Chapter II: Henry and Rome (2)

[275] Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 200. Will. Cant.
(Robertson, _Becket_, vol. i.), p. 56.

[276] Ep. ccix. (_ib._ vol. v.), p. 421.

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

[278] Epp. ccxxiii., ccxxiv. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. v. pp.
490–520).

[279] The famous “Multiplicem nobis et diffusam.” Ep. ccxxv.
(_ib._ pp. 521–544).

[280] Ep. ccviii. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. v. pp. 417, 418).
The Pope’s brief is Ep. clxxii. (_ib._ pp. 328, 329); it is
dated “Anagniæ, vii. Idus Octobris,” but its true date is
Easter-day, April 24 (see editor’s note, p. 329)--the actual
date of the letter whereby Alexander notified his act to
the English bishops; Ep. clxxiii. (Robertson, as above, pp.
229–231). The diocese (not the province) of York was exempted
from Thomas’s legatine jurisdiction--the reason being that
Roger of York was legate for Scotland (Ep. cclxx., _ib._ vol.
vi. p. 119). Thomas sent the brief over to his friends Robert
of Hereford and Roger of Worcester, bidding them communicate
it to their brethren, beginning with London (Ep. clxxix.,
_ib._ vol. v. pp. 344–346). Canon Robertson supposes this
brief to have been delivered to Gilbert on the feast of the
Commemoration of S. Paul, _i.e._ June 30, 1166. Gilbert himself
says merely “die beati Pauli”; and his letter has no date. But
it mentions “legatos qui diriguntur ad nos”; and there is no
hint elsewhere of any talk about sending legates till late in
the autumn, or even winter. There really seems to be no reason
why we should not adopt a more obvious rendering of the date,
as representing the greater and better-known festival of S.
Paul’s Conversion. In that case, of course, the year must be
1167.

[281] Will. Cant. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. i.), p. 50. E.
Grim (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 414. Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol.
iii.), p. 83. Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._), p. 397. Anon. I. (_ib._
vol. iv.), p. 65. Cf. _Thomas Saga_ (Magnusson), vol. i. p. 371.

[282] Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 201, 202.

[283] E. Grim (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. ii.), p. 415. Herb.
Bosh. (_ib._ vol. iii.), pp. 403, 404; etc.

Henry saw his own blunder as soon as it was made, and endeavoured to neutralize its effects by despatching an embassy to the Pope, requesting that he would send a legatine commission to settle the controversy. One of his envoys was the excommunicate John of Oxford; to the horror of Thomas and the indignation of Louis, John came back in triumph, boasting not only that he had been absolved by the Pope, but that two cardinals, William and Otto--the former of whom was a determined opponent of Thomas--were coming with full powers to sit in judgement on the case between primate and king and decide it without appeal.[284] The first half of the boast was true, but not the second; the cautious Pope instructed his envoys to do nothing more than arbitrate between the contending parties, if they could.[285] They did not reach Normandy till the autumn of 1167; Thomas came to meet them on the French border on November 18; he refused to enter upon any negotiations till the property of the metropolitan see was restored;[286] the legates carried their report to the king at Argentan, and were dismissed with an exclamation of disappointment and disgust--“I wish I may never set eyes upon a cardinal again!”[287] Five of the English bishops whom Henry had summoned to advise him renewed their appeal,[288] its original term having expired six months ago; and the legates insisting that Thomas should respect the appeal,[289] another year’s delay was gained.

[284] Epp. cclxxx., cclxxxiii., cclxxxv., ccxcii. (Robertson,
_Becket_, vol. vi.), pp. 140, 146, 147, 151–153, 170, 171.

[285] Ep. cccvii. (_ibid._), p. 201. Cf. Will. Cant. (_ib._
vol. i.), p. 65, and Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 202, 203.

[286] Epp. cccxxxi., cccxxxii. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. vi.),
pp. 247–251, 256–258.

[287] Ep. cccxxxix. (_ibid._), pp. 269, 270.

[288] Epp. cccxxxix., cccxli.–cccxlv. (_ibid._), pp. 270–272,
276, 277, 283–288.

[289] Ep. cccxliii. (_ibid._), pp. 284, 285.

At last, when the two kings made their treaty at Montmirail at Epiphany 1169, Thomas, who had come to the spot under the protection of Louis, suddenly entered the royal presence and fell at Henry’s feet, offering to place himself unreservedly in his hands. All parties thought the struggle was over, till the archbishop added once again the words which had so exasperated Henry at Oxford and at Clarendon: “Saving God’s honour and my order.” The king burst into a fury, and the meeting broke up in confusion.[290] Three months later, on Palm Sunday, from the high altar of Clairvaux, Thomas excommunicated ten of his opponents, first among whom was Gilbert Foliot.[291] Gilbert, who knew that the sentence had been hanging over him for more than a year, had appealed against it before it was uttered;[292] the king, too, was forewarned, and at every seaport guards were set to catch and punish with the utmost rigour any messenger from the primate. It was not till Ascension-day that a young layman named Berengar made his way up to the altar of Gilbert’s cathedral church in the middle of High Mass and thrust into the hand of the celebrant the archbishop’s letter proclaiming the excommunication of the bishop.[293] On that very day Thomas issued another string of excommunications.[294] Gilbert, driven to extremity, renewed his appeal two days later; and he added to it a formal refusal to acknowledge the jurisdiction of a metropolitan to whom he had made no profession, and a declaration--so at least it was reported in Gaul--of his intention to claim the metropolitical dignity for his own see, as an ancient right of which it had been unjustly defrauded by Canterbury.[295] A storm of indignant protest and vehement denunciation arose from the archbishop’s party; and the terrified Pope checked further proceedings by despatching another pair of envoys, who as usual failed to agree either with the king, with the archbishop, or even with each other, and after wasting the summer in misunderstandings and recriminations left the case just where they had found it.[296] By this time king and primate were both weary of their quarrel, and still more weary of mediation. In November they had another personal interview at Montmartre, and the archbishop’s unconditional restoration was all but decided.[297] Thomas, however, rashly attempted to hasten the completion of the settlement by a threat of interdict;[298] and the threat stung Henry into an act of far greater rashness. He had met Louis, as well as Thomas, at Montmartre, and had gained his immediate object of restraining the French king yet a little longer from direct hostilities; the settlement of Britanny was completed at Christmas, that of Aquitaine was so far secure that its conclusion might safely be left to Eleanor’s care; in March 1170 Henry went to England[299] with the fixed determination of seeing his eldest son crowned there before he left it again.

[290] Herb. Bosh. (_ib._ vol. iii.), pp. 418–427. Epp.
ccccli., cccclxi. (_ib._ vol. vi.), pp. 488, 489, 507–509. Cf.
Will. Cant. (_ib._ vol. i.), pp. 73, 74, and _Thomas Saga_
(Magnusson), vol. i. pp. 427–433.

[291] Ep. cccclxxxviii. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. vi. pp. 558,
559). See also Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol. iii.), p. 87, and
for date, R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 333.

[292] Ep. dxiii. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. vi.), p. 614.

[293] Compare the account given by “Magister Willelmus” in Ep.
dviii. (_ibid._), pp. 603, 604, with that of Will. Fitz-Steph.
(_ib._ vol. iii.), pp. 89, 90. They are clearly from the same
hand.

[294] Epp. dii., dvii. (_ib._ vol. vi.), pp. 594, 601–603. For
date cf. Ep. cccclxxxviii. (_ib._ pp. 558, 559).

[295] Ep. dviii. (_ibid._), pp. 604–606--a very circumstantial
account, yet one can scarcely understand how a man so wise and
so learned as Gilbert can really have made such an utterly
unhistorical claim. He must have known that it had no shadow
of foundation, the nearest approach to such a thing being S.
Gregory’s abortive scheme for fixing the two archbishoprics
at London and York. Gilbert’s opponents, on the other hand,
declared that he derived his claim from the archpriests
of Jupiter who had their seat in the Roman Londinium, and
denounced him as their would-be representative and successor.
Epp. dxxxv., dxlvi. (_ib._ vol. vii.), pp. 10, 41.

[296] On this legation of Gratian and Vivian see R. Diceto
(Stubbs), vol. i. p. 335; Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. pp.
212, 213; Herb. Bosh. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.),
pp. 441–445; Will. Cant. (_ib._ vol. i.), pp. 72, 73; Epp.
ccccxci., ccccxcii. (_ib._ vol. vi.), pp. 563, 564, 567; dlx.,
dlxi., dlxiii.–dlxviii., dlxxxi., dlxxxiv., dci., dcii. (_ib._
vol. vii.), pp. 70–76, 78–92, 115, 116, 124, 125, 151–154, etc.

[297] Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), pp.
97, 98; Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._), pp. 445–451; Epp. dciv.–dcvii.
(_ib._ vol. vii. pp. 158–168). _Thomas Saga_ (Magnusson), vol.
i. p. 447. R. Diceto as above, pp. 335–337. Gerv. Cant. as
above, p. 213.

[298] Epp. dlxxiii.–dlxxvii. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. vii.
pp. 97–109), etc.

[299] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 3. Rog. Howden
(Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 3. Gerv. Cant. as above, p. 216.

Three years before, he had wrung from the Pope--then blockaded in Rome by the Imperial troops, and in the last extremity of peril--a brief authorizing young Henry’s coronation by the archbishop of York, in default of the absent primate of all England.[300] In face of a mass of earlier and later rescripts from Alexander’s predecessors and Alexander himself, all strenuously confirming the exclusive privileges of Canterbury, Henry had never yet ventured to make use of this document; like Adrian’s bull for the conquest of Ireland, it had been kept in reserve for a future day; and that day had now come. In vain did Thomas proclaim his threatened interdict;[301] in vain did the Pope ratify it;[302] in vain did both alike issue prohibitions to all the English bishops against the act which they knew to be in contemplation.[303] The vigilance of the justiciars, quickened by a fresh set of stringent injunctions sent over by the king in the previous autumn,[304] made the delivery of letters from either primate or Pope so difficult that Thomas at last could intrust it to no one but a nun, Idonea, whom he solemnly charged with the duty of presenting to Roger of York the papal brief in which the coronation was forbidden.[305] The ceremony was fixed for Sunday, June 14. A week before that date young Henry, who with his girl-bride Margaret of France had been left at Caen under the care of his mother and Richard of Hommet the constable of Normandy, was summoned to join his father in England.[306] On S. Barnabas’s day the bishops and barons assembled at Westminster in obedience to the royal summons;[307] on Saturday, the 13th, the Pope’s letter was at last forced upon the archbishop of York;[308] but none the less did he on the following morning crown and anoint young Henry in Westminster abbey; while Gilbert of London, who had managed to extort conditional absolution in the Pope’s name from Archbishop Rotrou of Rouen,[309] once more stood openly by his side in the foremost rank of the English bishops.[310]

[300] Ep. cccx. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. vi. pp. 206, 207).
See the editor’s note as to the date.

[301] Epp. dclxxviii.–dclxxxiii. (_ib._ vol. vii. pp. 320–325).

[302] Epp. dcxxviii.–dcxxx. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. vii. pp.
210–214).

[303] Epp. dcxxxii., dcxxxiii., dcxlviii.–dcli. (_ib._ pp. 216,
217, 256–264). Herb. Bosh. (_ib._ vol. iii.), p. 462, puts this
interdict too late.

[304] The “ten ordinances”; Ep. dxcix. (_ib._ vol. vii. pp.
147–149); Will. Cant. (_ib._ vol. i.), pp. 53–55; Gerv. Cant.
(Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 214–216; Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. i.
pp. 231–236; on the date see Bishop Stubbs’s note at last
reference.

[305] Ep. dclxxii. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. vii. pp.
307–309). See the editor’s note.

[306] Ep. dclxxiii. (_ibid._), pp. 309, 312.

[307] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 5.

[308] Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), p.
103.

[309] _Ibid._ Epp. dclviii.–dclx. (_ib._ vol. vii. pp. 275–277).

[310] Will. Fitz-Steph. (as above), p. 103; _Gesta Hen._
(Stubbs), vol. i. p. 5; Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs) vol. i. p. 219.
R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 338, Chron. Mailros, a. 1170,
Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 4, Chron. S. Serg. a. 1169
(Marchegay, _Eglises_, p. 150), all give different dates, and
all wrong.

The elder king only waited to see the tenants-in-chief, with the king of Scots at their head, swear fealty to his new-made colleague ere he hurried back to Normandy to meet the fast-gathering storm.[311] Louis, incensed that his daughter’s husband should have been crowned without her, was already threatening war;[312] Thomas, seeing in the king’s action nothing but the climax of Canterbury’s wrongs, was overwhelming the Pope with complaints, reproaches, and intreaties for summary vengeance upon all who had taken part in the coronation; and the majority of the cardinals strongly supported his demands.[313] Henry saw that he must make peace at any price. Two days before the feast of S. Mary Magdalene he held a conference with Louis near Fréteval, on the borders of the Vendômois and the county of Chartres;[314] they were reconciled, and as they parted Henry said jestingly to the French king: “That rascal of yours, too, shall have his peace to-morrow; and a right good peace shall it be.”[315] At dawn on S. Mary Magalene’s day[316] he met Thomas in the “Traitor’s Meadow,”[317] close to Fréteval; they rode apart together, and remained in conference so long that the patience of their followers was all but exhausted, when at last Thomas was seen to dismount and throw himself at the king’s feet. Henry sprang from his horse, raised the archbishop from the ground, held his stirrup while he remounted, and rode back to tell his followers that peace was made, on terms which practically amounted to a complete mutual amnesty and a return to the state of affairs which had existed before the quarrel.[318]

[311] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 6. Gerv. Cant.
(Stubbs), vol. i. p. 220. Will. Cant. (Robertson, _Becket_,
vol. i.), p. 83. Henry landed at Barfleur about Midsummer;
_Gesta Hen._ as above.

[312] _Gesta Hen._ as above.

[313] Ep. dccvii. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. vii. pp. 373, 374).

[314] “In limitibus suis inter Firmitatem, oppidum scilicet
in pago Carnotensi, et Fretivalle, castrum videlicet in
territorio Turonensi.” Ep. dclxxxv. (_ibid._), p. 339. This
_Firmitas_ must be La Ferté-Villeneuil, and _Turonensi_ should
be _Vindocinensi_. Herb. Bosh., who lays the scene “in confinio
Carnotusiæ et _Cenomanniæ_, inter duo castella quorum unum
nominatur Viefui” [Viévy-le-Rayé] “et alterum Freteval” (_ib._
vol. iii. p. 466), is no nearer to the true geography.

[315] “Et crastinâ die habebit pacem suam latro vester; et
quidem bonam habebit.” Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ibid._), p. 108.

[316] Ep. dclxxxv. (_ib._ vol. vii.), p. 340.

[317] Herb. Bosh. (_ib._ vol. iii.), p. 466. _Thomas Saga_
(Magnusson), vol. i. p. 461.

[318] Epp. dclxxxiv., dclxxxv. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol.
vii.), pp. 326–334, 340–342. Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol.
iii.), pp. 108–111. Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._), p. 466. Garnier
(Hippeau), pp. 150, 151. _Thomas Saga_ (as above), pp. 461–465.

Henry had no sooner returned to Normandy than he fell sick almost to death; on his recovery he went on a pilgrimage to the shrine of our Lady at Rocamadour in the Quercy,[319] and it was not until October that Thomas again saw him at Tours, on his way to a conference with Count Theobald of Blois at Amboise.[320] A difficulty had arisen about the restitution of the confiscated Church property and the absolution of the persons whom Thomas had excommunicated, each party insisting that the other should make the first step in conciliation.[321] There was also a difficulty about the kiss of peace, which Thomas required as pledge of Henry’s sincerity, but which Henry seemed desirous of postponing indefinitely.[322] Nevertheless, a letter from Henry to his son, announcing the reconciliation and bidding the young king enforce the restoration of the archiepiscopal estates, was drawn up in Thomas’s presence at Amboise and sent over to England by the hands of two of his clerks,[323] who presented it at Westminster on October 5.[324] The restoration was, however, not effected until Martinmas, and then it comprised little more than empty garners and ruined houses.[325] Thomas saw the king once more, at Chaumont,[326] and Henry promised to meet him again at Rouen, thence to proceed with him to England in person.[327] Before the appointed time came, however, fresh complications had arisen with the king of France; Henry was obliged to give up all thought of going not only to England but even to Normandy, and delegated the archbishop of Rouen and the dean of Salisbury to escort Thomas in his stead.

[319] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 6, 7.

[320] Herb. Bosh. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.) pp. 468,
469. Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ibid._), p. 114. Garnier (Hippeau), p.
154. _Thomas Saga_ (Magnusson), vol. i. p. 469. The writer of
the _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs, vol. i. p. 8) gives the date of this
meeting as Tuesday, October 12. But this must be quite ten days
too late, for we shall see that a letter drawn up after the
meeting was received in England on October 5.

[321] Ep. dclxxxiv. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. vii.), pp.
333–337.

[322] Henry alleged that he had publicly sworn never to give
Thomas the kiss of peace, and could not face the shame of
breaking his oath. Garnier (Hippeau), p. 150; Herb. Bosh.
(Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), p. 450; Ep. dcxxiii. (_ib._
vol. vii.) pp. 198, 199; _Thomas Saga_, as above, p. 449. See
in Herb. Bosh. (as above), p. 469, Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ibid._),
p. 115, and _Thomas Saga_ (as above), p. 469, the contrivance
by which he avoided it at Tours--or Amboise, in William’s
version.

[323] Garnier (Hippeau), pp. 156, 157. The letter, of which
Garnier gives a translation, is Ep. dcxc. (Robertson, _Becket_,
vol. vii.) pp. 346, 347; also in Will. Cant. (_ib._ vol. i.),
p. 85; Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol. iii.), p. 112; Gerv. Cant.
(Stubbs), vol. i. p. 221; R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 339.

[324] Ep. dccxv. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. vii.), p. 389.

[325] Ep. dccxxxiii. (_ibid._), p. 402.

[326] Chaumont on the Loire, seemingly. Herb. Bosh. (_ib._ vol.
iii.), p. 470. Cf. _Thomas Saga_, as above, pp. 471–473.

[327] Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), pp.
115, 116.

The duty finally devolved solely upon the dean, who was no other than Thomas’s old opponent John of Oxford.[328] Naturally enough, the primate was deeply hurt at being thus sent back to his see under the protection of a man who, as he truly said, ought to have been thankful for the privilege of travelling in his suite.[329] Thomas, however, was in haste to be gone, although fully persuaded that he was going to his death. He seems indeed to have been weary of life; the tone of his letters and of his parting words to the friends whom he was leaving in France indicates not so much a morbid presentiment of his fate as a passionate longing for it. Yet it can hardly have been from him alone that the foreboding communicated itself to so many other minds. Warnings came to him from all quarters; one voice after another, from the king of France[330] down to the very pilot of the ship in which he took his passage, implored him not to go; Herbert of Bosham alone upheld his resolution to the end.[331]

[328] _Ib._ p. 116. Epp. dccxxii., dccxxiii. (_ib._ vol. vii.),
pp. 400, 403. Garnier (Hippeau), p. 160.

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

[330] _Ib._ p. 113.

[331] Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._), pp. 472–476.

We may put aside at once all the wild talk of the archbishop’s biographers about plots against his life in which the king had a share. Even if Henry’s sudden willingness for his return was really suggested by words said to have been uttered by one of his counsellors--“Why keep the archbishop out of England? It would be far better to keep him in it”--there is no need to assume that those words bore even in the speaker’s mind, far less in that of the king, the horrible meaning which they were afterwards supposed to have covered;[332] for they were true in the most literal sense. The quarrel of king and primate would have mattered little had it been fought out on English ground; it was the archbishop’s exile which rendered him so dangerous. Thomas had dealt his most fatal blow at Henry by flying from him, and Henry, as he now perceived, had made his worst blunder in driving Thomas into France. Of the infinitely greater blunder involved in the archbishop’s murder--setting the criminal aspect of the deed altogether aside--it is enough to say that Henry was wholly incapable. The same may be said of Roger of York and Gilbert of London, although, like the king himself, they were urged by dread of the archbishop into making common cause with men of a very different stamp:--men who hated the primate with a far more intense personal hatred, and who were restrained by no considerations either of policy or of morality:--men such as Ralf de Broc, a ruffian adventurer who had served as the tool of Henry’s vengeance upon the archbishop’s kinsfolk, had resumed the custody of the archiepiscopal estates when it was resigned by Gilbert Foliot, had been for the last four years at once fattening upon the property of Thomas and smarting under his excommunication, and was ready to commit any crime rather than disgorge his ill-gotten gains.[333] It was known that Thomas had letters from the Pope suspending all those bishops who had taken part in the coronation of the young king, and replacing Gilbert of London, Jocelyn of Salisbury, and all whom Thomas had excommunicated under the sentences from which they had been irregularly released by some of the Papal envoys.[334] Gilbert, Jocelyn and Roger of York now hurried to Canterbury, intending to proceed to Normandy as soon as Thomas set foot in England; while Ralf de Broc, Reginald de Warren and Gervase of Cornhill the sheriff of Kent undertook to catch him at the moment of landing, ransack his baggage, search his person, and seize any Papal letters which he might bring with him. Thomas, however was warned; he sent the letters over before him, and the three prelates at Canterbury read their condemnation before their judge quitted Gaul.[335] Next day he sailed from Wissant, and on the morning of December 1 he landed at Sandwich.[336] His enemies were ready to receive him; but at the sight of John of Oxford they stopped short, and John in the king’s name forbade all interference with the primate.[337] Amid the rapturous greetings of the people who thronged to welcome their chief pastor, he rode on to Canterbury; there some of the royal officials came to him in the king’s name, demanding the absolution of the suspended and excommunicate bishops. Thomas at first answered that he could not annul a Papal sentence; but he afterwards offered to take the risk of doing so, if the culprits would abjure their errors in the form prescribed by the Church. Gilbert and Jocelyn were inclined to yield; but Roger refused, and they ended by despatching Geoffrey Ridel to enlist the sympathies of the young king in their behalf, while they themselves carried their protest to his father in Normandy.[338]

[332] Will Fitz-Steph. as above, pp. 106, 107.

[333] On Ralf de Broc see Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson,
_Becket_, vol. iii.), p. 75; Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._), p. 360;
Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.) p. 65; E. Grim (_ib._ vol. ii.), p.
404; Epp. lxxviii. (_ib._ vol. v. p. 152), cccxli., ccccxcviii.
(_ib._ vol. vi. pp. 278, 582), dccxviii., dccxxiii. (_ib._ vol.
vii. pp. 394, 402). In the last place Thomas says that Ralf
“in ecclesiam Dei ... per septem annos licentius debacchatus
est”; and the writer of the _Thomas Saga_ (Magnusson), vol.
i. p. 321, seems to have understood this as meaning that Ralf
had had the stewardship of the Canterbury property throughout
the archbishop’s exile. This, however, does not appear to have
been the case. Ralf certainly had the stewardship for a short
time at first; but it was, as we have seen, soon transferred to
Gilbert Foliot, and only restored to Ralf when Gilbert resigned
it early in 1167.

[334] Epp. dccxx., dccxxii. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. vii. pp.
397–399).

[335] Ep. dccxxiii., dccxxiv. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. vii.),
pp. 403, 410. Cf. Will. Cant. (_ib._ vol. i.), pp. 87–89; Will.
Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol. iii.), p. 117; Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._),
pp. 471, 472; Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 68; Anon. II.
(_ibid._), p. 123; Garnier (Hippeau), pp. 161, 163. The version
in _Thomas Saga_ (Magnusson), vol. i. p. 483, seems founded on
a confusion between the delivery of these Papal letters and
that which Berengar delivered in S. Paul’s on the Ascension-day
of the previous year.

[336] Will. Fitz-Steph. (as above), p. 118. Herb. Bosh.
(_ibid._) p. 476. Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 68. Garnier
(Hippeau), p. 164. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 339. Gerv.
Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 222. _Thomas Saga_ (as above), pp.
489–491. The date is from Will. Fitz-Steph., R. Diceto and the
Saga; Gervase makes it November 30, and Herbert “two or three
days after the feast of S. Andrew.”

[337] Will. Fitz-Steph. and Garnier, as above. Ep. dccxxiii.
(Robertson, _Becket_, vol. vii.), pp. 403, 404. _Thomas Saga_
(as above), p. 491.

[338] Ep. dccxxiii., dccxxiv. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol.
vii.), pp. 404–406, 411, 412. Will. Cant. (_ib._ vol. i.), pp.
102–105. Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol. iii.), pp. 120, 121.
Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._), p. 480. _Thomas Saga_ (Magnusson), vol.
i. pp. 497–501. Garnier (Hippeau), p. 172, erroneously thinks
the censures on the bishops were not issued till Christmas-day.

The young king was preparing to hold his Christmas court at Winchester.[339] Thomas proposed to join it, but was stopped in London by a peremptory command to “go back and mind his own business at Canterbury.”[340] He obeyed under protest, and on Christmas-day again excommunicated the De Brocs and their fellow-robbers.[341] The elder king was keeping the feast at his hunting-seat of Bures near Bayeux.[342] There the three bishops threw themselves at his feet; Roger of York spoke in the name of all, and presented the Papal letters;[343] the courtiers burst into a confused storm of indignation, but not one had any counsel to offer. In his impatience and disappointment Henry uttered the fatal words which he was to rue all his life: “What a parcel of fools and dastards have I nourished in my house, that none of them can be found to avenge me of this one upstart clerk!”[344]

[339] Garnier (Hippeau), p. 166. Will. Cant. (Robertson,
_Becket_, vol. i.), p. 106. Anon. II. (_ib._ vol. iv.), p. 126.
R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 342, says the young king was at
Woodstock when Thomas sought for an interview; he was, however,
certainly at Winchester at Christmas.

[340] “Fère vostre mestier à Cantorbire alez.” Garnier
(Hippeau), p. 171. Cf. Ep. dccxxiv. (Robertson, _Becket_,
vol. vii.), p. 412; Will. Cant. (_ib._ vol. i.) pp. 106–113;
Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol. iii.), pp. 121–123; Herb. Bosh.
(_ibid._), pp. 482, 483; Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 13;
_Thomas Saga_ (Magnusson), vol. i. pp. 505–507.

[341] Will. Cant. (as above), p. 120. E. Grim (_ib._ vol. ii.),
p. 428. Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol. iii.), p. 130. Herb.
Bosh. (_ibid._), pp. 484, 485. R. Diceto (as above), p. 342.
_Thomas Saga_ (as above), pp. 511–513.

[342] Herb. Bosh. (as above), p. 481. Garnier (Hippeau), p.
175. _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 11. Rob. Torigni, a.
1171.

[343] Garnier (Hippeau), pp. 175–177. Will. Cant. (as above),
pp. 122, 123. Cf. _Thomas Saga_ (as above), pp. 501–503.

[344] Garnier (Hippeau), p. 175. Will. Cant. (as above), p.
121. E. Grim (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 429. Herb. Bosh. (_ib._ vol.
iii.), p. 487.

The words were hardly more than he had used at Chinon four years before, but they fell now upon other ears. Four knights--Hugh de Morville, William de Tracy, Reginald Fitz-Urse and Richard le Breton[345]--took them as a warrant for the primate’s death. That night--it was Christmas-eve[346]--they vowed to slay him, no matter how or where;[347] they left the court in secret, crossed to England by different routes,[348] and met again at Saltwood, a castle which the archbishop had been vainly endeavouring to recover from the clutches of Ralf de Broc, and where Ralf himself was dwelling amid a crowd of his kinsfolk and dependents. There the final plot was laid.[349] How it was executed is a tale which has been told so often that its details may well be spared here. On the evening of December 29, after a scene in his own hall scarcely less disgraceful than the last scene in the king’s hall at Northampton, the primate of all England was butchered at the altar’s foot in his own cathedral church.[350]

[345] In Will. Cant. (as above), pp. 128, 129, is a “descriptio
spiculatorum,” in which the only point of interest is the
English speech of Hugh de Morville’s mother.

[346] Garnier (Hippeau), p. 177. Will. Cant. (as above), p. 123.

[347] Garnier, as above. Will. Cant. (as above), p. 124. E.
Grim (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 429. Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson,
_Becket_, vol. iii.), p. 128. Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._), p. 487.
_Thomas Saga_ (Magnusson), vol. i. p. 517.

[348] Garnier (Hippeau), p. 177. Will. Cant. (Robertson,
_Becket_, vol. i.) p. 124, Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol. iii.),
p. 130. _Thomas Saga_ as above.

[349] Will. Fitz-Steph. as above; cf. _ib._ p. 126. _Thomas
Saga_, as above, pp. 517–519. Saltwood was mentioned, as a
special subject for inquiry and restitution, in the king’s
letter commending Thomas to his son.

[350] Will. Cant. (as above), pp. 131–135. Joh. Salisb. (_ib._
vol. ii.), pp. 319, 320. E. Grim (_ibid._), pp. 430–438.
Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ib._ vol. iii.), pp. 132–142. Herb. Bosh.
(_ibid._), pp. 488 _et seq._ Anon. I. (_ib._ vol. iv.), pp.
70–77. Anon. II. (_ibid._), pp. 128–132. Garnier (Hippeau), pp.
179–195. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 343, 344. Gerv. Cant.
(Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 224–227. _Thomas Saga_ as above, pp.
523–549.

The ill news travelled fast. It fell like a thunderbolt upon the Norman court still gathered round the king at Argentan,[351] whither the assembly had adjourned after the Christmas feast at Bures. Henry stood for a moment speechless with horror, then burst into a frenzy of despair, and shut himself up in his own rooms, refusing to eat or drink or to see any one.[352] In a few days more, as he anticipated, all Christendom was ringing with execration of the murder and clamouring for vengeance upon the king who was universally regarded as its instigator. The Pope ordered an interdict upon Henry’s continental dominions, excommunicated the murderers and all who had given or should henceforth give them aid, shelter or support, and was only restrained from pronouncing a like sentence upon the king himself by a promise that he would make compurgation and submit to penance.[353] Two cardinal-legates charged with the enforcement of these decrees were at once despatched to Normandy;[354] but when they arrived there, Henry was out of their reach. The death of Duke Conan in February had thrown Britanny completely into his hands; he only stayed to secure Geoffrey’s final establishment there as duke[355] before he called a council at Argentan and announced that he was going to Ireland.[356] He quitted Normandy just as the legates reached it,[357] leaving strict orders that the ports should be closed to all clerks and papal envoys, and that no one should dare to follow him without special permission.[358] Landing at Portsmouth in the first days of August,[359] he hurried to Winchester for a last interview with the dying Bishop Henry,[360] closed the English ports as he had closed those of Normandy,[361] then plunged once more into the depths of South Wales, and on October 16 sailed from Milford Haven for Waterford.[362]

[351] R. Diceto (as above), p. 345. _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol.
i. p. 14.

[352] Ep. dccxxxviii. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. vii.), p. 438.
Cf. MS. Lansdown. (_ib._ vol. iv.), pp. 159, 160, and _Gesta
Hen._ as above.

[353] Epp. dccl., dccli. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. vii. pp.
471–478).

[354] Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 233. R. Diceto (Stubbs),
vol. i. p. 346. _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 24.

[355] Rob. Torigni, a. 1171. Conan died February 20; Chron.
Kemperleg. _ad ann._ (_Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. xii. p. 563).
The Chron. S. Serg. a. 1169 (Marchegay, _Eglises_, p. 150),
places the event two years too early. Cf. Chron. Britann. a.
1170, 1171 (_Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. xii. p. 560; Morice,
_Hist. Bretagne, preuves_, vol. i. col. 104).

[356] Rob. Torigni, a. 1171.

[357] MS. Lansdown. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iv.), p. 169.
Gerv. Cant. (as above), pp. 233, 234. The _Gesta Hen._ (as
above), and Rog. Howden (Stubbs, vol. ii. pp. 28, 29) seem to
imply that they arrived just before Henry left; but they are
rather confused about these legates. They make two pairs of
them come to Normandy this summer--first, Vivian and Gratian,
who come with hostile intent, and from whom Henry runs away
(_Gesta Hen._, Stubbs, vol. i. p. 24; Rog. Howden, Stubbs, vol.
ii. p. 29); and secondly, Albert and Theodwine, who apparently
supersede them later in the year, and whom Henry hurries to
meet (_Gesta Hen._ as above, p. 29; Rog. Howden as above, p.
34). But the MS. Lansdown. (which is the fullest account of
all), Gerv. Cant. and R. Diceto distinctly make only one pair
of legates, Albert and Theodwine. The confusion in _Thomas
Saga_ (Magnusson), vol. ii. pp. 31–33, is greater still.

[358] _Gesta Hen._ (as above), p. 24. Cf. Rog. Howden (as
above), p. 29.

[359] _Gesta Hen._ as above, and Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i.
p. 234, say August 3; R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 347, says
August 6.

[360] R. Diceto as above. Bishop Henry died on August 8; _ibid._

[361] Gerv. Cant., _Gesta Hen._ and Rog. Howden, as above.

[362] _Gesta Hen._ (as above), p. 25.

The elements favoured his escape; for five months a persistent contrary wind hindered all communication to Ireland from any part of his dominions.[363] The bishops and the ministers were left to fight their own battles and make their own peace with the legates in Normandy until May 1172, when the king suddenly reappeared[364] to claim the papal absolution and offer in return not only his own spiritual obedience and that of his English and continental realms, but also that of Ireland, which he had secured for Rome as her share in the spoils of a conquest won with Adrian’s bull in his hand.[365] The bargain was soon struck. On Sunday May 21 Henry met the legates at Avranches, made his purgation for the primate’s death, promised the required expiation, and abjured his obnoxious “customs,” his eldest son joining in the abjuration.[366] To pacify Louis, young Henry and Margaret were sent over sea with the archbishop of Rouen and by him crowned together at Winchester on August 27;[367] and the Norman primate returned to join a great council of the Norman clergy assembled at Avranches to witness there, two days before Michaelmas, a public repetition of their sovereign’s purgation and his final absolution by the legates.[368]

[363] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 350. Gir. Cambr., _Expugn.
Hibern._, l. i. c. 36 (Dimock, vol. v. p. 284).

[364] R. Diceto (as above), p. 351.

[365] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 28.

[366] Ep. dcclxxi.–dcclxxiv. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. vii.
pp. 513–522). MS. Lansdown. (_ib._ vol. iv.), pp. 173, 174.

[367] _Gesta Hen._ (as above), p. 31; Rog. Howden (Stubbs),
vol. ii. p. 34; Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 237. R. Diceto
(as above), p. 352, makes it August 21.

[368] _Gesta Hen._ (as above), pp. 32, 33. Rog. Howden (as
above), pp. 35–37. Gerv. Cant. (as above), p. 238. These three
are the only writers who mention this purgation in September,
and they say nothing of the one in May. That it took place is
however clear from the letter of the legates themselves (Ep.
dcclxxiv. Robertson, _Becket_, vol. vii. p. 521), giving its
date, “_Vocem jucunditatis_,” _i.e._ Rogation-Sunday. On the
other hand, the MS. Lansdown. (_ib._ vol. iv. pp. 173, 174)
mentions only one purgation, and this clearly is the earlier
one, for it is placed before the re-crowning of young Henry.
The explanation seems to be that this was a private ceremony
between the king and the legates, with a few chosen witnesses;
the legates say in their letter that Henry promised to repeat
it publicly at Caen; he probably did so at Avranches instead.
On the other hand, Rob. Torigni (a. 1172) says: “Locutus est
cum eis primo Savigneii, postea Abrincis, tercio Cadomi, ubi
causa illa finita est;” and seems to make the Michaelmas
council at Avranches a mere ordinary Church synod, where
moreover “obsistente regis infirmitate parum profecerunt.” To
add to the confusion, Gir. Cambr. (_Expugn. Hibern._, l. i.
c. 39; Dimock, vol. v. p. 289) says the purgation was made at
Coutances.