[934] Pipe Roll 2 Hen. II., pp. 30, 31; 4 Hen. II., pp. 121, 122 (Hunter); 5 Hen. II., p. 20; 6 Hen. II., p. 57; 7 Hen. II., p. 48; 8 Hen. II., p. 21 (Pipe Roll Soc.) [935] See the Becket correspondence, _passim_. [936] Except, of course, the immediate personal friends of the archbishop, to whom he seems to have been even more obnoxious than the “_archidiabolus_” Geoffrey Ridel--that is, supposing Mr. Eyton to be right in his theory that Richard of Ilchester is the person designated in the private letters of Thomas and his friends as “Luscus.” Canon Robertson, however, took “Luscus” to mean Richard de Lucy; but the other interpretation seems on the whole more probable. [937] Madox, _Formulare Anglic._, p. xix (a. 1165). Eyton, _Itin. Hen. II._, p. 130 (a. 1168, 1169). He was one of two custodians of the temporalities of the see of Lincoln during the vacancy caused by Bishop Robert’s death in 1167; _ib._ p. 99, note 5, from Pipe Roll 12 Hen. II. [938] See Rog. Howden (Stubbs), vol. ii. p. 100, and the editor’s note 3. [939] _Dialog. de Scacc._, Stubbs, _Select Charters_, p. 178; cf. _ib._ p. 184. [940] _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 124. “Curiâ sibi totius Normanniæ deputatâ” says R. Diceto (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 415. [941] R. Diceto as above. [942] Edited by Mr. Stapleton for the Society of Antiquaries--_Magni Rotuli Scaccarii Normanniæ_, vol. i. [943] _Dial. de Scacc._ as above, p. 176. Stubbs, _Constit. Hist._, vol. i. p. 438.