Chapter I: Archbishop Thomas (2)

[99] Garnier (Hippeau), p. 32. Will. Cant. (Robertson,
_Becket_, vol. i.), p. 13. E. Grim (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 376.
Herb. Bosh. (_ib._ vol. iii.), p. 273. Anon. II. (_ib._ vol.
iv.), p. 97. Cf. Ep. ccxxv. (_ib._ vol. v. p. 527).

[100] For Hilary of Chichester’s attempt at evasion see Herb.
Bosh. (as above), pp. 273, 274, and _Thomas Saga_ (Magnusson),
vol. i. p. 155.

[101] Garnier, E. Grim, Herb. Bosh., Anon. II., as above. For
this scene the _Saga_ (as above), pp. 153–155, substitutes a
wrangle between king and primate, which however comes to the
same result.

[102] Herb. Bosh. (as above), p. 274.

[103] _Ib._ p. 275. _Summa Causæ_ (_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 205.
_Thomas Saga_ (as above), p. 157.

[104] Herb. Bosh. (as above), p. 275.

[105] He was with his father at the council of Clarendon in
January 1164. _Summa Causæ_ (_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 208.

The king’s wrath presently cooled so far that he invited the primate to a conference at Northampton. They met on horseback in a field near the town; high words passed between them; the king again demanded, and the archbishop again refused, unconditional acceptance of the customs; and in this determination they parted.[106] A private negotiation with some of the other prelates--suggested, it was said, by the diplomatist-bishop of Lisieux--was more successful; Roger of York and Robert of Lincoln met the king at Gloucester and agreed to accept his customs with no other qualification than a promise on his part to exact nothing contrary to the rights of their order. Hilary of Chichester not only did the same but undertook to persuade the primate himself. In this of course he failed.[107] Some time before Christmas, however, there came to the archbishop three commissioners who professed to be sent by the Pope to bid him withdraw his opposition; Henry having, according to their story, assured the Pope that he had no designs against the clergy or the Church, and required nothing beyond a verbal assent for the saving of his regal dignity.[108] On the faith of their word Thomas met the king at Oxford,[109] and there promised to accept the customs and obey the king “loyally and in good faith.” Henry then demanded that as the archbishop had withstood him publicly, so his submission should be repeated publicly too, in an assembly of barons and clergy to be convened for that purpose.[110] This was more than Thomas had been led to expect; but he made no objection, and the Christmas season passed over in peace. Henry kept the feast at Berkhampstead,[111] one of the castles lately taken from the archbishop; Thomas at Canterbury, where he had just been consecrating the great English scholar Robert of Melun--one of the three Papal commissioners--to succeed Gilbert Foliot as bishop of Hereford.[112]

[106] Anon. I. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iv.), pp. 27–29.

[107] Garnier (Hippeau), pp. 33, 34. Will. Cant. (Robertson,
_Becket_, vol. i.), pp. 14, 15. E. Grim (_ib._ vol. ii.), pp.
377, 378. Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), pp. 30–31. Cf. Herb. Bosh.
(_ib._ vol. iii.), p. 276, and _Thomas Saga_ (Magnusson), vol.
i. p. 159.

[108] Garnier (Hippeau), pp. 34, 35. Will. Cant. (as above),
p. 15. E. Grim (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 378. Anon. I. (_ib._ vol.
iv.), p. 31. _Thomas Saga_ (as above), p. 161. All, except the
Anon., seem to doubt the genuineness of the mission.

[109] Herb. Bosh. (as above), p. 277. The Anon. I. (_ib._ vol.
iv.), p. 32, and Garnier (Hippeau), p. 35, say Woodstock.

[110] Garnier, Will. Cant., Herb. Bosh. and _Thomas Saga_, as
above. E. Grim (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. ii.), p. 379. Anon.
I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), pp. 33, 34.

[111] Eyton, _Itin. Hen. II._, p. 66, from Pipe Roll a. 1164.

[112] On December 22. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 176.

On S. Hilary’s day the proposed council met at the royal hunting-seat of Clarendon near Salisbury.[113] Henry called upon the archbishop to fulfil the promise he had given at Oxford and publicly declare his assent to the customs. Thomas drew back. As he saw the mighty array of barons round the king--as he looked over the ranks of his own fellow-bishops--it flashed at last even upon his unsuspicious mind that all this anxiety to draw him into such a public repetition of a scene which he had thought to be final must cover something more than the supposed papal envoys had led him to expect, and that those “customs” which he had been assured were but a harmless word might yet become a terrible reality if he yielded another step. His hesitation threw the king into one of those paroxysms of Angevin fury which scared the English and Norman courtiers almost out of their senses. Thomas alone remained undaunted; the bishops stood “like a flock of sheep ready for slaughter,” and the king’s own ministers implored the primate to save them from the shame of having to lay violent hands upon him at their sovereign’s command. For two days he stood firm; on the third two knights of the Temple brought him a solemn assurance, on the honour of their order and the salvation of their souls, that his fears were groundless and that a verbal submission to the king’s will would end the quarrel and restore peace to the Church. He believed them; and though he still shrank from the formality, thus emptied of meaning, as little better than a lie, yet for the Church’s sake he gave way. He publicly promised to obey the king’s laws and customs loyally and in good faith, and made all the other bishops do likewise.[114]

[113] On the date see note B at end of chapter.

[114] Garnier (Hippeau), pp. 20–22, 36. Will. Cant. (Robertson,
_Becket_, vol. i.), pp. 16, 17. E. Grim (_ib._ vol. ii.), pp.
380–382. Herb. Bosh. (_ib._ vol. iii.), pp. 278, 279. Anon. I.
(_ib._ vol. iv.), pp. 33–36. Anon. II. (_ibid._), p. 99. Cf.
_Thomas Saga_ (Magnusson), vol. i. pp. 163–167, and Gerv. Cant.
(Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 177, 178.

The words were no sooner out of their mouths than Thomas learned how just his suspicions had been. A question was instantly raised--what were these customs? It was too late to discuss them that night; next morning the king bade the oldest and wisest of the barons go and make a recognition of the customs observed by his grandfather and bring up a written report of them for ratification by the council.[115] Nine days later[116] the report was presented. It comprised sixteen articles, known ever since as the Constitutions of Clarendon.[117] Some of them merely re-affirmed, in a more stringent and technical manner, the rules of William the Conqueror forbidding bishops and beneficed clerks to quit the realm or excommunicate the king’s tenants-in-chief without his leave, and the terms on which the temporal position of the bishops had been settled by the compromise between Henry I. and Anselm at the close of the struggle for the investitures. Another aimed at checking the abuse of appeals to Rome, by providing that no appeal should be carried further than the archbishop’s court without the assent of the king. The remainder dealt with the settlement of disputes concerning presentations and advowsons, which were transferred from the ecclesiastical courts to that of the king; the treatment of excommunicate persons; the limits of the right of sanctuary as regarding the goods of persons who had incurred forfeiture to the Crown; the ordination of villeins; the jurisdiction over clerks accused of crime; the protection of laymen cited before the Church courts against episcopal and archidiaconal injustice; and the method of procedure in suits concerning the tenure of Church lands.

[115] Garnier (Hippeau), p. 37. Will. Cant. (Robertson,
_Becket_, vol. i.), p. 18. E. Grim (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 382.
Herb. Bosh. (_ib._ vol. iii.), p. 279. Anon. I. (_ib._ vol.
iv.), p. 37. Anon. II. (_ibid._), p. 102. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs),
vol. i. p. 178.

[116] On the chronology see note B at end of chapter.

[117] Will. Cant. (as above), pp. 18–23; Gerv. Cant, (as
above), pp. 178–180; Stubbs, _Select Charters_, pp. 137–140.

The two articles last mentioned are especially remarkable. The former provided that if a layman was accused before a bishop on insufficient testimony, the sheriff should at the bishop’s request summon a jury of twelve lawful men of the neighbourhood to swear to the truth or falsehood of the charge.[118] The other clause decreed that when an estate was claimed by a clerk in frank-almoign and by a layman as a secular fief the question should be settled by the chief justiciar in like manner on the recognition of twelve jurors.[119] The way in which these provisions are introduced implies that the principle contained in them was already well known in the country; it indicates that some steps had already been taken towards a general remodelling of legal procedure, intended to embrace all branches of judicial administration and bring them all into orderly and harmonious working. In this view the Constitutions of Clarendon were only part of a great scheme in whose complete developement they might have held an appropriate and useful place.[120] But the churchmen of the day, to whom they were thus suddenly presented as an isolated fragment, could hardly be expected to see in them anything but an engine of state tyranny for grinding down the Church. Almost every one of them assumed, in some way or other, the complete subordination of ecclesiastical to temporal authority; the right of lay jurisdiction over clerks was asserted in the most uncompromising terms; while the last clause of all, which forbade the ordination of villeins without the consent of their lords, stirred a nobler feeling than jealousy for mere class-privileges. Its real intention was probably not to hinder the enfranchisement of serfs, but simply to protect the landowners against the loss of services which, being attached to the soil, they had no means of replacing, and very possibly also to prevent the number of criminal clerks being further increased by the admission of villeins anxious to escape from the justice of their lords. But men who for ages had been trained to regard the Church as a divinely-appointed city of refuge for all the poor and needy, the oppressed and the enslaved, could only see the other side of the measure and feel their inmost hearts rise up in the cry of a contemporary poet--“Hath not God called us all, bond and free, to His service?”[121]

[118] Const. Clarend. c. 6 (Stubbs, _Select Charters_, pp. 138,
139).

[119] Const. Clarend. c. 9 (Stubbs, _Select Charters_, p. 139).

[120] It should be noticed that this was clearly understood,
and full justice was done to Henry’s intentions, not only
by the most impartial and philosophic historian of the
time--William of Newburgh (l. ii. c. 16; Howlett, vol. i. p.
140)--but even by Thomas’s most ardent follower, Herbert of
Bosham (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii. pp. 272, 273, 278, 280).

[121] “Et Deus à sun servise nus a tuz apelez!
Mielz valt filz à vilain qui est preuz et senez,
Que ne fet gentilz hum failliz et debutez!”

Garnier (Hippeau), p. 89. This, variously expressed, was the
grand argument of the clerical-democratic party, and the true
source of their strength. And they were not altogether wrong in
attributing the action of their opponents, in part at least,
to aristocratic contempt and exclusiveness--if we may trust
Gervase of Canterbury’s report of a complaint said to have
been uttered at a later time by the king: “Hi quoque omnes”
[_i.e._ the religious orders] “tales sibi fratres associant,
pelliparios scilicet et sutores, quorum nec unus deberet
instante necessitate in episcopum vel abbatem salvâ conscientiâ
nostrâ promoveri.” Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 540.

The discussion occupied six days;[122] as each clause was read out to the assembly, Thomas rose and set forth his reasons for opposing it.[123] When at last the end was reached, Henry called upon him and all the bishops to affix their seals to the constitutions. “Never,” burst out the primate--“never, while there is a breath left in my body!”[124] The king was obliged to content himself with the former verbal assent, gained on false pretences as it had been; a copy of the obnoxious document was handed to the primate, who took it, as he said, for a witness against its contrivers, and indignantly quitted the assembly.[125] In an agony of remorse for the credulity which had led him into such a trap he withdrew to Winchester and suspended himself from all priestly functions till he had received absolution from the Pope.[126]

[122] See note B at end of chapter.

[123] Herb. Bosh. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), pp.
280–285. The answers to the Constitutions in Garnier (Hippeau),
pp. 84–89, seem to be partly Thomas’s and partly his own.

[124] “L’arcevesques respunt: Fei que dei Deu le bel,
Co n’ert, tant cum la vie me bate en cest vessel!”

Garnier (Hippeau), p. 37. Cf. E. Grim (Robertson, _Becket_,
vol. ii.), p. 383, and Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 37.

[125] Garnier, as above. Will. Cant. (Robertson, _Becket_,
vol. i.), p. 23. E. Grim (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 383. Anon. I.
(_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 37. Cf. Joh. Salisb. (_ib._ vol. ii.),
p. 311; Herb. Bosh. (_ib._ vol. iii.), p. 288; Anon. II.
(_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 103, and _Thomas Saga_ (Magnusson), vol.
i. pp. 167–169. Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol.
iii.), pp. 48, 49, says that Thomas did set his seal to the
constitutions; but his statement is at variance with those of
all other authorities; and he himself afterwards recites two
speeches made at Northampton, one by Thomas and one by Hilary
of Chichester, both distinctly affirming that none of the
bishops sealed. _Ib._ pp. 66, 67.

[126] Garnier (Hippeau), p. 38. Will. Cant. (as above), p. 24.
Joh. Salisb. (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 312. E. Grim (_ibid._), p.
383. Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol. iii.), p. 49. Herb. Bosh.
(_ibid._), pp. 289–292. Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 37.

It was to the Pope that both parties looked for a settlement of their dispute; but Alexander, ill acquainted both with the merits of the case and with the characters of the disputants, and beset on all sides with political difficulties, could only strive in vain to hold the balance evenly between them. Meanwhile the political quarrel of king and primate was embittered by an incident in which Henry’s personal feelings were stirred. His brother William--the favourite young brother whom he had once planned to establish as sovereign in Ireland--had set his heart upon a marriage with the widowed countess of Warren; the archbishop had forbidden the match on the ground of affinity, and his prohibition had put an end to the scheme.[127] Baffled and indignant, William returned to Normandy and poured the story of his grievance into the sympathizing ears first of his mother and then, as it seems, of the brotherhood at Bec.[128] On January 29, 1164--one day before the dissolution of the council of Clarendon--he died at Rouen;[129] and a writer who was himself at that time a monk at Bec not only implies his own belief that the young man actually died of disappointment, but declares that Henry shared that belief, and thenceforth looked upon the primate by whom the disappointment had been caused as little less than the murderer of his brother.[130] The king’s exasperation was at any rate plain to all eyes; and as the summer drew on Thomas found himself gradually deserted. His best friend, John of Salisbury, had already been taken from his side, and was soon driven into exile by the jealousy of the king;[131] another friend, John of Canterbury, had been removed out of the country early in 1163 by the ingenious device of making him bishop of Poitiers.[132] The old dispute concerning the relations between Canterbury and York had broken out afresh with intensified bitterness between Roger of Pont-l’Evêque and the former comrade of whom he had long been jealous, and who had now once again been promoted over his head; the king, hoping to turn it to account for his own purposes, was intriguing at the Papal court in Roger’s behalf, and one of his confidential agents there was Thomas’s own archdeacon, Geoffrey Ridel.[133] The bishops as yet were passive; in the York controversy Gilbert Foliot strongly supported his own metropolitan;[134] but between him and Thomas there was already a question, amicable indeed at present but ominous nevertheless, as to whether or not the profession of obedience made to Theobald by the bishop of Hereford should be repeated by the same man as bishop of London to Theobald’s successor.[135]

[127] Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iv.) p. 142.
Isabel de Warren was the widow of Stephen’s son William, who of
course was cousin in the third degree to William of Anjou.

[128] “Hic” [_i.e._ Thomas] “regis fratrem pertæsum semper
habebat,
Ne consul foret hic, obvius ille fuit:
Cum nata comitis comitem Warenna tulisset,
Nobilis hic præsul ne nocuisset ei.
Irâ permotus, nunquam rediturus, ab Anglis
Advenit is, matri nunciat ista piæ.
Hinc Beccum veniens fratrum se tradit amori.”

_Draco Norm._, l. ii. c. 8, vv. 441–447 (Howlett, _Will.
Newb._, vol. ii. p. 676).

[129] Rob. Torigni, a. 1164. _Draco Norm._, l. ii. c. 8, vv.
448–450 (as above). The date is from the first-named writer.

[130] _Draco Norm._, l. ii. c. 8, vv. 453–456 (as
above). Considering the abundance--one might almost say
superabundance--of unquestionably authentic information which
we already possess as to the origin and grounds of Henry’s
quarrel with Thomas, I cannot attach so much importance as
Mr. Howlett apparently does (_ib._ pref. pp. lxi–lxiii) to
this new contribution from Stephen of Rouen. Stephen’s work
is quasi-romantic in character and utterly unhistoric in
style; and his view of the whole Becket controversy is simply
ludicrous, for he ignores the clerical immunities and the
Constitutions of Clarendon altogether, and attributes the
quarrel wholly to two other causes--this affair about William,
and Thomas’s supposed peculations while chancellor (_ib._ l.
iii. c. 12, vv. 909–914, p. 741). That the domestic tragedy
of which he gives such a highly-coloured account had some
bearing upon the great political drama appears from the words
of Richard le Breton to Thomas at his murder seven years later,
“Hoc habeas pro amore domini mei Willelmi fratris regis” (Will.
Fitz-Steph., Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii. p. 142). But in
these words there is no mention either of William’s death or
of Henry’s feelings about it. Some allusion to either or both
may have been in the speaker’s mind; but what he actually
said implies nothing more than that he had been in William’s
service, and had therefore resented the thwarting of his lord’s
interests, and through them, it may be, of his own. Will.
Fitz-Steph., after explaining what William’s grievance was,
simply adds, “Unde Willelmus ... inconsolabiliter doluit; et
omnes sui archiepiscopo inimici facti sunt.” _Ibid._

[131] From a comparison of Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson,
_Becket_, vol. iii.), p. 46, with Ep. lv. (_ib._ vol. v. pp.
95–103), it appears that John was separated from Thomas before
the council of Clarendon. After some months of wandering he
found shelter at Reims, in the great abbey of S. Remigius of
which his old friend Peter of Celle was now abbot, and there he
chiefly dwelt during the next seven years.

[132] Will. Fitz-Steph., as above, says John was promoted for
the purpose of getting him out of the way. He was consecrated
by the Pope at the council of Tours; R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol.
i. p. 311. It must be remembered that Henry had already had
experience of John’s zeal for clerical immunities.

[133] Epp. xiii., xxvii., xxxvi., xli.–xliii., l., li., liii.,
liv. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. v. pp. 21, 22, 44–46, 59, 60,
67–69, 85, 87, 88, 91, 94); Will. Cant. (_ib._ vol. i.), p.
24; E. Grim (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 384; Anon. I. (_ib._ vol.
iv.), pp. 38, 39; Garnier (Hippeau), pp. 39, 40; _Thomas Saga_
(Magnusson), vol. i. pp. 179–181; Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i.
p. 181.

[134] Ep. xxviii. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. v. pp. 46, 47).

[135] Epp. xxxv., lxvii. (_ib._ pp. 56, 57, 130, 131).

Thomas himself fully expected to meet the fate of Anselm; throughout the winter his friends had been endeavouring to secure him a refuge in France;[136] and early in the summer of 1164, having been refused an interview with the king,[137] he made two attempts to escape secretly from Romney. The first time he was repelled by a contrary wind; the second time the sailors put back ostensibly for the same reason, but really because they had recognized their passenger and dreaded the royal wrath;[138] and a servant who went on the following night to shut the gates of the deserted palace at Canterbury found the primate, worn out with fatigue and disappointment, sitting alone in the darkness like a beggar upon his own door-step.[139] Despairing of escape, he made another effort to see the king at Woodstock. Henry dreaded nothing so much as the archbishop’s flight, for he felt that it would probably be followed by a Papal interdict on his dominions,[140] and would certainly give an immense advantage against him to Louis of France, who was at that very moment threatening war in Auvergne.[141] He therefore received Thomas courteously, though with somewhat less than the usual honours,[142] and made no allusion to the past except by a playful question “whether the archbishop did not think the realm was wide enough to contain them both?” Thomas saw, however, that the old cordiality was gone; his enemies saw it too, and, as his biographer says, “they came about him like bees.”[143] Foremost among them was John the king’s marshal, who had a suit in the archbishop’s court concerning the manor of Pageham.[144] It was provided by one of Henry’s new rules of legal procedure that if a suitor saw no chance of obtaining justice in the court of his own lord he might, by taking an oath to that effect and bringing two witnesses to do the same, transfer the suit to a higher court.[145] John by this method removed his case from the court of the archbishop to that of the king; and thither Thomas was cited to answer his claim on the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross. When that day came the primate was too ill to move; he sent essoiners to excuse his absence in legal form, and also a written protest against the removal of the suit, on the ground that it had been obtained by perjury--John having taken the oath not upon the Gospel, but upon an old song-book which he had surreptitiously brought into court for the purpose.[146] Henry angrily refused to believe either Thomas or his essoiners,[147] and immediately issued orders for a great council to be held at Northampton.[148] It was customary to call the archbishops and the greater barons by a special writ addressed to each individually, while the lesser tenants-in-chief received a general summons through the sheriffs of the different counties. Roger of York was specially called in due form;[149] the metropolitan of all Britain, who ought to have been invited first and most honourably of all, merely received through the sheriff of Kent a peremptory citation to be ready on the first day of the council with his defence against the claim of John the marshal.[150]

[136] Epp. xxxv., xxxvi., lv. (_ib._ pp. 57, 58, 97).

[137] Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._), vol. iii. p. 49.

[138] Cf. Will. Fitz-Steph. as above; Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._),
p. 293; Anon. II. (_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 104; and Alan Tewkesb.
(_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 325, with E. Grim (_ibid._), pp. 389, 390;
Will. Cant. (_ib._ vol. i.), p. 29; Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.),
p. 40; and Garnier (Hippeau), p. 49.

[139] Alan Tewkesb. as above.

[140] Will. Cant. (_ib._ vol. i.), p. 29. E. Grim (_ib._
vol. ii.), p. 390. Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 40. Garnier
(Hippeau), p. 50.

[141] Ep. lx. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. v., p. 115).

[142] Ep. ccxxv. (_ib._ p. 530). Herb. Bosh. (_ib._ vol. iii.),
p. 294.

[143] Herb. Bosh. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), pp. 294,
295.

[144] Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ibid._), p. 50.

[145] Garnier (Hippeau), p. 51. Will. Cant. (Robertson,
_Becket_, vol. i.), p. 31. Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 41. On
this proceeding see Glanville, _De Legg. et Conss. Angl._, l.
xii. c. 7.

[146] Garnier (Hippeau), pp. 51–53. Will. Cant. (as above), p.
30. E. Grim (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 390. Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._
vol. iii.), p. 50. Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 41. Ep. ccxxv.
(_ib._ vol. v.), pp. 530, 531.

[147] Will. Fitz-Steph. as above.

[148] _Ib._ p. 49. Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._), p. 296. Anon. I.
(_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 30. Ep. ccxxv. (_ib._ vol. v.), p. 531.
Garnier (Hippeau), p. 50.

[149] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 313, 314.

[150] Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), p. 51.

The council--an almost complete gathering of the tenants-in-chief, lay and spiritual, throughout the realm[151]--was summoned for Tuesday October 6.[152] The king however lingered hawking by the river-side till late at night,[153] and it was not till next morning after Mass that the archbishop could obtain an audience. He began by asking leave to go and consult the Pope on his dispute with Roger of York and divers other questions touching the interests of both Church and state; Henry angrily bade him be silent and retire to prepare his defence for his contempt of the royal summons in the matter of John the marshal.[154] The trial took place next day. John himself did not appear, being detained in the king’s service at the Michaelmas session of the Exchequer in London;[155] the charge of failure of justice was apparently withdrawn, but for the alleged contempt Thomas was sentenced to a fine of five hundred pounds.[156] Indignant as he was at the flagrant illegality of the trial, in which his own suffragans had been compelled to sit in judgement on their primate, Thomas was yet persuaded to submit, in the hope of avoiding further wrangling over what seemed now to have become a mere question of money.[157] But there were other questions to follow. Henry now demanded from the archbishop a sum of three hundred pounds, representing the revenue due from the honours of Eye and Berkhampstead for the time during which he had held them since his resignation of the chancellorship.[158] Thomas remarked that he had spent far more than that sum on the repair of the royal palaces, and protested against the unfairness of making such a demand without warning. Still, however, he disdained to resist for a matter of filthy lucre, and found sureties for the required amount.[159] Next morning Henry made a further demand for the repayment of a loan made to Thomas in his chancellor days.[160] In those days the two friends had virtually had but one purse as well as “one mind and one heart,” and Thomas was deeply wounded by this evident proof that their friendship was at an end. Once more he submitted; but this time it was no easy matter to find sureties;[161] and then, late on the Friday evening, there was reached the last and most overwhelming count in the long indictment thus gradually unrolled before the eyes of the astonished primate. He was called upon to render a complete statement of all the revenues of vacant sees, baronies and honours of which he had had the custody as chancellor--in short, of the whole accounts of the chancery during his tenure of office.[162]

[151] Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._) p. 296. E. Grim (_ib._ vol. ii.),
p. 390. Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 41. R. Diceto (Stubbs),
vol. i. p. 313. Only two bishops were absent: Nigel of Ely,
disabled by paralysis, and William of Norwich, who made an
excuse to avoid sharing in what he knew was to come. Gerv.
Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 185. From Alan Tewkesb. however
(Robertson, _Becket_, vol. ii. p. 331), it seems that Norwich
came after all--only, like Rochester (Will. Fitz-Steph., _ib._
vol. iii. p. 52), somewhat late.

[152] Will. Fitz-Steph. (as above), p. 50. Herb. Bosh. (_ib._
p. 296), says “hebdomadæ feria quinta, sexta ante B. Calixti
... diem”--a self-contradiction, for in 1164 October 9, the
sixth day before the feast of S. Calixtus, was not Thursday
but Friday. He makes, however, a similar confusion as to the
last day of the council (_ib._ pp. 301, 304, 326); and as this
was undoubtedly Tuesday October 13--not Wednesday 14, as he
seems to make it in p. 304--it is plain that his mistake lies
in placing the feast of S. Calixtus a day too early, and that
the day to which he really means to assign the opening of the
assembly is Thursday October 8. This really agrees with Will.
Fitz-Steph., for, as will be seen, the council did not formally
meet till a day after that for which it was summoned, and did
not get to business till a day later still. William gives the
date for which it had been summoned; Herbert, that of its
practical beginning. R. Diceto (Stubbs, vol. i. p. 313) has
substituted the closing day for that of opening; the author of
_Thomas Saga_ (Magnusson, vol. i. p. 241), has done the same,
with a further confusion as to the days of the week; while
Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs, vol. i. p. 182) has a date which agrees
with nothing, and which must be altogether wrong.

[153] Will. Fitz-Steph. as above.

[154] Garnier (Hippeau), p. 52. E. Grim (Robertson, _Becket_,
vol. ii.), p. 391. Cf. Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 42, and
Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol. iii.), p. 51.

[155] Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), p. 51.

[156] _Ibid._ Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._), p. 297. Will. Cant.
(_ib._ vol. i.), p. 30. E. Grim (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 391.
Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 42. Garnier (Hippeau), p. 52.
_Thomas Saga_ (Magnusson), vol. i. p. 18. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs),
vol. i. p. 183. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 313. The
actual sentence was forfeiture of all his moveable goods _ad
misericordiam_--commuted according to custom; cf. Herb. Bosh.
and Gerv. Cant., as above, with Will. Fitz-Steph. (as above),
p. 62. Garnier makes the sum three hundred pounds; Will. Cant.,
fifty; E. Grim, the Anon. I. and R. Diceto, five hundred.

[157] Garnier (Hippeau), p. 52. E. Grim (as above), p. 391.
Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 43.

[158] This must be the meaning of Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol.
iii.), p. 53, compared with R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. pp.
313, 314.

[159] Will. Fitz-Steph. as above.

[160] The demand is stated by Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ibid._) as
“de quingentis marcis ex causâ commodati in exercitu Tolosæ,
et aliis quingentis marcis ex causâ fidejussionis regis pro eo
erga quendam Judæum ibidem.” This would make the total amount
£666: 3: 8. Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._), p. 298, and the _Thomas
Saga_ (Magnusson), vol. i. p. 189, make it five hundred pounds.

[161] Herb. Bosh. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), pp. 298,
299.

[162] Garnier (Hippeau), p. 53. Will. Cant. (Robertson,
_Becket_, vol. i.), p. 31. Joh. Salisb. (_ib._ vol. ii.), p.
312. E. Grim (_ibid._), p. 392. Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol.
iii.), p. 54. Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._), p. 299. Anon. I. (_ib._
vol. iv.), p. 43. Anon. II. (_ibid._), p. 104. R. Diceto
(Stubbs), vol. i. p. 314. The total sum due was assessed
in the end at thirty thousand pounds, according to Garnier
(p. 65), Will. Cant. (p. 38), E. Grim (p. 396) and Anon. I.
(p. 49). Herb. Bosh., however (as above), makes it thirty
thousand marks (_i.e._ twenty thousand pounds). The _Thomas
Saga_ (Magnusson), vol. i. p. 191, says thirty thousand marks
“of burnt silver,” _i.e._ blanch; while Gilbert Foliot, when
reciting the story to the Pope’s legates in 1167, is reported
as stating it at forty-four thousand marks (£2933: 6: 8); Ep.
cccxxxix. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. vi. p. 271). Herb. Bosh.
(as above) places this demand on the Saturday morning, and the
whole history of the three days, Friday-Sunday, October 9–11,
is somewhat confused by the discordant notes of time given by
the various biographers. I have followed Will. Fitz-Steph., who
is the most self-consistent and apparently the most trustworthy.

At this crushing demand the archbishop’s courage gave way, and he threw himself at the king’s feet in despair. All the bishops did likewise, but in vain; Henry swore “by God’s Eyes” that he would have the accounts in full. He granted, however, a respite till the morrow,[163] and Thomas spent the next morning in consultation with his suffragans.[164] Gilbert of London advised unconditional surrender;[165] Henry of Winchester, who had already withstood the king to his face the night before,[166] strongly opposed this view,[167] and suggested that the matter should be compromised by an offer of two thousand marks. This the king rejected.[168] After long deliberation[169] it was decided--again at the suggestion of Bishop Henry--that Thomas should refuse to entertain the king’s demands on the ground of the release from all secular obligations granted to him at his consecration. This answer was carried by the bishops in a body to the king. He refused to accept it, declaring that the release had been given without his authority; and all that the bishops could wring from him was a further adjournment till the Monday morning.[170] In the middle of Sunday night the highly-strung nervous organization of Thomas broke down under the long cruel strain; the morning found him lying in helpless agony, and with great difficulty he obtained from the king another day’s delay.[171] Before it expired a warning reached him from the court that if he appeared there he must expect nothing short of imprisonment or death.[172] A like rumour spread through the council, and at dawn the bishops in a body implored their primate to give up the hopeless struggle and throw himself on the mercy of the king. He refused to betray his Church by accepting a sentence which he believed to be illegal as well as unjust, forbade the bishops to take any further part in his trial, gave them notice of an appeal to Rome if they should do so, and charged them on their canonical obedience to excommunicate at once whatever laymen should dare to sit in judgement upon him.[173] Against this last command the bishop of London instantly appealed.[174] All then returned to the court, except Henry of Winchester and Jocelyn of Salisbury, who lingered for a last word of pleading or of sympathy.[175] When they too were gone, Thomas went to the chapel of the monastery in which he was lodging--a small Benedictine house dedicated to S. Andrew, just outside the walls of Northampton--and with the utmost solemnity celebrated the mass of S. Stephen with its significant introit: “Princes have sat and spoken against me.” The mass ended, he mounted his horse, and escorted no longer by a brilliant train of clerks and knights, but by a crowd of poor folk full of sympathy and admiration, he rode straight to the castle where the council awaited him.[176]

[163] Garnier (Hippeau), pp. 53, 54.

[164] Herb. Bosh. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), p. 300.

[165] Alan Tewkesb. (_ib._ vol. ii.), pp. 326, 327.

[166] Garnier (Hippeau), p. 54.

[167] Alan Tewkesb. (as above), p. 327.

[168] Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol. iii.), p. 54.

[169] The speeches of the bishops--interesting for studies of
character--are given at length by Alan Tewkesb. (as above), pp.
327, 328. Cf. the account in _Thomas Saga_ (Magnusson), vol. i.
pp. 193–199.

[170] Will. Cant. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. i.), p. 31. E.
Grim (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 392. Herb. Bosh. (_ib._ vol. iii.),
p. 300. Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 43. Anon. II. (_ibid._),
pp. 104, 105. Alan Tewkesb. (_ib._ vol. ii.), pp. 328, 329,
has a slightly different version; in this, and also in _Thomas
Saga_ (Magnusson), vol. i. pp. 199–201, Gilbert Foliot wins the
respite by a daring misrepresentation of Thomas’s answer to the
king. I have followed Herbert’s reckoning of the days here, as
it fits in with that of Will. Fitz-Steph., who seems the best
guide in this matter.

[171] Garnier (Hippeau), pp. 55, 56. Will. Cant. (as above),
p. 32. Alan Tewkesb. (_ib._ vol. ii.) pp. 329, 330. E. Grim
(_ibid._), pp. 392, 393. Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol. iii.),
p. 56. Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._), pp. 300, 301. Anon. I. (_ib._
vol. iv.), p. 44. _Thomas Saga_ (as above), p. 203. Here again
I follow Will. Fitz-Steph. and Herbert as to the day.

[172] Garnier (Hippeau), p. 56. Will. Cant. as above. E. Grim
(_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 393. Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 44.
_Thomas Saga_ as above.

[173] Will. Fitz-Steph. (as above), p. 62. Herb. Bosh.
(_ibid._), pp. 301–303. _Thomas Saga_ (as above), pp. 205–207.

[174] Herb. Bosh. (as above), p. 303. _Thomas Saga_ (as above),
p. 207. Some of the other biographers place this scene later
in the day, but we can hardly do otherwise than follow the two
eye-witnesses, William and Herbert.

[175] Herb. Bosh. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), p. 303.
Jocelyn’s after-conduct shewed that his sympathy with the
primate was not very deep.

[176] Will. Cant. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. i.), pp. 32, 34.
Alan Tewkesb. (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 330. E. Grim (_ibid._), p.
393. Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol. iii.), pp. 56, 57. Herb.
Bosh. (_ibid._), p. 304. Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 45.
Garnier (Hippeau), pp. 56–60. _Thomas Saga_ (Magnusson), vol.
i. pp. 207–209.

At the gate he took his cross from the attendant who usually bore it, and went forward alone to the hall where the bishops and barons were assembled.[177] They fell back in amazement at the apparition of the tall solitary figure, robed in full pontificals, and carrying the crucifix like an uplifted banner prepared at once for defence and for defiance; friends and opponents were almost equally shocked, and it was not till he had passed through their midst and seated himself in a corner of the hall that the bishops recovered sufficiently to gather round him and intreat that he would give up his unbecoming burthen. Thomas refused; “he would not lay down his standard, he would not part with his shield.” “A fool you ever were, a fool I see you are still and will be to the end,” burst out Gilbert Foliot at last, as after a long argument he turned impatiently away.[178] The others followed him, and the primate was left with only two companions, William Fitz-Stephen and his own especial friend, Herbert of Bosham.[179] The king had retired to an inner chamber and was there deliberating with his most intimate counsellors[180] when the story of the primate’s entrance reached his ears. He took it as an unpardonable insult, and caused Thomas to be proclaimed a traitor. Warnings and threats ran confusedly through the hall. The archbishop bent over the disciple sitting at his feet:--“For thee I fear--yet fear not thou; even now mayest thou share my crown.” The ardent encouragement with which Herbert answered him[181] provoked one of the king’s marshals to interfere and forbid that any one should speak to the “traitor.” William Fitz-Stephen, who had been vainly striving to put in a gentle word, caught his primate’s eyes and pointed to the crucifix, intrusting to its silent eloquence the lesson of patience and prayer which his lips were forbidden to utter. When he and Thomas, after long separation, met again in the land of exile, that speechless admonition seems to have been the first thing which recurred to the minds of both.[182]

[177] Garnier (Hippeau), p. 60. Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson,
_Becket_, vol. iii.), p. 57. Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._), p. 304.
Alan Tewkesb. (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 330. _Thomas Saga_ (as
above), p. 209.

[178] Garnier (Hippeau), pp. 60, 61. Will. Cant. (as above), p.
34. Alan Tewkesb. (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 330. E. Grim (_ibid._),
p. 394. Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol. iii.), p. 57. Herb. Bosh.
(_ibid._), pp. 305, 306. Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), pp. 46, 47.
_Thomas Saga_ (as above), pp. 211–213.

[179] Will. Cant. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. i.), p. 34. Herb.
Bosh. (_ib._ vol. iii.), p. 307. They only mention Herbert;
William’s presence appears in the sequel.

[180] Garnier (Hippeau), p. 61. Will. Cant. (as above), p.
35. E. Grim (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 394. Herb. Bosh. (_ib._ vol.
iii.), p. 305. Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 47.

[181] Herb. Bosh. (_ib._ vol. iii.), pp. 306–308.

[182] Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ibid._), p. 59.

In the chamber overhead, meanwhile, Henry had summoned the bishops to a conference.[183] On receiving from them an account of their morning’s interview with Thomas, he sent down to the latter his ultimatum, requiring him to withdraw his appeal to Rome and his commands to the bishops as contrary to the customs which he had sworn to observe, and to submit to the judgement of the king’s court on the chancery accounts. Seated, with eyes fixed on the cross, Thomas quietly but firmly refused. His refusal was reported to the king, who grew fiery-red with rage, caught eagerly at the barons’ proposal that the archbishop should be judged for contempt of his sovereign’s jurisdiction in appealing from it to another tribunal, and called upon the bishops to join in his condemnation.[184] York, London and Chichester proposed that they should cite him before the Pope instead, on the grounds of perjury at Clarendon and unjust demands on their obedience.[185] To this Henry consented; the appeal was uttered by Hilary of Chichester in the name of all, and in most insulting terms;[186] and the bishops sat down opposite their primate to await the sentence of the lay barons.[187]

[183] _Ib._ p. 57. Will. Cant. (_ib._ vol. i.), p. 35. Alan
Tewkesb. (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 331. Garnier (Hippeau), p. 62.

[184] Garnier (Hippeau), pp. 65, 66. Will. Cant. (Robertson,
_Becket_, vol. i.), pp. 36–38. Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol.
iii.), pp. 62–65. Cf. _Thomas Saga_ (Magnusson), vol. i. pp.
213–217.

[185] Will. Cant. (as above), p. 37. In the versions of E.
Grim (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 396, Herb. Bosh. (_ib._ vol. iii.),
p. 308, and the _Thomas Saga_ (as above), p. 217, they bluntly
bargain to be let off from actually sitting in judgement on
their primate in consideration of a promise to stand by the
king against him for ever after.

[186] Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), pp.
65, 66. Alan Tewkesb. (_ib._ vol. ii.), pp. 331, 332. According
to Alan, Thomas answered but one word--“I hear”; according to
William, he condescended to make a long speech. Cf. Anon. I.
(_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 49.

[187] Alan Tewkesb. (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 332.

What that sentence was no one outside the royal council-chamber ever really knew. It was one thing to determine it there and another to deliver it to its victim, sitting alone and unmoved with the sign of victory in his hand. With the utmost reluctance and hesitation the old justiciar, Earl Robert of Leicester, came to perform his odious task. At the word “judgement” Thomas started up, with uplifted crucifix and flashing eyes, forbade the speaker to proceed, and solemnly appealed to the protection of the court of Rome. The justiciar and his companions retired in silence.[188] “I too will go, for the hour is past,” said Thomas.[189] Cross in hand he strode past the speechless group of bishops into the outer hall; the courtiers followed him with a torrent of insults, which were taken up by the squires and serving-men outside; as he stumbled against a pile of faggots set ready for the fire, Ralf de Broc rushed upon him with a shout of “Traitor! traitor!”[190] The king’s half-brother, Count Hameline, echoed the cry;[191] but he shrank back at the primate’s retort--“Were I a knight instead of a priest, this hand should prove thee a liar!”[192] Amid a storm of abuse Thomas made his way into the court-yard and sprang upon his horse, taking up his faithful Herbert behind him.[193] The outer gate was locked, but a squire of the archbishop managed to find the keys.[194] Whether there was any real intention of stopping his egress it seems impossible to determine; the king and his counsellors were apparently too much puzzled to do anything but let matters take their course; Henry indeed sent down a herald to quell the disturbance and forbid all violence to the primate;[195] but the precaution came too late. Once outside the gates, Thomas had no need of such protection. From the mob of hooting enemies within he passed into the midst of a crowd of poor folk who pressed upon him with every demonstration of rapturous affection; in every street as he rode along the people came out to throw themselves at his feet and beg his blessing.

[188] Garnier (Hippeau), p. 67. Will. Cant. (as above), pp.
38, 39. Alan Tewkesb. (_ib._ vol. ii.), pp. 332, 333. E. Grim
(_ibid._), pp. 397, 398. Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol. iii.),
pp. 67, 68. Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._), pp. 309, 310. Anon. I.
(_ib._ vol. iv.), pp. 50, 51. Cf. _Thomas Saga_ (Magnusson),
vol. i. p. 221, where the altercation is longer, but comes to
the same end.

[189] Anon. I. (as above), p. 51.

[190] Garnier (Hippeau), p. 68. Will. Cant. (Robertson,
_Becket_, vol. i.), p. 39. E. Grim (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 398.
Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), pp. 51, 52. Cf. Will. Fitz-Steph.
(_ib._ vol. iii.), p. 68.

[191] Garnier and Will. Cant. as above. Anon. I. (as above), p.
52.

[192] Anon. I. as above. Cf. Herb. Bosh. (_ib._ vol. iii.), p.
310. There is a different version in Will. Cant. (_ib._ vol.
i.), pp. 39, 40.

[193] Will. Fitz-Steph. as above. Of his own escape William
says nothing; but we know from a passage later in the same page
that he soon rejoined his primate.

[194] Garnier (Hippeau), p. 69. Cf. Will. Cant. (as above), p.
40; Alan Tewkesb. (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 333; Anon. I. (_ib._
vol. iv.), p. 52; and _Thomas Saga_ (Magnusson), vol. i. p. 222.

[195] Garnier (Hippeau), p. 70. Will. Fitz-Steph. (as above),
p. 69. E. Grim (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 399.

It was with these poor folk that he supped that night, for his own household, all save a chosen few, now hastened to take leave of him.[196] Through the bishops of Rochester, Hereford and Worcester he requested of the king a safe-conduct for his journey to Canterbury; the king declined to answer till the morrow.[197] The primate’s suspicions were aroused. He caused his bed to be laid in the church, as if intending to spend the night in prayer.[198] At cock-crow the monks came and sang their matins in an under-tone for fear of disturbing their weary guest;[199] but his chamberlain was watching over an empty couch. At dead of night Thomas had made his escape with two canons of Sempringham and a faithful squire of his own, named Roger of Brai. A violent storm of rain helped to cover their flight,[200] and it was not till the middle of the next day that king and council discovered that the primate was gone.

[196] Alan Tewkesb. (as above), p. 333. E. Grim (_ibid._), p.
399. Herb. Bosh. (_ib._ vol. iii.), p. 310. Anon. I. (_ib._
vol. iv.), p. 52. Will. Cant. (_ib._ vol. i.), p. 40. Garnier,
as above.

[197] Alan Tewkesb. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. ii.), p. 334.
Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol. iii.), p. 69. Herb. Bosh.
(_ibid._), p. 312.

[198] Alan Tewkesb. and Will. Fitz-Steph. as above. Will. Cant.
(_ib._ vol. i.), p. 40. Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 53.
Garnier (Hippeau), p. 70. _Thomas Saga_ (Magnusson), vol. i. p.
229.

[199] Garnier, as above.

[200] Garnier (Hippeau), p. 71. E. Grim (Robertson, _Becket_,
vol. ii.), p. 399. Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), pp. 53, 54. Cf.
Will. Cant. (_ib._ vol. i.), p. 40, Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._
vol. iii.), p. 69, and Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._) p. 312.

“God’s blessing go with him!” murmured with a sigh of relief the aged Bishop Henry of Winchester. “We have not done with him yet!” cried the king. He at once issued orders that all the ports should be watched to prevent Thomas from leaving the country,[201] and that the temporalities of the metropolitan see should be left untouched pending an appeal to the Pope[202] which he despatched the archbishop of York and the bishops of London, Worcester, Exeter and Chichester to prosecute without delay.[203] They sailed from Dover on All Souls day;[204] that very night Thomas, after three weeks of adventurous wanderings, guarded with the most devoted vigilance by the brethren of Sempringham, embarked in a little boat from Sandwich; next day he landed in Flanders;[205] and after another fortnight’s hiding he made his way safe to Soissons, where the king of France, disregarding an embassy sent by Henry to prevent him, welcomed him with open arms. He hurried on to Sens, where the Pope was now dwelling; the appellant bishops had preceded him, but Alexander was deaf to their arguments.[206] Thomas laid at the Pope’s feet his copy of the Constitutions of Clarendon; they were read, discussed and solemnly condemned in full consistory.[207] The exiled primate withdrew to a shelter which his friend Bishop John of Poitiers had secured for him in the Cistercian abbey of Pontigny in Burgundy.[208] On Christmas-eve, at Marlborough, Henry’s envoys reported to him the failure of their mission. On S. Stephen’s day Henry confiscated the whole possessions of the metropolitan see, of the primate himself and of all his clerks, and ordered all his kindred and dependents, clerical or lay, to be banished from the realm.[209]

[201] Anon. I. (as above), p. 55.

[202] Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol. iii.), p. 70. Herb. Bosh.
(_ibid._), p. 322.

[203] Garnier (Hippeau), p. 79. Alan Tewkesb. (as above), p.
336. E. Grim (_ibid._), p. 402. Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol.
iii.), p. 70. Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._), p. 323. Anon. I. (_ib._
vol. iv.), pp. 60, 61. _Thomas Saga_ (Magnusson), vol. i. p.
261.

[204] Will. Fitz-Steph. as above.

[205] Garnier (Hippeau), pp. 71–74. E. Grim (as above), pp.
399, 400. Alan Tewkesb. (_ibid._), p. 335. Will. Fitz-Steph.
(_ib._ vol. iii.), p. 70. Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._), pp. 323–325.
Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), pp. 54, 55. _Thomas Saga_
(Magnusson), vol. i. p. 245. Here again there is a confusion
about the date.

[206] Garnier (Hippeau), pp. 74–81. Will. Cant. (Robertson,
_Becket_, vol. i.), pp. 42–46. Alan Tewkesb. (_ib._ vol. ii.),
pp. 335–341. E. Grim (_ibid._), pp. 400–403. Will. Fitz-Steph.
(_ib._ vol. iii.), pp. 70–74. Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._), pp.
325–340. Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), pp. 57–61. Cf. _Thomas
Saga_ (Magnusson), vol. i. pp. 265–289.

[207] Garnier (Hippeau), pp. 82–84. Will. Cant. (as above),
p. 46. Alan Tewkesb. (_ib._ vol. ii.), pp. 341, 342. E. Grim
(_ibid._), pp. 403, 404. Herb. Bosh. (_ib._ vol. iii.), pp.
340–342. Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), pp. 61–64. The formal
record of these proceedings is the edition of the Constitutions
included among the collected letters of S. Thomas--Ep. xlv.
(_ib._ vol. v. pp. 71–79), in which there is appended to each
article the Pope’s verdict--“Hoc toleravit” or “Hoc damnavit.”
The tolerated articles are 2, 6, 11, 13, 14 and 16. Alan of
Tewkesbury, who first collected the letters of S. Thomas, was
for some years a canon of Benevento, and probably got this
annotated copy of the Constitutions from Lombard, who had been
in Thomas’s suite as one of his _eruditi_ during this visit to
Sens, and who was archbishop of Benevento at the time of Alan’s
residence there.

[208] Garnier (Hippeau), p. 90. Will. Cant. (as above), p. 46.
Joh. Salisb. (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 313. Alan Tewkesb. (_ibid._),
p. 345. E. Grim (_ibid._), p. 404. Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._
vol. iii.), p. 76. Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._), p. 357. Anon. I.
(_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 64. Anon. II. (_ibid._), p. 109. Cf. Ep.
lx. (_ib._ vol. v.), p. 114.

[209] Garnier (Hippeau), p. 91. Will. Cant. (as above), pp.
46, 47. Joh. Salisb. (_ib._ vol. ii.), pp. 313, 314. E. Grim
(_ibid._), p. 404. Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol. iii.), p.
75. Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._), p. 359. Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.),
p. 65. The dates are from Will. Fitz-Steph. The _Thomas Saga_
(Magnusson), vol. i. pp. 347–349, puts this banishment too late
in the story.

NOTE A.

THE COUNCIL OF WOODSTOCK.