as much sensation as dissatisfaction, when, immediately after Henry's accession, Guido archbishop of Vienne, a son of William Tête-hardie, duke of Burgundy, and a relative of the dukes of Normandy, landed and announced that the legatine authority over this district had been conferred on him. Notwithstanding the dissensions that had already arisen between the king and Anselm, neither of them were disposed to seek an ally in the person of the legate, who, unacknowledged, recrossed the Channel. Anselm, personally offended, applied to the pope, who deemed it advisable for the moment to confirm the primate in all his rights, and also to promise, that during his life no legate should be placed over him. There was, in fact, no legate again sent to England by the papal court for many years after the death of Anselm, when his nephew, named like himself, who had numerous friends in England, and possessed accurate knowledge of the state of things there, and who a short time before had brought over the pall to archbishop Ralf, appearing particularly well adapted to make the attempt, was employed for the purpose accordingly. Nevertheless, although loaded with costly presents, his mission was regarded with such universal displeasure, that both laity and clergy prevailed on the primate Ralf to obtain permission of the king to proceed to Rome, for the purpose of explaining and establishing the rights of the English Church3. These attempts of the papal court were the more to be looked on with distrust, as a legate had already entered France, and excommunicated the bishops of Normandy, for their non-appearance at a council appointed by him; whereupon the king sent to Rome his old agent William of Warlewast, now bishop of Exeter, who was already well known to the pope. Ralf, who had been detained by illness, arrived in Italy at an unfortunate moment (1117),

1 William was a son of duke Rainald and Adeliza, a daughter of Richard II. of Normandy. Ord. Vital. p. 848. 2 Eadmer, p. 112.

3 Ib. p. 118.

+ Ib.

p.

116.

when the emperor, Henry V, was there with his army; yet obtained from Paschal, both for himself and the king, new bulls respecting the preservation of the ancient rights of the Church of Canterbury, in terms as plain as the provident papal chancery is in the habit of employing on such occasions. Under the immediate successor of Paschal, then recently deceased, Gelasius, who did not long enjoy an uncontested sway, the ecclesiastical affairs of England made no progress; yet, when archbishop Guido, who as legate to England had formerly been disavowed and dismissed, ascended the papal chair under the name of Calixtus II (Jan. 1119), they were again vehemently agitated. Calixtus, both with address and firmness, followed up the plan of depriving the primate of England of his too extensive privileges, which were obstructive to the papal authority. To this end he supported Thurstan, the archbishop of York, in his endeavours to withdraw himself from obedience to Canterbury, and scrupled not to consecrate Thurstan archbishop, notwithstanding his breach of promise to the king, not to do anything prejudicial to the dignity of the see of Canterbury, (Nov.); and, in an interview which took place at Gisors, even to make an abortive attempt on the more upright nature of the latter to induce him also to a breach of faith. "But who would," said Henry, "ever place faith in the word of man, if I, the king, should allow myself to be released from my promise by the pope1!" Although Calixtus, on this occasion, assured the king that he would never permit a legate to pass to England, excepting at the king's own request, he, nevertheless, a few years after, conferred the legatine authority over France, England, Ireland, and the Orkneys, on the cardinal Peter, the grandson of Leo, a rich Jew, and Roman proselyte,

1 Eadmer, pp. 124, 125, 126. W. Malm. de Pont. lib. iv.

2 Ibid. p. 137. Of this pope, Gibbon (c. lxix.) says: "In the time of Leo IX., a wealthy and learned Jew was converted to Christianity; and honoured at his baptism with the name of his godfather, the reigning

known afterwards as the antipope Anaclet II., as was his fellow legate, Gregory of St. Angelo, as pope, under the name of Innocent II. Peter found the same opposition as his predecessors, but consoled himself with an honourable reception and liberal presents. Calixtus, nevertheless, appointed a new legate in the person of the cardinal of Crema, who, on the death of Calixtus, which happened shortly after, was confirmed by his successor, Honorius II. The dissolution of the marriage, so distasteful to Henry, of Robert's son William, with Sibylla of Anjou', effected through this legate, could not fail to secure him a friendly reception at the English court, though the yet unabated dissension between the archbishops must, in a yet greater degree, tend to nourish the hope of realizing the schemes of the papal court, which for his own interest were supported by Thurstan. He required a council, under the presidency of the legate, to be held at Roxburgh, of those Scottish bishops who were partially subjected to his diocese; and the archbishop of Canterbury, at a similar synod held in London (1126), did not deem it advisable to refuse his sanction. Among its decrees2, the old prohibitions of simony and the pretensions by the

pope. The zeal and courage of Peter, the son of Leo, were signalised in the cause of Gregory VII., who intrusted his faithful adherent with the government of Adrian's mole, the tower of Crescentius, or, as it is now called, the castle of St. Angelo. Both the father and the son were the parents of a numerous progeny; their riches, the fruits of usury, were shared with the noblest families of the city; and so extensive was their alliance, that the grandson of the proselyte was exalted by the weight of his kindred to the throne of St. Peter."

"The origin and adventures of this Jewish family are noticed by Pagi (Critica, tom. iv. p. 435. A. D. 1124. No. 3, 4), who draws his information from the Chronographus Maurigniacensis, and Arnulphus Sagiensis de Schismate (in Muratori, Script. Ital. tom. iii. p. i. p. 423-432.). The fact must, in some degree, be true." See also "Recueil des Historiens," t. xii. passim.—T.

Epist. Calixti, a. 1124, Aug. 26th. Simeon Dunelm. col. 251. 2 Wilkins, Concil. i. p. 408.

sons of priests to their fathers' churches were, for the most part, repeated; the plurality of benefices forbidden; the prohibition of marriage extended to kinship in the seventh degree. But this mission of the cardinal rendered him an object of dislike in England', and we must in justice hesitate to believe all that the tongue of calumny, envenomed by the strict inculcation of celibacy, relates of the profligate conduct of the legate2.

Shortly afterwards Honorius conferred on the archbishop of Canterbury, William, the legatine authority in England and Scotland3, which was, at a later period, (1132) confirmed by Innocent II., the principal ground for which step may probably be found in Henry's firm position on the throne during the latter years of his reign. In fact, the Church had in Henry, if not a warm friend, yet a well-disposed ally, as long as it made no attack on the inherited rights, which to his electors and defenders he had sworn to maintain. On the death of a prelate, he sometimes applied to his own use the demesnes of the see for some years; yet the zealous adherent of his Church, Eadmer, who had scorned to accept the bishopric of St. Andrew's, through his abhorrence of royal investiture, bears testimony, that neither the government of

Gervasii Acta Pontif. Cantuar. col. 1663.

2 Hen. Hunt. [ Cum igitur in concilio severissime de uxoribus sacerdotum tractasset, dicens summum scelus esse a latere meretricis ad corpus Christi conficiendum surgere: cum eadem die corpus Christi confecisset, cum meretrice post vesperam interceptus est. Res apertissima negari non potuit, celari non decuit. Summus honor ubique habitus in summum dedecus versus est. Repedavit igitur in sua, Dei judicio confusus et inglorius." R. Hoveden, Matt. Westmon. and others, repeat the story.-T.] 3 See the bull, 25 Jan. in Wharton, Anglia Sac. i. p. 792. 4 W. Malm. Hist. Nov. p. 699.

5 Eadmer, p. 138. [The vacant sees of which Henry appropriated the revenues to his own use, were: Canterbury, Durham, and Hereford, for five, and Norwich and Ely for three years. From William Giffard, his chancellor, whom he had promoted to the see of Winchester, he extorted eight hundred marks; from Roger, three thousand marks, before he would nominate him to Lichfield.

In a

Y

the Church nor the administration of other Church property had thereby suffered, but that both had been in the hands of respectable ecclesiastics, and indirectly intimates, that the churches during that interval might have been enlarged by the monks'. Even the ecclesiastical chroniclers hardly complain of these vacancies, and we should, perhaps, do well to consider, whether those prelates might not sometimes have been indebted to the king for undischarged feudal obligations, as well as the reasons and pretexts which, through the schisms in the papacy, the contests between the English archbishops, and their as well as the king's frequent absence from England, at a time when modern financial expedients were unknown, might but too easily and temptingly present themselves.

The circumstance most prejudicial to the internal happiness, although perhaps not to the external glory, of Henry's government, was his oft-repeated and protracted residence in France.

In a council held at Westminster by archbishop Anselm, in 1102, it was enacted, that no archdeacon, priest, or deacon, should take a wife, or, if taken, retain her; but a subdeacon, who was not a canon, if he married after having made profession of chastity, should be bound by the same rule. During Anselm's exile, this rule was violated by many, who resumed their wives, thereby affording the king a pretext for extorting money, and who accordingly ordered his ministers to implead the offenders, and to receive money as an atonement for the crime; but as a great number were proved to be innocent, the sum so obtained fell far beneath expectation, whereupon a certain sum was exacted from every parish priest, whether guilty or not. Hence arose much trouble, some being unable, others unwilling to pay so unjust a demand. The consequence was, that they were incarcerated and tortured. Henry being at that time in London was met, on his way to the palace, by about two hundred priests barefooted in their albs and stoles, who, casting themselves at his feet, with one voice implored his mercy; but he was deaf to their prayers, and ordered them to be driven from his sight. They then betook themselves to the queen, praying for her intercession. She, it is said, was moved to tears, but withheld by fear from intervening in their favour. Eadmer, pp. 67, 83, 84.—T.]

1 Eadmer, p. 109. Simeon Dunelm. col. 62. The abbot of St. Denys calls him "ecclesiarum liberalis ditator et eleemosynarum dapsilis dispensator." Suger, lib. i. 44.