No More Learning

Becket never intended to observe the Constitutions. He abstained
from the service of the altar as a penance for his weakness in ever promising
to observe them; and he even made an ineffectual attempt to leave the
country. The Pope took neither side, not daring to offend Henry nor
wishing to desert Becket. The next move came from the king. An officer
of the court, John the Marshal, father of the famous William Marshall,
Earl of Pembroke, complained to the king that the archbishop's court
had failed in justice in a plea which he had brought for the recovery of
land held of the see of Canterbury, and Becket was summoned to answer
for the failure of his court. Instead of sending an essoin, a formal excuse
for non-attendance, he sent four knights with letters from himself and the
sheriff of Kent to answer on his behalf. The case was adjourned, and
Becket was summoned to appear at a great council at Northampton in
October, to answer both for his previous contempt of the king's court
and for the failure of his own court to do right to John the Marshal.
Becket came to Northampton. He sought the king on 7 October, and
his case was heard the next day. On the original question, the case of
John the Marshal, the archbishop was successful, but the barons, both
lay and ecclesiastical, adjudged him guilty of contempt of the king's
court, and he therefore fell into the king's mercy. Although protesting
that no court had the right to try him, Becket was persuaded to offer to
make fine with the king for his amercement. The king, on the other
hand, seems to have come to Northampton with the intention of forcing
Becket's hand by attacking him in every possible way. He demanded an
account of the sums which Becket had received as custos of the honours
of Eye and Berkhampstead, of five hundred marks which he had received
C. LED. H. v0L, Y. CH. XVII.
36


## p. 562 (#608) ############################################

562
Becket's flight
1
i
1
from the king for the Toulouse campaign, of another five hundred marks
for which the king had been his pledge to a certain Jew, and finally of
the issues of the vacant sees which had passed through Becket's hands
while he was chancellor. Becket was forbidden to leave Northampton
until he had given the king security for the whole amount. The third
day of the council, Saturday 10 October, was passed by Becket in
discussing with the bishops and abbots the course that he should take.
However ungracious the king's demands, they did not alienate either the
bishops or the laity; some bishops even urged Becket to resign the
archbishopric and put himself in the king's mercy. On the following
Tuesday, Becket made up his mind to defiance. He forbade the bishops
to associate themselves in any judgment on him with regard to his con-
duct as chancellor, he appealed to the Pope, and he ordered the bishops
to excommunicate all who dared to give effect to the judgment of any
lay court upon him, thus directly contravening the Constitutions of
Clarendon. His action placed the bishops in a difficult position. They
must either endure the king's anger for breaking the eleventh clause of the
Constitutions of Clarendon or the censures of the Church for disobedience
to their archbishop. They evaded the dilemma by abstaining from judgment
upon the archbishop, but appealing to the Pope for his deposition on the
ground of his perjury in withdrawing the assent which he had originally
given to the Constitutions. The king's court never delivered its judg-
ment upon Becket. The barons, headed by Robert, Earl of Leicester,
qui dux erat verbi, went to pronounce it, but Becket did not stay to hear
it. He left the castle; next day he left Northampton; by 2 November
he had crossed the Channel as a fugitive.
The quarrel begun unnecessarily by Becket was pursued unmercifully
by the king. He exiled all the archbishop's kinsfolk, of whom there seem
to have been many. They had become rich with drippings from Becket's
abundance, and their departure impressed contemporaries so much that
private documents may occasionally be found dated “in the year in which
the king caused the kinsfolk of the archbishop to cross over. "? Becket's
exile lasted for six years. To a man of his temper it must have been hard
to bear, and its intluence upon his character was lamentable-he became
fanatic. The Pope was still unwilling to commit himself. Henry tried
to intimidate him by negotiations with the Emperor, but it was obvious
that opinion in England, although almost wholly on Henry's side in his
struggle with the archbishop, was not favourable to dealings with the
anti Pope. Alexander forbade Becket to take any irrevocable step until
Easter 1166. By the time the truce expired, the Pope was back at Rome,
and ready to support the archbishop. Becket was authorised to excom-
municate all who had occupied the lands of Canterbury since his flight,
and was given a legatine commission over all England except the see
of York. At Vézelay on Whitsunday Becket excommunicated John of
1 Cott. Nero C. i f. 200.
1
1


## p. 563 (#609) ############################################

The reconciliation
563
Oxford, afterwards Bishop of Norwich, and Richard of Ilchester, after-
wards Bishop of Winchester, for communicating with the supporters of
the anti-Pope. They had been Henry's ambassadors to the Emperor in
1165. Richard de Luci, the Justiciar, and Joscelin de Balliol were ex-
communicated as the authors and fabricators of the Constitutions, and
Ranulf de Broc, Hugh de St Clare, and Thomas fitz Bernard for having
occupied Canterbury lands.
The sentences brought Becket little good. The armies of Frederick
Barbarossa were coming south, and the Pope himself dared not attack
Henry openly. He received Henry's embassy sent to prosecute a renewed
appeal on behalf of the English bishops against Becket. One of the
ambassadors was John of Oxford, whom the Pope allowed to clear himself
by oath of the imputations which had been the ground of his excommunica-
tion. Legates were appointed to bring about peace, but both antagonists
had
gone beyond reason. At Clairvaux in April 1169 Becket excommuni-
cated Bishops Gilbert Foliot of London and Joscelin of Salisbury. Foliot
had opposed Becket from the first, and had brought to his opposition a
bitter wit and a gift of sarcasm which Becket could not match.
As time went on, new matters of dispute made hopeless the original
quarrel over the Constitutions of Clarendon. Becket demanded all the
revenues of the see of Canterbury which had accrued during his exile.
In the meantime, the king had been providing for the apportionment of
his possessions among his sons, and wished his heir, his eldest surviving
son, Henry, to be crowned King of England. In Becket's absence, the
ceremony was performed on 14 June 1170 by Roger, Archbishop of York.
It is easy to understand Becket's anger at this infringement of an undoubted
prerogative of his see. The bitterness had never gone out of the struggle
for primacy between successive Archbishops of York and Canterbury, and
Roger had never made a profession of canonical obedience to Thomas.
Becket had a further, though unacknowledged, reason for resentment.
Roger de Pont l'Évêque had been a senior clerk in Archbishop Theobald's
household when Thomas of London had entered it from a merchant's
office? . It is hard to understand Becket's willingness to agree to a
reconciliation with Henry at Fréteval on 22 July 1170 which left every
matter at issue unsettled.
The king's attitude was plain. The Pope had commissioned the Arch-
bishop of Rouen and the Bishop of Nevers to make peace. Becket was
not to insist on the arrears of the revenues of his see, and the question
of the Constitutions was not to be raised until peace had been secured;
in that event, the king was to be persuaded to moderate them. If Henry
refused to be reconciled to the archbishop within forty days of the receipt
of the Pope's letters, his continental lands were to be laid under an interdict.
1 Thomas of London is the last, and Roger de Ponte episcopi the first, in a group
of Archbishop Theobald's clerks who attest an archiepiscopal writ in favour of
Southwark Priory. Cott. Nero C. in f. 188.
CH. XVII.
36-2


## p. 564 (#610) ############################################

1
564
The murder
1
The reconciliation of Fréteval was a mere form. Nothing was said of the
Constitutions, for Henry meant to maintain them, and Becket knew it.
The question of the arrears was not raised, for Becket meant to have them,
and Henry knew it. The king promised amends for the injury done to the
archbishop by the coronation, but refused to give him the kiss of peace.
Becket demanded it, though he meant war. At Becket's request, the Pope
had given him letters suspending the prelates who had taken part in the
coronation. These letters he sent to England before he himself landed
on 1 December. On Christmas Day in Canterbury cathedral, he violently
denounced his enemies, especially those who had entered upon the posses-
sions of his see. The end of his story, which came four days later, is well-
known, but Becket's secret thoughts and hopes, which undoubtedly
precipitated the tragedy of 29 December, remain mysterious. There is
much in his conduct at the end to suggest that he desired the martyr's
crown. In Becket's heart there had always burned a fierce desire to excel.
He had enjoyed the highest secular power he could hope to win; the
highest ecclesiastical position in England had been his. Neither Church
nor State had suffered from his exile, and even the Pope had not unre-
servedly supported him. He hoped to be a second and a greater Alphege;
by his death he won what to him was sweeter than life.
The news of the murder reached Henry at Argentan on 1 January 1171.
He is said to have spent three days in solitude. The Pope had previously
instructed the Archbishops of Sens and Rouen to lay an interdict on
Henry's continental lands if the archbishop were arrested. On 25 January
the Archbishop of Sens published the interdict, but the Archbishop of
Rouen and the Norman clergy refused to recognise the sentence. They
appealed against it, and the archbishop with three bishops and three
clerks set out to prosecute the appeal at the papal court. In considerable
anxiety as to Alexander's attitude, Henry sent an embassy, and the ex-
communicated bishops sent messengers. Alexander waited until April;
then he confirmed the interdict and the excommunication of the bishops.
Against the king personally he took no other action than to forbid him
to enter a church; legates were to be sent later to announce the terms
on which absolution would be granted. After a few days the Pope was
persuaded to send permission for a conditional absolution on behalf of
the Bishops of London and Salisbury because of their age and infirmity.
In the meantime Henry had spent the months of March and April in
Brittany. England must have been simmering with excitement, for the
miracles of Thomas began almost as soon as he was dead. The first
miracle occurred in Sussex on the third day after the martyrdom, and the
second miracle at Gloucester two days later. By Easter time “miracles
came in crowds. ". But at first it was the humble who believed. Brother
Elias of Reading dared not tell his abbot of his visit to the shrine of
Thomas to win a cure for his leprosy; he had asked leave to visit the
1 Abbott, St Thomas of Canterbury, 1, p. 249.


## p. 565 (#611) ############################################

Ireland
565
health-resort at Bath. Though the better-informed may have been sceptical
of the miracles, the unforgiven king must have been glad to leave England
for Ireland, to pass the time there until the legates should come to absolve
him.
Recent events in Ireland combined with the murder to suggest that
the invasion proposed in 1155 should at last be carried out. Ireland in
the twelfth century resembled Britain in the days of Gildas. The position
of high-king was a dignity to be fought for continually, but it gave to the
winner only a nominal supremacy, a cattle tribute, and jurisdictional rights
so vague as to be indefinable. In theory, each of the five divisions of
Ireland—Ulster, Munster, Leinster, Connaught, and Meath-had its king.
In fact, the boundaries of the provinces shifted with the varying power
of the kings, whose very existence depended on success in war and the
reputation which it brought. The chief preoccupation of each king was
to keep his family in power against other families, and himself as against
other members of his own family; no thought of establishing order in
their kingdoms troubled them. Indeed, if it had, their period of power
would have been short. The Scandinavian settlements along the coast,
Dublin, Limerick, Waterford, Wexford, were centres where the Irish
tribesmen disposed of their furs and hides, and obtained the produce of
civilisation. A poor country, ridden by war, Ireland was never previously
conquered because it was not worth conquest.
The immediate occasion of Norman intervention in Ireland was an
appeal for help from the exiled King of Leinster, Dermot Mac Murrough.
Henry gave him presents, received his homage, and issued letters patent
allowing any of his subjects to assist Dermot to recover his kingdom.
Dermot found help among the Norman colonists in Wales. Richard Fitz
Gilbert, whose father had been created Earl of Pembroke by Stephen,
was anxious to win a position in another land. The marcher lords of
South Wales were steadily losing ground before the encroachments of
Rhys ap Gruffydd. Richard, generally known by his father's nickname
of Strongbow, bargained for Dermot's daughter in marriage, with the
reversion of Leinster, and made his expedition conditional upon Henry's
consent. By the end of 1169, Dermot had recovered Leinster with the
help of small bands of Norman adventurers from Wales. In spite of
Henry's withdrawal of his permission for the expedition, Strongbow
himself landed in Ireland in August 1170, married Eva, Dermot's
daughter, and succeeded him, not without opposition, on his death in
May 1171. Henry, unwilling that a subject should make a kingdom in
Ireland, prevented reinforcements from reaching Strongbow, and recalled
him. On the news of Henry's intended expedition to Ireland, Strongbow
crossed to Wales, and met the king on his way to Milford Haven. Henry
allowed him to do homage for Leinster on condition that he surrendered
the seaports. The king stayed in Ireland for six months, from October
1171 to April 1172, in which he took homage from many Irish chiefs,
CH. XVII,


## p. 566 (#612) ############################################

566
Terms of Henry's absolution
summoned a council of the Irish Church at Cashel, and authorised a
programme of ecclesiastical reform. The chief seaports were garrisoned.
Hugh de Lacy, in command at Dublin, was appointed Justiciar of Ireland,
and was allowed to create for himself a feudal principality in Meath.
The lordship of Ireland had been easily won. The Irish had no castles,
their armies were only undisciplined rabbles, and the Church was on the
side of the invaders. But Henry left Ireland to be subdued by the
adventurers. Not trusting them, he tried to balance the native chiefs
against them, and the country was therefore never conquered. When,
in 1185, a great expedition was entrusted to John, Henry's youngest
son, it proved an utter failure!
Henry left Ireland in April 1172 to meet the legates and hear the
Pope's judgment. At Avranches on 21 May he received absolution. The
terms of reconciliation were light. The king submitted to a public
penance. He swore that he did not command nor wish the archbishop's
death, that when he heard of it he grieved exceedingly, that he would
give satisfaction because he could not produce the murderers, and because
he feared that words of his had given occasion for the crime. He also
swore that he would not withdraw from Pope Alexander and his successors,
and that he would allow appeals in ecclesiastical causes, provided that,
where there was any suspicion of disloyalty, security should be given that
the appeal was not to the hurt of the king or kingdom. He vowed
to undertake a crusade, and to give to the Templars as much money as
was in their judgment necessary to maintain two hundred knights in the
defence of the Cross for one year. He pardoned all those who had been
exiled for St Thomas' sake, and swore that the possessions of the Church
of Canterbury should be as they were one year before the murder. He
swore also to destroy all the customs adverse to the Church introduced
in his time, a vague promise which king and Pope could each interpret
as he chose. The king, most unhappily, gave way in the matter of the
criminous clerks. In regard to the other principles laid down in the
Constitutions of Clarendon, there was to be a trial of strength between
the king and the Pope, or rather between the king's justices and ministers
and the ecclesiastical courts, a struggle none the less real because it was
conducted without advertisement. Something has already been said of
the struggle and its issue.
The oath to go on crusade was lightly taken. Henry evaded the
obligation by promising to build three monasteries, a promise which he
fulfilled at the least possible expense. Before the final ratification in
September of the agreement at Avranches, Henry had known that
trouble was brewing in England. His sons, encouraged by their mother,
were meditating rebellion. The young king bore the style King of the
1 For a short, but convincing, summary of the arguments with regard to the Bull
Laudabiliter (authorising Henry II to conquer Ireland), see Orpen, The Normans in
Ireland, Vol. 1, Chapter ix.


## p. 567 (#613) ############################################

Reasons for the rebellion of 1173–74
567
English, Duke of the Normans, and Count of the men of Anjou! He
had done homage to the French king for Anjou and Brittany. Geoffrey,
the second son, had done homage to his brother for Brittany, and had
himself received the homage of the men of the province. For Aquitaine,
which lay outside the young king's titles, Richard had done homage to
the King of France. No independent power had been given to any of
the king's sons. The young king's wife had not been crowned with her
husband, a grievance to Louis VII, and after the agreement at Avranches
the young king was crowned again, and his wife with him. He had his
own seal and his own court, but ministers of his father composed his
court and doubtless directed him in the use of his seal. That Henry
should commit the rule of any part of his dominions to the reckless
youth of his sons was inconceivable.
The occasion of their rebellion was Henry's attempt to provide for
his youngest son John, born in 1166 or 1167. Early in 1173, a marriage
was arranged between John and Alais, heiress of Humbert III, Count of
Maurienne. In return for the provision that the greater part of Humbert's
possessions should descend to John and his wife, Henry proposed to settle
on them the three castles of Chinon, Loudun, and Mirabeau, formerly
granted as an appanage to his second son Geoffrey. The young king
refused his consent, and fled to the French court in March 1173. His
brothers Richard and Geoffrey followed him, and Eleanor, their mother,
set off to raise Poitou for Richard. She was taken and kept in confinement.
Richard Barre, to whom Henry had entrusted the young king's seal,
brought it back to the king, and the other ministers whom Henry had
placed with his son returned to Henry, bringing with them the young
king's baggage. Henry, always generous to his sons, sent back the
ministers with rich gifts, but the young king dismissed those of them who
would not swear fealty to him against his father. Walter the chaplain,
Ailward the chamberlain, and William Blund the usher, returned to the
old king; of the labours of the two last in the king's service the Pipe
Rolls give ample evidence.
Barons of every province of the continental Angevin dominions joined
the rebellion. The Counts of Flanders and Boulogne and William, King
of Scots, gave their support. To secure it, the young king made lavish
grants. His charters were sealed with a new seal which the King of
France had had made for him. All Kent, with the castles of Rochester
and Dover, was to go to the Count of Flanders; Carlisle and Westmor-
land were promised to the King of Scots; the earldom of Huntingdon
and the county of Cambridge, to which the King of Scots had inherited
a claim, were promised to his brother David. In England, the rebels were
joined by Hugh, Earl of Chester, Robert “Blanchesmaines,” Earl of
| The young king's style is so recorded in a writ, the original of which has
survived, issued on behalf of the priory of St Frideswide, Oxford. Bod. Lib. Oxford,
Charters, 59.
CH. XVII.


## p. 568 (#614) ############################################

568
Balance of parties
Leicester (son of Henry's justiciar), William de Ferrers, Earl of Derby,
Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, and Roger de Mowbray, a great baron in
Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire. They brought to the cause of the
young king a great stretch of England and many castles. Leicester was
a centre for the rebels, with Leicester Castle supported by Groby Castle
five miles to the north-west and Mountsorrel seven miles to the north.
The Ferrers castles of Duffield in Derbyshire and Tutbury in Stafford-
shire, the Bigod castles of Bungay and Framlingham in Suffolk, and the
Mowbray castles of Thirsk and Kirkby Malzeard in Yorkshire, were all
held for the young king.
On Henry's side were the mass of the clergy. The legates sent to
give Henry absolution remained to attempt a reconciliation between him
and his sons: At their suggestion, Henry proceeded to fill all vacant
bishoprics and abbeys. It was not Henry's fault that the see of Canter-
bury had not been filled before, for the perennial quarrel between the prior
and monks of Canterbury and the provincial bishops delayed every election.
The six bishops now appointed were all chosen for their politics rather than
for their religious zeal. Richard of Ilchester, elected Bishop of Winchester,
was a skilled financier.
Geoffrey Ridel, elected Bishop of Ely, had suc-
ceeded Becket as Archdeacon of Canterbury and had borne the king's seal.
Both of them were bitter opponents of Becket, and had been excom-
municated in the course of the struggle. The king's illegitimate son,
Geoffrey, was elected Bishop of Lincoln. In June, the monks of Canter-
bury were conciliated by the election of Richard, prior of St Martin's at
Dover, to the archbishopric. The young king's attempt to prevent the
consecration of the prelates probably did much to confirm the eccle-
siastical order in its support of his father; the only English bishop who
finally joined the rebels was Hugh Puiset of Durham.
Among the barons, there were on the king's side his uncle Reginald,
Earl of Cornwall, his half-brother Hamelin, Earl Warenne, his cousin
William, Earl of Gloucester, William de Mandeville, Earl of Essex,
Simon de Sentliz, Earl of Northampton, and William de Albini, Earl of
Arundel. Although the most powerful of the earls were in revolt, the
baronage as a whole was on the king's side. The rebel castles were
more than balanced by the royal castles and those of loyal barons. The
fee of the Earl of Derby was roughly balanced by the honour of Peverel,
then in the king's hand, with its castles of Nottingham, Bolsover, and
the Peak. John de Lacy, constable of Chester, was on the king's side,
and his loyalty made Roger de Mowbray's defection of less moment. In
East Anglia, the Warennes balanced the Bigods, and in the west, the
loyal marchers and the king's Welsh auxiliaries balanced the Farl of
Chester. In the north, the Umfravilles, Vauxes, Vescis, Bruces, Balliols,
and Stutevilles, balanced the King of Scots. The mass of men, the lesser
baronage, the sheriff's, and above all the new ministerial class, were
solidly on Henry's side. Richard de Luci the justiciar, himself an Essex


## p. 569 (#615) ############################################

First summer of rebellion
569
baron holding the castle and honour of Ongar, raised forces and gar-
risoned castles. The Kymes of Lincolnshire, richer than most baronial
families, were active in the king's support. If Henry's sons expected a
glad response in England to the call of anarchy, they were disillusioned.
The rebellion began with an attack upon Henry's position in northern
France. The Earl of Chester, hereditary Viscount of Avranches and
Bayeux, ravaged Brittany, in association with Breton nobles. The young
king, with the Counts of Flanders and Boulogne, advanced from the east,
while the King of France laid siege to Verneuil. Louis VII, though he
could intrigue, could not carry through a war. He and his allies had no
concerted plan; the brains were all on Henry's side. His castles were
ready to stand siege, and he himself with a competent force could go
where he was needed. Brittany was cleared of rebels by the end of July
1173, and the Earl of Chester was taken prisoner with many other nobles.
The King of France did no more than sack Verneuil and then retreat
before Henry. The rebel forces operating in the east took Aumâle, but
after Matthew, Count of Boulogne, had been mortally wounded did no
more. At a meeting between Trie and Gisors in September, Henry made
generous offers to his sons, though denying them independent rule; his
terms were refused, and after the meeting the rebels and their allies seem
to have concluded that an attack on England must be made.
In England, the centres of war were the midlands, the north, and the
east. There also no definite plan can be traced. No other warfare was
possible at this period than a series of sieges and counter-sieges, raids
and counter-raids, for neither side could call itself victorious while the
other side still held unreduced castles. The justiciar took the offensive by
laying siege to Leicester, and if he could have taken it, the fall of Groby
and Mountsorrel would soon have followed. The town of Leicester was
almost entirely destroyed by an accidental fire. The townsfolk came to
terms, but the castle still held out. The justiciar arranged a truce that
he might be free to meet a Scotch inroad, and together with Humphrey de
Bohun, the king's constable, he chased the Scots into Scotland; but he was
then obliged to make a truce with them until 13 January 1174, in order
to turn south to meet an invasion by the Earl of Leicester with a body of
mercenaries. The earl was one of Henry's bitterest opponents at this time.
He may possibly have felt slighted because he had not succeeded his father
as justiciar, though his conduct during the rebellion gives no indication
that he had any of the ability necessary for such an office. He landed
at Walton near Felixstowe about 18 October 1173. Walton was a royal
castle, and the earl failed to take it. He joined the Earl of Norfolk at
Framlingham, and together they attacked and took the great castle of
Haughley, held for the king by Ranulf de Broc. At Bury St Edmunds,
on his way to Leicester, the earl heard of the approach of the royal
army under the constable, supported by the Earls of Cornwall, Gloucester,
and Arundel. He retreated before they came up, and tried to escape to
CH. XVII.


## p. 570 (#616) ############################################

570
Second summer of rebellion
Leicester by passing to the north. They met him at Fornham St Gene-
vieve three miles north-west of Bury. "In the twinkling of an eye” the
battle was over, and the earl and his wife were prisoners. Winter was
now coming on, and a truce was made with the Earl of Norfolk, to last
until 19 May 1174, on condition that his Flemish mercenaries were sent
back over sea. The Bishop of Durham arranged for a prolongation of
the truce with the Scots until the end of March, and the Northumbrian
barons paid the King of Scots two hundred pounds for the respite.
The winter was passed in preparation for the final struggle. The
Bishop of Durham, abandoning his pretence of loyalty, fortified his epis-
copal castle of Northallerton, while Roger de Mowbray strengthened his
castles of Thirsk and Kirkby Malzeard, and put into a defensible state a
derelict castle at Kinnard Ferry in the Isle of Axholme, of which he was
lord. The site of the castle can still be seen at Owston Ferry by the
lower Trent. A typical Norman motte and bailey, it had probably been
an adulterine castle of Stephen's time, from which the broad and fertile
flats of Axholme could be protected. The castles of Bamburgh, Wark,
and Carlisle, the border fortresses of Liddel and Harbottle, Prudhoe
Castle on the Tyne, Appleby and Brough-under-Stainmoor, were all held
for the king. The rebel plan for 1174, as for the previous year, seems to
have involved a threefold attack on Henry's supporters. The King of
France intended that the young king and the Count of Flanders should
land in East Anglia to join the Earl of Norfolk. In the midlands, the
Earl of Derby, David, the Scottish Earl of Huntingdon, and Anketill
Mallory, the constable of Leicester, tried to reduce the neighbouring
towns. In the north, the King of Scots attacked the northern castles.
He was supported by the Bishop of Durham, who was arranging for his
nephew Hugh de Puiset, Count of Bar, to bring troops to northern
England. The King of Scots began operations in April, but failed to
take Bamburgh and fell back on Berwick. In May he advanced again,
failed to take Wark, and passed on to lay siege to Carlisle. While main-
taining a close siege, the king himself led out detachments against other
castles. One such raid secured Liddel and Harbottle, another Appleby
and Brough-under-Stainmoor. Meanwhile, in East Anglia, a body of
Flemings sent in advance by the Count of Flanders joined the Earl of
Norfolk; with their help he took Norwich in June. In the midlands,
Nottingham was sacked by a raiding party from Leicester under David,
Earl of Huntingdon, and Anketill Mallory raided north Oxfordshire and
Northamptonshire, defeating the townsmen of Northampton who came
out to attack him.
On 5 May Geoffrey, the Bishop-elect of Lincoln, took the castle of
Kinnard Ferry. Roger de Mowbray, on his way to seek help at Leicester,
was taken prisoner by “the rustics of the Clay," the thickly-populated
district west of Trent which now forms the North and South Clay divi-
sions of Bassetlaw wapentake. Much of this district was ancient demesne


## p. 571 (#617) ############################################

Suppression of the rebellion
571
of the Crown, and the king's humble tenants had nothing to gain from
baronial anarchy. With the support of the Archbishop of York, Geoffrey
took the castle of Kirkby Malzeard, and fortified Topcliffe, which he
gave in charge to William de Stuteville to control Roger's remaining
castle of Thirsk. Contemporaneously with these events the Justiciar
laid siege to Huntingdon. Failing to take the castle, he built a counter-
work against it, and placed Earl Simon of Northampton, who claimed
the earldom of Huntingdon, in charge of operations. Messages were
sent to the king to ask him to cross over. While Henry was landing at
Southampton on 8 July, the King of Scots, having brought William de
Vaux to promise to surrender Carlisle if it were not relieved by Michael-
mas, was planning an attack on Prudhoe. Henry's first care after landing
was to perform an elaborate penance at Becket's tomb. In the mean-
time, the loyal barons of the north, under the sheriffs of York and
Lancaster, were quelling the rebellion. The King of Scots began the
siege of Prudhoe on Tuesday, 9 July, but on Thursday he abandoned it,
hearing that the northern barons were gathering at Newcastle. The
invading army ravaged far and wide, while the King of Scots rode to-
wards Alnwick. A mist lay over the valley of the Alne. The English
forces approached Alnwick as the mist lifted, and found the King of
Scots with a few followers. The king charged, but capture was inevitable;
Ranulf de Glanville took custody of him, and sent a messenger to Henry,
who heard the news on 17 July. On 21 July Henry in person received
the surrender of Huntingdon. From Huntingdon he went to Sileham,
a village midway between the two Bigod castles of Framlingham and
Bungay. The Earl of Norfolk surrendered; and Henry then turned west-
wards to Northampton, where the King of Scots was brought to him, and
the rebels made their submission. It only remained for Henry to return
to Normandy and shew himself ready to take the offensive, and the King
of France abandoned the siege of Rouen, which he had begun after Henry's
departure. The threatened invasion of England never took place.
The rebellion was suppressed, but not without two summers of warfare
which must have reminded old men of the days of Stephen. After the
first few months there can have been little doubt which side would win.
The king's sons relied on their powerful allies and assumed a feudal
hatred of order which might exist in France but was not felt in England.
They forgot that alliance with the King of Scots would secure the sup-
port of the northern barons to their father, and that though some barons
might resent order the masses of men loved it. Henry's position in
England was never threatened again. The King of Scots was not only
compelled to do homage for his kingdom as English barons did homage
for their baronies; he was forced to allow Henry to garrison the castles of
Berwick, Jedburgh, Roxburgh, Stirling, and Edinburgh. Peace was made
with France, and lasted until Louis' death, when it was Henry's support
which secured Philip Augustus in his position. To the young king,
CH. XVII.


## p. 572 (#618) ############################################

572
Henry's death
1
Henry gave a competent revenue, but no share in the government of his
dominions.
The subsequent rebellions by which Henry was troubled were no more
than attempts on the part of his sons to anticipate his death; they
belong rather to French than to English history. In securing Philip
Augustus on the French throne, Henry had done the one thing that
ensured the ultimate disintegration of his own dominions, for Philip lost
no opportunity of encouraging Henry's sons in their rebellious atti-
tude. In 1175 Henry entrusted the government of Aquitaine to Richard.
The rebellion of 1181 began as a quarrel between Richard and the young
king. In that year, Henry issued the Assize of Arms in England, which
provided for the arming of men according to their degree, and forbade
the export of arms. There was no fear of rebellion in England; Henry
could rely on the respect which men felt for his government, and arm
them to defend it against invasion. The war in France dragged on until
the young king's death in 1183. In the next year, it was renewed by
Richard, unwilling to surrender Aquitaine to John. Henry gave way,
and the Irish expedition was fitted out for John in 1185. Its failure was
the less serious in that Geoffrey, Duke of Brittany, died in 1186, leaving
Henry with two sons only for whom to make provision. The long-
expected fall of Jerusalem in the next year postponed the imminent war
between Henry and Philip. Public opinion demanded a crusade, and the
Kings of France and England could do no other than follow it; Henry,
Richard, and Philip took the cross. Henry, who had evaded a crusade
for so many years, cannot have meant to undertake one when old age
was creeping upon him; in fact, both kings were willing to assist the
cause with money, but neither wished to leave his kingdom. Of pretexts
for war between Philip and Henry there were many; Philip claimed the
wardship of Geoffrey's heir, and demanded the marriage of Richard and
his sister Alais, so long promised. The war began in the south-west,
with aggressions by Richard on Toulouse and counter-attacks by Philip,
but it soon changed its character. When Henry crossed to Normandy in
1188, Richard and Philip became allies fighting for the recognition of
Richard's right to succeed his father in all his dominions. Ill and pre-
maturely aged, Henry was no match for the military skill of Richard
and Philip. He was forced to surrender, and having agreed to Philip's
terms, overcome with his illness and shame for his failure, he succumbed
to the shock of learning that John, too, had deserted him.
II.
The essential feature of English history in the twelfth century is the
development of a reasoned system of law for the whole land. The change
from the archaic law of the conquered English, modified by new Norman
elements, to the law described in the treatise known by Ranulf de


## p. 573 (#619) ############################################

Two-fold division of the reign
573
Glanville's name, was the work of Henry II and his ministers. Henry's
reign witnessed a change that was almost a revolution. His early years
carry on the tradition of the previous reigns. He was then a very young
man, and the first necessity was to secure England and to consolidate his
continental dominions; the interest of that time lies in political events.
The Becket quarrel came to hinder, though for a time only, what
must have been an extensive programme of reform. The charters and
writs of these earlier years are very similar in form and wording to those
of the reign of Henry I; they suggest the influence of the individual
circumstance. Those of the latter part of the reign suggest the routine
of a government bureau. In the latter years there were few political
events in England to be recorded; the interest of that time lies in the
detail of administration. No precise date can be taken as marking the
change between the earlier and later parts of Henry's reign, but it seems
to fall between the deaths of Henry's first two justiciars, Robert “Bossu,"
Earl of Leicester, and Richard de Luci, that is, between 1168 and 1179.
Between these years fall Becket's murder and the rebellion of 1174, each
of which helps to mark the close of an epoch.
Little can be learned about the personnel of the administration from
the chronicle accounts of Henry's earliest years. The re-organisation
of the Exchequer is unnoticed. From the second year of the reign, the
Pipe Roll of each year, or, as it was more properly called, the Great
Roll of the Exchequer, records the financial administration of the year.
The early rolls are small. They shew that the king and his ministers had
to contend with the financial difficulties presented by land wasted in the
anarchy, or granted away to buy support for the king. Nigel, Bishop
of Ely, nephew of Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, remained treasurer until
he bought the office for his son Richard, who was to become the author
of the treatise known as the Dialogus de Scaccario', and who continued
as treasurer into the reign of Richard I. To these men is due the honour
of elaborating the system of the Exchequer. Richard is not known
to have taken an active part in any other administrative work; unlike
most Exchequer officials, he did not act regularly as a judge. He writes
of the Exchequer as a man writes whose life-work lies in the subject of
which he treats. When he wrote the Dialogus, the business of the
Exchequer was transacted at two great annual sessions at Easter and
Michaelmas, over which the Justiciar presided. Already in Henry's fifth
1 The dates of both the beginning and end of Richard's official career are un-
certain. The date generally accepted for the purchase of the office on his behalf by
Nigel is 1158, but at the Easter session of the Exchequer in 1162 a quittance from
Danegeld was attested by Nigel, Bishop of Ely, Robert, Earl of Leicester, and the
other barons (Lincoln Cathedral, Registrum Antiquissimum, f. 36). It is generally
stated that Richard held the office until his death, but at some date after 1194 he
granted certain houses in Westminster to his beloved kinsman William, the king's
treasurer (Cott. Faust. A. in f. 248). The word consanguineus is important as
proving kinship between William of Ely and Richard Fitz Nigel.
CH. XVII.


## p. 574 (#620) ############################################

574 The Exchequer and the Barons of the Exchequer
year, John, the king's Marshal, when granting land, states that his
charter was sealed at the Exchequer in the Easter term and before Robert,
Earl of Leicester, and Richard de Luci.
This great department of State was inherited from Henry I and Roger,
Bishop of Salisbury. Each officer of high rank had his definite seat there.
The Justiciar sat at the head of the exchequer board, a rectangular table,
five feet by ten, covered with a chequered cloth; on his left sat the
Chancellor, and on his right, when Richard wrote, the Bishop of Win-
chester, Richard of Ilchester, sat by the king's command. These three
filled the head of the table. On the Chancellor's left, though not at the
table, sat the Constable, the Chamberlains, and the Marshal. Along
the side of the table to the right of the Bishop of Winchester sat the
Treasurer and the clerks. At the foot of the table, opposite the Bishop
of Winchester, sat another skilled financier, master Thomas Brown, and
next to him, opposite the Justiciar, sat the sheriff or other person who
was rendering account. Along the remaining side sat the tally-cutter,
the calculator, and the clerk who was at the head of the writing office.
At the same side of the table sat other “discreet men sent by the king,
a phrase which must have had a wide application. Most men who were
employed on the king's business did at times sit at the Exchequer. It
was far more than a financial office; it was the heart of the government.
Becket's biographer, William Fitz Stephen, says of the Exchequer that
there the pleas of the king were wont to be heard; and the surviving final
concords of Henry's reign illustrate the judicial business that was done
there. Many if not most of the judges employed by Henry in his latter
years were Exchequer officials, “barons of the Exchequer,” men who
normally sat there; such persons must be understood by the phrase "dis-
creet men sent by the king. ” They were barons of the Exchequer, although
they did not hold any definite office there or have any definite seat.
The duties of such men were doubtless undefined; they took their share
in whatever work there was to do, judicial, financial, or adıninistrative.
Exemption from fiscal burdens per libertatem sedendi ad scaccarium was
enjoyed by men who are not known to have held any of the definite
offices of state.
The Justiciar presided over the Exchequer, because by origin it was
a session of the king's court and the Justiciar was the man who represented
the king in his absence. By the end of Henry's reign, the dignity and
work of the office of Justiciar were well defined. He was second to the
king in the kingdom, and governed the country when the king was
abroad in accordance with the directions sent him by the king. At such
times he disposed of every sort of business that arose, whether it concerned
the Church, the State, or the king's private affairs. He presided at the
election of bishops; he saw to the fortification of castles; he sat as a
judge; he provided for the sending of necessaries to the king for his
hunting, or for other purposes. His duties were less onerous when the


## p. 575 (#621) ############################################

The Justiciar
575
king was in England, but even then there was much routine work to be
done. The Pipe Rolls shew that throughout the late twelfth century the
Justiciar actually sat at the Exchequer for the ordinary business of the
session. By the middle of Henry's reign it was established that he alone
among
officials could issue writs in his own name to authorise the payment
of the king's moneys out of the king's treasury. To the end of John's
reign, the Justiciar normally presided over the king's court of justice at
Westminster. From the sixth year of Richard I, the Feet of Fines, which
begin at that date, shew the Justiciar sitting there, day after day, the
chief among the judges. Difficult cases were referred to him by the
justices itinerant in the shires. The evidence which has survived from
the reign of Henry II suggests that the same practice was already usual
in Henry's later years. From time to time, the Justiciar himself led
parties of justices itinerant. His title, Capitalis Iusticiarius Regis,
expresses the truth; he was the chief justice in actual fact. But he was also
at the same time a politician, a soldier, and a financier. The king's
service in the twelfth century did not admit of specialisation.
It is in the conception of the position and duties of the Justiciar that
the difference between the earlier and later parts of Henry's reign is most
clearly shewn. It is doubtful if the idea of a permanent head of the
administration was fully developed in 1154. Under Henry I, Bishop
Roger of Salisbury had held a position comparable to that of the later
Justiciar. But in that reign, although Roger used the definite title
Procurator, applied by some chroniclers to the Justiciars of Henry II, it
was possible for Henry I's queen to do work which later in the century
would have fallen to the Justiciar. Moreover, although Roger presided
at the Exchequer, Ralf and Richard Basset, father and son, seem to have
acted in turn as the head of the judicial body. There is no record of
the appointment by Henry II of his first two Justiciars, Robert, Earl of
Leicester, and Richard de Luci, nor is it easy to find evidence of their
labours in the early years of the reign. The fact that they were presiding
together over the Easter Exchequer of Henry's fifth year shews that the
control of finance was already an essential part of their duties. Both of
them had served Stephen, and Richard had served him consistently to the
end; both were past their youth in 1154. It was natural that Henry
should have been unwilling to allow them in the early years of the reign
the wide powers which belonged to the later Justiciars. They were
mainly occupied with routine work; the king's confidence was given to
Thomas of London, his Chancellor.
Viceregal power did not automatically belong to the Justiciar. That
Queen Eleanor should act in Henry's place in Aquitaine was natural, for the
land was her inheritance, but, like the queens of William I and Henry I
before her, she seems to have acted in a similar capacity in England.
The Pipe Rolls of Henry's earliest years contain numerous entries of
money paid out or pardoned on her writ. In one instance, the writ of "the
1
CH. XVII.


## p. 576 (#622) ############################################

576
Development of the office
queen and the Justiciar” is said to be the authority. A writ of the king
from over-sea was her authority for issuing a writ at Oxford forbidding
that the abbey of St Benet of Holme should be impleaded in the king's
absence!