Of these events, the cession of Normandy by Geoffrey to his son Henry belongs, as Mr. Howlett has pointed out, not to 1148, but to 1150 or 1151.[753] This, however, scarcely affects Miss Norgate's sequence of events. It is when we turn to Foliot's letter that our suspicions begin to be aroused. Although Dr. Giles has placed it at the end of those letters which belong to the period of his rule as abbot (1139-1148), we must be struck by the fact that if (as Miss Norgate holds) it was written just before his consecration as Bishop of Hereford, the style would have been "elect of Hereford," or, at least, "Vicar of the Diocese (_ut supra_)," instead of "Abbot of Gloucester" only. Moreover, as Henry was _ex hypothesi_ now Duke of Normandy, the "trial" would have been, surely, of his own claims, not of those of his mother, who had virtually retired in his favour. Lastly, we must see that the date assigned by her to this "trial" at Rome (1148) is a mere hypothesis unsupported by any direct evidence. But, indeed, we have only to read the letter and the _Historia Pontificalis_ to see that they must have been perused with almost incredible carelessness. For Gilbert Foliot distinctly mentions (_a_) that he is writing in the time of Pope Celestine,[754] (_b_) that the "trial" took place under Pope Innocent.[755] Now, Celestine died in March, 1144, and his predecessor Innocent had died in September, 1143. The letter, therefore, must have been written within these six months, and the "trial" at Rome must have taken place before September 24, 1143. This being clear, we naturally ask:—How came Innocent thus to hear the case argued, when he had admittedly "confirmed" Stephen at the very beginning of his reign? Having decided the question at the outset, how could he ignore that decision, and begin, as it were, _de novo_? Moreover, Stephen's champion is described by the _Historia_ writer as Arnulf, Archdeacon of Séez, afterwards Bishop of Lisieux. Now, Miss Norgate, with her usual care, fixes the date of his elevation to the see as 1141.[756] A council, therefore, which he attended as archdeacon must, on her own showing, be not later than this.[757] Lastly, now that we know the council to be previous to 1141, do not the words of the writer—"Magno illi conventui cum domino et patre nostro domino abbate Cluniacensi interfui et ego Cluniacensium minimus"—suggest that it was, further, previous to his becoming Abbot of Gloucester in 1139? Turning again to the passage in the _Historia Pontificalis_ (41), we find that, in the light of the above evidence, its meaning is beyond dispute. So, indeed, it should be of itself, but for a most incomprehensible blunder by which two passages of the _narrative_ are printed in Pertz as part of the arguments advanced in the debate. The fact is that the writer of the _Historia_, when he comes to the proposal to crown Eustace, is anxious to show us how the matter stood by tracing the attitude of the Papacy to