1517] it was not till the very eve of Richard’s departure from England that Geoffrey was able to buy his final confirmation both in the see of York and in the estates which his father had bequeathed to him in Anjou;[1518] and in March he was summoned over to Normandy and there, like John, made to take an oath of absence from England for three years.[1519]

[1508] In the first chapter of his _Life_ by Gerald (Brewer, vol. iv. p. 363), we are told that Geoffrey was scarcely twenty when elected to Lincoln, _i.e._ in 1173. But in l. i. c. 13 (_ib._ p. 384), Gerald says that he was consecrated to York “anno ætatis quasi quadragesimo,” in 1191. These two dates, as is usual with Gerald in such cases, do not agree, and neither of them pretends to be more than approximate. Still it seems plain that Geoffrey’s birth must fall somewhere between 1151 and 1153. Even if we adopt the latest date, he must have been born in the same year as Eleanor’s first son--the baby William who died in 1156--and must have been at least two years older than the young king, four years older than Richard, and fourteen years older than John.

[1509] Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. i. c. 1 (Brewer, vol. iv. p. 363).

[1510] Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. i. c. 1 (Brewer, vol. iv. p. 363).

[1511] _Ib._ p. 364. Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 22 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 154).

[1512] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. ii. pp. 271, 272. Gir. Cambr. as above, c. 4 (p. 368). The resignation was formally completed at Epiphany 1182. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 10.

[1513] Gir. Cambr. as above, c. 5 (p. 372).

[1514] _Ib._ c. 8 (p. 379). In c. 7 (p. 374) Gerald actually represents Geoffrey as entertaining some hope of surviving and succeeding both his younger brothers; but this is a very different thing from plotting against them during their lives. See Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. p. lxvi. As it turned out, the first part, at any rate, of this dream of Geoffrey’s was not so mad as it seemed, for he died only four years before John.

[1515] He was ordained priest September 23, 1189. _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 88.

[1516] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 146. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 74.

[1517] _Gesta Ric._ as above, pp. 88, 91, 99. Rog. Howden as above, pp. 17, 18, 27. Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. i. c. 8 (Brewer, vol. iv. pp. 377, 378).

[1518] _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 100. Cf. Gir. Cambr. as above (p. 379).

[1519] Gir. Cambr. as above. _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 106. Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 15.

According to Geoffrey’s own account, he followed his brother as far as Vézelay, and there won from him a remission of this vow.[1520] It is certain that by April 1191 Richard had so far changed his mind again as to be desirous of Geoffrey’s speedy consecration. The Pope’s consent was still lacking; and the negotiations for obtaining this were undertaken by the person who, from Geoffrey’s very birth, had been his most determined enemy--Queen Eleanor. When she went from Messina to Rome to plead his cause with Clement III. or his successor Celestine,[1521] it is plain that natural feeling gave way to motives of policy. She could now see that an archbishop of York might become very useful in England, in holding the balance between Hugh of Durham and William of Ely. His canonical authority and personal influence might furnish, not indeed a counterpoise, but at least a check to the now unlimited powers of the legate. On the other hand, it was the long vacancy of York which more than anything else had tended to Hugh’s exaltation. For ten years the bishop of Durham, with no metropolitan over him, had virtually been himself metropolitan of northern England. He strongly resented the filling of the vacant see, and had actually obtained from Clement III. a privilege of exemption from its jurisdiction.[1522] If the archbishop of York could be reinstated in his proper constitutional position, his own interests would lead him to use it for those of the kingdom and the king.

[1520] Gir. Cambr. as above, c. 11 (p. 382).

[1521] Rog. Howden as above, p. 100. The change in the Papacy must have occurred while she was there.

[1522] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 146.

Geoffrey’s qualifications and disqualifications for such a task may be very easily summed up. He had the Angevin fearlessness, energy, persistence and thoroughness, with a fair share of the versatile capabilities of the family; he had all their impetuosity, but very little of their wariness and tact. Mingled with the Angevin fire, there seems to have run in his veins the blood, and with it the spirit, of a totally different race. If we may credit on such a point the gossip of his father’s court, Geoffrey was through his mother a child of the people--seemingly the English people--and of its very lowest class.[1523] This consideration has more interest at a later stage of Geoffrey’s career, when he stands forth as a champion of constitutional liberty. Until then, there is, so far as we can see, no evidence of any special sympathy between him and the English people. Yet the plebeian and probably English element in him existed, or was believed to exist; and if it did not become, as it easily might have done, an important element in his political career, it was at any rate not unlikely to have exercised some influence upon his character.

[1523] W. Map, _De Nugis Cur._, dist. v. c. 6 (Wright, pp. 228–235). Walter is the only writer who tells us anything about Geoffrey’s mother; as he does not say she was a foreigner, it seems most probable that he looked upon her as an Englishwoman. The name which he gives to her--“Ykenai” or “Hikenai”--tells nothing either way, in itself. But Mr. Dimock (in his preface to the seventh volume of Gerald’s works, p. xxxvii) throws doubt upon Walter’s whole account of her except her name, and suggests that she may have belonged to a knightly family of _Akeny_ (i.e. Acquigny) in Normandy. This, however, is a question to be investigated by a biographer of Geoffrey or a student of his later political career rather than by an historian of the Angevin kings. The doubts which W. Map tries to throw upon his connexion with them are probably affected, and clearly unfounded. Few specimens of the Angevin race are more unmistakeable than Geoffrey; one might perhaps add, few more creditable.

Eleanor’s mission to Rome succeeded. Geoffrey’s election and his claim to the obedience of the bishop of Durham were both confirmed by Pope Celestine;[1524] he was consecrated at Tours by Archbishop Bartholomew on August 18, and received his pall on the same day.[1525] He at once put himself in communication with John, to secure a protector on his return to his see;[1526] for William of Longchamp, having had no notice from Richard of the remission of Geoffrey’s vow of absence, refused to believe in it,[1527] and had not only issued orders for the archbishop’s arrest as soon as he should land in England,[1528] but had agreed with the countess of Flanders that no Flemish ship should be allowed to give him a passage. The countess, however, evaded her agreement by letting him sail from Wissant in an English boat.[1529] He landed at Dover on Holy Cross day,[1530] having changed his clothes to avoid recognition.[1531] The constable of Dover, Matthew de Clères, was absent; his wife Richenda was a sister of William of Longchamp; her men-at-arms surrounded the archbishop the moment he touched the shore, recognized him in spite of his disguise, and strove to arrest him, but he managed to free himself from their hands and make his way to the priory of S. Martin, just outside the town. Here for five days Richenda’s followers vainly endeavoured to blockade and starve him into surrender.[1532] On the fifth day a band of armed men rushed into the priory-church, and in the chancellor’s name ordered Geoffrey to quit the country at once. Geoffrey, seated by the altar, clad in his pontifical robes and with his archiepiscopal cross in his hand, set them and their chancellor at defiance.[1533] They dragged him out of the church by the hands and feet; and as nothing would induce him to mount a horse which they brought for him, they dragged him on, still in the same array, still clinging to his cross and excommunicating them as they went, all through the town to the castle, where they flung him into prison.[1534]

[1524] _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 209. See Celestine’s letter (date, May 11) in _Monasticon Angl._, vol. vi. pt. iii. col. 1188, and Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. p. lxvii, note 2.

[1525] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 96. Cf. _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 209; Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. i. c. 13 (Brewer, vol. iv. p. 384). Will. Newb., always hostile to Geoffrey, declares that “ordine præpostero” he got his pallium before he was consecrated; l. iv. c. 17 (Howlett, vol. i. pp. 339, 340).

[1526] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 34.

[1527] His disbelief was evidently shared by Roger of Howden (Stubbs, vol. iii. p. 138); but Roger’s authority, the treasurer, does not commit himself to any opinion on the subject. _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 210.

[1528] See the chancellor’s writ--dated Preston, July 30--in R. Diceto as above, and Gir. Cambr. as above, l. ii. c. 1 (p. 389); and cf. Ric. Devizes and _Gesta Ric._ as above.

[1529] Gir. Cambr. as above (p. 388). Cf. _Gesta Ric._ as above. The countess--Isabel of Portugal, second wife of Count Philip--was governing her husband’s territories during his absence on crusade, where he died.

[1530] R. Diceto as above, p. 97. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 504.

[1531] _Gesta Ric._ as above.

[1532] Gir. Cambr. as above (pp. 388–390). Cf. R. Diceto and _Gesta Ric._ as above, and Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 17 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 340).

[1533] Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 1 (Brewer, vol. iv. p. 391).

[1534] _Ibid._ (pp. 391, 392). Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), pp. 35, 36. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 97. _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 111. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 505. Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 17 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 340).

This outrage roused up all parties alike in Church and state. England had had quite enough of persecuted and martyred archbishops. Protests and remonstrances came pouring in upon the chancellor from the most opposite quarters:--from the treasurer and bishop of London, Richard Fitz-Nigel[1535]--from the aged bishop of Norwich, John of Oxford,[1536] and from the Canterbury chapter,[1537] both of whom had had only too much experience, in different ways, of the disasters which might result from such violence to an archbishop. The most venerated of living English prelates, S. Hugh of Lincoln, at once excommunicated Richenda, her husband and all her abettors, with lighted candles at Oxford.[1538] John remonstrated most vehemently of all,[1539] and his remonstrances procured Geoffrey’s release,[1540] but only on condition that he would go straight to London and there remain till the case between him and the chancellor could be tried by an assembly of bishops and barons.[1541] This of course satisfied nobody. John had no mind to lose his opportunity of crushing his enemy once for all. From Lancaster, where he was laying his plans with the help of Bishop Hugh of Coventry--a nephew of the old arch-plotter Arnulf of Lisieux--he hurried to Marlborough, and thence sent out summons to all the great men whom he thought likely to help him against the chancellor. He was not disappointed. The co-justiciars hastened up from the various shires where they were apparently busy with their judicial or financial visitations--William the Marshal from Gloucestershire, William Bruère from Oxfordshire, Geoffrey Fitz-Peter from Northamptonshire; the bishops were represented by Godfrey of Winchester and Reginald of Bath, and the sovereign himself by Walter of Rouen; S. Hugh of Lincoln joined the train as it passed through Oxford to Reading. From Reading John sent to call his half-brother to his side. Geoffrey, who was beginning to be looked upon and to look upon himself as something like another S. Thomas, had made a sort of triumphal progress from Dover to London; tied by his parole, he was obliged to ask the chancellor’s consent to his acceptance of John’s invitation, and only gained it on condition of returning within a given time.[1542]

[1535] R. Diceto as above. Gir. Cambr. as above, c. 2 (pp. 393, 394).

[1536] Gir. Cambr. as above (p. 394).

[1537] Gerv. Cant. as above, pp. 505, 506.

[1538] Gir. Cambr. as above (p. 393).

[1539] _Ibid._ (p. 394). _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 211. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 139.

[1540] On September 26; R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 97. Cf. Gir. Cambr. as above, c. 4 (p. 395), Gerv. Cant. as above, p. 507, and Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 36.

[1541] Gir. Cambr. as above.

[1542] Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. cc. 4, 5 (Brewer, vol. iv. pp. 395–397).

The chancellor meanwhile was at Norwich;[1543] and thither John and the justiciars had already sent him a summons to appear before them and answer for his conduct towards both Geoffrey of York and Hugh of Durham, at an assembly to be held at the bridge over the Lodden, between Reading and Windsor, on Saturday October 5.[1544] William retorted by a counter-summons to all who had joined the count of Mortain to forsake him as an usurper and return to their obedience to the king’s chosen representative.[1545] He hurried, however, to Windsor in time for the proposed meeting; but when the Saturday morning came, the earls of Arundel, Warren and Norfolk appeared at the trysting-place in his stead, pleading ill-health as an excuse for his absence.[1546] As Saturday was accounted an unlucky day for contracts or settlements of any kind,[1547] no one regretted the delay; John and the barons, sitting amid a ring of spectators in the meadows by the Lodden, spent the day in discussing all the complaints against the chancellor, and also, apparently, in looking through such of the Norman primate’s bundle of royal letters as he chose to shew them, and deliberating which would be most appropriate to the present state of affairs. On one point all were agreed; the chancellor must be put down at once.[1548] Early next morning he tried to bribe John into reconciliation, but in vain.[1549] At the high mass in Reading parish church the whole body of bishops lighted their candles and publicly excommunicated all who had been, whether by actual participation, command or consent, concerned in Archbishop Geoffrey’s arrest;[1550] and at nightfall the chancellor was compelled to swear that, come what might, he would be ready to stand his trial at the bridge of Lodden on the morrow.[1551]

[1543] _Ib._ cc. 2, 5 (pp. 393, 394, 397).

[1544] _Ib._ c. 5 (p. 397). Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 37, giving the date, which is confirmed by one of the summons--that addressed to the bishop of London--given by R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 98. Cf. also _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 212.

[1545] Gir. Cambr. as above.

[1546] _Ib._ c. 6 (p. 398). Cf. R. Diceto, Ric. Devizes and _Gesta Ric._ as above.

[1547] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 98.

[1548] Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 6 (Brewer, vol. iv. pp. 398–401).

[1549] _Ib._ c. 7 (p. 402).

[1550] _Ibid._ R. Diceto as above.

[1551] Gir. Cambr. as above.

Scarcely had he set out on the Monday morning when he was met by a report that his enemies were marching upon London.[1552] The report was true in substance; John and the barons, instead of waiting for him at the Lodden bridge, crossed it, and then divided their forces into two bodies; the smaller, consisting of the bishops and barons with John himself, proceeded towards Windsor to meet the chancellor; the larger, comprising the men-at-arms and the servants in charge of the baggage, was sent on by the southern road to Staines.[1553] Such a movement was quite enough to justify William in hurrying back to Windsor and thence on to London as fast as horses could carry him.[1554] Before he could reach it he met John’s men-at-arms coming up by the other road from Staines; a skirmish took place, in which John’s justiciar Roger de Planes was mortally wounded, but his followers seem to have had the best of the fight,[1555] although they could not prevent the chancellor from making his way safe into London. Here he at once called a meeting of the citizens in the Guildhall, and endeavoured to secure their support against John.[1556] He found, however, a strong party opposed to himself. On the last day of July[1557]--three days after the second award between John and William at Winchester--the citizens of London had profited by the king’s absence and his representative’s humiliation to set up a _commune_. They knew very well that, as a contemporary writer says, neither King Henry nor King Richard would have sanctioned such a thing at any price;[1558] and they knew even better still that Richard’s chancellor would never countenance it for a moment. With John they might have a chance, and they were not disposed to lose it by shutting their gates in his face at the bidding of William of Longchamp. William, seeing that his cause was lost in the city, shut himself up in the Tower.[1559]

[1552] _Ibid._ c. 8 (pp. 402, 403). Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 37. _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 212.

[1553] Cf. Gir. Cambr. as above (pp. 403, 404), and R. Diceto as above, p. 99. Ric. Devizes, as above, says plainly what the other writers leave us to guess, that these followers were meant to go on to London.

[1554] Gir. Cambr. as above (p. 403). Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 38. R. Diceto and _Gesta Ric._ as above. Cf. Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 17 (Howlett, vol. i. pp. 341, 342).

[1555] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 99. _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 212. Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 8 (Brewer, vol. iv. p. 404).

[1556] Gir. Cambr. as above. Cf. Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 38.

[1557] “Ipsâ die”--the day on which Philip of France set out homeward from Acre. Ric. Devizes, p. 53.

[1558] _Ib._ pp. 53, 54. Yet Richard had once said that he would sell London altogether, if he could find anybody who would give him his price for it. _Ib._ p. 10, and Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 5 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 306).

[1559] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 38. R. Diceto as above. _Gesta Ric._ as above, pp. 212, 218. Will. Newb. as above, c. 17 (p. 342).

By this time John and his companions were at the gates; a short parley ended in their admittance.[1560] Next morning barons and citizens came together in S. Paul’s.[1561]. One after another the chancellor’s victims, with the archbishop of York at their head, set forth their grievances.[1562] Archbishop Walter of Rouen and William the Marshal then produced the king’s letter of February 20, addressed to the Marshal, and accrediting Walter to him and his fellow-justiciars, and bidding them, in case of any failure of duty on the chancellor’s part, follow Walter’s direction in all things.[1563] John and the barons agreed to act in accordance with these instructions; they won the assent of the citizens by swearing to maintain the commune;[1564] the whole assembly then swore fealty to Richard, and to John as his destined successor.[1565] According to one account they went a step further: they appointed John regent of the kingdom, and granted him the disposal of all the royal castles except three, which were to be left to the chancellor.[1566] Upon the latter they now set out to enforce their decision at the sword’s point. His forces were more than sufficient to defend the Tower; they were in fact too numerous; they had had no time to revictual the place, they were painfully overcrowded, and before twenty-four hours were over they found their position untenable.[1567] On the Wednesday William tried to bribe John into abandoning the whole enterprise, and he very nearly succeeded; Geoffrey of York and Hugh of Coventry, however, discovered what was going on, and remonstrated so loudly that John was obliged to drop the negotiation and continue the siege.[1568] In the afternoon, at the chancellor’s own request, four bishops and four earls went to speak with him in the Tower.[1569] Five days of intense excitement had so exhausted his feeble frame that when they told him what had passed at the meeting on the previous day, he dropped senseless at their feet, and when brought to himself could at first do nothing but implore their sympathy and mediation.[1570] The brutal insolence of Hugh of Coventry,[1571] however, seems to have stung him into his wonted boldness again. With flashing eyes he told them that the day of reckoning was yet to come, when they and their new lord would have to account for their treason with Richard himself; and he sent them away with a positive refusal to surrender either his castles or his seal.[1572] Late at night, however, as he lay vainly endeavouring to gain a little rest, his friends came and implored him to abandon the useless struggle with fate; and at last his brother Osbert and some others wrung from him an unwilling permission to go and offer themselves as hostages for his submission on the morrow.[1573]

[1560] Gir. Cambr. as above (p. 404).

[1561] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 38, says “in ecclesiâ S. Pauli”; R. Diceto as above, “in capitulo”; the _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 213, and Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 140, say “in atrio.”

[1562] Ric. Devizes as above. _Gesta Ric._ as above, pp. 213, 218.

[1563] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 213, 218.

[1564] _Ib._ p. 213. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 99.

[1565] _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 214.

[1566] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), pp. 37, 38.

[1567] Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 17 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 342).

[1568] Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 9 (Brewer, vol. iv. p. 406).

[1569] Gerald (_ib._ p. 405), says “quartâ vero feriâ.” Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 39, says “Dies ille nefastus declinabat ad vesperam,” which, taken in connexion with what precedes, ought to mean Tuesday evening; but he seems to have lost count of the days just here. It is he alone who mentions the earls; while it is Gerald alone who gives the names of the bishops--London, Lincoln, Winchester and Coventry.

[1570] Cf. Ric. Devizes as above, and Gir. Cambr. as above, who tries to colour this scene differently.

[1571] Gir. Cambr. as above (pp. 405, 406).

[1572] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 39.

[1573] _Ib._ p. 40. Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 9 (Brewer, vol. iv. p. 406).

On the Thursday morning the barons assembled in the fields east of the Tower,[1574] and there William of Longchamp went forth to meet them. The instant he appeared Hugh of Coventry stepped forward, recited the whole indictment against him, and pronounced with brutal bluntness the sentence of the assembly.[1575] William was to be deposed from all secular authority, to keep nothing but his bishopric and the castles of Dover, Cambridge and Hereford; he must give hostages for his future good behaviour; then let him begone wherever he would. The assembly broke into a chorus of approval which seemed intended to give William no chance of reply; but his dauntless spirit had by this time regained its mastery over his physical weakness; he stood quietly till they had all talked themselves out, and then they had to listen in their turn. He denied every one of the charges against him; he refused to recognize either the moral justice or the legal validity of his deposition; he agreed to surrender the castles, because he no longer had power to hold them, but he still lifted up his protest, as King Richard’s lawful chancellor and justiciar, against all the proceedings and the very existence of the new ministry.[1576] Walter of Rouen was at once proclaimed justiciar in his stead.[1577] The keys of the Tower and of Windsor castle, and the hostages, were delivered up next morning, and William was then allowed to withdraw to Bermondsey, whence on the following day he proceeded to Dover.[1578] Thence, apparently in a desperate hope that his men might yet be able to hold the castles till he could gather means to relieve them, he twice attempted to escape over sea, first in the disguise of a monk, then in that of a pedlar-woman. His lameness, however, and his ignorance of English were fatal to his chances of flight; he was detected, dragged back into the town, and shut up in prison till all the castles were surrendered. Then he was set at liberty, and sailed for Gaul on October 29.[1579]

[1574] Ric. Devizes (as above). Gir. Cambr. as above. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 100.

[1575] Ric. Devizes as above.

[1576] _Ib._ pp. 40–42. Cf. Gir. Cambr. and R. Diceto as above; _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 214; and Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 17 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 341).

[1577] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 213. Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 18 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 344).

[1578] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 100. Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 9 (Brewer, vol. iv. p. 407). Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 42.

[1579] Ric. Devizes as above. R. Diceto as above, pp. 100, 101. Gir. Cambr. as above, cc. 12, 13 (pp. 410–413). _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 219, 220. Will. Newb. as above, c. 17 (p. 343). The date comes from R. Diceto.

His opponents, however, were not rid of him yet. The king was now practically out of reach of his remonstrances and appeals for succour;[1580] but the Pope was not. William was a bishop; and the harshness with which he had been treated enabled him now to pose in his turn as a consecrated victim of profane violence. Celestine III. warmly took up his cause; he distinctly acknowledged him as legate, whether with or without a formal renewal of his commission;[1581] and on December 2 he issued a brief addressed to the English bishops, bidding them excommunicate all who had taken part in William’s deposition, and put their lands under interdict till he should be reinstated.[1582] William, as legate, followed this up by excommunicating twenty-six of his chief enemies by name, with the archbishop of Rouen at their head, and, with the Pope’s sanction, threatening to treat John in like manner, if he did not amend before Quinquagesima.[1583] The bishops, however, took no notice of his letters, and the justiciars retorted by sequestrating his see;[1584] they all held him bound by the sentences pronounced against him at Reading and at London for his persecution of Geoffrey of York, and their view was upheld by the suffragans of Rouen, who all treated him as excommunicate.[1585] Geoffrey was now the highest ecclesiastical authority in England; but he was not the man to rule the English Church. He had more than enough to do in ruling his own chief suffragan. As soon as he was enthroned at York,[1586] he summoned Hugh of Durham to come and make his profession of obedience; Hugh, who having been reinstated in his earldom of Northumberland[1587] felt himself again more than a match for his metropolitan, ignored the summons, whereupon Geoffrey excommunicated him.[1588] This did not deter John from keeping Christmas at Howden with the bishop; in consequence of which John himself was for a while treated as excommunicate by his half-brother.[1589] The momentary coalition, formed solely to crush the chancellor, had in fact already split into fragments. The general administration, however, went on satisfactorily under the new justiciar’s direction, and his influence alone--for Eleanor was still on the continent[1590]--sufficed to keep John out of mischief throughout the winter.

[1580] He had written to complain of John’s insubordination, but Richard did not get the letter till six months after the writer’s fall. _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 333.

[1581] See _Epp. Cant._ (Stubbs), introd. p. lxxxiii, note 1.

[1582] Letter of Celestine III. in _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 221, 222.

[1583] Letter of William “bishop of Ely, legate and chancellor,” _ib._ pp. 222–224; and Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 152–154.

[1584] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 225.

[1585] _Ib._ p. 221. Cf. Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 43.

[1586] On All Saints’ day [1191]. Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 11 (Brewer, vol. iv. p. 410).

[1587] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 39.

[1588] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 225. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 168, 169. See the excellent summary of this affair in Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 27 (Howlett, vol. i. pp. 371, 372).

[1589] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 235, 236.

[1590] She kept Christmas at Bonneville. _Ib._ p. 235. Rog. Howden as above, p. 179.

Richard’s continental dominions had thus far been at peace--a peace doubly secured by the presence of Eleanor and the absence of Philip of France. Shortly before Christmas 1191, however, Philip returned to his kingdom.[1591] In January 1192 he called the seneschal and barons of Normandy to a conference, and demanded from them, on the strength of a document which he shewed to them as the treaty made between himself and Richard at Messina, the restitution of his sister Adela and her dower-castles in the Vexin, as well as the counties of Eu and Aumale. The seneschal, rightly suspecting the paper to be a forgery, answered that he had no instructions from Richard on the subject, and would give up neither the lands nor the lady.[1592] Philip threatened war, and all Richard’s constables prepared for defence.[1593] Meanwhile, Philip offered to John the investiture of all Richard’s continental dominions, if he would accept Adela’s hand with them.[1594] That John had a wife already was an obstacle which troubled neither the French king nor John himself. He was quite ready to accept the offer; but meanwhile it reached his mother’s ears, and she hurried to England to stop him.[1595] Landing at Portsmouth on Quinquagesima Sunday,[1596] she found him on the point of embarking; the archbishop of Rouen and the other justiciars gladly welcomed her back to her former post of regent, and joined with her in forbidding John to leave the country, under penalty of having all his estates seized in the king’s name.[1597] They then held a series of councils, at Windsor, Oxford, London and Winchester;[1598] in that of London the barons renewed their oath of fealty to the king, but to pacify John they were obliged to do the like to him as heir,[1599] and the immediate consequence was that he persuaded the constables of Windsor and Wallingford to surrender their castles into his hands.[1600] William of Longchamp thought his opportunity had come. He managed to gain Eleanor’s ear and to bribe John;[1601] both connived at his return to Dover, and thence he sent up his demand for restoration to a council gathered in London towards the close of Lent.[1602] It seems plain that he had won the favour of the queen; for the justiciars, whose original purpose in meeting had been to discuss the misdoings of John, now saw themselves obliged to fetch John himself from Wallingford to support them, as they expected, in their resistance to the chancellor’s demands. To their dismay John told them plainly that he was on the point of making alliance with his old enemy for a consideration of seven hundred pounds.[1603] They saw that their only chance was to outbid William. They gave John two thousand marks out of the royal treasury;[1604] Walter of Rouen helped to persuade the queen-mother,[1605] and the chancellor was bidden to depart out of the land.[1606]

[1591] Will. Armor. _Gesta Phil. Aug._ (Duchesne, _Hist. Franc. Scriptt._, vol. v.), p. 76.

[1592] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 236. Cf. Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 56. It is certain that Philip told and acted a downright lie; for the treaty of Messina is extant, and its main provisions are these: Richard shall be bound to surrender Adela only within one month after his own return to Gaul, and the whole Norman Vexin, including its castles, shall remain to him and his heirs male for ever. Only in case of his death without male heir is it to revert to the French Crown; and as for Aumale and Eu, there is not a word about them. Rymer, _Fœdera_, vol. i. p. 54.

[1593] _Gesta Ric._ as above. Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 55.

[1594] _Gesta Ric._ as above.

[1595] _Ibid._ Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 57.

[1596] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 55. This was February 11 [1192].

[1597] _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 237.

[1598] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 57.

[1599] _Gesta Ric._ as above. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 187.

[1600] Ric. Devizes as above. In Rog. Howden (as above), p. 204, the betrayal of these castles is placed a year later. Roger’s account of the first few months of 1193 has, however, somewhat the look of a repetition of the history of 1192, and his story is much less consistent and circumstantial than Richard’s, which I have therefore ventured to follow.

[1601] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 239. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 188. Cf. Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 14 (Brewer, vol. iv. p. 413); Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 56; and Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 512.

[1602] Gir. Cambr., as above, says he landed about April 1, _i.e._ the Wednesday before Easter. But the other writers seem to place this council soon after Mid-Lent. Gerv. Cant., as above, says the chancellor came “mediante mense Martio.”

[1603] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), pp. 58, 59.

[1604] “2000 marks, £500 of which were to be raised from the chancellor’s estates” is Bishop Stubbs’s interpretation (_Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. p. xc.) of _Gesta Ric._, p. 239, and Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 59.

[1605] _Gesta Ric._ as above.

[1606] _Ibid._ Ric. Devizes as above. Gir. Cambr. as above (p. 415). Cf. Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 18 (Howlett, vol. i. pp. 345, 346). According to the first authority, William sailed again on Maunday Thursday, April 2.

Shortly afterwards, two cardinal-legates arrived in France to settle his dispute with the archbishop of Rouen. When they attempted to enter Normandy, the seneschal refused them admittance and shut the gates of Gisors in their faces, pleading that the subjects of an English king were forbidden by ancient custom to admit legates into any part of his dominions without his consent. The legates on this excommunicated the seneschal and laid all Normandy under interdict.[1607] William had done the same to his own diocese before leaving England.[1608] Archbishop Walter, the English justiciars, even the queen-mother, were all at their wits’ end: Philip was openly threatening to invade the Norman duchy; the obstacle which had prevented him until now--the unwillingness of the French barons to attack the territories of a crusader[1609]--would be considerably lessened by the interdict; the only person who could be found in England capable of undertaking a negotiation with the legates was Hugh of Durham; but Hugh declined to go till his own quarrel with his metropolitan was settled,[1610] and this was not accomplished till the middle of October.[1611] Then indeed he went to France, and succeeded in obtaining the removal of the interdict.[1612] But in other quarters the prospect grew no brighter. Aquitaine, held in check for a while by the presence of its duchess, had risen as soon as she was out of reach. Count Ademar of Angoulême marched into Poitou with a large body of horse and foot; taken prisoner by the Poitevins, he appealed to the French king for deliverance.[1613] A revolt of the Gascon barons was with difficulty suppressed by the seneschal, assisted by young Sancho of Navarre,[1614] brother of Richard’s queen; and the victors rashly followed up their success by a raid upon Toulouse, which, though it went unpunished for the moment, could only lead to further mischief.[1615] In England John was still defying the justiciars; and they dared not proceed to extremities with him, for they now saw before them an imminent prospect of having to acknowledge him as their king.

[1607] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 246, 247. Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), pp. 43, 44.

[1608] Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 15 (Brewer, vol. iv. p. 414). Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), pp. 42, 43, puts this in the previous October.

[1609] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 236. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 187.

[1610] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 247.

[1611] Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 513. Rog. Howden as above, pp. 170 note, 172.

[1612] _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 250.

[1613] Chron. S. Albin. a. 1192 (Marchegay, _Eglises_, p. 50). The sequel of this story, however, clearly belongs to the following year; so it may be that the whole of it is antedated.

[1614] Rog. Howden as above, p. 194.

[1615] _Ibid._ Cf. Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 55.

Richard’s adventures in the East lie outside the sphere of English history. The crusade of which he was the chief hero and leader had indirectly an important effect upon English social life; but it was in no sense a national undertaking; every man in the host was, like the king himself, simply a volunteer, not sent out by his country or representing it in any way. Richard’s glory is all his own; to us, the practical interest of the crusade in which he won it consists in the light which it throws upon his character, and on his political relations with the other princes who took part in the enterprise. The story, as it comes out bit by bit, oddly intermingled with the dry details of home affairs, in the English historians of the time, and as it is told at full length in the “Itinerary” composed by one of his fellow-crusaders, reads more like an old wiking-saga than a piece of sober history, and its hero looks more like a comrade of S. Olaf or Harald Hardrada than a contemporary of Philip Augustus. Nothing indeed except Richard’s northman-blood can account for the intense love of the sea, and the consummate seamanship, as sound and practical as it was brilliant and daring, which he displayed on his outward voyage. No sea-king of old ever guided his little squadron of “long keels” more boldly, more skilfully and more successfully through a more overwhelming succession of difficulties and perils than those through which Richard guided his large and splendid fleet on its way from Messina to Acre.[1616] Not one had ever made a conquest at once as rapid, as valuable and as complete as the conquest of Cyprus, which Richard made in a few days, as a mere episode in his voyage, in vengeance for the ill-treatment which some of his ship-wrecked sailors had met with at the hands of the Cypriots and their king.[1617] But it was a mere wiking-conquest; Richard never dreamed of permanently adding this remote island to the list of his dominions; within a few months he sold it to the Templars,[1618] and afterwards, as they failed to take possession, he made it over to the dethroned king of Jerusalem who had helped him to conquer it, Guy of Lusignan.[1619] The same love of adventure for its own sake colours many of his exploits in the Holy Land itself. But there we learn, too, that his character had yet another and a higher aspect. We find in him, side by side with the reckless northern valour, the northern endurance, patience and self-restraint, coupled with a real disinterestedness and a self-sacrificing generosity for which it would be somewhat hard to find a parallel among his forefathers on either side.[1620] Alike in a military, a political and a moral point of view, Richard is the only one among the leaders of the crusading host, except Guy, who comes out of the ordeal with a character not merely unstained, but shining with redoubled lustre. And this alone would almost account for the fact that, before they separated, nearly every one of them, save Guy, had become Richard’s open or secret foe.

[1616] See the details of the voyage in _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 177–209; _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 162–169; Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 105–112.

[1617] _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 188–204. _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 163–168. Rog. Howden as above, pp. 105–112. Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), pp. 47–49. Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 20 (Howlett, vol. i. pp. 350, 351).

[1618] Rigord (Duchesne, _Hist. Franc. Scriptt._, vol. v.), p. 35.

[1619] _Ibid._ _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 351. R. Coggeshall (Stevenson), p. 36.

[1620] It is impossible to give illustrations here; the whole _Itinerarium_, from his arrival at Acre (p. 211) onwards, is in fact one long illustration.