bled in the meanwhile at Ely, Stephen sent against them the Earls of Pembroke and Essex, who dispersed them; but after this the king restored him to possession of his see, and his monks and people received him with great rejoicing after his two years' absence. For a time he applied himself quietly to the affairs of his see, but having condemned a clerk, named Vitalis, for simony, the latter appealed against him to the London council of March 1143, where the legate (Bishop Henry of Winchester) favoured him, and also allowed Nigel to be accused of raising civil war, and of squandering the estates of his see on knights. Nigel, cited to appear before the pope, resolved to consult the empress first. At Wareham, on his way to her in Wiltshire, he was surprised and plundered by the king's men, but succeeded in reaching her, and after many narrow escapes returned in safety to Ely. He now brought pressure to bear on the monks, desiring to use the treasures of his church to influence the court of Rome. Succeeding at length in this, with great difficulty, he made his way to Rome (whither the legate had preceded him), where, supported by Archbishop Theobald and his own treasures, he cleared himself before Pope Lucius II, who wrote several letters (24 May 1144), acquitting him of all offences, and confirming to him all the possessions of his see (Cotton MS. Tib. A. vi. fol. 117).
Nigel's triumph, however, was shortlived. During his absence the Earl of Essex (Geoffrey de Mandeville) had seized upon Ely, and made it the centre of his revolt against the king. The bishop, hearing of this at Rome, had induced Lucius to protest, and, hearing on his return of the ruin brought upon the isle, complained further to the pope, who again wrote in his favour. Such of his possessions as had escaped Geoffrey had been forfeited by Stephen, who, mindful of Nigel's previous treason, accused him of connivance in the revolt. Geoffrey's death had now strengthened Stephen's hands, and the bishop was unable for some time to make his peace. At length a meeting was arranged at Ipswich, but it was only on paying 200l., and giving his beloved son Richard Fitzneale (afterwards bishop-treasurer) as hostage for his good behaviour, that Stephen forgave and restored him (Cotton MS. Titus A. i. fol. 34 b). To raise the above sum he further despoiled his church; and the subsequent raids upon its treasure, with which he is charged by the monks, may have been due to eagerness to purchase favour at court, the cause of the empress seeming hopeless. There are clear traces of his regaining an official position before the close of the reign. He appears as a president of the Norfolk shiremoot (Blomefield, Norfolk, iii. 28), and is addressed in royal documents (Mon. Angl. iv. 120, 216). He was also a witness to the final treaty between Stephen and Duke Henry on 6 Nov. 1153 (Rymer); he was present at the consecration of Archbishop Roger on 10 Oct. 1154 (Anglia Sacra, i. 72), and he attended the coronation of Henry on 19 Dec. 1154.
With Henry's accession begins the most important period of his life. The sole survivor of his great ministerial family and depository of its traditions, he was at once called upon by the young king to restore his grandfather's official system. He also purchased the office of treasurer for his son Richard, to whose ‘Dialogus de Scaccario’ we are indebted for information on his official work. The king, we learn from the preface, sent to consult Nigel on the exchequer, his knowledge of which was unrivalled (i. 8), and he was at once employed to restore it to its condition before the civil war. He is represented as having been very zealous for the privileges of its officers (i. 11). From the earliest pipe rolls of Henry II his official employment is manifest, but Eyton's belief that he was chancellor at Henry's accession (p. 2) was based on an error exposed by Foss. Meanwhile the monks had gained the ear of the new pope, Adrian IV [q. v.], who (22 Feb. 1156) threatened Nigel with suspension, unless within three months he restored to his church all that had been taken from it since his consecration (Jaffé, 10149; Cotton MS. Titus A. i. fol. 48). Nigel pleaded the absence of the king from England as an obstacle to restitution, and a further bull (22 March 1157) granted him an extension of time (Jaffé, 10265; Cotton MS. Titus A. i. fol. 48 b). The king, Theobald, other bishops, and John of Salisbury (Epist. pp. 14, 30, 31) interceded warmly on his behalf, but it was not till 1159 (16 Jan.) that Adrian at length relaxed his suspension, on condition of his swearing, in the presence of Theobald, to make complete restitution (Jaffé, 10535; Cotton MS. Titus A. 1, folios 49, 50). The monks implied that he never did so, and could not forgive him for despoiling their church. His crowning offence in their eyes was that he did this in the interest of his son Richard, for whom they alleged he bought the office of treasurer for 400l. when Henry II was in need of money for his Toulouse campaign. But the pipe rolls do not record the transaction. It may be that John of Salisbury's indignant rebuke to him (Epist. 56) is connected with this scandal, for he charges Nigel with evading the canons of the church. Another scandal was caused by his making a married
