CHAPTER X.

HENRY AND FRANCE.

1156–1161.

Formidable as was the task of England’s internal reorganization, it

was but a small part of the work which lay before Henry Fitz-Empress.

His accession brought the English Crown into an entirely new relation

with the world at large. The realm which for ages had been counted

almost as a separate sphere, whose insularity had been strong enough

to survive even the Norman conquest and to turn the conqueror’s own

native land into a dependency of the conquered island, suddenly became

an unit in a vast group of states gathered into the hands of a single

ruler, and making up altogether the most extensive and important

empire in Christendom. Among the earlier kings of England Cnut is the

only one whose dominions were at all comparable in extent to those of

Henry II. But the empire of Cnut and that of Henry differed widely in

character and circumstances. Cnut’s northern empire was to a certain

extent homogeneous; its members had at least one thing in common

besides their common allegiance--they were all, geographically and

politically, almost as completely severed from the rest of Europe as

England herself. It was only as an indirect consequence partly of his

territorial power, but still more of his personal greatness, that Cnut

and his realms came into connexion with central and southern Europe. In

Henry’s case, on the contrary, such a connexion was rendered inevitable

by the geographical position of his continental territories. They lay

in the very heart of western Christendom; they covered the largest and

some of the fairest regions of Gaul; they positively surrounded on two

sides the domains of the French Crown to which they owed a nominal

homage; they touched the borders of Spain, and they went very near to

those old Burgundian lands which formed the south-western march of

Germany and the north-western march of Italy. Again, Cnut’s territories

were all perfectly independent of any ruler save himself; no rival

power disputed his claims to any one of them; no other sovereign had

any pretension to receive homage from him. Henry, on the other hand,

was by the possession of his Gaulish fiefs placed in direct personal

connexion with the French king who was not merely his neighbour but

also his overlord. A like connexion had indeed existed between the

Norman kings of England and the French kings as overlords of Normandy.

But Henry’s relations with France were far more complex and fraught

with far weightier political consequences than those of his Norman

predecessors. He held under the king of France not a single outlying

province, but--at the lowest reckoning--not less than five separate

fiefs, all by different titles and upon different tenures, which were

yet further complicated by the intricate feudal and political relations

of these fiefs one with another.

Normandy was the least puzzling member of the group; Henry had

inherited it from his mother, and held it on the same tenure as

all her ancestors from Hrolf downwards. About Anjou, again--the

original patrimony of the heirs of Fulk the Red--there could hardly

be any question; and the old dispute whether Maine should count as

an independent fief of the Crown or as an underfief of Normandy or

of Anjou was not likely to be of any practical consequence when the

immediate ruler of all three counties was one and the same. Yet all

these had to be treated as separate states; each must have its special

mention in the homage done by Henry to Louis; each must be governed

according to its own special customs and institutions. So, too, must

the other appendage of Anjou--Touraine, for which homage was still

owed to the count of Blois, and where he still possessed a few outlying

lands which might easily be turned into bones of contention should he

choose to revive the ancient feud. Lastly, over and above all this

bundle of family estates inherited from his father and his mother,

Henry’s marriage had brought him the duchy of Aquitaine:--that is,

the immediate possession of the counties of Poitou and Bordeaux; the

overlordship of a crowd of lesser counties and baronies which filled

up the remaining territory between the Loire and the Pyrenees; and

a variety of more or less shadowy claims over all the other lands

which had formed part of the old Aquitanian kingdom, and whose feudal

relations with each other, with Poitou and with the Crown of France

were in a state of inextricable confusion:--added to which, there was a

personal complication caused by the two marriages of Eleanor, whereby

her second husband owed homage to the first for the territories which

he held in her name. Without going further into the details of the

situation, we can easily see that it was crowded with difficulties

and dangers, and that it would require the utmost care, foresight and

self-restraint on the part of both Henry and Louis to avoid firing,

at some point or other, a train which might produce an explosion

disastrous to both alike.

Henry’s chief assistant in the management of his continental affairs

was his mother, the Empress Matilda. Still closer to his side, indeed,

stood one who in after-years shewed herself gifted with far greater

administrative sagacity, and who had already acquired considerable

political experience as queen of France and duchess of Aquitaine. As

yet, however, Henry was likely to derive less assistance from the

somewhat dangerously quick wit of his wife than from the mature wisdom

of his mother. Matilda had been a harsh, violent, impracticable woman;

but there was in her character an element of moral and intellectual

grandeur which even in her worst days had won and kept for her the

devotion of men like Miles of Hereford and Brian Fitz-Count, and which

now in her latter years had fairly gained the mastery over her less

admirable qualities. She had inherited a considerable share of her

father’s talents for government; she had indeed failed to use them in

her own behalf, but she had learned from her failure a lesson which

enabled her to contribute not a little, by warnings and suggestions,

to the success of her son. In England, where the haughtiness of her

conduct had never been forgiven, whatever was found amiss in Henry’s

seems to have been popularly laid to her charge.[1401] In Normandy,

however, she was esteemed far otherwise. From the time of her son’s

accession to the English crown she lived quietly in a palace which her

father had built hard by the minster of Notre-Dame-des-Prés, outside

the walls of Rouen;[1402] taking no direct share in politics, but

universally held in profound respect by reason of her dignified and

pious life, and of the influence which she was known to exercise upon

the mind and policy of the young duke. His first step on the tidings

of Stephen’s death had been to hold a consultation with her; so long

as she lived, her opinions and her wishes were an element never absent

from his calculations before entering upon any serious undertaking; and

if he did not formally leave her as regent of the Norman duchy, yet he

trusted in great measure to her for the maintenance of its tranquillity

and order during his own absence beyond the sea.

[1401] “Nos autem illi doctrinæ [sc. maternæ] fidenter

imputamus omnia quibus erat tædiosus” [rex]. W. Map. _De Nug.

Cur._, dist. v. c. 6 (Wright, p. 227).

[1402] _Draco Norm._, l. iii. cc. 1, 2, vv. 37–66 (Howlett,

_Will. Newb._, vol. ii. pp. 712–714).

A personal visit was, however, necessary to make sure of his ground

with the king of France. As soon, therefore, as matters in England were

sufficiently composed, early in 1156 Henry went to Normandy;[1403]

Louis came to meet him on the border, and shortly afterwards, at a

second meeting, received a repetition of his homage for all his French

fiefs, including the duchy of Aquitaine.[1404] It was time; for to

every one of those fiefs, except Aquitaine and Normandy, there was

a rival claimant in the person of his brother. The story went that

Geoffrey Plantagenet as he lay dying at Château-du-Loir had made the

bishops and barons around his bed promise that they would not suffer

him to be laid in the grave till his eldest son had sworn to abide by

the contents of a will which he had just executed. When they called

upon Henry to take the oath, he hesitated a long while; at last, seeing

no other means of getting his father buried in peace, with a burst

of tears he swore as he was required. After the funeral the will was

read; and Henry found himself thereby pledged to make over the whole

of his patrimonial territories--Anjou, Touraine and Maine--to his

brother Geoffrey, as soon as the addition of the English crown to his

Norman coronet should put him in complete possession of his mother’s

heritage. Till then Geoffrey was to be content with three castles,

Chinon, Loudun and Mirebeau. For the moment Henry dissembled his

vexation; the contingency contemplated in the will was still in the

unknown future. But before it came to pass Geoffrey, as we have seen,

provoked his brother’s ill-will by using his three castles as a basis

of rebellion. Henry on his part sought and obtained a papal absolution

from the extorted oath, and flatly refused to keep it.[1405] Hereupon

Geoffrey again began stirring up a revolt whose suppression was one

of the chief objects of Henry’s visit to the continent in 1156. The

brothers met at Rouen, but they could not agree; Geoffrey hurried

back to fortify his three castles, and Henry followed to besiege

them.[1406] The troops which he employed were, as we have already seen,

mercenaries paid out of the proceeds of a scutage levied in England;

and if the chancellor’s share in the matter amounted to nothing more

than the suggestion of this contrivance, its perfect success in every

way would be enough to justify the statement of a contemporary, that

Henry “profited greatly by his assistance.”[1407] Loudun and Mirebeau

were successively besieged and taken;[1408] and in July the fall of

Geoffrey’s last and mightiest fortress, Chinon, brought him to complete

surrender of all his claims, for which he accepted a compensation

in money from his brother.[1409] Next month Queen Eleanor came over

to share her husband’s triumph;[1410] she doubtless accompanied him

in a progress through Aquitaine, where he received homage from the

vassals of the duchy, took hostages for their fidelity,[1411] and kept

Christmas at Bordeaux.[1412] Every part of his continental dominions

was thus thoroughly secured before he returned to England in the spring

of 1157.[1413]

[1403] He was at Rouen on Candlemas day. Rob. Torigni, a. 1156.

[1404] Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 215. Between the two

meetings with Louis came one with the count and countess of

Flanders at Rouen. Rob. Torigni, a. 1156.

[1405] Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 7 (Howlett, vol. i. pp. 112, 113).

[1406] Rob. Torigni, a. 1156.

[1407] Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 162, says that Henry

won his success “Thomæ cancellarii sui magno fretus auxilio.”

It is not quite clear whether Thomas was with him in person; he

was certainly in England part of this year, witness the Pipe

Roll.

[1408] Rob. Torigni, a. 1156.

[1409] Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 7 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 114).

Rob. Torigni, a. 1156. Chron. S. Albin. a. 1156 (Marchegay,

_Eglises_, p. 38). The first states the compensation as “terram

planam ex quo fructuum utilitas proveniret”; the second as a

thousand pounds sterling and two thousand Angevin _per annum_.

All say Geoffrey lost his castles, except Loudun, which Henry

restored to him (Chron. S. Albin. as above). The date is from

Rob. Torigni.

[1410] She and Richard de Lucy were both with Henry at Saumur

on August 29. Chron. de Bello (Angl. Christ. Soc.), p. 76.

[1411] Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 215.

[1412] Anon. Chron., _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. xii. p. 121.

[1413] Eleanor went back independently before Easter. “In

corredio reginæ quando venit de Normanniâ” appears among the

accounts “de veteri firmâ” of Hampshire, Pipe Roll 3 Hen. II.

(Hunter), p. 107.

Henry and Eleanor had now two children living. The eldest, born in

London on February 28, 1155,[1414] and baptized by his father’s name,

had already been recognized as his heir; the second was a girl, born

in 1156,[1415] and named after her grandmother the Empress Matilda. A

third, Richard, was born at Oxford[1416] on September 8, 1157.[1417]

Eleanor had moreover by her former marriage with Louis of France two

daughters, Mary and Adela, betrothed to the brother-counts of Champagne

and Blois;[1418] while the second marriage of Louis with Constance of

Castille had given him one child, the infant princess Margaret.[1419]

Early in 1158 Henry resolved to secure the hand of this little girl

for his eldest son, and he sent his chancellor over sea to make the

proposal to Louis.[1420]

[1414] Rob. Torigni, a. 1155. Chron. S. Albin. a. 1155

(Marchegay, _Eglises_, p. 38).

[1415] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 302.

[1416] _Ibid._

[1417] Chron. S. Albin. a. 1157 (Marchegay, _Eglises_, p. 39).

[1418] _Gesta Ludov._, c. 29 (Duchesne, _Hist. Franc.

Scriptt._, vol. iv. p. 411). _Hist. Ludov._ (_ibid._) p. 415.

Mary had once been proposed as wife for Henry Fitz-Empress,

but S. Bernard put a stop to the scheme on the ground of

consanguinity (see above, p. 393, note 2{1161})--an objection

which, however, applied still more strongly to Henry’s marriage

with her mother. Mary was betrothed to Henry of Champagne before

the Crusade (_Gesta Ludov._, c. 18, as above, pp. 403, 404).

Adela was born in 1149 or 1150, and apparently betrothed to

Theobald of Blois in 1152 or soon after (_ib._ cc. 27, 29, as

above, pp. 410, 411; _Hist. Ludov._, _ib._ pp. 414, 415).

Neither couple was married till 1164.

[1419] _Gesta Ludov._, c. 29 (Duchesne, _Hist. Franc.

Scriptt._, vol. iv.), p. 411. _Hist. Ludov._ (_ibid._), p. 415.

[1420] Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), p.

29. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 302.

Never, since Haroun-al-Raschid sent his envoys to Charles the Great,

had such an embassy been seen in western Europe. Thomas made up his

mind to display before the eyes of astonished France all the luxury and

splendour which the wealth of the island-realm could procure, that King

Henry might be glorified in his representative.[1421] The six ships

with which he habitually crossed the Channel[1422]--the king himself

had but one for this purpose, till his chancellor presented him with

three more[1423]--can hardly have sufficed for the enormous train which

he took with him on this occasion. It comprized, in the first place,

some two hundred members of his household, knights, clerks, stewards,

servants, squires, and young pages of noble blood, all provided with

horses and fitted out with new and gay attire as beseemed their several

degrees. Thomas himself had twenty-four changes of raiment, most of

which he gave away in the course of his journey; besides a quantity of

rich silks, rare furs, and costly cloths and carpets, “fit to adorn

the sleeping-chamber of a bishop.” He had a right royal train of

coursing-dogs and hawks of all kinds. Above all, he had eight mighty

chariots, each drawn by five horses equal to war-chargers in beauty

and strength; beside each horse ran a stalwart and gaily-clad youth,

and each chariot had its special conductor. Two of these vehicles were

laden with casks of ale, to be given to the French, who marvelled at

the beverage, strange to them, which the English thought superior

to wine. The other chariots bore the furniture of the chancellor’s

chapel, of his private chamber, and of his kitchen; others again

contained treasure, provisions for the journey, necessaries of the

toilet, trappings and baggage of all kinds. Next, there were twelve

sumpter-horses, of which eight were loaded with coffers containing the

gold and silver vessels of the chancellor’s household, vases, ewers,

goblets, bowls, cups, flagons, basins, salt-cellars, spoons, plates and

dishes. Other chests and packages held the money for daily expenses and

gifts, the chancellor’s own clothes, and his books. One pack-horse,

which always went first, bore the sacred vessels, altar-ornaments and

books belonging to the chapel. To each horse there was a well-trained

groom; to each chariot was fastened a dog, large, strong and “terrible

as a lion or a bear”; and on the top of every chariot sat a monkey. The

procession travelled along the road in regular order; first came the

foot-pages, to the number of about two hundred and fifty, in groups of

six, ten or more, “singing together in their native tongue, after the

manner of their country.” They were followed at a little distance by

the coursing-dogs and hounds coupled and in leashes under the charge

of their respective keepers. Next, the great chariots covered with

hides came heavily rolling and rattling along; after them trotted

the pack-horses, each with a groom; these again were followed by the

squires, bearing the shields and leading the chargers of the knights;

then came a crowd of other attendants, pages, and those who had charge

of the hawks; then the sewers and other servants of the chancellor’s

household; then his knights and his clerks, all riding two and two;

and lastly, amid a select group of friends, the chancellor himself. In

every town and village along the road the French rushed out to inquire

the meaning of such a startling procession, and when told that it was

the chancellor of the king of England coming on a mission to the king

of France, exclaimed: “If this is the chancellor, what must his master

be?”

[1421] Will. Fitz-Steph. as above.

[1422] Partly, it seems, for the sake of giving a free passage

to any one who wanted to go. _Ib._ p. 23.

[1423] _Ibid._ p. 26.

Immediately after landing Thomas notified his arrival to Louis; at

Meulan he received an answer, fixing a day for an audience in Paris.

It was the custom of the French kings to provide at their own expense

for every man who came to their court during his sojourn there; Louis

therefore issued a proclamation in Paris forbidding the sale of any

article whatsoever to the chancellor or his attendants. Thomas however

was resolved to decline the royal hospitality; he sent his caterers in

disguise and under feigned names to all the fairs round about--Lagny,

Corbeil, Pontoise, S. Denys--where they bought up such an abundance

of bread, meat, fish and wine that when he reached his lodging at the

Temple he found it stocked with three days’ provisions for a thousand

men. One dish of eels, which had cost a hundred shillings sterling, was

long remembered as an instance of the English chancellor’s prodigality.

Every possible courtesy was interchanged between him and the French

king. Every member of the court, were he count, baron, knight or

serving-man, received some token of insular wealth and generosity;

Thomas gave away all his gold and silver plate, all his costly

raiment; to one a cloak, to another a fur cape, to another a pelisse,

to another a palfrey or a destrier.[1424] The masters and scholars

of the university came in for their share; the chancellor’s gracious

reception of them, and of the citizens with whom the English scholars

lodged,[1425] was a marked feature in his visit to Paris.[1426] The

embassy was successful; Louis promised his daughter’s hand to the heir

of England, and Thomas went home in triumph, having finished up his

expedition by capturing and casting into prison at Neufmarché a certain

Guy of Laval whose lawless depredations were a continual insult to

King Henry and a continual terror to his subjects.[1427] Henry himself

soon afterwards went over sea, partly, no doubt, to confirm the family

alliance thus concluded with Louis. But there was also another reason

which urgently required his presence in Gaul.

[1424] Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), pp.

29–33.

[1425] “Cives scholarium Angligenarum creditores”(_ib._ p. 32)

must mean something like this.

[1426] _Ibid._

[1427] _Ibid._ p. 33.

A fresh opening had presented itself to the ambition of the Angevin

house in a quarter where they seem to have had no dealings since the

time of Geoffrey Martel, but which was intimately associated with their

earliest traditions and with the very foundations of their power. The

long rivalry between the counts of Nantes and of Rennes had ended,

like that between the dukes of Normandy and the counts of Anjou, in

a marriage, and for eighty-two years all Britanny had been united

beneath the immediate and undisputed sway of the one ducal house, when

in 1148 Duke Conan III. on his death-bed disavowed the young Hoel who

had hitherto passed as his son and heir.[1428] The duchy split up

into factions once again; the greater part accepted the rule of Count

Eudo of Porhoët, who was married to Conan’s only daughter Bertha; the

people of Nantes alone, fired with their old spirit of independence and

opposition, opened their gates to Hoel and acknowledged him as their

count. Hoel however proved unable to cope with the superior forces

of his rival; at the end of eight years his people grew hopeless of

maintaining their independence under him. Rather than give it up once

more to those whom they looked upon as representatives of the hated

supremacy of Rennes, they fell back upon their old traditional alliance

with Anjou, and having driven out the unfortunate Hoel, offered

themselves and their country to young Geoffrey Plantagenet.[1429]

Geoffrey, smarting under the defeat which he had just sustained at

his brother’s hands in Anjou, was naturally delighted with this new

acquisition, and all the more as he had a fair prospect of enjoying

it in peace; for Eudo at that very moment was suddenly confronted

by another rival. Earl Conan of Richmond, Bertha’s son by a former

marriage, being now grown to manhood, came over from England in this

same summer of 1156 to claim the heritage which his stepfather had

usurped;[1430] and during the struggle which ensued between them

neither party had time or energy to spare for dislodging the Angevin

intruder from Nantes, where he remained undisputed master for nearly

two years.

[1428] Chron. Britann. _ad ann._ (Morice, _Hist. Bret.,

preuves_, vol. i. col. 103).

[1429] _Ib._ a. 1148, 1156, 1157 (as above). Chron. Brioc.

(_ibid._), col. 37.

[1430] Chron. Brioc. as above. Rob. Torigni, a. 1156.

On July 26, 1158, Geoffrey died.[1431] The county of Nantes was at

once seized by Conan and claimed by the king of England as heir to his

childless brother;[1432] and on the eve of the Assumption Henry landed

in Normandy to enforce his claim. Before resorting to arms, however,

he deemed it prudent to secure the assent of the lord paramount of

Britanny, King Louis of France, to his intended proceedings. The

negotiations were again intrusted to the chancellor, and again with

marked success. At a conference held on the last day of August[1433]

Louis did far more than sanction Henry’s claim upon Nantes; he granted

him a formal commission to arbitrate between the competitors for

the dukedom of Britanny and settle the whole question in dispute as

he might think good, in virtue of his office as grand seneschal of

France.[1434] This office was now little more than honorary, and was

held throughout the greater part of the reign of Louis VII. by the

count of Blois; but the rival house of Anjou seems to have also put

forth a claim to it, which Louis admitted for a moment, as on the

present occasion, whenever it suited his own purposes.[1435] From

Argentan, on September 8, Henry issued a summons to the whole feudal

host of Normandy to assemble at Avranches on Michaelmas-day for an

expedition into Britanny. He himself spent the interval in a visit to

Paris, where he was entertained by Louis with the highest honours; the

betrothal of little Henry and Margaret was ratified, and the baby-bride

was handed over to the care of her future father-in-law, who intrusted

her for education to a faithful Norman baron, Robert of Neubourg.[1436]

The host gathered at Avranches on the appointed day, but only to

witness Conan’s submission. He knew that he was no match for the king

of England with the king of France at his back; so he put himself into

Henry’s hands, and received his confirmation in the dukedom of Britanny

in return for the surrender of Nantes.[1437] Henry, after a visit to

the Mont-S.-Michel and a brief halt at Pontorson to restore the castle,

proceeded to take formal possession of Nantes; he then went to besiege

Thouars,[1438] whose lord was in rebellion against him. In November he

met Louis at Le Mans,[1439] and thence conducted him on a triumphal

progress through Normandy. After going through Pacy and Evreux to

Neubourg, that the French king might see his little daughter, they were

received with a solemn procession at Bec; they then visited the abbey

of Mont-S.-Michel, where Louis had a vow to pay, and from Avranches

Henry escorted his guest by way of Bayeux, Caen and Rouen safely and

honourably back to his own dominions.[1440]

[1431] Contin. Becc. a. 1158 (Delisle, _Rob. Torigni_, vol. ii.

p. 166). Chron. S. Albin. a. 1158 (Marchegay, _Eglises_, p. 39).

[1432] Rob. Torigni, a. 1158. Chron. Brioc. (Morice, _Hist.

Bret., preuves_, vol. i.), col. 37. Chron. Britann. a. 1158

(_ib._ col. 103).

[1433] Contin. Becc. a. 1158 (Delisle, _Rob. Torigni_, vol. ii.

p. 167).

[1434] “Eo tempore, per industriam Thomæ cancellarii a

Lundoniâ, rex Angliæ a rege Francorum Christianissimo, viro

tamen nimis simplici, optinuit ut quasi senescallus regis

Francorum intraret Britanniam, et quosdam ibidem inter se

inquietos et funebre bellum exercentes coram se convocaret et

pacificaret, et quem inveniret rebellum violenter coherceret.”

Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 166.

[1435] On the office of seneschal of France see A. Luchaire,

_Hist. des Institutions Monarchiques sous les premiers

Capétiens_, vol. i. pp. 173–181. The treatise of Hugh of

Clères “De senescalciâ et majoratu regni Franciæ” (printed in

Marchegay, _Comtes d’Anjou_, pp. 387–394), which sets forth

the Angevin claim in detail, is shown by M. Mabille to be a

forgery (Introd., pp. xlix–li); and so too, it seems, is the

only charter in which Henry appears as seneschal (_ib._ p. li,

note). The treatise was, however, written between 1150 and

1168 (_ib._ p. li), and must therefore have been intended to

support a claim made at that time. M. d’Arbois de Jubainville

(_Comtes de Champagne_, vol. ii. pp. 270–274; vol. iii. pp. 96,

97) gives from charters a list of the seneschals of France from

A.D. 1091 to A.D. 1163. No count of Anjou appears; and from

1154 to 1163 (inclusive) the seneschal each year is Theobald of

Blois. That the Angevin claim was, however, not only made but

occasionally admitted--doubtless for some special purpose--is

shewn by the passage of Gerv. Cant. quoted above (note 3

{1434}), and also by two passages in Robert of Torigni, none of

which are noticed by M. Luchaire. In A.D. 1169 Robert tells us

that the younger Henry did homage to Louis at Montmirail for the

county of Anjou, “et concessit ei rex Francorum ut esset

senescallus Franciæ, quod pertinet ad feudum Andegavense;” and

he adds that at Candlemas young Henry officiated as seneschal to

the king in Paris; after which he proceeds to abridge from the

pseudo-Hugh de Clères the story of the origin of the dignity. In

A.D. 1164 he says: “Comes Carnotensis Tedbaudus despondit filiam

Ludovici regis Franciæ, et ideo rex ei concessit dapiferatum

Franciæ, quem comes Andegavensis antiquitus habebat.” M. de

Jubainville’s list shews that Theobald had been seneschal long

before this; but the words shew that the Angevin claim was well

known, at any rate in the Angevin dominions.

[1436] Rob. Torigni, a. 1158.

[1437] _Ibid._ Contin. Becc. a. 1158 (Delisle, _Rob. Torigni_,

vol. ii. p. 169). Chron. Britann. (Morice, _Hist. Bret.,

preuves_, vol. i.), col. 104. This last dates the surrender

“circa festivitatem S. Dionysii” [Oct. 9]; the two former make

it Michaelmas. According to Rob. Torigni the actual cession

comprised the city of Nantes and the northern half of the

county, said to be worth sixty thousand shillings Angevin.

[1438] Rob. Torigni and Contin. Becc. as above. Chron. S.

Albin. a. 1158 (Marchegay, _Eglises_, p. 39). Gerv. Cant.

(Stubbs), vol. i. p. 166.

[1439] Gerv. Cant. as above.

[1440] Rob. Torigni, a. 1158. Contin. Becc. a. 1158 (Delisle,

_Rob. Torigni_, vol. ii. pp. 169, 170). Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs),

vol. i. p. 166.

The county of Nantes was in itself a very trifling addition to the

vast possessions of Henry Fitz-Empress; yet its acquisition was a

more important matter than appears at first sight. Nantes, by its

geographical position, commanded the mouth of the Loire; its political

destinies were therefore of the highest consequence to the princes

whose dominions lay along the course of that river. The carefully

planned series of advances whereby Geoffrey Greygown and Fulk the

Black had gradually turned the whole navigable extent of the Loire

into a high-way through their own territories would have been almost

useless had they not begun by securing the entrance-gate. To Henry, who

as count of Poitou had command of the opposite shore of the estuary,

there might have been less danger in the chance of hostility at Nantes;

but the place was, for another reason, of greater value to him than

it could ever have been to his ancestors. From the English Channel

to the Pyrenees he was master of the entire western half--by far the

larger half--of Gaul, with one exception: between his Norman and his

Aquitanian duchy there jutted out the Breton peninsula. Britanny

must have been in Henry’s eyes something like what Tours had been in

those of Geoffrey Martel:--a perpetual temptation to his ambition, a

fragment of alien ground which must have seemed to him destined almost

by the fitness of things to become absorbed sooner or later into

the surrounding mass from which it stood out in a sort of unnatural

isolation. By his acquisition of Nantes he had gained a footing in

the Breton duchy, somewhat as his forefathers had gained one in the

city of Tours by their canonry at S. Martin’s; and as a grant of

investiture from the French king had served as the final stepping-stone

to Martel’s great conquest, so the privilege of arbitration conferred

by Louis upon Henry might pave the way for more direct intervention

in Britanny. The meaning of this autumn’s work is well summed up by

Gervase of Canterbury: “This was Henry’s first step towards subduing

the Bretons.”[1441] A week before the assembly at Avranches his fourth

son had been born;[1442] the infant was baptized by the name of

Geoffrey. It would indeed have been strange if the name made famous by

Henry’s own father, as well as by so many of the earlier members of the

family, had been allowed to drop out of use in the next generation. Yet

by the light of after-events one may suspect that its revival at this

particular moment had a special reference to the memory of the lately

deceased Count Geoffrey of Nantes, and that the new-born child’s future

destiny as duke of Britanny was already foreshadowed, however vaguely,

in his father’s dreams.

[1441] “Hic fuit primus ingressus ejus super Britones

edomandos.” Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 166.

[1442] On September 23; Rob. Torigni, a. 1158.

The year closed amid general tranquillity. So cordial was, or seemed to

be, the alliance of the two kings, that they planned a joint crusade

against the Moors in Spain, and wrote to ask the Pope’s blessing upon

their undertaking;[1443] and a long-standing dispute between Henry and

Theobald of Blois was settled before Christmas by the mediation of

Louis.[1444] In England the year is marked by nothing more important

than a new issue of coinage.[1445] The administration of the country

was directed by the two justiciars, assisted, formally at least, by the

queen,[1446] until shortly before Christmas, when she went over sea

to keep the feast with her husband at Cherbourg.[1447] Unhappily, the

beginnings of strife followed in her train.

[1443] Letter of Adrian IV.--date, February 19 [1159]--in

Duchesne, _Hist. Franc. Scriptt._, vol. iv. pp. 590, 591.

[1444] Rob. Torigni, a. 1158. The quarrel had originated in

Henry’s refusal, when he succeeded his father as count of

Anjou, to do homage for Touraine. To this was added a dispute

about Fréteval and Amboise. See details in _Gesta Ambaz.

Domin._ (Marchegay, _Comtes_), pp. 216, 222, 223.

[1445] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 302. There are some

references to this new coinage in the Pipe Roll of the year (4

Hen. II., Hunter, pp. 114, 181). Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. i.

p. 215, misdates it 1156.

[1446] Richard de Lucy and Eleanor seem to share the regency

during her stay in England; see Eyton, _Itin. Hen. II._, pp.

42, 43, and Palgrave, _Eng. Commonwealth_, vol. ii. pp. v, vi.

After her departure her place seems to be taken by Robert of

Leicester.

[1447] Rob. Torigni, a. 1159.

The duchy of Aquitaine, or Guyenne, as held by Eleanor’s predecessors,

consisted, roughly speaking, of the territory between the Loire and

the Garonne. More exactly, it was bounded on the north by Anjou and

Touraine, on the east by Berry and Auvergne, on the south-east by the

Quercy or county of Cahors, and on the south-west by Gascony, which had

been united with it for the last hundred years. The old Karolingian

kingdom of Aquitania had been of far greater extent; it had in fact

included the whole country between the Loire, the Pyrenees, the Rhône

and the ocean. Over all this vast territory the counts of Poitou

asserted a theoretical claim of overlordship by virtue of their ducal

title; they had, however, a formidable rival in the house of the counts

of Toulouse. These represented an earlier line of dukes of Aquitaine,

successors of the dukes of Gothia or Septimania, under whom the capital

of southern Gaul had been not Poitiers but Toulouse, Poitou itself

counting as a mere underfief. In the latter half of the tenth century

these dukes of Gothia or _Aquitania Prima_, as the Latin chroniclers

sometimes called them from the old Roman name of their country, had

seen their ducal title transferred to the Poitevin lords of _Aquitania

Secunda_--the dukes of Aquitaine with whom we have had to deal. But

the Poitevin overlordship was never fully acknowledged by the house of

Toulouse; and this latter in the course of the following century again

rose to great importance and distinction, which reached its height

in the person of Count Raymond IV., better known as Raymond of St.

Gilles, from the name of the little county which had been his earliest

possession. From that small centre his rule gradually spread over the

whole territory of the ancient dukes of Septimania. In the year of

the Norman conquest of England Rouergue, which was held by a younger

branch of the house of Toulouse, lapsed to the elder line; in the year

after the Conqueror’s death Raymond came into possession of Toulouse

itself; in 1094 he became, in right of his wife, owner of half the

Burgundian county of Provence. His territorial influence was doubled

by that of his personal fame; he was one of the chief heroes of the

first Crusade; and when he died in 1105 he left to his son Bertrand,

over and above his Aquitanian heritage, the Syrian county of Tripoli.

On Bertrand’s death in 1112 these possessions were divided, his son

Pontius succeeding him as count of Tripoli, and surrendering his claims

upon Toulouse to his uncle Alfonso Jordan, a younger son of Raymond

of St. Gilles.[1448] Those claims, however, were disputed. Raymond’s

elder brother, Count William IV., had left an only daughter who, after

a childless marriage with King Sancho Ramirez of Aragon,[1449] became

the wife of Count William VIII. of Poitou.[1450] From that time forth

it became a moot point whether the lord of St. Gilles or the lord of

Poitiers was the rightful count of Toulouse. Raymond unquestionably

bore the title and exercised its functions for some six years before

his brother’s death and his niece’s second marriage,[1451] and one

historian asserts that he had acquired the county by purchase from his

brother.[1452] Another story relates that William of Poitou having

married the heiress of Toulouse after her father’s death,[1453]

immediately entered upon her inheritance, but afterwards pledged

it to Raymond in order to raise money for the Crusade.[1454] The

reckless, spendthrift duke, whose whole energies were given up to

verse-making, discreditable adventures, and either defying or eluding

the ecclesiastical authorities who vainly strove to check the scandals

of his life, never found means to redeem his pledge; neither did his

son William IX.,[1455] although it appears that he did at some time or

other contrive to obtain possession of Toulouse.[1456] On his death,

however, it immediately passed back into the hands of Alfonso Jordan.

[1448] On the counts of Toulouse and St. Gilles see Vic and

Vaissète, _Hist. du Languedoc_ (new ed., 1872), vol. iii.

[1449] Geoff. Vigeois, l. i. c. 48 (Labbe, _Nova Biblioth._,

vol. ii. p. 304).

[1450] _Ibid._ Rob. Torigni, a. 1159. This second marriage took

place in 1094: MS. Chron. quoted by Besly, _Comtes de Poitou,

preuves_, p. 408.

[1451] Vic and Vaissète, _Hist. du Languedoc_, vol. iii. pp.

452, 453.

[1452] Will. Malm. _Gesta Reg._, l. iv. c. 388 (Hardy, p. 603).

[1453] William IV. of Toulouse died in 1093. Vic and Vaissète,

_Hist. du Languedoc_, vol. iii. p. 465.

[1454] Rob. Torigni, a. 1159. Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 10

(Howlett, vol. i. pp. 121, 122). It will be remembered that

Duke William sought to pledge his own Poitou to the Red King

for the same purpose.

[1455] Will. Newb. as above (p. 122).

[1456] Geoff. Vigeois, as above, describes Eleanor’s father as

“Guillelmus dux Aquitaniæ filius Guillermi et filiæ comitis

Tholosani, qui jure avi sui urbem Tholosanam possedit.” Besly

(_Comtes de Poitou_, p. 132) has an account of the matter, but

I cannot find his authorities.

With all these shiftings and changes of ownership the kings of France

had never tried to interfere. Southern Gaul--“Aquitaine” in the wider

sense--was a land whose internal concerns they found it wise to leave

as far as possible untouched. It was, even yet, a land wholly distinct

from the northern realm whose sovereign was its nominal overlord.

The geographical barrier formed by the river Loire had indeed been

long ago passed over, if not exactly by the French kings, at least

by the Angevin counts. But a wider and deeper gulf than the blue

stream of Loire stood fixed between France and Aquitaine. They were

peopled by different races, they belonged to different worlds. There

was little community of blood, there was less community of speech,

thought and temper, of social habits or political traditions, between

the Teutonized Celt of the north and the southern Celt who had been

moulded by the influences of the Roman, the Goth and the Saracen.

Steeped in memories of the Roman Empire in its palmiest days, and

of the Gothic kingdom of Toulouse which had inherited so large a

share of its power, its culture and its glory, Aquitania had never

amalgamated either with the Teutonic empire of the Karolings or with

the French kingdom of their Parisian supplanters. Her princes were

nominal feudataries of both; but, save in a few exceptional cases, the

personal and political relations between the northern lord paramount

and his southern vassals began and ended with the formal ceremonies of

investiture and homage. In the struggle of Anjou and Blois for command

over the policy of the Crown, in the struggle of the Crown itself to

maintain its independence and to hold the balance between Anjou and

Normandy, the Aquitanian princes took no part; the balance of powers

in northern Gaul was nothing to them; neither party ever seriously

attempted to enroll them as allies; both seem to have considered them,

as they considered themselves, totally unconcerned in the matter.

Whatever external connexions and alliances they cultivated were in

quite another direction--in the Burgundian provinces which lay around

the mouth of the Rhône and the western foot of the Alps, and on the

debateable ground of the Spanish March, the county of Barcelona, which

formed a link between Gascony and Aragon. The marriage of Louis and

Eleanor, however, altered the political position of Aquitaine with

respect not only to the French Crown but to the world at large. She was

suddenly dragged out of her isolation and brought into contact with the

general political system of northern Europe, somewhat as England had

been by its association with Normandy. The union of the king and the

duchess was indeed dissolved before its full consequences had time to

work themselves out. Its first and most obvious result was a change in

the attitude of the Crown towards the internal concerns of Aquitaine.

Whether the count of Toulouse paid homage to the count of Poitou, or

both alike paid it immediately to the Crown--whether Toulouse and

Poitiers were in the same or in different hands--mattered little or

nothing to the earlier kings whose practical power over either fief was

all bound up in the mere formal grant of investiture. But to Eleanor’s

husband such questions wore a very different aspect. To him who was in

his own person duke of Aquitaine as well as its overlord, they were

matters of direct personal concern; the interests of the house of

Poitou were identified with those of the house of France. For his own

sake and for the sake of his posterity which he naturally hoped would

succeed him in both kingdom and duchy, it was of the utmost importance

that Louis should strive to make good every jot and tittle of the

Poitevin claims throughout southern Gaul.

Four years after his marriage, therefore, Louis summoned his host

for an expedition against the count of Toulouse.[1457] It tells

very strongly against the justice of the Poitevin claims in that

quarter that one of his best advisers--Theobald of Blois--so greatly

disapproved of the enterprize that he refused to take any part in it

at all;[1458] and it may be that his refusal led to its abandonment,

for we have no record of its issue, beyond the fact that Alfonso Jordan

kept Toulouse for the rest of his life, and dying in 1148 was succeeded

without disturbance by his son Raymond V.[1459] Four years later the

duchy of Aquitaine passed with Eleanor’s hand from Louis VII. to Henry

Fitz-Empress. Once again the king of France became its overlord and

nothing more:--his chance of enforcing his supremacy fainter than ever,

yet his need to enforce it greater than ever, since Aquitaine, far from

sinking back into her old isolation, was now linked together with Anjou

and Normandy in a chain which encircled his own royal domain as with a

girdle of iron. In these circumstances the obvious policy of France and

Toulouse was a mutual alliance which might enable them both to stand

against the power of Henry. It was cemented in 1154 by the marriage

of Raymond V. with Constance, widow of Eustace of Blois and sister

of Louis VII.[1460] Four more years passed away; Henry’s energies

were still tasked to the uttermost by more important work than the

prosecution of a doubtful claim of his wife against the brother-in-law

of her overlord and former husband. Whether the suggestion at last came

from Eleanor herself, during the Christmas-tide of 1158, we cannot

tell; we only know that early in 1159 Henry determined to undertake the

recovery of Toulouse.

[1457] At Midsummer 1141. Ord. Vit. (Duchesne, _Hist. Norm.

Scriptt._), p. 923.

[1458] _Alterius Roberti App. ad Sigebertum_, _Rer. Gall.

Scriptt._, vol. xiii. p. 331.

[1459] Rob. Torigni, a. 1159.

[1460] Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 10 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 122).

A summons to Raymond to give back the county to its heiress was of

course met with a refusal.[1461] It was a mere formal preliminary,

and so was also a conference between Henry and Louis at Tours, where

they discussed the matter and failed to agree upon it,[1462] but

parted, it seems, without coming to any actual breach; Henry indeed

was evidently left under the impression that his undertaking would

meet with no opposition on the part of France.[1463] Early in Lent he

went to Poitiers and there held council with the barons of Aquitaine.

The upshot of their deliberations was an order for his forces to meet

him at Poitiers on Midsummer-day, ready to march against the count of

Toulouse.[1464]

[1461] _Ib._ (p. 123).

[1462] Contin. Becc. a. 1159 (Delisle, _Rob. Torigni_, vol. ii.

p. 171).

[1463] “Inde graves inimicitiæ inter ipsum” [sc. Ludovicum]

“et regem Anglorum ortæ sunt, cum videret sibi regem Francorum

nocere, de cujus auxilio plurimum confidebat” remarks Rob.

Torigni on Louis’s arrival at Toulouse (a. 1159).

[1464] Contin. Becc. a. 1159 (Delisle, _Rob. Torigni_, vol. ii.

pp. 171, 172).

A question now arose of what those forces were to consist. The feudal

levies of Eleanor’s duchy might fairly be called upon to fight for

the supposed rights of their mistress; those of Anjou and Maine

might perhaps be expected to do as much for the aggrandizement of

their count; but to demand the services of the Norman knighthood

for an obscure dynastic quarrel in southern Gaul--still more, to

drag the English tenants-in-chivalry across sea and land for such a

purpose--would have been both unjust and impolitic, if not absolutely

impracticable. On the other hand, the knights of Aquitaine were of

all Henry’s feudal troops those on whom he could least depend; and

they would be moreover, even with the addition of those whom he could

muster in his paternal dominions, quite insufficient for an expedition

which was certain to require a large and powerful host, and whose

duration it was impossible to calculate. In these circumstances the

expedient which had been tentatively and in part adopted three years

before was repeated, and its application this time was sweeping and

universal. The king gave out that in consideration of the length and

hardship of the way which lay before him, and desiring to spare the

country-knights, citizens and yeomen, he would receive instead of

their personal services a certain sum to be levied as he saw fit upon

every knight’s fee in Normandy and his other territories.[1465] This

impost, which afterwards came to be known in English history as the

“Great Scutage,” was, as regards England, the most important matter

connected with the war of Toulouse. It marks a turning-point in the

history of military tenure. It broke down the old exemption of “fiefs

of the hauberk” from pecuniary taxation, in such a way as to make the

encroachment upon their privilege assume the shape of a favour. To

the bulk of the English knighthood the boon was a real one; military

service beyond sea was a burthen from which they would be only too glad

to purchase their release; the experiment, so far as it concerned them,

succeeded perfectly, and made a precedent which was steadily followed

in after-years. From that time forth the word “scutage” acquired

its recognized meaning of a sum paid to the Crown in commutation of

personal attendance in the host; and the specially cherished privilege

of the tenants-in-chivalry came to be not as formerly exemption from

money-payment on their demesne lands, but, by virtue of their payment,

exemption from service beyond sea.

[1465] “Rex igitur Henricus ... considerans longitudinem

et difficultatem viæ, nolens vexare agrarios milites nec

burgensium nec rusticorum multitudinem, sumptis LX. solidis

Andegavensium in Normanniâ de feudo uniuscujusque loricæ et de

reliquis omnibus tam in Normanniâ quam in Angliâ, sive etiam

aliis terris suis, secundum hoc quod ei visum fuit,” etc. Rob.

Torigni, a. 1159.

The sums thus raised in 1159 are however entered in the Pipe Roll of

the year not as scutage but under the vaguer and more comprehensive

title of _donum_. The reason doubtless is that they were assessed, as

the historians tell us and as the roll itself shews, not only upon

those estates from which services of the shield were explicitly due,

but also upon all lands held in chief of the Crown, and all Church

lands without distinction of tenure:[1466]--the basis of assessment in

all cases being the knight’s fee, in its secondary sense of a parcel of

land worth twenty pounds a year. Whatever the laity might think of this

arrangement, the indignation of the clergy was bitter and deep. The

wrong inflicted on them by the scutage of 1156 was as nothing compared

with this, which set at naught all ancient precedents of ecclesiastical

immunity, and actually wrung from the Church lands even more than from

the lay fiefs.[1467] Their wrath however was not directed solely or

even chiefly against the king. A large share of the blame was laid at

the chancellor’s door; for the scheme had his active support, if it was

not actually of his contriving. Its effects on English constitutional

developement were for later generations to trace; the men of the

time saw, or thought they saw, its disastrous consequences in the

after-lives of its originators. In the hour of Thomas’s agony Gilbert

Foliot raked up as one of the heaviest charges against him the story of

the “sword which his hand had plunged into the bosom of his mother the

Church, when he spoiled her of so many thousand marks for the army of

Toulouse”;[1468] and his own best and wisest friend, John of Salisbury,

who had excused the scutage of 1156, sorrowfully avowed his belief that

the scutage of 1159 was the beginning of all Henry’s misdoings against

the Church, and that the chancellor’s share in it was the fatal sin

which the primate had to expiate so bitterly.[1469]

[1466] “Secundum ejus scutagium assisum pro eodem exercitu

Walliæ” [this writer assigns a like object to the scutage of

1156, but in both cases he is contradicted by chronology and

contemporary evidence] “reperies in rotulo anni quinti regis

ejusdem inferius. Fuitque assisum ad duas marcas pro quolibet

feodo, non solum super prælatos, verum tam super ipsos quam

super milites suos, secundum numerum feodorum, qui tenuerunt

de rege in capite; necnon et super residuos milites singulorum

comitatuum in communi.” [Cf. Rob. Torigni as quoted above, p.

459, note 2.] “Intitulaturque illud scutagium, _De Dono_. Eâ

quidem, ut credo, ratione, quod non solum prælati qui tenentur

ad servicia militaria sed etiam alii, abbates utpote de Bello

et de Salopesbirie et alii, tunc temporis dederunt auxilium.”

Alex. Swereford (_Liber Ruber Scacc._) quoted in Madox, _Hist.

Exchequer_, vol. i. p. 626. Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p.

167, calls it a scutage: “Scotagium sive scuagium de Angliâ

accepit.” The references to it are in almost every page of

the Pipe Roll 5 Hen. II. (Pipe Roll Soc.); the most important

are collected by Madox, _Hist. Exch._, vol. i. pp. 626, 627.

There are also a few notices in the next year; Pipe Roll 6

Hen. II. (Pipe Roll Soc.), pp. 3, 6, 24, 29, 30, 32, 51. There

are a few entries of “scutage” by that name--from the abbot

of Westminster (Pipe Roll 5 Hen. II., pp. 6, 24, 27; 6 Hen.

II., pp. 11, 24, 28), the bishop of Worcester (5 Hen. II.,

p. 24), William of Cardiff (_ibid._), the abbot of Evesham

(_ib._ p. 25), and the earl of Warwick (_ib._ p. 26). Some of

these pay “donum” as well. In reference to this matter some

of the Northumbrian tenants-in-chivalry are designated by a

title which is somewhat startling in the middle of the twelfth

century: the sheriff of Northumberland renders an account “de

dono militum et _tainorum_” (Pipe Roll 5 Hen. II., p. 14). What

was the distinction between them?

The sum charged on the knight’s fee in Normandy was sixty shillings

Angevin;[1470] in England it seems to have been two marks.[1471]

The proceeds, with those of a similar tax levied upon Henry’s

other dominions,[1472] amounted to some hundred and eighty

thousand pounds,[1473] with which he hired an immense force of

mercenaries.[1474] But his host did not consist of these alone. The

great barons of Normandy and England, no less than those of Anjou,

Aquitaine and Gascony, were eager to display their prowess under

the leadership of such a mighty king. The muster at Poitiers was

a brilliant gathering of Henry’s court, headed by the chancellor

with a picked band of seven hundred knights of his own personal

following,[1475] and by the first vassal of the English Crown, King

Malcolm of Scotland,[1476] who came, it seems, to win the spurs which

his cousin had refused to grant him twelve months ago, when they met

at Carlisle just before Henry left England in June 1158.[1477] The

other vassal state was represented by an unnamed Welsh prince;[1478]

and the host was further reinforced by several important allies. One

of these was Raymond Trencavel, viscount of Béziers and Carcassonne,

a baron whom the count of Toulouse had despoiled, and who gladly

seized the opportunity of vengeance.[1479] Another was William of

Montpellier.[1480] The most valuable of all was the count of Barcelona,

a potentate who ranked on an equality with kings.[1481] His county

of Barcelona was simply the province which in Karolingian times had

been known as the Spanish March--a strip of land with the Pyrenees

for its backbone, which lay between Toulouse, Aragon, Gascony and

the Mediterranean sea. It was a fief of the West-Frankish realm; but

the facilities which every marchland in some degree possesses for

attaching itself to whichever neighbour it may prefer, and so holding

the balance between them as to keep itself virtually independent

of them all, were specially great in the case of the Spanish March,

whose rulers, as masters of the eastern passes of the Pyrenees, held

the keys of both Gaul and Spain. During the last half-century they

had, like the lords of another marchland, enormously strengthened

their position by three politic marriages. Dulcia of Gévaudan, the

wife of Raymond-Berengar III. of Barcelona, was heiress not only to

her father’s county of Gévaudan, but also, through her mother, to the

southern half of Provence, whose northern half fell to the share of

Raymond of St.-Gilles. Her dower-lands were settled upon her younger

son. He, in his turn, married an heiress, Beatrice of Melgueil, whose

county lay between Gévaudan and the sea; and the dominions of the

house of St.-Gilles were thus completely cut in twain, and their

eastern half surrounded on two sides, by the territories of his son,

the present count of Provence, Gévaudan and Melgueil.[1482] The elder

son of Dulcia, having succeeded his father as Count Raymond-Berengar

IV. of Barcelona, was chosen by the nobles of Aragon to wed their

youthful queen Petronilla, the only child of King Ramirez the Monk. He

had thus all the power of Aragon at his command, although, clinging

with a generous pride to the old title which had come down to him from

his fathers, he refused to share his wife’s crown, declaring that the

count of Barcelona had no equal in his own degree, and that he would

rather be first among counts than last among kings.[1483] A man with

such a spirit, added to such territorial advantages, was an ally to be

eagerly sought after and carefully secured. Henry therefore invited him

to a meeting at Blaye in Gascony, and secured his co-operation against

Toulouse on the understanding that the infant daughter of Raymond

and Petronilla should in due time be married to Henry’s son Richard,

and that the duchy of Aquitaine should then be ceded to the young

couple.[1484]

[1467] Joh. Salisb. Ep. cxlv. (Giles, vol. i. p. 223;

Robertson, _Becket_, vol. v. Ep. cxciv., p. 378).

[1468] Gilb. Foliot, Ep. cxciv. (Giles, vol. i. p. 269;

Robertson, _Becket_, vol. v. Ep. ccxxv., p. 525).

[1469] Joh. Salisb. Ep. cxlv. (Giles, vol. i. pp. 223, 224).

[1470] See above, p. 459, note 2{1465}.

[1471] So says Alex. Swereford. See above, p. 460 note{1466}.

[1472] “De aliis vero terris sibi subjectis inauditam similiter

censûs fecit exactionem.” Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 167.

Cf. above, p. 459, note 2{1465}.

[1473] Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 167. He makes this to

be the proceeds of the scutage in England alone, but see Bishop

Stubbs’s explanation, _Constit. Hist._, vol. i. p. 457, note 4,

and his remarks in the preface to _Gesta Hen. Reg._ (“Benedict

of Peterborough”), vol. ii. pp. xciv–xcvi.

[1474] Rob. Torigni, a. 1159.

[1475] Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), p.

33.

[1476] Gerv. Cant. as above. Rob. Torigni, a. 1159.

[1477] Chron. Mailros, a. 1158.

[1478] “Quidam rex Gualiæ.” Gerv. Cant. as above.

[1479] Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 10 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 125). He

miscalls him _William_ Trencavel.

[1480] Rob. Torigni, a. 1159.

[1481] “Vir magnus et potens, nec infra reges consistens.”

Will. Newb. as above (p. 123).

[1482] On these marriages, etc., see Vic and Vaissète, _Hist.

du Languedoc_, vol. iii.

[1483] Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 10 (Howlett, vol. i. pp.

123–125). Raymond’s speech, and the whole story of Raymond,

Ramirez and Petronilla, as given in this chapter, form a

charming romance, whose main facts are fully borne out by the

more prosaic version of Rob. Torigni, a. 1159.

[1484] Rob. Torigni, a. 1159.

A last attempt to avert the coming struggle was made early in June;

the two kings met near the Norman border, but again without any

result.[1485] Immediately after midsummer, therefore, Henry and his

host set out from Poitiers and marched down to Périgueux. There, in

“the Bishop’s Meadow,” Henry knighted his Scottish cousin, and Malcolm

in his turn bestowed the same honour upon thirty noble youths of his

suite.[1486] The expedition then advanced straight into the enemy’s

country. The first place taken was Cahors; its dependent territory was

speedily overrun;[1487] and while in the south Raymond Trencavel was

winning back the castles of which the other Raymond had despoiled him,

Henry led his main force towards the city of Toulouse itself.[1488]

Count and people saw the net closing round them; they had seen it

drawing near for months past, and one and all--bishop, nobles and

citizens--had been writing passionate appeals to the king of France,

imploring him, if not for the love of his sister, at least for the

honour of his crown, to come and save one of its fairest jewels from

the greedy grasp of the Angevin.[1489] Louis wavered till it was all

but too late; he was evidently, and naturally, most unwilling to

quarrel with the king of England. He began to move southward, but

apparently without any definite aim; and it was not till after another

fruitless conference with Henry in the beginning of July[1490] that

he at last, for very shame, answered his brother-in-law’s appeal by

throwing himself into Toulouse almost alone, as if to encourage its

defenders by his presence, but without giving them any substantial

aid.[1491] Perhaps he foresaw the result. Henry, on the point of

laying siege to the city, paused when he heard that his overlord was

within it. Dread of Louis’s military capacity he could have none;

personal reverence for him he could have just as little. But he

reverenced in a fellow-king the dignity of kingship; he reverenced in

his own overlord the right to that feudal obedience which he exacted

from his own vassals. He took counsel with his barons; they agreed

with him that the siege should be postponed till Louis was out of the

city--a decision which was equivalent to giving it up altogether.[1492]

The soldiers grumbled loudly, and the chancellor loudest of all. Thomas

had now completely “put off the deacon,” and flung himself with all

his might into the pursuit of arms. His knights were the flower of the

host, foremost in every fight, the bravest of the brave; and the life

and soul of all their valour was the chancellor himself.[1493] The

prospect of retreat filled him with dismay. He protested that Louis had

forfeited his claim to Henry’s obedience by breaking his compact with

him and joining his enemies, and he entreated his master to seize the

opportunity of capturing Toulouse, city, count, king and all, before

reinforcements could arrive.[1494] Henry however turned a deaf ear to

his impetuous friend. Accompanied by the king of Scots and all his

host, he retreated towards his own dominions just as a body of French

troops were entering Toulouse.[1495]

[1485] Contin. Becc. a. 1159 (Delisle, _Rob. Torigni_, vol. ii.

p. 172).

[1486] Geoff. Vigeois, l. i. c. 58 (Labbe, _Nova Biblioth._,

vol. ii. p. 310). The Chron. Mailros, a. 1159, says Malcolm was

knighted at Tours on the way back from Toulouse; Geoff. Vigeois

implies that it was on the way out.

[1487] Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.),

p. 34. Rob. Torigni, a. 1159. Cf. Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 10

(Howlett, vol. i. p. 126), who however has got the sequence of

events wrong.

[1488] Will. Newb. as above.

[1489] Letters of Peter archbishop of Narbonne:--Hermengard

viscountess of Narbonne:--“commune consilium urbis Tolosæ et

suburbii”--Epp. xxxiii., xxxiv., ccccxiv., Duchesne, _Hist.

Franc. Scriptt._, vol. iv. pp. 574, 575, 713. The archbishop

curiously describes the threatening invader as “Dux Normanniæ.”

The citizens make a pitiful appeal; the viscountess makes a

spirited one, and wishes the king “Karoli regis magnanimitatem.”

[1490] Contin. Becc. a. 1159 (Delisle, _Rob. Torigni_, vol. ii.

pp. 173, 174).

[1491] Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), p.

33. Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 10 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 125).

[1492] Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), p.

33, Geoff. Vigeois, l. i. c. 58 (Labbe, _Nova Biblioth._, vol.

ii. p. 310), Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 10 (Howlett, vol. i. p.

125), the _Draco Norm._, l. i. c. 12, vv. 437–464 (_ib._ vol.

ii. pp. 608, 609), and R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 303,

attribute the retreat to Henry’s reverence for his overlord;

Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 167, seems to look upon it as

a measure of necessity; but considering that Louis had brought

almost nothing but himself to Raymond’s aid, one does not see

what necessity there could be in the case. The _Draco_ alone

mentions Henry’s consultation with the barons--unless there

is some allusion to it in the words of Will. Fitz-Steph., who

describes Henry as “vanâ superstitione et reverentiâ tentus

consilio aliorum.”

[1493] The English archdeacon’s unclerical doings in this war

were however quite eclipsed by those of the archbishop of

Bordeaux. See a letter from the citizens of Toulouse to King

Louis; Ep. ccccxxv., Duchesne, _Hist. Franc. Scriptt._, vol.

iv. p. 718.

[1494] Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), p.

34.

[1495] _Ibid._

He had, however, conquered the greater part of the county,[1496]

and had no intention of abandoning his conquests; but the task of

protecting them against Raymond and Louis together, without the

support of Henry’s own presence, was a responsibility which all his

great barons declined. Two faithful ministers accepted the duty:

Thomas the chancellor and Henry of Essex the constable.[1497] Thomas

fixed his head-quarters at Cahors;[1498] thence, with the constable’s

aid, he undertook to hold the country by means of his own personal

followers,[1499] backed by Raymond of Barcelona, Trencavel, and William

of Montpellier.[1500] He ruled with a high hand, putting down by

proscription and even with the sword every attempt at a rising against

Henry’s authority storming towns and burning manors without mercy in

his master’s service;[1501] in helm and hauberk he rode forth at the

head of his troops to the capture of three castles which had hitherto

been considered impregnable.[1502] Henry’s “superstition” (as it was

called by a follower of Thomas)[1503] about bearing arms against

his overlord applied only to a personal encounter in circumstances

of special delicacy; he had no scruples in making war upon Louis

indirectly, as he had done more than once before, and was now doing

not only through Thomas but also at the opposite end of France. The

English and Scottish kings had retired from Toulouse to Limoges,

where they arrived about Michaelmas.[1504] Meanwhile Count Theobald

of Blois, now an ally of Henry, was despatched by him “to disquiet

the realm of France”--that is, doubtless, to make a diversion which

should draw off the attention of the French from Toulouse and leave a

clear field to the operations of Thomas. The French king’s brothers,

Henry, bishop of Beauvais, and Robert, count of Dreux, retaliated by

attacking the Norman frontier with fire and sword.[1505] Thomas, having

chased away the enemies across the Garonne and secured the obedience

of the conquered territory, hurried northward to join his sovereign,

whom he apparently followed into Normandy. There he undertook the

defence of the frontier. Besides his seven hundred picked knights,

he maintained at his own cost for the space of forty days twelve

hundred paid horsemen and four thousand foot in his master’s service

against the king of France on the marches between Gisors, Trie and

Courcelles; he not only headed his troops in person, but also met in

single combat a valiant French knight of Trie, Engelram by name; and

the layman went down before the lance of the warlike archdeacon, who

carried off his opponent’s destrier as the trophy of his victory.[1506]

The king himself marched into the Beauvaisis, stormed Gerberoi, and

harried the surrounding country till he gained a valuable assistant

in Count Simon of Montfort, who surrendered to him all his French

possessions, including the castles of Montfort, Rochefort and Epernon.

As these places lay directly in the way from Paris to Etampes and

Orléans, Louis found himself completely cut off from the southern part

of his domain, and was compelled to ask for a truce. It was made in

December, to last till the octave of Pentecost.[1507] Henry’s wife had

now joined him; they kept Christmas together at Falaise,[1508] and

Henry used the interval of tranquillity to make some reforms in the

Norman judicature.[1509] When the truce expired the two kings made

a treaty of peace,[1510] negotiated as usual by the indefatigable

chancellor;[1511] the betrothal of little Henry and Margaret was

confirmed, and the Vexin was settled upon the infant couple. As for the

Aquitanian quarrel, Louis formally restored to Henry all the rights

and holdings of the count of Poitou, except Toulouse itself; Henry and

Raymond making a truce for a year, during which both were to keep their

present possessions, and complete freedom of action was left to their

respective allies.[1512]

[1496] _Ibid._ Rob. Torigni, a. 1159.

[1497] Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), p.

34.

[1498] Rob. Torigni, a. 1159.

[1499] Will. Fitz-Steph. as above.

[1500] Rob. Torigni, a. 1159.

[1501] E. Grim (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. ii.), p. 365. Herb.

Bosh. (_ib._ vol. iii.), pp. 175, 176.

[1502] Will. Fitz-Steph. (_ibid._), p. 34.

[1503] _Ib._ p. 33. See above, p. 465, note 1{1485}.

[1504] Geoff. Vigeois, l. i. c. 58 (Labbe, _Nova Biblioth._,

vol. ii. p. 310).

[1505] Rob. Torigni, a. 1159.

[1506] Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), pp.

34, 35.

[1507] Rob. Torigni, a. 1159.

[1508] Rob. Torigni, a. 1160.

[1509] Contin. Becc. a. 1160 (Delisle, _Rob. Torigni_, vol. ii.

p. 180).

[1510] Rob. Torigni, a. 1160.

[1511] Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 24 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 159).

[1512] The treaty is printed in Lyttelton’s _Hen. II._, vol.

iv. pp. 173, 174. It has no date; we have to get that from Rob.

Torigni--May 1160. The terms of the treaty are summarized by

Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 218, who places it a year too

late. He also introduces a second betrothal, between Richard

and Adela, the second daughter of Louis and Constance. But the

treaty printed by Lyttelton says nothing of this; and if it be

the treaty mentioned by Rob. Torigni the clause is impossible,

for Adela was not born till the autumn of 1160.

This imperfect settlement, as far as Toulouse was concerned, advanced

no further towards completion during the next thirteen years. Henry’s

expedition could hardly be called a success; and whatever advantage he

had gained over Raymond was dearly purchased at the cost of a quarrel

with Louis. There can be little doubt that Henry had fallen into a

trap; Louis had misled him into lighting the torch of war, and then

turned against him in such a way as to cast upon him the blame of

the subsequent conflagration. The elements of strife between the two

kings could hardly have failed to burst sooner or later into a blaze;

the question was whose hand should kindle it. In spite of Henry’s

Angevin wariness, Louis had contrived to shift upon him the fatal

responsibility; and for the rest of his life the fire went smouldering

on, breaking out at intervals in various directions, smothered now and

then for a moment, but never thoroughly quenched; consuming the plans

and hopes of its involuntary originator, while the real incendiary

sheltered himself to the last behind his mask of injured innocence.

For six months all was quiet. In October the two kings held another

meeting; the treaty was ratified, and little Henry, who had lately

come over from England with his mother, was made to do homage to Louis

for the duchy of Normandy.[1513] About the same time the queen of

France died, leaving to her husband another infant daughter.[1514]

Disappointed for the fourth time in his hopes of a son, Louis in

his impatience set decency at defiance; before Constance had been

a fortnight in her grave he married a third wife, Adela of Blois,

daughter of Theobald the Great, and sister of the two young counts who

were betrothed to the king’s own elder daughters.[1515] His subjects,

sharing his anxiety for an heir, easily forgave his unseemly haste

and welcomed the new queen, who in birth, mind and person was all

that could be desired.[1516] It would, however, have been scarcely

possible to find a choice more irritating to Henry of Anjou. On either

side of the sea, the house of Blois seemed to be always in some way

or other crossing his path; in their lives or in their deaths, they

were perpetually giving him trouble. At that very time the death of

Stephen’s last surviving son, Earl William of Warren,[1517] had led

to a quarrel between the king and his dearest friend. William was

childless, and the sole heir to his county of Boulogne was his sister

Mary, abbess of Romsey. This lady was now brought out of her convent

to be married by Papal dispensation to Matthew, second son of the

count of Flanders.[1518] The scheme, devised by King Henry,[1519] was

strongly opposed by the bridegroom’s father,[1520] and also by Henry’s

own chancellor. Thomas, somewhat unexpectedly perhaps, started up as a

vindicator of monastic discipline, remonstrated vehemently against the

marriage of a nun, and used all his influence at Rome to hinder the

dispensation; he gained, however, nothing save the enmity of Matthew,

and a foretaste of that kingly wrath[1521] which was to burst upon him

with all its fury three years later. Even without allowing for Henry’s

probable frame of mind in consequence of this affair, the French king’s

triple alliance with the hereditary rivals of the Angevin house would

naturally appear to him in the light of a provocation and a menace.

The chancellor seems to have made his peace by suggesting an answer to

it.

[1513] Rob. Torigni, a. 1160.

[1514] _Ibid._ R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 303. _Hist.

Ludov._ (Duchesne, _Hist. Franc. Scriptt._, vol. iv.), p.

415. Constance died on October 4; Lamb. Waterloo, _Rer. Gall.

Scriptt._, vol. xiii. p. 517.

[1515] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 303. Cf. Gerv. Cant.

(Stubbs), vol. i. p. 167, and Rob. Torigni, a. 1160. Adela was

crowned at Paris with her husband on S. Brice’s day (November

13); _Hist. Ludov._ (Duchesne, _Hist. Franc. Scriptt._, vol.

iv.), p. 416.

[1516] _Hist. Ludov._ as above.

[1517] He died in October 1159, on the way home from Toulouse;

Rob. Torigni, _ad ann._

[1518] Rob. Torigni, a. 1160. Lamb. Waterloo (_Rer. Gall.

Scriptt._, vol. xiii.), p. 517. According to Matthew Paris,

_Hist. Angl._ (Madden), vol. i. p. 314, the marriage took place

in 1161.

[1519] Herb. Bosh. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), p. 328.

[1520] Lamb. Waterloo as above.

[1521] Herb. Bosh. as above. Mat. Paris, _Hist. Angl._

(Madden), vol. i. pp. 314, 315.

One of Henry’s great desires was to recover the Vexin, which at his

father’s suggestion he had ceded to Louis in 1151 as the price of the

investiture of Normandy. By the last treaty between the two kings it

had been settled that this territory should form the dowry of little

Margaret; her father was to retain possession of it, and to place

its chief fortresses in the custody of the Knights Templars, for the

next three years, until she should be wedded to young Henry with the

consent of Holy Church; whenever that should take place, Henry’s

father was to receive back the Vexin. In other words, the dowry was

not to be paid till the bride was married; and there was evidently a

tacit understanding, at any rate on the French side, that this was

not to be for three years at least.[1522] Later in the summer two

cardinal-legates visited France and Normandy on business connected with

a recent Papal election.[1523] Henry, apparently at the instigation

of Thomas,[1524] persuaded them to solemnize the marriage of the two

children on November 2 at Neubourg.[1525] The written conditions of

the treaty were fulfilled to the letter--the babes were wedded with

the consent of Holy Church, represented by the Pope’s own legates;

and the castles of the Vexin were at once made over to Henry by the

Templars,[1526] three of whom were present at the wedding.[1527] Louis

found himself thoroughly outwitted. His first step was to banish the

three Templars, who were cordially received by Henry;[1528] his next

was to concert with the brothers of his new queen a plan of retaliation

in Anjou. The house of Blois naturally resented a curtailment of the

possessions of the crown which they now hoped one day to see worn by

a prince of their own blood. Louis and Theobald accordingly set to

work to fortify Chaumont, a castle which Gelduin of Saumur had long

ago planted on the bank of the Loire as a special thorn in the side

of the Angevin counts. Henry flew to the spot, put king and count

to flight, besieged and took the castle of Chaumont together with

thirty-five picked knights and eighty men-at-arms whom Theobald had

sent to reinforce its garrison; he then fortified Fréteval and Amboise,

and, secure from all further molestation, went to keep Christmas with

Eleanor in his native city of Le Mans.[1529]

[1522] Will. Newb., l. ii. c. 24 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 159),

distinctly states that the children were not to be married till

they were of a fit age; and such was no doubt the intention of

Louis; but it was by no means expressed in the treaty:--“Totum

remanens Wilcassini” [_i.e._ all except three of its fiefs

which were specially reserved to Henry] “regi Francie; hoc

modo, quod ipse illud remanens dedit et concessit maritagium

cum filiâ suâ filio regis Anglie habendum. Et eum unde

seisiendum ab Assumptione B. Marie proximâ post pacem factam in

tres annos, et si infra hunc terminum filia regis Francie filio

regis Anglie desponsata fuerit, assensu et consensu Sancte

Ecclesie, tunc erit rex Anglie seysitus de toto Wilcassino,

et de castellis Wilcassini, ad opus filii sui.” Treaty in

Lyttelton, _Hen. II._, vol. iv. p. 173. The question turned on

the construing of “_tunc_.” Louis intended it to mean “then,

when the three years are expired, if the children shall be

wedded”; Henry and his friends the Templars made it mean “then,

when the children are wedded, whether the three years are

expired or not.”

[1523] Gilb. Foliot, Ep. cxlviii. (Giles, vol. i. p. 197). Of

their business we shall see more later.

[1524] This must surely be the meaning of Herb. Bosh.

(Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), p. 175: “Quam industrie

munitiones quinque munitissimas, in Franciæ et Normanniæ sitas

confinio, domino suo regi, ad cujus tamen jus ab antiquo

spectare dignoscebantur, a rege Francorum per matrimonium, sine

ferro, sine gladio, absque lanceâ, absque pugnâ, in omni regum

dilectione et pace revocaverit, Gizortium scilicet, castrum

munitissimum, et alia quatuor.” Cf. _Thomas Saga_ (Magnusson),

vol. i. p. 57, which seems however to refer rather to the

drawing-up of the treaty.

[1525] R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 304. Cf. Gerv. Cant.

(Stubbs), vol. i. p. 168, Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 218,

and Rob. Torigni, a. 1160.

[1526] Rog. Howden and Rob. Torigni, as above. Will. Newb., l.

ii. c. 24 (Howlett, vol. i. p. 159).

[1527] Roger of Pirou, Tostig of S. Omer and Richard of

Hastings; Rog. Howden as above.

[1528] _Ibid._

[1529] Rob. Torigni, a. 1160.

A year of peace followed: Henry spent the greater part of it in

Normandy, garrisoning the castles of the duchy, strengthening its

newly-recovered border-fortresses, providing for the restoration of the

old royal strongholds and the erection of new ones in all parts of his

dominions, and superintending the repair of his palace at Rouen, the

making of a park at Quévilly, and the foundation of an hospital for

lepers at Caen.[1530] The chancellor was still at his side, and had

lately, as a crowning mark of his confidence, been intrusted with the

entire charge of his eldest son. Thomas received the child into his own

household, to educate him with the other boys of noble birth who came

to learn courtly manners and knightly prowess in that excellent school;

he playfully called him his adoptive son, and treated him as such in

every respect.[1531] Little Henry was now in his seventh year, and his

father was already anxious to secure his succession to the throne. The

conditional homage which he had received as an infant was, as Henry

knew by personal experience, a very insufficient security. Indeed, the

results of every attempt to regulate the descent of the crown since

the Norman conquest tended to prove that the succession of the heir

could be really secured by nothing short of his actual recognition and

coronation as king during his father’s life-time. This was now becoming

an established practice in France and Germany. In England, where the

older constitutional theory of national election to the throne had

never died out, such a step had never been attempted but once; and that

attempt, made by Stephen in behalf of his son Eustace, had ended in

signal failure. Discouraging as the precedent was, however, Henry had

made up his mind to follow it; and in the spring of 1162 he sent his

boy over sea and called upon the barons of England to do him homage and

fealty, as a preliminary to his coronation as king.[1532]

[1530] _Ibid._ a. 1161.

[1531] Will. Fitz-Steph. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iii.), p.

22. Herb. Bosh. (_ibid._), pp. 176, 177.

[1532] E. Grim (_ib._ vol. ii.), p. 366. Anon. I. (_ib._ vol.

iv.), p. 13.

A matter so important and so delicate could be intrusted to no one but

the chancellor. He managed it, like everything else that he took in

hand, with a calm facility which astonished every one. He brought the

child to England, presented him to the bishops and barons of the realm

in a great council summoned for the purpose,[1533] knelt at his feet

and swore to be his faithful subject in all things, reserving only the

fealty due to the elder king so long as he lived and reigned;[1534] the

whole assembly followed his example, and thus a measure which it was

believed that Henry’s personal presence would hardly have availed to

carry through without disturbance was accomplished at once and without

a word of protest,[1535] save from the little king himself, who with

childish imperiousness, it is said, refused to admit any reservation

in the oath of his adoptive father.[1536] Henry probably intended that

the boy’s recognition as heir to the crown should be speedily followed

by his coronation.[1537] This, however, was a rite which could only be

performed by the primate of all England; and the chair of S. Augustine

was vacant. Once again it was to Thomas that Henry looked for aid;

but this time he looked in vain. Thomas had done his last act in the

service of his royal friend. The year which had passed away since

Archbishop Theobald’s death had been, on both sides of the sea, a year

of almost ominous tranquillity. It was in truth the forerunner of a

storm which was to shatter Henry’s peace and to cost Thomas his life.

[1533] Anon. I. as above. R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 306.

[1534] R. Diceto as above.

[1535] Anon. I. (Robertson, _Becket_, vol. iv.), p. 13.

[1536] Mat. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ (Madden), vol. i. p. 316.

[1537] Such an intention is distinctly stated by E. Grim

(Robertson, _Becket_, vol. ii.), p. 366: ... “filio suo, jam

tunc coronando in regem.”