in that prolonged and wearisome strife (Epist. Cantuar. pp. 84, 317, 322). In 1188 he took the cross, and was at the council of Le Mans, where the Saladin tithe was levied (Ben. Abb. ii. 30). This year he was again sent to Philip to demand reparation for the outrages committed by him in Normandy, and he was one of those to whose judgment as regarded the peace, under the direction of John of Anagni, the legate, the two kings promised to submit. In 1189, at the conference of La Ferté Bernard between Henry II, Philip, and Richard, he was present on the part of Henry II. On the death of Henry II, he absolved Richard at Seez for his conduct to his father, and invested him with the sword of the duchy of Normandy at Rouen; then preceding the new king to England, he took part in the coronation at Westminster. In the same year we find him attesting the king's grant of Sadberge to the see of Durham; at the council of Pipewell; pronouncing the decision of the arbitrators in the great question between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the monks, for which they called him a traitor (Gervase Cant. i. 474–9); and witnessing the charter of release given by Richard to the king of Scots. In December 1189 he was sent by Richard to the legate to stay Geoffrey's election to York, and soon afterwards accompanied the king to Normandy, and held a council at Rouen in February 1190. After this, in pursuance of his crusading vow, he joined Richard at Pisa. At Messina he acted with those who endeavoured to make peace between the people of Messina and the crusaders (R. Devizes, p. 22), and by his advice the spoils of Messina were restored to the citizens (Itin. Regis Ricardi, p. 170). He took part in the arrangements for agreement between Richard and Philip, and acted as one of the treasurers for the crusading money. He was also one of Richard's sureties for the peace with Tancred, and his name appears as witnessing Richard's charter of wreck. Hoveden also mentions his opposition to the wild views respecting Antichrist of Abbat Joachim.
His crusade came to an end here, for the troubles in England through the disloyalty of John and the unpopularity of Bishop Longchamp, the chancellor, came to a head, and Richard sent the archbishop of Rouen back to England to arbitrate, giving him full, though secret, powers. Richard of Devizes (p. 27) mocks at his readiness to return. Though employing him for his own purposes, Richard seized all the money he had brought with him for his expenses on the crusade. He returned to England in company with Queen Eleanor (Devizes, p. 28). In England he found all things in confusion, the chancellor the actual ruler of the country, unpopular with all, as he had managed to offend all; John aiming at supreme power, and others, such as Geoffrey of York and the justiciars, taking an independent line of their own. Besides the general pacification of the country, he was also to effect an election to the see of Canterbury, which had been vacant since Baldwin's death at Acre. The archbishop was named justiciar, but had fuller powers than any of the others (Girald. iv. 396). He had a very difficult part to play. ‘Richard's conduct,’ says Bishop Stubbs (Pref. to Hoveden, iii. p. lx), ‘was puzzling to all parties; at the very moment he was entrusting the widest powers to the archbishop, he was writing to urge John and others to act in unison with the chancellor.’ Devizes (pp. 29, 31) accuses the archbishop of playing a double part, and a letter from the convent of Canterbury, written after the election to the see, does the same (Epist. Cant. p. 360); but it would have been difficult for him to escape such an accusation, as he was of necessity opposed to John, while at the same time he had to act against the chancellor. The latter at first received him with honour (Devizes, p. 28). One of his first acts was to take part in the arrangement between John and the chancellor, and to receive the surrender from John of the castles of Nottingham and Tickhill. On Geoffrey's complaint of the treatment he had received from the chancellor on landing at Dover, the archbishop, with John and others, summoned the chancellor to Reading. He did not come; they all hastened to London, the chancellor doing the same, and their followers actually skirmishing by the way. They met in St. Paul's, and here the archbishop produced his commission. The chancellor was deposed, and the archbishop made chief justiciar in his place, promising to do nothing without the consent of those associated with him and the advice of the barons of the exchequer. He then summoned the clergy to the election to Canterbury. Probably both himself and the chancellor had had their eyes on the see, and each regarded the other as a rival. There is a letter of John to the convent of Canterbury mentioning a report that they intended to elect the chancellor, warning them that they were bound to consult the Archbishop of Rouen, who was sent for this purpose by the king, and one from himself to the same effect (Epist. Cant. pp. 346, 347); the Bishop of Ely, on the other hand, forbade him to go to Canterbury till they had met (Diceto, ii. 92). At the election he displayed the royal letter, and the Bishop of Bath was elected. Gervase says that by this he
