release to William is in Rymer, _Fœdera_, vol. i. p. 30; _Gesta
Ric._ as above, pp. 102, 103; Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii.
pp. 25, 26. It is dated (in Rymer’s copy) December 5. On this
transaction see also R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 72, and
Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 5 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 304).
Richard’s worst difficulty however was still unsolved: how to prevent
John from trying to supplant him in his absence. Richard knew that this
lad, ten years younger than himself, had been his rival ever since
he was of an age to be a rival to any one; and he knew his brother’s
character as, perhaps, no one else did know it as yet--for their mother
had scarcely seen her youngest child since he was six years old. In the
light of later history, it is impossible not to feel that Richard’s
wisest course, alike for his own sake and for England’s, would have
been to follow the instinct which had once prompted him to insist that
John should go with him to the crusade. In this case however he was now
led astray by the noblest feature in his character, his unsuspecting
confidence and generosity. From the hour of their reconciliation
after their father’s death, Richard’s sole endeavour respecting John
was to gain his affection and gratitude by showering upon him every
honour, dignity and benefit of which it was possible to dispose in his
favour. The grant of the county of Mortain made him the first baron
of Normandy, and it was accompanied by a liberal provision in English
lands. To these were added, as soon as the brothers reached England, a
string of “honours”--Marlborough, Luggershall, Lancaster, each with its
castle; the Peak, Bolsover, and the whole honour of Peverel; those of
Wallingford and Tickhill, and that of Nottingham, including the town;
and the whole shire of Derby;[1394] besides the honour of Gloucester,
which belonged to John’s betrothed bride Avice, and which Richard
secured to him by causing him to be married to her at Marlborough on
August 29,[1395] in spite of Archbishop Baldwin’s protests against a
marriage between third cousins without dispensation from the Pope.
Baldwin at once laid all the lands of the young couple under interdict;
but John appealed against him, and a papal legate who came over in
November to settle Baldwin’s quarrel with his own monks confirmed the
appeal and annulled the sentence of the primate.[1396] At the same time
Richard bestowed upon his brother four whole shires in south-western
England--Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and Dorset--with the ferms and the
entire profits of jurisdiction and administration.[1397] More than this
even Richard could not give; if more was needed to hold John’s ambition
in check, he could only trust to the skilful management of Eleanor.
She was left, seemingly without any formal commission, but with the
practical authority of queen-regent, and with the dowries of two former
queens in addition to her own.[1398]
[1394] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 78. See also Stubbs, _Rog.
Howden_, vol. iii., pref. p. xx.
[1395] _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 78.
[1396] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. pp. 72, 73.
[1397] _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 99. Stubbs as above, p. xxv.
Cf. Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 3 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 301), and his
comments on the subject (_ib._ p. 302).
[1398] _Gesta Ric._ as above.
One important part of Richard’s administrative arrangements was however
already upset: William de Mandeville, having gone to Normandy on
business for the king, died there on November 14.[1399] Earl of Essex
by grant of Henry II., count of Aumale by marriage with its heiress,
William had been through life one of Henry’s most faithful friends;
he was honoured and esteemed by all parties on both sides of the sea;
there was no one left among the barons who could command anything like
the same degree of general respect; and Richard for the moment saw no
means of filling his place. He therefore left Bishop Hugh of Durham as
sole chief justiciar; but he made a change in the body of subordinate
justiciars appointed at Pipewell. Two of them were superseded; one was
replaced by Hugh Bardulf, and the other, it seems, by the chancellor
William of Longchamp, who, in addition to the office which he already
held, was put in charge of the Tower of London, and intrusted with
powers which virtually made him equal in authority to the chief
justiciar.[1400]
[1399] R. Diceto as above, p. 73. _Gesta Ric._ as above, p.
92. The day comes from Ralf. R. Coggeshall (Stevenson), p. 26,
makes it December 12.
[1400] On these appointments cf. _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p.
101; Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 28; Ric. Devizes
(Stevenson), pp. 8, 11; Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 5 (Howlett, vol.
i. p. 306); and Bishop Stubbs’s note, pref. to Rog. Howden as
above, p. xxx.
None of these appointments was in itself unwise; but two worse-matched
yokefellows than the justiciar and the chancellor it would have been
difficult to find. Hugh of Puiset--or “Pudsey,” as his English flock
called him--had stood high in both Church and state ever since the days
of the civil war. Through his mother he was a great-grandson of the
Conqueror, and thus cousin in no remote degree to Henry Fitz-Empress
and Richard Cœur-de-Lion, as well as to Philip of France. We saw
him more than forty years ago, as archdeacon and treasurer of York,
meeting the ecclesiastical censures of his metropolitan with a retort
on equal terms, and wielding not unsuccessfully the weapons both of
spiritual and temporal warfare in the cause of his cousin William of
York and his uncle Henry of Winchester. Since 1153 he had been bishop
of Durham; certainly not an ideal successor of S. Cuthbert; yet his
appointment had been sanctioned by the saintly archbishop Theobald;
and throughout his long episcopate he shewed himself by no means
ill-fitted, on the whole, for his peculiar position. That position, it
must be remembered, had more than that of any other English bishop an
important political side. The bishop of Durham was earl palatine of his
shire; its whole administration, secular as well as ecclesiastical,
was in his hands. His diocesan jurisdiction, again, extended over the
whole of Northumberland, and thus brought him into immediate contact
with the Scots across the border. His diocese was in fact a great
marchland between England and Scotland; he was the natural medium
of communication or negotiation between the two realms; and on him
depended in no small degree the security of their relations with each
other. For such a post it was well to have a strong man, in every sense
of the words; and such a man was Hugh of Puiset. His strength was not
based solely upon an unscrupulous use of great material and political
resources. He was a popular man with all classes; notwithstanding
his unclerical ways, he never fell into any ecclesiastical disgrace
except with his own metropolitan, for whom he was generally more than
a match; and he was one of the very few prelates who managed to steer
their way through the Becket quarrel without either damaging their
reputation as sound churchmen or forfeiting the confidence of Henry II.
His intrigues with the Scot king and the rebel barons in 1174 failed
so completely and so speedily that Henry found it scarcely worth while
to punish them in any way; and on the other hand, Hugh’s position
was already so independent and secure that he himself never found it
worth while to renew them. In his own diocese, whatever he might be
as a pastor of souls, he was a vigorous and on the whole a beneficent
as well as magnificent ruler; the men of the county palatine grumbled
indeed at his extravagance and at the occasional hardships brought
upon them by his inordinate love of the chase, but they were none the
less proud of his splendid buildings, his regal state, and his equally
regal personality. His appearance and manners corresponded with his
character and his rank; he was tall in stature, dignified in bearing,
remarkably attractive in look, eloquent and winning in address.[1401]
Moreover, he had lived so long in England, and all his interests had
so long been centred there, that for all practical purposes, social as
well as political, he was a thorough Englishman--certainly far more
of an Englishman than his young English-born cousin, King Richard.
For the last eight years, indeed, he had held in the north much the
same position as had belonged in earlier times to the archbishops of
York; for the northern province had been without a metropolitan ever
since the death of Roger of Pont-l’Evêque in November 1181,[1402] and
the supreme authority, ecclesiastical as well as secular, had thus
devolved upon the bishop of Durham. He was now threatened with the loss
of this pre-eminence; but he had no intention of giving it up without
a struggle, in which his chances of success were at least as good as
those of his rival the archbishop-elect; and whatever the result might
be with respect to his ecclesiastical independence, he had secured a
formidable counterpoise to the primate’s territorial influence by his
purchase of Northumberland, which made him sole head, under the Crown,
of the civil administration of the whole country between the Tweed and
the Tees.
[1401] On Hugh of Durham see Will. Newb., l. v. c. 10 (Howlett,
vol. ii. pp. 436–438), Geoff. Coldingham, cc. 1, 4, 11, 14
(_Script. Dunelm. III._, Raine, pp. 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14), and
Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. pp. xxxiii.–xxxvii.
[1402] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 283. R. Diceto
(Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 10. Will. Newb., l. iii. c. 5 (Howlett,
vol. i. p. 225).
Alike in himself and in his antecedents Hugh of Puiset was the very
antithesis to William of Longchamp. William had nothing of the
stately presence and winning aspect which distinguished the bishop
of Durham; on the contrary, he laboured under personal disadvantages
which should have entitled him to sympathy, but which one of his
political opponents was heartless enough to caricature, after his
fall, in order to make him an object of vulgar contempt and disgust.
His stature was diminutive, his countenance swarthy and ill-favoured,
his figure mis-shapen, and he was moreover very lame.[1403] His
origin was as lowly as his person. His father was a certain Hugh of
Longchamp who in 1156 received from the king a grant of lands in
Herefordshire,[1404] and about the time of the barons’ revolt was
fermor of the honour of Conches in Normandy.[1405] His grandfather was
said to have been a French serf who had fled from the justice of his
lord and found a refuge in the Norman village whence his descendants
took their name.[1406] In Henry’s latter years Hugh of Longchamp was
deep in debt and disgrace,[1407] and his six sons had to make their
way in the world as best they could under the shadow of the king’s
displeasure.[1408] William, whose physical infirmities must have shut
him out from every career save that of a clerk, first appears under
the patronage of Geoffrey the chancellor, as his official in one of
his many pieces of Church preferment, the archdeaconry of Rouen.[1409]
The king, however, remonstrated strongly with his son on the danger
of associating with a man whom he declared to be “a traitor, like his
father and mother before him.”[1410] The end of his remonstrances was
that, shortly before the last outbreak, William fled from Geoffrey to
Richard, and, according to one account, became the chief instigator
of Richard’s rebellion.[1411] However this may be, it is certain that
Richard, while still merely duke of Aquitaine, employed William as his
chancellor,[1412] and that he was not only so well satisfied with his
services as to retain him in the same capacity after his accession to
the crown, but had formed such a high opinion of his statesmanship and
his fidelity as to make him his chief political adviser and confidant.
Richard, like his father, was constant in his friendships, and very
unwilling to discard those to whom he had once become really attached;
his trust in William remained unshaken to the end of his life, and
in some respects it was not misplaced. William seems to have been
thoroughly loyal to his master, and his energy and industry were as
unquestionable as his loyalty. As Richard’s most intimate companion,
confidential secretary, and political adviser in foreign affairs,
William was in his right place; but he was by no means equally well
fitted to be Richard’s representative in the supreme government and
administration of England. He had the primary disqualification of being
a total stranger to the land, its people and its ways. Most likely he
had never set foot in England till he came thither with Richard in
1189; he was ignorant of the English tongue;[1413] his new surroundings
were thoroughly distasteful to him; and as he was by no means of a
cautious or conciliatory temper, he expressed his contempt and dislike
of them in a way which was resented not only by the people, but even
by men whose origin and natural speech were scarcely more English
than his own.[1414] He had in short every qualification for becoming
an extremely unpopular man, and he behaved as if he desired no other
destiny. The nation at large soon learned to return his aversion
and to detest him as a disagreeable stranger; his colleagues in the
administration despised him as an upstart interloper; the justiciar,
in particular, keenly resented his own virtual subordination to one
whom he naturally regarded as his inferior in every way.[1415] It was
sound policy on Richard’s part to place a check upon Hugh of Durham;
and it was not unnatural that he should select his chancellor for that
purpose. The seven happiest years of Henry Fitz-Empress had been the
years during which another chancellor had wielded a power almost as
great as that which Richard intrusted to William of Longchamp. But, on
the other hand, any one except Richard might have seen at a glance that
of all statesmen living, William of Longchamp was well-nigh the least
fitted to reproduce the career of Thomas of London.
[1403] Cf. Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 11, with the horrible
caricature in Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 19 (Brewer,
vol. iv. p. 420).
[1404] Pipe Roll 2 Hen. II. (Hunter), p. 51.
[1405] _Mag. Rot. Scacc. Norm._ (Stapleton), vol. i. p. 74. Cf.
Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. p. xxxviii.
[1406] Letter of Hugh of Nonant, in _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs),
p. 216 (also in Rog. Howden, Stubbs, vol. iii. p. 142). Gir.
Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 18 (Brewer, vol. iv. p. 418).
[1407] _Mag. Rot. Scacc. Norm._ (Stapleton), vol. i. p. 74.
Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. pp. xxxviii, xxxix and
notes.
[1408] Stubbs, as above, pp. xxxix, xl.
[1409] Gir. Cambr. as above, c. 1 (p. 388).
[1410] _Ibid._ Cf. c. 19 (pp. 420, 421). It does not seem to be
known exactly who William’s mother was; but she brought to her
husband in dower a knight’s fee in Herefordshire under Hugh de
Lacy. See _Lib. Nig. Scacc._ (Hearne), p. 155, and Stubbs, as
above, p. xxxviii, note 4.
[1411] Gir. Cambr. as above, c. 19 (p. 421).
[1412] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 6.
[1413] Letter of Hugh of Nonant in _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), vol.
ii. p. 219.
[1414] See Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 19 (Brewer,
vol. iv. p. 424).
[1415] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 101. Rog. Howden (Stubbs),
vol. iii. p. 29.
The king left England on December 11.[1416] William was consecrated,
together with Richard Fitz-Nigel, on December 31,[1417] and on the
feast of the Epiphany he was enthroned at Ely.[1418] Immediately
afterwards he began to assert his temporal authority. At a meeting
of the Court of Exchequer the bishop of Durham was turned out by
the chancellor’s orders; presently after he was deprived of his
jurisdiction over Northumberland. Soon after this, Bishop Godfrey of
Winchester was dispossessed not merely of his sheriffdom and castles,
but even of his own patrimony.[1419] For this last spoliation there
is no apparent excuse; that a man should hold a sheriffdom together
with a bishopric was, however, contrary alike to Church discipline and
to sound temporal policy; and the non-recognition of Hugh’s purchase
of Northumberland might be yet further justified by the fact that
the purchase-money was not yet paid.[1420] In February 1190 Richard
summoned his mother, his brothers and his chief ministers to a final
meeting in Normandy;[1421] the chancellor, knowing that complaints
against him would be brought before the king, hurried over in advance
of his colleagues, to justify himself before he was accused,[1422] and
he succeeded so well that Richard not only sent him back to England
after the council with full authority to act as chief justiciar as well
as chancellor,[1423] but at the same time opened negotiations with Rome
to obtain for him a commission as legate[1424]--an arrangement which,
the archbishop of Canterbury being bound on crusade like the king,
would leave William supreme both in Church and state.
[1416] _Gesta Ric._ as above. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p.
73, makes it December 14.
[1417] R. Diceto as above, p. 75. Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p.
11.
[1418] R. Diceto as above.
[1419] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 11.
[1420] See Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. p. xxxi. and
note 3.
[1421] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 105, 106.
[1422] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 12.
[1423] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 106. Cf. Ric. Devizes as
above, and Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 14 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 331).
[1424] _Gesta Ric._ as above.
The new justiciar’s first act on his return was to fortify the Tower
of London;[1425] his next was to punish a disturbance which had lately
occurred at York. During the last six months the long-suppressed hatred
which the Jews inspired had broken forth into open violence. The first
pretext had been furnished by a misunderstanding on the coronation-day.
Richard, who had some very strict ideas about the ceremonials of
religion, had given orders that no Jew should approach him on that
solemn occasion; in defiance or ignorance of the prohibition, some
rich Jews came to offer gifts to the new sovereign; the courtiers and
the people seized the excuse to satisfy at once their greed and their
hatred; the unwelcome visitors were driven away, robbed, beaten, some
even slain;[1426] and the rage of their enemies, once let loose, spent
itself throughout the night in a general sack of the Jewish quarter.
Richard, engaged at the coronation-banquet, knew nothing of what had
happened till the next day,[1427] when he did his best to secure the
ringleaders, and punished them severely.[1428] When he was gone,
however, the spark thus kindled burst forth into a blaze in all the
chief English cities in succession, Winchester being almost the sole
exception.[1429] Massacres of Jews took place at Norwich on February 6,
at Stamford on March 7, at S. Edmund’s on March 18, Palm Sunday.[1430]
A day before this last, a yet worse tragedy had occurred at York. The
principal Jews of that city, in dread of a popular attack, had sought
and obtained shelter in one of the towers of the castle, under the
protection of its constable and the sheriff of Yorkshire.[1431] Once
there, they refused to give it up again; whereupon the constable and
the sheriff called out all the forces of city and shire to dislodge
them. After twenty-four hours’ siege the Jews offered to ransom
themselves by a heavy fine; but the blood of the citizens was up, and
they rejected the offer. The Jews, in desperation, resolved to die by
their own hands rather than by those of their Gentile enemies; the
women and children were slaughtered by their husbands and fathers,
who flung the corpses over the battlements or piled them up in the
tower, which they fired.[1432] Nearly five hundred Jews perished in the
massacre or the flames;[1433] and the citizens and soldiers, baulked of
their expected prey, satiated their greed by sacking and burning all
the Jewish houses and destroying the bonds of all the Jewish usurers
in the city.[1434] At the end of April or the beginning of May[1435]
the new justiciar came with an armed force to York to investigate
this affair. The citizens threw the whole blame upon the castellan
and the sheriff; William accordingly deposed them both.[1436] As the
castle was destroyed, he probably thought it needless to appoint a
new constable until it should be rebuilt; for the sheriff--John,
elder brother of William the Marshal--he at once substituted his own
brother Osbert.[1437] Most of the knights who had been concerned in
the tumult had taken care to put themselves out of his reach; their
estates were, however, mulcted and their chattels seized;[1438] and the
citizens only escaped by paying a fine[1439] and giving hostages who
were not redeemed till three years later, when all thought of further
proceedings in the matter had been given up.[1440] Even the clergy of
the minster had their share of punishment, although for a different
offence: William, though his legatine commission had not yet arrived,
claimed already to be received as legate, and put the church under
interdict until his claim was admitted.[1441]
[1425] _Ibid._
[1426] The _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 83, lay the blame
on “curiales”; with Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p.
12, the source of the mischief is “plebs superbo oculo et
insatiabili corde”; R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 69, is
so ashamed of the whole business that he tries to shift
the responsibility off all English shoulders alike--“Pax
Judæorum, quam ab antiquis temporibus semper obtinuerant, ab
alienigenis interrumpitur.” Cf. the very opposite tone of R.
Coggeshall (Stevenson), p. 28, and the judicial middle course
characteristically steered by Will. Newb., l. iv. cc. 1 and 9
(Howlett, vol. i. pp. 297, 298, 316, 317).
[1427] R. Diceto as above.
[1428] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 84. Rog. Howden as above.
Both take care to assure us that Richard’s severity was owing
not to any sympathy for the Jews, but to the fact that in
the confusion a few Christians had suffered with them. Cf. a
slightly different version in Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 1 (as
above, pp. 297–299).
[1429] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 5.
[1430] R. Diceto as above, p. 75. Cf. Will. Newb., l. iv. cc.
7, 8 (as above, pp. 308–312), who adds Lynn to the series.
[1431] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 107, and a more detailed
account in Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 9 (as above, pp. 312–314).
From him we learn that the Jews of Lincoln did the same, and
with a more satisfactory result.
[1432] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 107. For date--March 16--see
R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 75.
[1433] R. Diceto as above.
[1434] _Gesta Ric._ as above. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii.
p. 34. Cf. the somewhat different version of Will. Newb., l.
iv. cc. 9, 10 (Howlett, vol. i. pp. 314–322), and also R.
Coggeshall (Stevenson), pp. 27, 28.
[1435] The _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 108, say merely “post
Pascha”; Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 11 (as above, p. 323), says
“circa Dominicæ Ascensionis solemnia,” which fell on May 4.
[1436] _Gesta Ric._ as above.
[1437] Rog. Howden as above.
[1438] Will. Newb. as above (p. 323). Cf. Pipe Roll 2 Ric. I.,
quoted in Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. pp. xliv.,
notes 4, 5, xlv., note 1.
[1439] Will. Newb. as above.
[1440] Pipe Roll 5 Ric. I. in Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_, vol. iii.
pref. p. xliv., note 7. Will. Newb., as above (p. 324), says
that nothing further was ever done in the matter.
[1441] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 108, 109.
For the moment William’s power was undisputed even in the north;
for Hugh of Durham was still in Gaul. Now, however, there came a
notice from the king that he was about to send Hugh back to England
as justiciar over the whole country north of the Humber.[1442] Hugh
himself soon afterwards arrived, and hurried northward, in the hope,
it seems, of catching the chancellor on the further side of the Humber
and thus compelling him to acknowledge his inferiority.[1443] In this
hope he was disappointed; they met at Blyth in Nottinghamshire.[1444]
Hugh, impetuous in old age as in youth, talked somewhat too much
as the chancellor had acted--“as if all the affairs of the realm
were dependent on his nod.”[1445] At last, however, he produced the
commission from Richard upon which his pretensions were founded;[1446]
and William, who could read between the lines of his royal friend’s
letters, saw at once that he had little to fear.[1447] He replied
simply by expressing his readiness to obey the king’s orders,[1448]
and proposing that all further discussion should be adjourned to a
second meeting a week later at Tickhill. There Hugh found the tables
turned. The chancellor had reached the place before him; the bishop’s
followers were shut out from the castle; he was admitted alone into
the presence of his rival, who, without giving him time to speak, put
into his hands another letter from Richard, bidding all his English
subjects render service and obedience to “our trusty and well-beloved
chancellor, the bishop of Ely,” as they would to the king himself.
The letter was dated June 6--some days, if not weeks, later than
Hugh’s credentials;[1449] and it seems to have just reached William
together with his legatine commission, which was issued on the previous
day.[1450] He gave his rival no time even to think. “You had your say
at our last meeting; now I will have mine. As my lord the king liveth,
you shall not quit this place till you have given me hostages for the
surrender of all your castles. No protests! I am not a bishop arresting
another bishop; I am the chancellor, arresting his supplanter.”[1451]
Hugh was powerless; yet he let himself be dragged all the way to London
before he would yield. Then he gave up the required hostages,[1452] and
submitted to the loss of all his lately-purchased honours--Windsor,
Newcastle, Northumberland, even the manor of Sadberge which he had
bought of the king for his see[1453]--everything, in short, except his
bishopric. For that he set out as soon as he was liberated; but at his
manor of Howden he was stopped by the chancellor’s orders, forbidden
to proceed further, and again threatened with forcible detention. He
promised to remain where he was, gave security for the fulfilment of
his promise, and then wrote to the king his complaints of the treatment
which he had received.[1454] All the redress that he could get,
however, was a writ commanding that Sadberge should be restored to him
at once and that he should suffer no further molestation.[1455]
[1442] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 109. This appointment is
mentioned (_ib._ p. 106) among those made at the council of
Rouen, where William himself was appointed; but it seems plain
that it was not ratified till some time later.
[1443] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 12.
[1444] _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 109.
[1445] Ric. Devizes as above.
[1446] _Ib._ p. 13. _Gesta Ric._ as above.
[1447] Ric. Devizes as above.
[1448] _Gesta Ric._ as above.
[1449] Cf. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 83, with Ric.
Devizes as above.
[1450] R. Diceto as above.
[1451] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 13.
[1452] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 109. Rog. Howden (Stubbs),
vol. iii. p. 35, places the submission at Southwell.
[1453] _Gesta Ric._ as above. On Sadberge see Rog. Howden as
above, p. 13.
[1454] _Gesta Ric._, pp. 109, 110.
[1455] The _Gesta Ric._, p. 110, say Richard ordered the
restitution of Newcastle and Sadberge; for Newcastle Rog.
Howden, as above, p. 38, substitutes “comitatum Northumbriæ”;
but the king’s letter, given by Roger himself (_ib._ pp. 38,
39), mentions nothing except Sadberge. For its date see _ib._
pp. 37 note 1, 39 note 3, and _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 112,
note 1.
The chancellor’s first rival was thus suppressed; but already he
could see other stumbling-blocks arising in his path, not a few of
them placed there by the shortsighted policy of his royal master.
Richard’s reckless bestowal of lands and jurisdictions would, if left
undisturbed, have put the administration of at least ten whole shires
practically beyond the control of the central government. The bishops
of Durham, Winchester and Coventry or Chester would have had everything
their own way, in temporal matters no less than in spiritual,
throughout their respective dioceses. To this state of things William
had summarily put an end in the cases of Northumberland and Hampshire;
in those of Leicestershire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire the
primate had been induced to remonstrate with Hugh of Coventry upon
the impropriety of a bishop holding three sheriffdoms, and Hugh had
accordingly given up two of them, though he managed to get them back
after Baldwin’s death at the close of 1190.[1456] There were however
still four shires in the south-west and one in Mid-England over which
the king’s justiciar was not only without practical, but even without
legal jurisdiction. In these, and in a number of “honours” scattered
over the midland shires from Gloucester to Nottingham, the whole rights
and profits of government, administration and finance belonged solely
to John; for his exercise of them he was responsible to no one but
the king; and thus, as soon as Richard was out of reach, John was to
all intents and purposes himself king of his own territories. For the
present indeed he was unable to set foot in his little realm: Richard
in the spring had made both his brothers take an oath to keep away
from England for three years.[1457] It was however easy enough for
John to govern his part of England, as the whole of it had often been
governed for years together, from the other side of the Channel. He
had his staff of ministers just like his brother--his justiciar Roger
de Planes,[1458] his chancellor Stephen Ridel,[1459] his seneschal
William de Kahaines, and his butler Theobald Walter;[1460] the sheriffs
of his five counties and the stewards or bailiffs of his honours were
appointed by him alone, and exercised their functions solely for
his advantage, without reference to the king’s court or the king’s
exchequer.[1461] It is evident that, even though as yet the sea lay
between them, John had already the power to make himself, if he were
so minded, a serious obstacle to the chancellor’s plans of governing
England for Richard. Moreover, before Richard finally quitted Gaul, his
mother persuaded him to release John from his oath of absence;[1462]
and William of Longchamp himself, in his new character of legate, was
obliged to confirm the release with his absolution.[1463] In view of
the struggle which he now saw could not be far distant, William began
to marshal his political forces and concert his measures of defence. On
August 1 he held a Church council at Gloucester, in the heart of John’s
territories;[1464] on October 13 he held another at Westminster;[1465]
and he seems to have spent the winter in a sort of half legatine, half
vice-regal progress throughout the country, for purposes of justice and
finance and for the assertion of his own authority. This proceeding
stirred up a good deal of discontent. Cripple though he was, William of
Longchamp seems to have been almost as rapid and restless a traveller
as Henry II.; one contemporary says he “went up and down the country
like a flash of lightning.”[1466] It may be however that these words
allude to the disastrous effects of the chancellor’s passage rather
than to its swiftness and suddenness; for he went about in such state
as no minister except Henry’s first chancellor had ever ventured to
assume. His train of a thousand armed knights, besides a crowd of
clerks and other attendants, was a ruinous burthen to the religious
houses where he claimed entertainment; and the burthen was made almost
unbearable by the heavy exactions, from clerk and layman alike, which
he made in his master’s name.[1467]
[1456] See R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. pp. 77, 78, and Stubbs,
_Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. p. xxxi. and note 5.
[1457] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 106. Ric. Devizes (Stevenson),
p. 15.
[1458] R. Diceto as above, p. 99.
[1459] _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 224.
[1460] Rymer, _Fœdera_, vol. i. p. 55.
[1461] See Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. pp. xxxiii
and lii.
[1462] _Gesta Ric._ and Ric. Devizes as above.
[1463] Gir. Cambr. _De rebus a se gestis_, l. ii. c. 23
(Brewer, vol. i. p. 86). Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 15, says
the arrangement was that John “in Angliam per cancellarium
transiens staret ejus judicio, et ad placitum illius vel
moraretur in regno vel exularet.” But with Eleanor in England
to back her son, William could really have no choice in the
matter.
[1464] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 83. On the version of
this in Ric. Devizes (as above, pp. 13, 14), see Stubbs, _Rog.
Howden_, vol. iii. pref. p. xlix.
[1465] R. Diceto as above, p. 85. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i.
p. 488, makes it October 16.
[1466] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 14.
[1467] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 214. Rog. Howden (Stubbs),
vol. iii. p. 72. Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 14 (Howlett, vol. i.
pp. 333, 334).
That master was now with Philip of France at Messina,[1468] preparing
for his departure from Europe. When he would come back--whether he ever
would come back at all--was felt by all parties to be doubtful in the
extreme. With his ardent zeal, rash valour and peculiar health, he was
little likely to escape both the chances of war and the effects of the
eastern climate;[1469] and the question of the succession was therefore
again becoming urgent. There was indeed not much latitude of choice;
the male line of Anjou, already extinct in Palestine, had in Europe
only three representatives--Richard himself, John, and their infant
nephew Arthur of Britanny. By the strict feudal rule of primogeniture,
Arthur, being Geoffrey’s son, would have after Richard the next claim
as head of the Angevin house. By old English constitutional practice,
John, being a grown man and the reigning sovereign’s own brother,
would have a much better chance of recognition as his successor than
his nephew, a child not yet four years old. Neither alternative was
without drawbacks. Richard himself had made up his mind to the first;
early in November 1190 he arranged a marriage for Arthur with a
daughter of King Tancred of Sicily, on a distinct understanding that
in case of his own death without children Arthur was to succeed to
all his dominions;[1470] while at the same time William of Longchamp
was endeavouring to secure the Scot king’s recognition of Arthur as
heir-presumptive to the English crown.[1471] The queen-mother was
unwilling to contemplate the succession of either Arthur or John; she
was anxious to get Richard married. Knowing that he never would marry
the woman to whom he had been so long betrothed, she took upon herself
to find him another bride. Her choice fell upon Berengaria, daughter
of King Sancho VI. of Navarre;[1472] it was accepted by Richard;
early in February 1191[1473] she went over to Gaul; there she met her
intended daughter-in-law, whom she carried on with her into Italy,
and by the end of March they were both with Richard at Messina.[1474]
On the very day of their arrival Philip had sailed.[1475] After long
wrangling with him, Richard had at last succeeded in freeing himself
from his miserable engagement to Adela;[1476] he at once plighted his
troth to Berengaria; and when his mother, after a four days’ visit, set
out again upon her homeward journey,[1477] his bride remained with him
under the care of his sister the widowed queen Jane of Sicily[1478]
till the expiration of Lent and the circumstances of their eastward
voyage enabled them to marry. The wedding was celebrated and the queen
crowned at Limasol in Cyprus on the fourth Sunday after Easter.[1479]
[1468] Richard was there from September 23, 1190, to April 10,
1191. _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 125, 162; R. Diceto as above,
pp. 84, 91.
[1469] See Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 5 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 306).
[1470] Treaty in _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 133–136, and Rog.
Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 61–64. It is dateless, but
on November 11 Richard wrote to the Pope telling him of its
provisions and asking for his sanction. _Gesta Ric._ as above,
pp. 136–138; Rog. Howden as above, pp. 65, 66.
[1471] Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 14 (as above, pp. 335, 336).
William represents this as an unauthorized proceeding of the
chancellor’s, contrived in his own interest as against John. He
seems to place it at a later date.
[1472] “Puella prudentior quam pulchra” says Ric. Devizes
(Stevenson), p. 25; but he seems to be contrasting her with
Eleanor. On the other hand, Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 19 (as
above, p. 346), calls her “famosæ pulchritudinis et prudentiæ
virginem.” According to the _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 175,
this had been Richard’s own choice for many years past.
[1473] Richard sent ships to meet her at Naples before the end
of that month. _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 157.
[1474] They arrived on March 30. _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 161.
[1475] _Ibid._
[1476] _Gesta Ric._ as above, pp. 160, 161. Rog. Howden
(Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 99. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 86.
Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 26. The actual treaty between
Richard and Philip, of which more later, is in Rymer, _Fœdera_,
vol. i. p. 54.
[1477] She sailed on April 2. _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 161.
Cf. R. Diceto as above.
[1478] _Ibid._ Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 28.
[1479] _Gesta Ric._ as above, pp. 166, 167. Ric. Devizes, p.
39. _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 195, 196.
On her way home Eleanor stopped to transact some diplomatic business
at Rome, and she seems to have remained in Gaul until the beginning of
the next year. Long before she returned to England there were evident
tokens that when Richard had proposed to keep John out of it, he had
for once been wiser than his mother. Early in the year John, profiting
by the liberty which her intercession had procured him, came over to
England and there set up his court in such semi-regal state as to make
it a source of extreme irritation, if not of grave anxiety, to the
chancellor.[1480] Eleanor’s departure thus left William of Longchamp
face to face with a new and most formidable rival; while about the
same time he saw his power threatened on another side. In March 1191
tidings came that Archbishop Baldwin had died at Acre in the foregoing
November.[1481] If a new primate should be appointed, it was to be
expected as a matter of course that the bishop of Ely would lose the
legation; he could hope to retain it only by persuading Richard either
to nominate him to the primacy, or to keep it vacant altogether.
Richard’s notions of ecclesiastical propriety were however too strict
to admit the latter alternative; from the former he would most likely
be deterred by his father’s experiences with another chancellor; so, to
the astonishment of everybody, he nominated for the see of Canterbury
a Sicilian prelate, one of his fellow-crusaders, William archbishop
of Monreale.[1482] Meanwhile John and the chancellor were quarrelling
openly; popular sympathy, which William had alienated by his arrogance
and his oppressions, was on the side of John; even the subordinate
justiciars, who had stood by William in his struggle with Hugh of
Durham,[1483] were turning against him now; from one and all complaints
against him were showering in upon the king;[1484] till at the end of
February Richard grew so bewildered and so uneasy that he decided upon
sending the archbishop of Rouen to investigate the state of affairs in
England and see what could be done to remedy it.[1485]
[1480] See Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. pp. li., lii.
[1481] Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 488, 490.
[1482] Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 493, 494; date,
January 25 [1191].
[1483] See Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), pp. 11, 12.
[1484] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 158. Rog. Howden (Stubbs),
vol. iii. pp. 95, 96.
[1485] _Gesta Ric_. as above. Rog. Howden as above, p. 96. We
get the date approximately from Richard’s letter in R. Diceto
(Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 90.
The archbishop of Rouen--Walter of Coutances--was a man of noble birth
and stainless character who had been successively archdeacon of Oxford,
treasurer of Rouen cathedral and vice-chancellor to Henry II.;[1486]
in this last capacity he had for eight years done the whole work of
head of the chancery for his nominal chief Ralf of Varneville,[1487]
till Ralf was succeeded in 1182 by the king’s son Geoffrey, and next
year the vice-chancellor was promoted to the see of Lincoln, which
Geoffrey had resigned. A year later Walter was advanced to the primacy
of Normandy.[1488] He was now with Richard, on his way to Holy Land,
but commuted his vow to serve the king.[1489] He was a very quiet,
unassuming person, and certainly not a vigorous statesman; but his
integrity and disinterestedness were above question;[1490] and the
position in which he was now placed was one in which even a Thomas
Becket might well have been puzzled how to act. The only commission
given him by Richard of which we know the date was issued on February
23;[1491] but it was not till April 2 that he was allowed to leave
Messina;[1492] and during the interval Richard, in his reluctance to
supersede the chancellor, seems to have been perpetually changing his
mind and varying his instructions, some of which were sent direct to
England and some intrusted to Walter, till by the time the archbishop
started he was laden with a bundle of contradictory commissions,
addressed to himself, to William and to the co-justiciars, and
apparently accompanied by a verbal order to use one, all or none of
them, wholly at his own discretion.[1493]
[1486] Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 10 (Brewer, vol.
iv. p. 408).
[1487] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 367.
[1488] _Ib._ vol. ii. pp. 10, 14, 21.
[1489] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 27--very unfairly coloured.
[1490] Cf. Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 10 (Brewer,
vol. iv. p. 408), and Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 15 (Howlett, vol.
i. p. 336). In this place William calls Walter “virum prudentem
et modestum”; but in l. iii. c. 8 (_ib._ p. 236) he displays a
curiously bitter resentment against him for his abandonment of
the see of Lincoln for the loftier see of Rouen.
[1491] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 90. Gir. Cambr. as
above, c. 6 (p. 401), gives the date as February 20.
[1492] He and Eleanor left Messina together. _Itin. Reg. Ric._
(Stubbs), p. 176.
[1493] This seems the only possible explanation at once of
Walter’s conduct and of the conflicting accounts in R. Diceto
as above, pp. 90, 91; Gir. Cambr. as above (pp. 400, 401);
_Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 158; Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii.
pp. 96, 97; Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), pp. 27–29; and Will.
Newb. as above. See Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. pp.
lx., lxi., note 1.
Before he reached England John and the chancellor were at open war.
On Mid-Lent Sunday they met at Winchester to discuss the payment of
John’s pensions from the Exchequer and the possession of certain
castles within his territories.[1494] The discussion clearly ended in a
quarrel; and this served as a signal for revolt against the unpopular
minister. Gerard de Camville, sheriff of Lincolnshire by purchase from
the king, was also constable of Lincoln castle in right of his wife
Nicolaa de Haye. He was accused of harbouring robbers in the castle,
and when summoned before the king’s justices he refused to appear,
declaring that he had become John’s liegeman and was answerable only
to him.[1495] At the opposite end of England Roger de Mortemer, the
lord of Wigmore--successor to that Hugh de Mortemer who had defied
Henry II. in 1156--was at the same moment found to be plotting treason
with the Welsh. Against him the chancellor proceeded first, and his
mere approach so alarmed Roger that he gave up his castle and submitted
to banishment from the realm for three years.[1496] William then
hurried to Lincoln; but before he could reach it Gerard and Nicolaa
had had time to make their almost impregnable stronghold ready for
a siege, and John had had time to gain possession of Nottingham and
Tickhill[1497]--two castles which the king had retained in his own
hands, while bestowing upon his brother the honours in which they
stood. Nicolaa was in command at Lincoln, and was fully equal to the
occasion; her husband was now with John, and John at once sent the
chancellor a most insulting message, taunting him with the facility
with which the two castles had been betrayed,[1498] and threatening
that if the attempt upon Lincoln was not at once given up, he would
come in person to avenge the wrongs of his liegeman.[1499] William saw
that John was now too strong for him; he knew by this time that Pope
Clement was dead,[1500] and his own legation consequently at an end; he
must have known, too, of the mission of Walter of Rouen; he therefore,
through some of his fellow-bishops,[1501] demanded a personal meeting
with John, and proposed that all their differences should be submitted
to arbitration. John burst into a fury at what he chose to call the
impudence of this proposal,[1502] but he ended by accepting it, and on
April 25 the meeting took place at Winchester. The case was decided by
the bishops of London, Winchester and Bath, with eleven lay arbitrators
chosen by them from each party. Their decision went wholly against the
chancellor. He was permitted to claim the restitution of Nottingham and
Tickhill, but only to put them in charge of two partizans of John; his
right to appoint wardens to the other castles in dispute was nominally
confirmed, but made practically dependent upon John’s dictation; he was
compelled to reinstate Gerard de Camville, and moreover to promise that
in case of Richard’s death he would do his utmost to secure the crown
for John.[1503]
[1494] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 26.
[1495] Cf. Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 30, with Rog. Howden
(Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 242, 243, and Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 16
(Howlett, vol. i. pp. 337, 338), and see Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_,
vol. iii. pref. pp. lvi., lvii.
[1496] Ric. Devizes as above.
[1497] _Ibid._ _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 207. Will. Newb. as
above (p. 338).
[1498] Ric. Devizes as above.
[1499] _Ibid._ _Gesta Ric._ as above.
[1500] He died on the Wednesday before Easter--April 10--and
his successor Celestine III. was elected on Easter-day. _Gesta
Ric._ as above, p. 161.
[1501] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 31, makes Walter of Rouen
the mediator, but we shall see that this is chronologically
impossible.
[1502] _Ibid._
[1503] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), pp. 32, 33. On the date see
Bishop Stubbs’s notes to _Gesta Ric._, p. 208, and Rog. Howden,
vol. iii. p. 134, and pref. to latter, pp. lviii., lix.
Two days later Walter of Rouen landed at Shoreham.[1504] He was
evidently not wanted now to act as a check upon William of Longchamp;
he might almost expect to be soon wanted as a check upon John; but
meanwhile, he could only stand aside and watch the effect of the
new arrangements. His passive attitude gave, however, an indirect
support to the chancellor; after midsummer, therefore, the latter
ventured to repudiate the concessions wrung from him at Winchester;
he again advanced upon Lincoln, and formally deprived Gerard of the
sheriffdom, which he conferred upon William de Stuteville.[1505] Once
more the other bishops interposed, backed now by the Norman primate.
Another assembly met at Winchester on July 28,[1506] and here a
fresh settlement was made. Gerard was reinstated in the sheriffdom
of Lincolnshire, pending his trial in the king’s court; William and
John were both bound over to commit no more forcible disseizures;
the disputed castles were to be again put in charge for the king,
but through the medium of the archbishop of Rouen instead of the
chancellor, and John was allowed no voice in the selection of the
castellans, who were chosen by the assembly then and there. If the
chancellor should infringe the agreement, or if the king should die,
these castles were to be given up to John; but all reference to his
claims upon the succession to the throne was carefully omitted.[1507]
The contest almost seemed to have ended in a drawn battle. It was
strictly a contest between individuals, involving no national or
constitutional interests. The barons, as a body, clearly sided with
John; but, just as clearly, they sided with him from loyal motives. The
authority of the Crown was never called in question; the question was,
who was fittest to represent and uphold it--the king’s chancellor, or
his brother. Of treason, either to England or to Richard, there was not
a thought, unless--as indeed is only too probable--it lurked in the
mind of John himself.
[1504] Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 497, says he landed
about midsummer, and the printed text of R. Diceto (Stubbs),
vol. ii. p. 90, makes the date June 27; but see note in latter
place. Bishop Stubbs (_Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. p. lix.)
adopts the earlier date.
[1505] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 207.
[1506] The date comes from Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 32,
who however misapplies it. See Bishop Stubbs’s notes to _Gesta
Ric._, p. 208, and Rog. Howden, vol. iii. p. 134.
[1507] Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 135–137.
A drawn battle, however, could not possibly be the end of a struggle
between two such men as John of Mortain and William of Longchamp. In
the autumn a new element was added to the strife by the return of
Archbishop Geoffrey of York. For thirty-five years Geoffrey had been
the eldest living child, if indeed he was not actually the first-born,
of Henry Fitz-Empress;[1508] but of the vast Angevin heritage there
fell to his share nothing, except the strong feelings and fiery temper
which caused half the troubles of his life. As a child he had been
brought up at court almost on equal terms with his half-brothers;[1509]
he seems indeed to have been his father’s favourite, till he was
supplanted by the little John. When he grew to manhood, however, Henry
could see no way of providing for him except by forcing him into
a career for which he had no vocation. At an early age he was put
into deacon’s orders and made archdeacon of Lincoln;[1510] in 1173,
when about twenty years of age, he was appointed to the bishopric of
the same place.[1511] The Pope, however, demurred to the choice of
a candidate disqualified alike by his youth and his birth; and when
the former obstacle had been outlived and the latter might have been
condoned, Geoffrey voluntarily renounced an office in which he would
have been secure for life, but which he had never desired and for
which he felt himself unfit,[1512] in order to become his father’s
chancellor and constant companion during the last eight years of his
life. It was Henry’s last regret that this son, the only one of his
sons whose whole life had been an unbroken course of perfect filial
obedience, had to be left with his future entirely at the mercy of his
undutiful younger half-brother. Richard received him with a brotherly
welcome;[1513] when, however, he nominated him to the see of York, he
was indeed carrying out their father’s last wishes, but certainly not
those of Geoffrey himself. Richard seems to have thought that he was
held back by other motives than those of conscience or of preference
for a secular life; he suspected him of cherishing designs upon the
crown.[1514] It can only be said that Geoffrey, so far as appears,
never did anything to justify the suspicion, but shewed on the contrary
every disposition to act loyally towards both his brothers, if they
would but have acted with equal loyalty towards him. As soon however
as the tonsure had marked him irrevocably for a priestly life,[1515]
Richard’s zeal for his promotion cooled. The bishop of Durham, who was
striving to make his see independent of the metropolitan,[1516] and a
strong party in the York chapter with whom Geoffrey had quarrelled on
a point of ecclesiastical etiquette, easily won the king’s ear;[1517]
it was not till the very eve of Richard’s departure from England that
Geoffrey was able to buy his final confirmation both in the see of
York and in the estates which his father had bequeathed to him in
Anjou;[1518] and in March he was summoned over to Normandy and there,
like John, made to take an oath of absence from England for three
years.[1519]
[1508] In the first chapter of his _Life_ by Gerald (Brewer,
vol. iv. p. 363), we are told that Geoffrey was scarcely twenty
when elected to Lincoln, _i.e._ in 1173. But in l. i. c. 13
(_ib._ p. 384), Gerald says that he was consecrated to York
“anno ætatis quasi quadragesimo,” in 1191. These two dates, as
is usual with Gerald in such cases, do not agree, and neither
of them pretends to be more than approximate. Still it seems
plain that Geoffrey’s birth must fall somewhere between 1151
and 1153. Even if we adopt the latest date, he must have
been born in the same year as Eleanor’s first son--the baby
William who died in 1156--and must have been at least two years
older than the young king, four years older than Richard, and
fourteen years older than John.
[1509] Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. i. c. 1 (Brewer, vol. iv.
p. 363).
[1510] Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. i. c. 1 (Brewer, vol. iv.
p. 363).
[1511] _Ib._ p. 364. Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 22 (Howlett, vol.
i. p. 154).
[1512] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. ii. pp. 271, 272. Gir.
Cambr. as above, c. 4 (p. 368). The resignation was formally
completed at Epiphany 1182. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 10.
[1513] Gir. Cambr. as above, c. 5 (p. 372).
[1514] _Ib._ c. 8 (p. 379). In c. 7 (p. 374) Gerald actually
represents Geoffrey as entertaining some hope of surviving
and succeeding both his younger brothers; but this is a very
different thing from plotting against them during their lives.
See Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. p. lxvi. As it
turned out, the first part, at any rate, of this dream of
Geoffrey’s was not so mad as it seemed, for he died only four
years before John.
[1515] He was ordained priest September 23, 1189. _Gesta Ric._
(Stubbs), p. 88.
[1516] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 146. Rog. Howden (Stubbs),
vol. iii. p. 74.
[1517] _Gesta Ric._ as above, pp. 88, 91, 99. Rog. Howden as
above, pp. 17, 18, 27. Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. i. c. 8
(Brewer, vol. iv. pp. 377, 378).
[1518] _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 100. Cf. Gir. Cambr. as above
(p. 379).
[1519] Gir. Cambr. as above. _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 106.
Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 15.
According to Geoffrey’s own account, he followed his brother as far
as Vézelay, and there won from him a remission of this vow.[1520] It
is certain that by April 1191 Richard had so far changed his mind
again as to be desirous of Geoffrey’s speedy consecration. The Pope’s
consent was still lacking; and the negotiations for obtaining this
were undertaken by the person who, from Geoffrey’s very birth, had
been his most determined enemy--Queen Eleanor. When she went from
Messina to Rome to plead his cause with Clement III. or his successor
Celestine,[1521] it is plain that natural feeling gave way to motives
of policy. She could now see that an archbishop of York might become
very useful in England, in holding the balance between Hugh of Durham
and William of Ely. His canonical authority and personal influence
might furnish, not indeed a counterpoise, but at least a check to the
now unlimited powers of the legate. On the other hand, it was the long
vacancy of York which more than anything else had tended to Hugh’s
exaltation. For ten years the bishop of Durham, with no metropolitan
over him, had virtually been himself metropolitan of northern England.
He strongly resented the filling of the vacant see, and had actually
obtained from Clement III. a privilege of exemption from its
jurisdiction.[1522] If the archbishop of York could be reinstated in
his proper constitutional position, his own interests would lead him to
use it for those of the kingdom and the king.
[1520] Gir. Cambr. as above, c. 11 (p. 382).
[1521] Rog. Howden as above, p. 100. The change in the Papacy
must have occurred while she was there.
[1522] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 146.
Geoffrey’s qualifications and disqualifications for such a task may
be very easily summed up. He had the Angevin fearlessness, energy,
persistence and thoroughness, with a fair share of the versatile
capabilities of the family; he had all their impetuosity, but very
little of their wariness and tact. Mingled with the Angevin fire, there
seems to have run in his veins the blood, and with it the spirit,
of a totally different race. If we may credit on such a point the
gossip of his father’s court, Geoffrey was through his mother a child
of the people--seemingly the English people--and of its very lowest
class.[1523] This consideration has more interest at a later stage of
Geoffrey’s career, when he stands forth as a champion of constitutional
liberty. Until then, there is, so far as we can see, no evidence of any
special sympathy between him and the English people. Yet the plebeian
and probably English element in him existed, or was believed to exist;
and if it did not become, as it easily might have done, an important
element in his political career, it was at any rate not unlikely to
have exercised some influence upon his character.
[1523] W. Map, _De Nugis Cur._, dist. v. c. 6 (Wright, pp.
228–235). Walter is the only writer who tells us anything about
Geoffrey’s mother; as he does not say she was a foreigner, it
seems most probable that he looked upon her as an Englishwoman.
The name which he gives to her--“Ykenai” or “Hikenai”--tells
nothing either way, in itself. But Mr. Dimock (in his preface
to the seventh volume of Gerald’s works, p. xxxvii) throws
doubt upon Walter’s whole account of her except her name,
and suggests that she may have belonged to a knightly family
of _Akeny_ (i.e. Acquigny) in Normandy. This, however, is a
question to be investigated by a biographer of Geoffrey or
a student of his later political career rather than by an
historian of the Angevin kings. The doubts which W. Map tries
to throw upon his connexion with them are probably affected,
and clearly unfounded. Few specimens of the Angevin race are
more unmistakeable than Geoffrey; one might perhaps add, few
more creditable.
Eleanor’s mission to Rome succeeded. Geoffrey’s election and his claim
to the obedience of the bishop of Durham were both confirmed by Pope
Celestine;[1524] he was consecrated at Tours by Archbishop Bartholomew
on August 18, and received his pall on the same day.[1525] He at once
put himself in communication with John, to secure a protector on his
return to his see;[1526] for William of Longchamp, having had no
notice from Richard of the remission of Geoffrey’s vow of absence,
refused to believe in it,[1527] and had not only issued orders for the
archbishop’s arrest as soon as he should land in England,[1528] but
had agreed with the countess of Flanders that no Flemish ship should
be allowed to give him a passage. The countess, however, evaded her
agreement by letting him sail from Wissant in an English boat.[1529]
He landed at Dover on Holy Cross day,[1530] having changed his clothes
to avoid recognition.[1531] The constable of Dover, Matthew de Clères,
was absent; his wife Richenda was a sister of William of Longchamp;
her men-at-arms surrounded the archbishop the moment he touched the
shore, recognized him in spite of his disguise, and strove to arrest
him, but he managed to free himself from their hands and make his way
to the priory of S. Martin, just outside the town. Here for five days
Richenda’s followers vainly endeavoured to blockade and starve him
into surrender.[1532] On the fifth day a band of armed men rushed into
the priory-church, and in the chancellor’s name ordered Geoffrey to
quit the country at once. Geoffrey, seated by the altar, clad in his
pontifical robes and with his archiepiscopal cross in his hand, set
them and their chancellor at defiance.[1533] They dragged him out of
the church by the hands and feet; and as nothing would induce him to
mount a horse which they brought for him, they dragged him on, still in
the same array, still clinging to his cross and excommunicating them
as they went, all through the town to the castle, where they flung him
into prison.[1534]
[1524] _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 209. See Celestine’s letter
(date, May 11) in _Monasticon Angl._, vol. vi. pt. iii. col.
1188, and Stubbs, _Rog. Howden_, vol. iii. pref. p. lxvii, note
2.
[1525] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 96. Cf. _Gesta Ric._
(Stubbs), p. 209; Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. i. c. 13
(Brewer, vol. iv. p. 384). Will. Newb., always hostile to
Geoffrey, declares that “ordine præpostero” he got his pallium
before he was consecrated; l. iv. c. 17 (Howlett, vol. i. pp.
339, 340).
[1526] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 34.
[1527] His disbelief was evidently shared by Roger of Howden
(Stubbs, vol. iii. p. 138); but Roger’s authority, the
treasurer, does not commit himself to any opinion on the
subject. _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 210.
[1528] See the chancellor’s writ--dated Preston, July 30--in
R. Diceto as above, and Gir. Cambr. as above, l. ii. c. 1 (p.
389); and cf. Ric. Devizes and _Gesta Ric._ as above.
[1529] Gir. Cambr. as above (p. 388). Cf. _Gesta Ric._ as
above. The countess--Isabel of Portugal, second wife of Count
Philip--was governing her husband’s territories during his
absence on crusade, where he died.
[1530] R. Diceto as above, p. 97. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i.
p. 504.
[1531] _Gesta Ric._ as above.
[1532] Gir. Cambr. as above (pp. 388–390). Cf. R. Diceto and
_Gesta Ric._ as above, and Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 17 (Howlett,
vol. i. p. 340).
[1533] Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 1 (Brewer, vol. iv.
p. 391).
[1534] _Ibid._ (pp. 391, 392). Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), pp.
35, 36. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 97. _Gesta Ric._
(Stubbs), p. 111. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 505. Will.
Newb., l. iv. c. 17 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 340).
This outrage roused up all parties alike in Church and state. England
had had quite enough of persecuted and martyred archbishops. Protests
and remonstrances came pouring in upon the chancellor from the
most opposite quarters:--from the treasurer and bishop of London,
Richard Fitz-Nigel[1535]--from the aged bishop of Norwich, John of
Oxford,[1536] and from the Canterbury chapter,[1537] both of whom had
had only too much experience, in different ways, of the disasters which
might result from such violence to an archbishop. The most venerated
of living English prelates, S. Hugh of Lincoln, at once excommunicated
Richenda, her husband and all her abettors, with lighted candles at
Oxford.[1538] John remonstrated most vehemently of all,[1539] and his
remonstrances procured Geoffrey’s release,[1540] but only on condition
that he would go straight to London and there remain till the case
between him and the chancellor could be tried by an assembly of bishops
and barons.[1541] This of course satisfied nobody. John had no mind
to lose his opportunity of crushing his enemy once for all. From
Lancaster, where he was laying his plans with the help of Bishop Hugh
of Coventry--a nephew of the old arch-plotter Arnulf of Lisieux--he
hurried to Marlborough, and thence sent out summons to all the great
men whom he thought likely to help him against the chancellor. He
was not disappointed. The co-justiciars hastened up from the various
shires where they were apparently busy with their judicial or financial
visitations--William the Marshal from Gloucestershire, William Bruère
from Oxfordshire, Geoffrey Fitz-Peter from Northamptonshire; the
bishops were represented by Godfrey of Winchester and Reginald of Bath,
and the sovereign himself by Walter of Rouen; S. Hugh of Lincoln joined
the train as it passed through Oxford to Reading. From Reading John
sent to call his half-brother to his side. Geoffrey, who was beginning
to be looked upon and to look upon himself as something like another
S. Thomas, had made a sort of triumphal progress from Dover to London;
tied by his parole, he was obliged to ask the chancellor’s consent to
his acceptance of John’s invitation, and only gained it on condition of
returning within a given time.[1542]
[1535] R. Diceto as above. Gir. Cambr. as above, c. 2 (pp. 393,
394).
[1536] Gir. Cambr. as above (p. 394).
[1537] Gerv. Cant. as above, pp. 505, 506.
[1538] Gir. Cambr. as above (p. 393).
[1539] _Ibid._ (p. 394). _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 211. Rog.
Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 139.
[1540] On September 26; R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 97. Cf.
Gir. Cambr. as above, c. 4 (p. 395), Gerv. Cant. as above, p.
507, and Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 36.
[1541] Gir. Cambr. as above.
[1542] Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. cc. 4, 5 (Brewer, vol.
iv. pp. 395–397).
The chancellor meanwhile was at Norwich;[1543] and thither John and
the justiciars had already sent him a summons to appear before them
and answer for his conduct towards both Geoffrey of York and Hugh
of Durham, at an assembly to be held at the bridge over the Lodden,
between Reading and Windsor, on Saturday October 5.[1544] William
retorted by a counter-summons to all who had joined the count of
Mortain to forsake him as an usurper and return to their obedience to
the king’s chosen representative.[1545] He hurried, however, to Windsor
in time for the proposed meeting; but when the Saturday morning came,
the earls of Arundel, Warren and Norfolk appeared at the trysting-place
in his stead, pleading ill-health as an excuse for his absence.[1546]
As Saturday was accounted an unlucky day for contracts or settlements
of any kind,[1547] no one regretted the delay; John and the barons,
sitting amid a ring of spectators in the meadows by the Lodden, spent
the day in discussing all the complaints against the chancellor, and
also, apparently, in looking through such of the Norman primate’s
bundle of royal letters as he chose to shew them, and deliberating
which would be most appropriate to the present state of affairs. On one
point all were agreed; the chancellor must be put down at once.[1548]
Early next morning he tried to bribe John into reconciliation, but in
vain.[1549] At the high mass in Reading parish church the whole body of
bishops lighted their candles and publicly excommunicated all who had
been, whether by actual participation, command or consent, concerned in
Archbishop Geoffrey’s arrest;[1550] and at nightfall the chancellor was
compelled to swear that, come what might, he would be ready to stand
his trial at the bridge of Lodden on the morrow.[1551]
[1543] _Ib._ cc. 2, 5 (pp. 393, 394, 397).
[1544] _Ib._ c. 5 (p. 397). Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 37,
giving the date, which is confirmed by one of the summons--that
addressed to the bishop of London--given by R. Diceto (Stubbs),
vol. ii. p. 98. Cf. also _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 212.
[1545] Gir. Cambr. as above.
[1546] _Ib._ c. 6 (p. 398). Cf. R. Diceto, Ric. Devizes and
_Gesta Ric._ as above.
[1547] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 98.
[1548] Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 6 (Brewer, vol. iv.
pp. 398–401).
[1549] _Ib._ c. 7 (p. 402).
[1550] _Ibid._ R. Diceto as above.
[1551] Gir. Cambr. as above.
Scarcely had he set out on the Monday morning when he was met by a
report that his enemies were marching upon London.[1552] The report was
true in substance; John and the barons, instead of waiting for him at
the Lodden bridge, crossed it, and then divided their forces into two
bodies; the smaller, consisting of the bishops and barons with John
himself, proceeded towards Windsor to meet the chancellor; the larger,
comprising the men-at-arms and the servants in charge of the baggage,
was sent on by the southern road to Staines.[1553] Such a movement was
quite enough to justify William in hurrying back to Windsor and thence
on to London as fast as horses could carry him.[1554] Before he could
reach it he met John’s men-at-arms coming up by the other road from
Staines; a skirmish took place, in which John’s justiciar Roger de
Planes was mortally wounded, but his followers seem to have had the
best of the fight,[1555] although they could not prevent the chancellor
from making his way safe into London. Here he at once called a meeting
of the citizens in the Guildhall, and endeavoured to secure their
support against John.[1556] He found, however, a strong party opposed
to himself. On the last day of July[1557]--three days after the second
award between John and William at Winchester--the citizens of London
had profited by the king’s absence and his representative’s humiliation
to set up a _commune_. They knew very well that, as a contemporary
writer says, neither King Henry nor King Richard would have sanctioned
such a thing at any price;[1558] and they knew even better still that
Richard’s chancellor would never countenance it for a moment. With
John they might have a chance, and they were not disposed to lose
it by shutting their gates in his face at the bidding of William of
Longchamp. William, seeing that his cause was lost in the city, shut
himself up in the Tower.[1559]
[1552] _Ibid._ c. 8 (pp. 402, 403). Ric. Devizes (Stevenson),
p. 37. _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 212.
[1553] Cf. Gir. Cambr. as above (pp. 403, 404), and R. Diceto
as above, p. 99. Ric. Devizes, as above, says plainly what the
other writers leave us to guess, that these followers were
meant to go on to London.
[1554] Gir. Cambr. as above (p. 403). Ric. Devizes (Stevenson),
p. 38. R. Diceto and _Gesta Ric._ as above. Cf. Will. Newb., l.
iv. c. 17 (Howlett, vol. i. pp. 341, 342).
[1555] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 99. _Gesta Ric._
(Stubbs), p. 212. Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 8
(Brewer, vol. iv. p. 404).
[1556] Gir. Cambr. as above. Cf. Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p.
38.
[1557] “Ipsâ die”--the day on which Philip of France set out
homeward from Acre. Ric. Devizes, p. 53.
[1558] _Ib._ pp. 53, 54. Yet Richard had once said that he
would sell London altogether, if he could find anybody who
would give him his price for it. _Ib._ p. 10, and Will. Newb.,
l. iv. c. 5 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 306).
[1559] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 38. R. Diceto as above.
_Gesta Ric._ as above, pp. 212, 218. Will. Newb. as above,
c. 17 (p. 342).
By this time John and his companions were at the gates; a short parley
ended in their admittance.[1560] Next morning barons and citizens
came together in S. Paul’s.[1561]. One after another the chancellor’s
victims, with the archbishop of York at their head, set forth their
grievances.[1562] Archbishop Walter of Rouen and William the Marshal
then produced the king’s letter of February 20, addressed to the
Marshal, and accrediting Walter to him and his fellow-justiciars,
and bidding them, in case of any failure of duty on the chancellor’s
part, follow Walter’s direction in all things.[1563] John and the
barons agreed to act in accordance with these instructions; they won
the assent of the citizens by swearing to maintain the commune;[1564]
the whole assembly then swore fealty to Richard, and to John as his
destined successor.[1565] According to one account they went a step
further: they appointed John regent of the kingdom, and granted him
the disposal of all the royal castles except three, which were to be
left to the chancellor.[1566] Upon the latter they now set out to
enforce their decision at the sword’s point. His forces were more
than sufficient to defend the Tower; they were in fact too numerous;
they had had no time to revictual the place, they were painfully
overcrowded, and before twenty-four hours were over they found their
position untenable.[1567] On the Wednesday William tried to bribe John
into abandoning the whole enterprise, and he very nearly succeeded;
Geoffrey of York and Hugh of Coventry, however, discovered what was
going on, and remonstrated so loudly that John was obliged to drop
the negotiation and continue the siege.[1568] In the afternoon, at
the chancellor’s own request, four bishops and four earls went to
speak with him in the Tower.[1569] Five days of intense excitement
had so exhausted his feeble frame that when they told him what had
passed at the meeting on the previous day, he dropped senseless at
their feet, and when brought to himself could at first do nothing but
implore their sympathy and mediation.[1570] The brutal insolence of
Hugh of Coventry,[1571] however, seems to have stung him into his
wonted boldness again. With flashing eyes he told them that the day
of reckoning was yet to come, when they and their new lord would have
to account for their treason with Richard himself; and he sent them
away with a positive refusal to surrender either his castles or his
seal.[1572] Late at night, however, as he lay vainly endeavouring
to gain a little rest, his friends came and implored him to abandon
the useless struggle with fate; and at last his brother Osbert and
some others wrung from him an unwilling permission to go and offer
themselves as hostages for his submission on the morrow.[1573]
[1560] Gir. Cambr. as above (p. 404).
[1561] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 38, says “in ecclesiâ S.
Pauli”; R. Diceto as above, “in capitulo”; the _Gesta Ric._ as
above, p. 213, and Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 140, say
“in atrio.”
[1562] Ric. Devizes as above. _Gesta Ric._ as above, pp. 213,
218.
[1563] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 213, 218.
[1564] _Ib._ p. 213. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 99.
[1565] _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 214.
[1566] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), pp. 37, 38.
[1567] Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 17 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 342).
[1568] Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 9 (Brewer, vol. iv.
p. 406).
[1569] Gerald (_ib._ p. 405), says “quartâ vero feriâ.” Ric.
Devizes (Stevenson), p. 39, says “Dies ille nefastus declinabat
ad vesperam,” which, taken in connexion with what precedes,
ought to mean Tuesday evening; but he seems to have lost
count of the days just here. It is he alone who mentions the
earls; while it is Gerald alone who gives the names of the
bishops--London, Lincoln, Winchester and Coventry.
[1570] Cf. Ric. Devizes as above, and Gir. Cambr. as above, who
tries to colour this scene differently.
[1571] Gir. Cambr. as above (pp. 405, 406).
[1572] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 39.
[1573] _Ib._ p. 40. Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 9
(Brewer, vol. iv. p. 406).
On the Thursday morning the barons assembled in the fields east of the
Tower,[1574] and there William of Longchamp went forth to meet them.
The instant he appeared Hugh of Coventry stepped forward, recited the
whole indictment against him, and pronounced with brutal bluntness the
sentence of the assembly.[1575] William was to be deposed from all
secular authority, to keep nothing but his bishopric and the castles
of Dover, Cambridge and Hereford; he must give hostages for his future
good behaviour; then let him begone wherever he would. The assembly
broke into a chorus of approval which seemed intended to give William
no chance of reply; but his dauntless spirit had by this time regained
its mastery over his physical weakness; he stood quietly till they had
all talked themselves out, and then they had to listen in their turn.
He denied every one of the charges against him; he refused to recognize
either the moral justice or the legal validity of his deposition;
he agreed to surrender the castles, because he no longer had power
to hold them, but he still lifted up his protest, as King Richard’s
lawful chancellor and justiciar, against all the proceedings and the
very existence of the new ministry.[1576] Walter of Rouen was at once
proclaimed justiciar in his stead.[1577] The keys of the Tower and
of Windsor castle, and the hostages, were delivered up next morning,
and William was then allowed to withdraw to Bermondsey, whence on
the following day he proceeded to Dover.[1578] Thence, apparently in
a desperate hope that his men might yet be able to hold the castles
till he could gather means to relieve them, he twice attempted to
escape over sea, first in the disguise of a monk, then in that of a
pedlar-woman. His lameness, however, and his ignorance of English were
fatal to his chances of flight; he was detected, dragged back into the
town, and shut up in prison till all the castles were surrendered. Then
he was set at liberty, and sailed for Gaul on October 29.[1579]
[1574] Ric. Devizes (as above). Gir. Cambr. as above. R. Diceto
(Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 100.
[1575] Ric. Devizes as above.
[1576] _Ib._ pp. 40–42. Cf. Gir. Cambr. and R. Diceto as above;
_Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 214; and Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 17
(Howlett, vol. i. p. 341).
[1577] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 213. Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 18
(Howlett, vol. i. p. 344).
[1578] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 100. Gir. Cambr. _Vita
Galfr._, l. ii. c. 9 (Brewer, vol. iv. p. 407). Ric. Devizes
(Stevenson), p. 42.
[1579] Ric. Devizes as above. R. Diceto as above, pp. 100, 101.
Gir. Cambr. as above, cc. 12, 13 (pp. 410–413). _Gesta Ric._
(Stubbs), pp. 219, 220. Will. Newb. as above, c. 17 (p. 343).
The date comes from R. Diceto.
His opponents, however, were not rid of him yet. The king was now
practically out of reach of his remonstrances and appeals for
succour;[1580] but the Pope was not. William was a bishop; and the
harshness with which he had been treated enabled him now to pose in his
turn as a consecrated victim of profane violence. Celestine III. warmly
took up his cause; he distinctly acknowledged him as legate, whether
with or without a formal renewal of his commission;[1581] and on
December 2 he issued a brief addressed to the English bishops, bidding
them excommunicate all who had taken part in William’s deposition, and
put their lands under interdict till he should be reinstated.[1582]
William, as legate, followed this up by excommunicating twenty-six
of his chief enemies by name, with the archbishop of Rouen at their
head, and, with the Pope’s sanction, threatening to treat John in like
manner, if he did not amend before Quinquagesima.[1583] The bishops,
however, took no notice of his letters, and the justiciars retorted by
sequestrating his see;[1584] they all held him bound by the sentences
pronounced against him at Reading and at London for his persecution
of Geoffrey of York, and their view was upheld by the suffragans of
Rouen, who all treated him as excommunicate.[1585] Geoffrey was now the
highest ecclesiastical authority in England; but he was not the man
to rule the English Church. He had more than enough to do in ruling
his own chief suffragan. As soon as he was enthroned at York,[1586] he
summoned Hugh of Durham to come and make his profession of obedience;
Hugh, who having been reinstated in his earldom of Northumberland[1587]
felt himself again more than a match for his metropolitan, ignored
the summons, whereupon Geoffrey excommunicated him.[1588] This did
not deter John from keeping Christmas at Howden with the bishop;
in consequence of which John himself was for a while treated as
excommunicate by his half-brother.[1589] The momentary coalition,
formed solely to crush the chancellor, had in fact already split into
fragments. The general administration, however, went on satisfactorily
under the new justiciar’s direction, and his influence alone--for
Eleanor was still on the continent[1590]--sufficed to keep John out of
mischief throughout the winter.
[1580] He had written to complain of John’s insubordination,
but Richard did not get the letter till six months after the
writer’s fall. _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 333.
[1581] See _Epp. Cant._ (Stubbs), introd. p. lxxxiii, note 1.
[1582] Letter of Celestine III. in _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp.
221, 222.
[1583] Letter of William “bishop of Ely, legate and
chancellor,” _ib._ pp. 222–224; and Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol.
iii. pp. 152–154.
[1584] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 225.
[1585] _Ib._ p. 221. Cf. Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 43.
[1586] On All Saints’ day [1191]. Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l.
ii. c. 11 (Brewer, vol. iv. p. 410).
[1587] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 39.
[1588] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 225. Rog. Howden (Stubbs),
vol. iii. pp. 168, 169. See the excellent summary of this
affair in Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 27 (Howlett, vol. i. pp. 371,
372).
[1589] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 235, 236.
[1590] She kept Christmas at Bonneville. _Ib._ p. 235. Rog.
Howden as above, p. 179.
Richard’s continental dominions had thus far been at peace--a peace
doubly secured by the presence of Eleanor and the absence of Philip of
France. Shortly before Christmas 1191, however, Philip returned to his
kingdom.[1591] In January 1192 he called the seneschal and barons of
Normandy to a conference, and demanded from them, on the strength of a
document which he shewed to them as the treaty made between himself
and Richard at Messina, the restitution of his sister Adela and her
dower-castles in the Vexin, as well as the counties of Eu and Aumale.
The seneschal, rightly suspecting the paper to be a forgery, answered
that he had no instructions from Richard on the subject, and would
give up neither the lands nor the lady.[1592] Philip threatened war,
and all Richard’s constables prepared for defence.[1593] Meanwhile,
Philip offered to John the investiture of all Richard’s continental
dominions, if he would accept Adela’s hand with them.[1594] That John
had a wife already was an obstacle which troubled neither the French
king nor John himself. He was quite ready to accept the offer; but
meanwhile it reached his mother’s ears, and she hurried to England to
stop him.[1595] Landing at Portsmouth on Quinquagesima Sunday,[1596]
she found him on the point of embarking; the archbishop of Rouen
and the other justiciars gladly welcomed her back to her former
post of regent, and joined with her in forbidding John to leave the
country, under penalty of having all his estates seized in the king’s
name.[1597] They then held a series of councils, at Windsor, Oxford,
London and Winchester;[1598] in that of London the barons renewed their
oath of fealty to the king, but to pacify John they were obliged to do
the like to him as heir,[1599] and the immediate consequence was that
he persuaded the constables of Windsor and Wallingford to surrender
their castles into his hands.[1600] William of Longchamp thought his
opportunity had come. He managed to gain Eleanor’s ear and to bribe
John;[1601] both connived at his return to Dover, and thence he sent
up his demand for restoration to a council gathered in London towards
the close of Lent.[1602] It seems plain that he had won the favour of
the queen; for the justiciars, whose original purpose in meeting had
been to discuss the misdoings of John, now saw themselves obliged to
fetch John himself from Wallingford to support them, as they expected,
in their resistance to the chancellor’s demands. To their dismay John
told them plainly that he was on the point of making alliance with
his old enemy for a consideration of seven hundred pounds.[1603] They
saw that their only chance was to outbid William. They gave John two
thousand marks out of the royal treasury;[1604] Walter of Rouen helped
to persuade the queen-mother,[1605] and the chancellor was bidden to
depart out of the land.[1606]
[1591] Will. Armor. _Gesta Phil. Aug._ (Duchesne, _Hist. Franc.
Scriptt._, vol. v.), p. 76.
[1592] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 236. Cf. Ric. Devizes
(Stevenson), p. 56. It is certain that Philip told and acted
a downright lie; for the treaty of Messina is extant, and its
main provisions are these: Richard shall be bound to surrender
Adela only within one month after his own return to Gaul, and
the whole Norman Vexin, including its castles, shall remain
to him and his heirs male for ever. Only in case of his death
without male heir is it to revert to the French Crown; and
as for Aumale and Eu, there is not a word about them. Rymer,
_Fœdera_, vol. i. p. 54.
[1593] _Gesta Ric._ as above. Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 55.
[1594] _Gesta Ric._ as above.
[1595] _Ibid._ Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 57.
[1596] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 55. This was
February 11 [1192].
[1597] _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 237.
[1598] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 57.
[1599] _Gesta Ric._ as above. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii.
p. 187.
[1600] Ric. Devizes as above. In Rog. Howden (as above), p.
204, the betrayal of these castles is placed a year later.
Roger’s account of the first few months of 1193 has, however,
somewhat the look of a repetition of the history of 1192, and
his story is much less consistent and circumstantial than
Richard’s, which I have therefore ventured to follow.
[1601] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 239. Rog. Howden (Stubbs),
vol. iii. p. 188. Cf. Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 14
(Brewer, vol. iv. p. 413); Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 56; and
Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 512.
[1602] Gir. Cambr., as above, says he landed about April 1,
_i.e._ the Wednesday before Easter. But the other writers seem
to place this council soon after Mid-Lent. Gerv. Cant., as
above, says the chancellor came “mediante mense Martio.”
[1603] Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), pp. 58, 59.
[1604] “2000 marks, £500 of which were to be raised from the
chancellor’s estates” is Bishop Stubbs’s interpretation (_Rog.
Howden_, vol. iii. pref. p. xc.) of _Gesta Ric._, p. 239, and
Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 59.
[1605] _Gesta Ric._ as above.
[1606] _Ibid._ Ric. Devizes as above. Gir. Cambr. as above (p.
415). Cf. Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 18 (Howlett, vol. i. pp. 345,
346). According to the first authority, William sailed again on
Maunday Thursday, April 2.
Shortly afterwards, two cardinal-legates arrived in France to settle
his dispute with the archbishop of Rouen. When they attempted to enter
Normandy, the seneschal refused them admittance and shut the gates of
Gisors in their faces, pleading that the subjects of an English king
were forbidden by ancient custom to admit legates into any part of
his dominions without his consent. The legates on this excommunicated
the seneschal and laid all Normandy under interdict.[1607] William
had done the same to his own diocese before leaving England.[1608]
Archbishop Walter, the English justiciars, even the queen-mother,
were all at their wits’ end: Philip was openly threatening to invade
the Norman duchy; the obstacle which had prevented him until now--the
unwillingness of the French barons to attack the territories of a
crusader[1609]--would be considerably lessened by the interdict; the
only person who could be found in England capable of undertaking a
negotiation with the legates was Hugh of Durham; but Hugh declined
to go till his own quarrel with his metropolitan was settled,[1610]
and this was not accomplished till the middle of October.[1611] Then
indeed he went to France, and succeeded in obtaining the removal of the
interdict.[1612] But in other quarters the prospect grew no brighter.
Aquitaine, held in check for a while by the presence of its duchess,
had risen as soon as she was out of reach. Count Ademar of Angoulême
marched into Poitou with a large body of horse and foot; taken prisoner
by the Poitevins, he appealed to the French king for deliverance.[1613]
A revolt of the Gascon barons was with difficulty suppressed by the
seneschal, assisted by young Sancho of Navarre,[1614] brother of
Richard’s queen; and the victors rashly followed up their success by a
raid upon Toulouse, which, though it went unpunished for the moment,
could only lead to further mischief.[1615] In England John was still
defying the justiciars; and they dared not proceed to extremities with
him, for they now saw before them an imminent prospect of having to
acknowledge him as their king.
[1607] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 246, 247. Ric. Devizes
(Stevenson), pp. 43, 44.
[1608] Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 15 (Brewer, vol.
iv. p. 414). Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), pp. 42, 43, puts this in
the previous October.
[1609] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 236. Rog. Howden (Stubbs),
vol. iii. p. 187.
[1610] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 247.
[1611] Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 513. Rog. Howden as
above, pp. 170 note, 172.
[1612] _Gesta Ric._ as above, p. 250.
[1613] Chron. S. Albin. a. 1192 (Marchegay, _Eglises_, p. 50).
The sequel of this story, however, clearly belongs to the
following year; so it may be that the whole of it is antedated.
[1614] Rog. Howden as above, p. 194.
[1615] _Ibid._ Cf. Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 55.
Richard’s adventures in the East lie outside the sphere of English
history. The crusade of which he was the chief hero and leader had
indirectly an important effect upon English social life; but it was
in no sense a national undertaking; every man in the host was, like
the king himself, simply a volunteer, not sent out by his country or
representing it in any way. Richard’s glory is all his own; to us,
the practical interest of the crusade in which he won it consists in
the light which it throws upon his character, and on his political
relations with the other princes who took part in the enterprise. The
story, as it comes out bit by bit, oddly intermingled with the dry
details of home affairs, in the English historians of the time, and
as it is told at full length in the “Itinerary” composed by one of
his fellow-crusaders, reads more like an old wiking-saga than a piece
of sober history, and its hero looks more like a comrade of S. Olaf
or Harald Hardrada than a contemporary of Philip Augustus. Nothing
indeed except Richard’s northman-blood can account for the intense
love of the sea, and the consummate seamanship, as sound and practical
as it was brilliant and daring, which he displayed on his outward
voyage. No sea-king of old ever guided his little squadron of “long
keels” more boldly, more skilfully and more successfully through a
more overwhelming succession of difficulties and perils than those
through which Richard guided his large and splendid fleet on its way
from Messina to Acre.[1616] Not one had ever made a conquest at once
as rapid, as valuable and as complete as the conquest of Cyprus,
which Richard made in a few days, as a mere episode in his voyage, in
vengeance for the ill-treatment which some of his ship-wrecked sailors
had met with at the hands of the Cypriots and their king.[1617] But
it was a mere wiking-conquest; Richard never dreamed of permanently
adding this remote island to the list of his dominions; within a few
months he sold it to the Templars,[1618] and afterwards, as they
failed to take possession, he made it over to the dethroned king of
Jerusalem who had helped him to conquer it, Guy of Lusignan.[1619]
The same love of adventure for its own sake colours many of his
exploits in the Holy Land itself. But there we learn, too, that his
character had yet another and a higher aspect. We find in him, side
by side with the reckless northern valour, the northern endurance,
patience and self-restraint, coupled with a real disinterestedness and
a self-sacrificing generosity for which it would be somewhat hard to
find a parallel among his forefathers on either side.[1620] Alike in a
military, a political and a moral point of view, Richard is the only
one among the leaders of the crusading host, except Guy, who comes out
of the ordeal with a character not merely unstained, but shining with
redoubled lustre. And this alone would almost account for the fact
that, before they separated, nearly every one of them, save Guy, had
become Richard’s open or secret foe.
[1616] See the details of the voyage in _Itin. Reg. Ric._
(Stubbs), pp. 177–209; _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 162–169; Rog.
Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 105–112.
[1617] _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 188–204. _Gesta Ric._
(Stubbs), pp. 163–168. Rog. Howden as above, pp. 105–112. Ric.
Devizes (Stevenson), pp. 47–49. Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 20
(Howlett, vol. i. pp. 350, 351).
[1618] Rigord (Duchesne, _Hist. Franc. Scriptt._, vol. v.), p.
35.
[1619] _Ibid._ _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 351. R.
Coggeshall (Stevenson), p. 36.
[1620] It is impossible to give illustrations here; the whole
_Itinerarium_, from his arrival at Acre (p. 211) onwards, is in
fact one long illustration.
Envy of a better man than themselves was however not the sole cause
of their hostility. The office of commander-in-chief of the host fell
to Richard’s share in consequence of a catastrophe which altered the
whole balance of political parties in Europe. That office had been
destined for the Emperor Frederic Barbarossa, who for more than thirty
years had stood as high above all other Christian princes in political
capacity, military prowess, and personal nobility of character, as in
titular dignity and territorial power. Frederic set out for Palestine
as early as May 1189;[1621] he fought his way through the treacheries
of the Greek Emperor and the ambushes of the Turkish sultan of Iconium,
only to be drowned in crossing a little river in Asia Minor on June
10, 1190.[1622] These tidings probably met Richard on his arrival
at Messina in September. There he had to deal with the consequences
of another death which had occurred in the previous November, that
of his brother-in-law King William of Sicily.[1623] William was
childless; after a vain attempt to induce his father-in-law Henry
II. to accept the reversion of his crown,[1624] he had bequeathed it
to his own young aunt Constance, who was married to Henry of Germany,
the Emperor’s eldest son.[1625] It was, however, seized by Tancred,
a cousin of the late king.[1626] Richard’s alliance with Tancred,
though on the one hand absolutely necessary to secure the co-operation
of Sicily for the crusade, was thus on the other a mortal offence to
the new king of Germany, who moreover had already a grudge against
England upon another ground:--Henry the Lion had in this very summer
extorted from him almost at the sword’s point his restoration to his
forfeited estates.[1627] Thus when Richard at last reached Acre in June
1191,[1628] he was already in ill odour with the leaders of the German
contingent, the Emperor’s brother Duke Frederic of Suabia and his
cousin Duke Leopold of Austria.
[1621] Ansbert (Dobrowsky), p. 21. Most of the English writers
give a wrong date.
[1622] See the story of Frederic’s expedition and death in
Ansbert (Dobrowsky), p. 21 _et seq._; _Itin. Reg. Ric._
(Stubbs), pp. 43–55; _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 56, 61, 62, 88,
89; Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 358; Monach. Florent.,
vv. 245–330 (_ib._ vol. iii. app. to pref. pp. cxiv.–cxvii.).
[1623] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 101, 102.
[1624] “Vidimus, et præsentes fuimus, ubi regnum Palæstinæ,
regnum etiam Italiæ patri vestro aut uni filiorum suorum, quem
ad hoc eligeret, ab utriusque regni magnatibus et populis est
oblatum.” Pet. Blois, Ep. cxiii. (Giles, vol. i. p. 350--to
Geoffrey of York). Bishop Stubbs (_Rog. Howden_, vol. ii. pref.
p. xciii.) interprets “regnum Italiæ” as representing Sicily.
[1625] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 102, 202. Rog. Howden
(Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 29, 164 and note.
[1626] _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 102.
[1627] See _ibid._ p. 145 and note.
[1628] _Ib._ p. 169.
This, however, was not all. Isaac, the tyrant of Cyprus, whom Richard
had brought with him as a captive, was also connected with the Suabian
and Austrian houses;[1629] his capture was another ground of offence.
Next, when the siege of Acre, which the united forces of eastern and
western Christendom had been pressing in vain for nearly two years,
came to an end a month after Richard joined it,[1630] Richard and
Leopold quarrelled over their shares in the honour of the victory;
Leopold--so the story goes--set up his banner on the wall of the
conquered town side by side with that of the English king, and Richard
tore it down again.[1631] Besides all this, as Richard’s superior
military capacity made him an object of perpetual jealousy to the
other princes, so his policy in Holy Land was in direct opposition to
theirs. Since the death of Queen Sibyl in October 1189,[1632] they
had one and all aimed at transferring the crown from her childless
widower Guy of Lusignan to the lord of Tyre, Conrad, marquis of
Montferrat. Montferrat was an important fief of the kingdom of Italy;
Conrad’s mother was aunt both to Leopold of Austria and to Frederic
Barbarossa;[1633] he thus had the whole Austrian and imperial influence
at his back; and that of Philip of France was thrown into the same
scale, simply because Richard had espoused the opposite cause. Guy
of Lusignan, with a fearlessness which speaks volumes in his favour
as well as in Richard’s, had thrown himself unreservedly on the
generosity and justice of the prince against whom all his race had for
so many years been struggling in Aquitaine; his confidence was met
as it deserved, and from the hour of their meeting in Cyprus to the
break-up of the crusade, Richard and Guy stood firmly side by side. But
they stood alone amid the ring of selfish politicians who supported
Conrad, and whose intrigues brought ruin upon the expedition. Philip,
indeed, went home as soon as Acre was won, to sow the seeds of mischief
in a field where they were likely to bring forth a more profitable
harvest for his interests than on the barren soil of Palestine. But
the whole body of French crusaders whom he left behind him, except
Count Henry of Champagne, made common cause with the Germans and the
partizans of Conrad in thwarting every scheme that Richard proposed,
either for the settlement of the Frank kingdom in Palestine or for the
reconquest of its capital. Twice he led the host within eight miles of
Jerusalem, and twice, when thus close to the goal, he was compelled
to turn away.[1634] Conrad fell by the hand of an assassin in April
1192;[1635] but Guy’s cause, like that of Jerusalem itself, was lost
beyond recovery; all that Richard could do for either was to compensate
Guy with the gift of Cyprus,[1636] and sanction the transfer of the
shadowy crown of Jerusalem to his own nephew, Henry of Champagne.[1637]
Harassed by evil tidings from England and forebodings of mischief
in Gaul, disappointed in his most cherished hopes and worn out with
fruitless labour, sick in body and more sick at heart, he saw that his
only chance of ever again striking a successful blow either for east
or west was to go home at once. After one last brilliant exploit, the
rescue of Joppa from the Turks who had seized it in his absence,[1638]
on September 2 he made a truce with Saladin for three years;[1639] on
October 9 he sailed from Acre.[1640]
[1629] R. Coggeshall (Stevenson), p. 59. Ansbert (Dobrowsky),
p. 114.
[1630] On July 12, 1191. _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 232,
233. _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 178, etc.
[1631] See the different versions of this story in Otto of
S. Blaise, c. 36 (Wurstisen, _Germ. Hist. Illustr._, vol. i.
p. 216); Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 514; R. Coggeshall
(Stevenson), p. 59; Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), p. 52; Rigord
(Duchesne, _Hist. Franc. Scriptt._, vol. v.), p. 35; and Mat.
Paris, _Chron. Maj._ (Luard), vol. ii. p. 384.
[1632] _Epp. Cant._ cccxlvi. (Stubbs, p. 329).
[1633] Frederic’s father and Leopold’s father were
half-brothers, sons of the two marriages of Agnes of Franconia,
daughter of the Emperor Henry IV. Conrad’s mother, Judith, was
a child of Agnes’s second marriage with Leopold, marquis of
Austria. Conrad’s father was the Marquis William of Montferrat
who had been one of Henry II.’s allies in his struggle with
the Pope (see above, p. 60); and his elder brother had been
the first husband of Queen Sibyl. On his own iniquitous
marriage, if marriage it is to be called, with her half-sister
and heiress, Isabel--an affair which seems to have actually
broken the heart of Archbishop Baldwin of Canterbury--see
_Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 119–124; _Expugn. Terræ Sanctæ_
(Stevenson, _R. Coggeshall_), p. 256; _Gesta Ric._ (Stubbs),
p. 141; Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 70, 71. Conrad’s
antecedents are told by Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. pp. 320,
321. Considering, however, the case of Guy of Lusignan, it is
perhaps hardly safe to admit a charge of homicide against any
claimant to the throne of Palestine on Roger’s sole authority.
[1634] _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 285–312, 365–396;
Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 174, 175, 179; R.
Coggeshall (Stevenson), pp. 37–40. See also the characteristic
and pathetic account of Richard’s distress at the last
turning-back, in Ric. Devizes (Stevenson), pp. 75–77.
[1635] _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 339, 340. R. Diceto
(Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 104. R. Coggeshall (Stevenson), p. 35.
Rog. Howden (as above), p. 181. Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 24
(Howlett, vol. i. p. 363).
[1636] Rigord (Duchesne, _Hist. Franc. Scriptt._, vol. v.), p.
35, makes it a sale; but it is hard to conceive where poor Guy
could have found money for the purchase.
[1637] _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 342, 346, 347. R. Diceto
and Rog. Howden as above. R. Coggeshall (Stevenson), pp. 35,
36. Will. Newb. as above, c. 28 (p. 374). Henry of Champagne
was son of Count Henry “the Liberal” and Mary, daughter of
Louis VII. and Eleanor.
[1638] _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 403–424. R. Coggeshall
(Stevenson), pp. 41–51. This is really the most splendid of all
Richard’s wiking exploits.
[1639] _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 249. R. Coggeshall
(Stevenson), p. 52. Rog. Howden (as above), p. 184.
[1640] _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), pp. 441, 442. R. Diceto (as
above), p. 106. Rog. Howden (as above), p. 185, makes it a day
earlier.
Stormy winds had again parted the king’s ship from the rest of his
fleet when, within three days’ sail of Marseille, he learned that Count
Raymond of Toulouse was preparing to seize him on his landing,[1641]
no doubt in vengeance for the attack made upon Toulouse a few months
before by the seneschal of Gascony. Capture by Raymond meant betrayal
to Philip of France, and Richard knew Philip far too well to run
any needless risk of falling into his hands. Under more favourable
conditions, he might have escaped by sailing on through the strait of
Gibraltar direct to his island realm; but contrary winds made this
impossible, and drove him back upon Corfu, where he landed about
Martinmas.[1642] Thence, in his impatience, he set off in disguise with
only twenty followers[1643] on board a little pirate-vessel[1644] in
which, at imminent risk of discovery, he coasted up the Adriatic till
another storm wrecked him at the head of the Gulf of Aquileia.[1645]
By this time his German enemies were all on the look-out for him,
and whatever his plans on leaving Corfu may have been, he had now no
resource but to hurry through the imperial dominions as rapidly and
secretly as possible. His geographical knowledge, however, seems to
have been at fault, for he presently found himself at Vienna, whither
Leopold of Austria had long since returned. In spite of his efforts to
disguise himself, Richard was recognized, captured and brought before
the duke;[1646] and three days after Christmas the Emperor sent to
Philip of France the welcome tidings that their common enemy was a
prisoner in Leopold’s hands.[1647]
[1641] R. Coggeshall (Stevenson), p. 53.
[1642] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 106. _Itin. Reg. Ric._
(Stubbs), p. 442. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 185. R.
Coggeshall as above. The two first supply the dates.
[1643] Rog. Howden as above. The _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (as above)
says four, but there were at least nine with him after his
landing. See Rog. Howden (as above), p. 195.
[1644] _Itin. Reg. Ric._ as above. R. Coggeshall (Stevenson),
pp. 53–54, gives some details highly characteristic of Richard.
The pirates began by attacking the king’s ship, whereupon
he, “for their praiseworthy fortitude and boldness,” made
friends with them, and took his passage in their company. This
is authentic, for the writer had it from one of Richard’s
companions, the chaplain Anselm. _Ib._ p. 54.
[1645] This is the Emperor’s account, given in a letter to
Philip of France; Rog. Howden (as above), p. 195. Cf. Ansbert
(Dobrowsky), p. 114; Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 31 (Howlett, vol.
i. p. 383); _Itin. Reg. Ric._ (Stubbs), p. 42; R. Diceto as
above; R. Coggeshall (Stevenson), p. 54; and Rog. Howden (as
above), p. 185 and note 7.
[1646] He was captured December 20, 1192; _Itin. Reg. Ric._
(Stubbs), p. 443; R. Diceto (as above), p. 107. R. Coggeshall
(Stevenson), p. 56, makes it a day later. Otto of S. Blaise, c.
38 (Wurstisen, _Germ. Hist. Illustr._, vol. i. p. 217), gives
the most detailed account of the capture--an account which
looks too characteristic not to be true. According to him,
Richard stopped to dine at a little inn just outside Vienna,
and to avoid recognition, set to work to broil some meat for
himself. He was holding the spit with his own hands, utterly
forgetful that one of them was adorned with a magnificent
ring, when a servant of the duke chanced to look in, noticed
the incongruity, then recognized the king whom he had seen in
Palestine, and hurried off to report his discovery; whereupon
the duke came in person and seized his enemy on the spot,
in the middle of his cooking. The story of R. Coggeshall
(Stevenson), pp. 55, 56, is somewhat more dignified. Cf.
also Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 31 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 383);
Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 186, 195; and Ansbert
(Dobrowsky), p. 114.
[1647] The letter is in Rog. Howden (as above), pp. 195,
196. “Gratissimum illi super aurum et topazion ... nuntium
destinavit,” says Will. Newb. as above, c. 32 (p. 384).
Philip at once forwarded the news to John, with a renewal of the
proposal which he had made to him a year before. John hurried over
sea and formally did homage to the French king for all his brother’s
continental dominions; but the seneschal and barons of Normandy refused
to acknowledge the transaction, and he hastened back again to try his
luck in England.[1648] There he met with no better success. He called
the justiciars to a council in London, assured them that the king was
dead, and demanded their homage; they refused it; he withdrew in a
rage to fortify his castles, and the justiciars prepared to attack
them.[1649] Before Easter a French fleet sailed to his assistance,
but was repulsed by the English militia assembled at the summons of
Archbishop Walter.[1650] While the justiciars laid siege to Windsor,
Geoffrey of York fortified Doncaster for the king, and thence went
to help his gallant old suffragan and rival, Hugh of Durham, who was
busy with the siege of Tickhill.[1651] The castles had all but fallen,
and John was on the eve of submission, when the victorious justiciars
suddenly grew alarmed at their own success. Richard’s fate was still
so uncertain that they dared not humiliate his heir; and at Eleanor’s
instigation they made a truce with John, to last until All-Saints’
day.[1652]
[1648] Rog. Howden (as above), p. 204. Cf. R. Diceto (Stubbs),
vol. ii. p. 106. John’s treaty with Philip is in Rymer,
_Fœdera_, vol. i. p. 57; date, February 1193.
[1649] Rog. Howden (as above), pp. 204, 205. Cf. Will. Newb. as
above, c. 34 (p. 390).
[1650] Rog. Howden (as above), p. 205. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs),
vol. i. pp. 514, 515.
[1651] Rog. Howden (as above), pp. 206, 208.
[1652] Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 207. Gerv. Cant.
(Stubbs), vol. i. p. 516, says Michaelmas.
The six months of tranquillity thus gained were spent in negotiations
for the king’s release. As soon as the justiciars heard of his capture
they had despatched Bishop Savaric of Bath to treat with the Emperor,
and the abbots of Boxley and Robertsbridge to open communications, if
possible, with Richard himself;[1653] this however was a difficult
matter, for of the place of his confinement nothing was known except
that it was somewhere in the Austrian dominions, and these were to most
Englishmen of that day a wholly undiscovered country. How the captive
was first found history does not say. Tradition filled the blank
with the beautiful story of the minstrel Blondel, wandering through
Europe till he reached a castle where there was said to be a prisoner
whose name no one could tell--winning the favour of its lord and thus
gaining admittance within its walls--peering about it on every side
in a vain effort to catch a glimpse of the mysterious captive, till
at last a well-known voice, singing “a song which they two had made
between them, and which no one knew save they alone,” fell upon his
delighted ear through the narrow prison-window whence Richard had seen
and recognized the face of his friend.[1654] It may after all have been
Blondel who guided the two abbots to the spot; we only know that they
met Richard at Ochsenfurt on his way to be delivered up on Palm Sunday
to the Emperor Henry at Speyer.[1655] Thenceforth the negotiations
proceeded without intermission; but it took nearly a year to complete
them. Personal jealousy, family interest, and pride at finding himself
actually arbiter of the fate of the most illustrious living hero in
Christendom, all tempted Henry VI. to throw as many obstacles as
possible in the way of his captive’s release. Taking advantage of
his own position as titular head of western Christendom, he demanded
satisfaction for all the wrongs which the various princes of the Empire
had received, or considered themselves to have received, at Richard’s
hands, and for all his alleged misdoings on the Crusade, from his
alliance with Tancred to the death of Conrad of Montferrat, in which
it was suggested that he had had a share.[1656] Not one of the charges
would bear examination; but they served Henry as an excuse for playing
fast and loose with Richard on the one side and Philip of France on
the other, and for making endless changes in the conditions required
for Richard’s liberation. These were ultimately fixed at a ransom of a
hundred and fifty thousand marks, the liberation of Isaac of Cyprus,
and the betrothal of Eleanor of Britanny to a son of the Austrian
duke.[1657]
[1653] Rog. Howden (as above), pp. 197, 198.
[1654] _Récits d’un ménestrel de Reims_ (ed. N. de Wailly, Soc.
de l’Hist. de France), cc. 77–81 (pp. 41–43).
[1655] Rog. Howden (as above), p. 198.
[1656] The charges are summed up in R. Coggeshall (Stevenson),
pp. 58, 59. On the death of Conrad see Stubbs, _Itin. Reg.
Ric._, pref. pp. xxii, xxiii.
[1657] Treaty in Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 215,
216. Roger dates it S. Peter’s day; _ib._ p. 215. R. Diceto
(Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 110, makes it July 5. Cf. Will. Newb., l.
iv. c. 37 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 398).
The duty of superintending the collection of the ransom and the
transmission of the hostages required by the Emperor for its payment
had been at first intrusted by Richard to his old friend and confidant,
the chancellor William of Longchamp. William, however, found it
impossible to fulfil his instructions; before the justiciars would
allow him to set foot in England at all, they made him swear to meddle
with nothing outside his immediate commission; when compelled to meet
him in council at S. Albans, Walter of Rouen refused him the kiss of
peace, and the queen-mother and the barons all alike refused to trust
him with the hostages.[1658] Prompt and vigorous measures were however
taken for raising the money. An “aid for the king’s ransom” was one of
the three regular feudal obligations, which in strict law fell only
upon the tenants-in-chivalry; but all the knights’ fees in Richard’s
whole dominions would have been unable to furnish so large a sum as
was required in his case. In addition therefore to an aid of twenty
shillings on the knight’s fee, the justiciars imposed a wholly new tax:
they demanded a fourth part of the revenue and of the moveable goods of
every man, whether layman or clerk, throughout the realm. Severe and
unprecedented as was this demand, it provoked no opposition, even from
the clergy;[1659] it had indeed the active co-operation of the bishops,
under the direction of a new primate--Hubert Walter, the bishop of
Salisbury, who had been one of Richard’s fellow-crusaders, and was now
at Richard’s desire elected to the see of Canterbury.[1660] The nation
seems to have responded willingly to the demands made upon it; yet
the response proved inadequate, and the deficiency had to be supplied
partly by a contribution from the Cistercians and Gilbertines of a
fourth part of the wool of the flocks which were their chief source of
revenue, and partly by confiscating the gold and silver vessels and
ornaments of the wealthier churches.[1661] Similar measures were taken
in Richard’s continental dominions, and they were so far successful
that when the appointed time arrived for his release, in January 1194,
the greater part of the ransom was paid.[1662] For the remainder
hostages were given, of whom one was Archbishop Walter of Rouen.[1663]
This selection left the chief justiciarship of England practically
vacant, and accordingly Richard, before summoning the Norman primate
to Germany, superseded him in that office by bestowing it upon the new
archbishop of Canterbury, Hubert Walter.[1664]
[1658] Gir. Cambr. _Vita Galfr._, l. ii. c. 17 (Brewer, vol.
iv. pp. 415, 416). Cf. Rog. Howden as above, pp. 211, 212.
[1659] Except at York, where the resistance was prompted by
spite against the archbishop. Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii.
p. 222.
[1660] Elected May 29, 1193; R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. pp.
108, 109. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 518.
[1661] On the ransom, and how it was raised, see Rog. Howden
as above, pp. 210, 211, 222, 225; R. Diceto as above, p. 110;
Will. Newb. l. iv. c. 38 (Howlett, vol. i. pp. 399, 400); and
Bishop Stubbs’s explanations of the matter, in his preface to
Rog. Howden, vol. iv. pp. lxxxii–lxxxvi, and _Constit. Hist._,
vol. i. p. 501.
[1662] Rog. Howden as above, p. 225.
[1663] _Ib._ p. 233. Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 41 (Howlett, vol.
i. p. 404), and R. Diceto as above, p. 113. According to this
last, another of the hostages was William the chancellor; but
his name does not appear in Rog. Howden’s list. One MS. of Ralf
has in its place that of Baldwin Wake. As Baldwin certainly
was a hostage on this occasion, perhaps William was selected
first, and Baldwin afterwards substituted for him. One at least
of the hostages was released before the whole ransom was paid:
Archbishop Walter came back to England on May 19. R. Diceto as
above, p. 115.
[1664] Rog. Howden as above, p. 226. R. Diceto as above, p.
112. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 523.
The new justiciar immediately had his hands full of trouble. At the
prospect of Richard’s return John grew half frantic with rage and
dismay. As early as July 1193, when it became known that Richard
and the Emperor had come to terms, Philip had sent warning to
John--“Beware, the devil is loose again!” and John, without stopping
to reflect that the “devil” could not be really loose till his ransom
was paid, had hurried over sea to seek shelter from his brother’s wrath
under the protection of the French king. Richard, however, at once made
overtures of reconciliation to both;[1665] the terms which he offered
to John were indeed so favourable that the Norman constables refused
to execute them, and thereby put an end to the negotiation.[1666]
In January Philip and John made a last effort to bribe the Emperor
either to keep Richard in custody for another year, or actually to
sell him into their hands.[1667] When this failed, John in the frenzy
of desperation sent a confidential clerk over to England with letters
to his adherents there, bidding them make all his castles ready for
defence against the king. The messenger’s foolish boasting, however,
betrayed him as he passed through London; he was arrested by order
of the mayor, his letters were seized, and a council was hurriedly
called to hear their contents. Its prompt and vigorous measures were
clearly due to the initiative of the new justiciar-archbishop. John was
excommunicated and declared disseized of all his English tenements, and
the assembly broke up to execute its own decree by force of arms. The
old bishop of Durham returned to his siege of Tickhill; the earls of
Huntingdon, Chester and Ferrers led their forces against Nottingham;
Archbishop Hubert himself besieged Marlborough, and took it in a few
days; Lancaster was given up to him by its constable, who happened to
be his own brother; and S. Michael’s Mount in Cornwall--a monastery
whose site, not unlike that of its great Norman namesake, had tempted
one of John’s partizans to drive out the monks and fortify it in his
interest--surrendered on the death of its commander, who is said
to have died of terror at the news of the king’s approach.[1668]
Richard had been set free on February 4.[1669] After a slow progress
through Germany and the Low Countries, he embarked at Swine, near
Antwerp, and landed at Sandwich on March 13.[1670] Following the
invariable practice of his father, he hastened first to the martyr’s
shrine at Canterbury;[1671] next day he was met by the victorious
archbishop hastening to welcome him home,[1672] and three days later
he was solemnly received in London.[1673] As soon as the defenders of
Tickhill were certified of his arrival they surrendered to the bishop
of Durham.[1674] As Windsor, Wallingford and the Peak had been in
the queen-mother’s custody since the truce of May 1193,[1675] only
Nottingham now remained to be won. Richard at once marched against it
with all his forces; the archbishop followed, Hugh of Durham brought
up his men from Tickhill; in three days the castle surrendered, and
Richard was once again undisputed master in his realm.[1676]
[1665] Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 216–220.
[1666] _Ib._ pp. 227, 228.
[1667] _Ib._ p. 229. Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 40 (Howlett, vol.
i. p. 402).
[1668] Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. pp. 236–238.
[1669] _Ib._ p. 233. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. pp. 112, 113.
R. Coggeshall (Stevenson), p. 62, dates it February 2.
[1670] Rog. Howden as above, p. 235; R. Coggeshall as above.
Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 524, dates it March 12, and R.
Diceto as above, p. 114, March 20.
[1671] Gerv. Cant. as above. R. Coggeshall (Stevenson), p. 63.
[1672] Gerv. Cant. as above, p. 524.
[1673] R. Diceto and R. Coggeshall as above.
[1674] Rog. Howden as above, p. 238.
[1675] _Ib._ p. 207.
[1676] _Ib._ pp. 238–240. R. Diceto and R. Coggeshall as above.
Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 42 (Howlett, vol. i. pp. 407, 408).
It must have seemed, to say the least, an ungracious return for the
sacrifices which England had made in his behalf, when the king at
once demanded from the English knighthood the services of a third of
their number to accompany him into Normandy, from the freeholders a
contribution of two shillings on every carucate of land, and from the
Cistercians the whole of their wool for the current year.[1677] In
view of a war with France, of which it was impossible to calculate
either the exigencies or the duration, Richard undoubtedly needed
money; but his needs pressed heavily upon a country which had already
been almost drained to provide his ransom. In justice to him, it must
however be added that the “carucage,” as the new land-tax came to be
called, seems to have been levied not for his personal profit, but as
a supplement to the measures taken by the justiciars in the previous
year, to complete the sum still due to Henry VI. It was in reality an
old impost revived under a new name, for the carucate or ploughland
was in practice reckoned as equivalent to the ancient hide,[1678]
and the sum levied upon it was precisely that which the hide had
furnished for the Danegeld of earlier times.[1679] Its re-imposition
in these circumstances, under a new appellation and for the payment
of what the whole nation regarded as a debt of honour, met with no
resistance. The Cistercians, however, remonstrated so strongly against
the demand for their wool that they were allowed to escape with a
money-compensation.[1680] The taxes were imposed in a great council
held at Nottingham at the end of March and beginning of April,[1681]
where measures were also taken for the punishment of the traitors
and the reconstruction of the administrative body. These two objects
were accomplished both at once, and both were turned to account for
the replenishment of the royal coffers. Except John, Bishop Hugh of
Chester, and Gerard de Camville, who were cited before the king’s court
on a charge of high treason,[1682] none of the delinquents were even
threatened with any worse punishment than dismissal from office. This
was inflicted upon most of those who had taken part in the proceedings
against the chancellor. Several of the sheriffs indeed were only
transferred from one shire to another;[1683] but Gerard de Camville
was ejected without compensation from the sheriffdom of Lincolnshire,
and Hugh Bardulf, one of the subordinate justiciars who had joined
the party of John, from those of Yorkshire and Westmoreland. These
three offices Richard at once put up for sale, and, with a strange
inconsistency, William of Longchamp, whose well-grounded resistance
to the accumulation of sheriffdoms in episcopal hands had been the
beginning of his troubles, now sought to buy the two former, and
also that of Northamptonshire, for himself. He was however outbid by
Archbishop Geoffrey of York, who bought the sheriffdom of Yorkshire
for three thousand marks and a promise of a hundred marks annually as
increment.[1684] This purchase made Geoffrey the most influential man
in the north, for Hugh of Durham, apparently finding himself powerless
to hold Northumberland, had resigned it into the king’s hands.[1685]
William of Scotland immediately opened negotiations with Richard for
its re-purchase, as well as for that of Cumberland, Westmoreland,
Lancaster, and the other English lands held by his grandfather David.
The barons, however, before whom Richard laid the proposal in a council
at Northampton, resented it strongly; Richard’s own military instinct
led him to refuse the cession of the castles, and as William would not
be satisfied without them, the scheme came to nothing.[1686]
[1677] Rog. Howden as above, p. 242. Cf. Will. Newb., l. v. c.
1 (vol. ii. pp. 416, 417).
[1678] That it was so in the reign of Henry I. seems plain from
Orderic’s story about Ralf Flambard re-measuring for William
Rufus “omnes carrucatas, quas Angli hidas vocant” (Ord. Vit.,
Duchesne, _Hist. Norm. Scriptt._, p. 678)--a statement which,
whether the story itself be correct or not, shews that Orderic
himself was accustomed to hear carucates and hides identified.
The settlement of the carucates at a hundred acres in 1198
points to the same identification.
[1679] And seemingly, to the “dona” which took the place of
the Danegeld after its abolition _eo nomine_ in 1163. On the
carucage of 1194 see Stubbs, pref. to Rog. Howden, vol. iv. pp.
lxxxii–lxxxiv and notes, lxxxvi. See also the account of it
given by Will. Newb., l. v. c. i (Howlett, vol. ii. p. 416).
[1680] Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 242.
[1681] March 30–April 2. _Ib._ pp. 240–243.
[1682] _Ib._ pp. 241, 242. Cf. the account of John’s
condemnation in Ann. Margam, a. 1199 (Luard, _Ann. Monast._,
vol. i. p. 24).
[1683] Stubbs, _Constit. Hist._, vol. i. p. 503.
[1684] Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p, 241.
[1685] _Ib._ p. 249. Will. Newb., l. v. c. 1 (Howlett, vol. ii.
p. 416).
[1686] Rog. Howden as above, pp. 243–245, 249, 250.
Richard meanwhile had been making a progress through Mid-England,[1687]
similar to that which he had made before his crowning in 1189,
and ending at Winchester, where he solemnly “wore his crown” in
the cathedral church on the first Sunday after Easter.[1688] This
ceremonial was in itself merely a revival of the old regal practice
which Henry II. had formally abandoned in 1158; but its revival on
this occasion was prompted by other motives than Richard’s love of
pomp and shew. As a concession to the Emperor’s vanity--for we can
scarcely conceive any other motive--Richard had accepted from Henry
VI. the investiture of the kingdom of Burgundy; “over which,” says
a contemporary English writer, “be it known that the Emperor had
really no power at all,” but for which, nevertheless, he had received
Richard’s homage.[1689] The homage was, of course, as empty as the gift
for which it was due; but insular pride, which had always boasted that
an English king, alone among European sovereigns, had no superior upon
earth, was offended by it none the less; and although the story that
Richard had formally surrendered England itself into Henry’s hands and
received it back from him as a fief of the Empire[1690] may perhaps be
set down as an exaggeration, still it seems to have been felt that the
majesty of the island-crown had been so far dimmed by the transactions
of his captivity as to require a distinct re-assertion.[1691] As he
stood in his royal robes, sceptre in hand and crown on head,[1692] amid
the throng of bishops and barons in the “Old Minster” where so many of
his English forefathers lay sleeping, past shame was forgotten, and
England was ready once again to welcome him as a new king.[1693] But
the welcome met with no response. On May 12--just two months after his
landing at Sandwich--Richard again sailed for Normandy;[1694] and this
time he went to return no more.
[1687] _Ib._ pp. 243–246.
[1688] _Ib._ p. 247. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 114. R.
Coggeshall (Stevenson), p. 64. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i.
pp. 524, 525. Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 42 (Howlett, vol. i. p.
408).
[1689] Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. iii. p. 226.
[1690] _Ib._ pp. 202, 203. He seems to be the only writer who
mentions it.
[1691] See R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 113; and on the
whole question of this coronation, Bishop Stubbs’s note to Rog.
Howden, vol. iii. p. 247, and his remarks in _Constit. Hist._,
vol. i. pp. 504, 561, 562. Richard himself seems to have
resented the popular view, for R. Coggeshall (Stevenson, p. 64)
says he went through the ceremony “aliquantulum renitens.”
[1692] Rog. Howden (as above), p. 247. See the details of the
ceremony in Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. pp. 524–526.
[1693] “Detersâ captivitatis ignominiâ quasi rex novus
apparuit.” Will. Newb., l. iv. c. 42 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 408).
[1694] Rog. Howden as above, p. 251. R. Diceto as above, p.
114. Gerv. Cant. as above, p. 527.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE LATER YEARS OF RICHARD.