[14] “Lite mota inter cives et hospites, Dux irritatus est; tunc muros castri, qui non multo tempore fuerunt constructi, funditus evertit, pontemque disrupit.... Procurationem noluit Albertus Abbas in urbem facere Duci, dicens non debere extra septa reddere castri.” Geoff. Vigeois, 308. Limoges in those days, and long after, was a sort of double town of which one part, comprising the cathedral church and its precincts and seemingly called the “city,” belonged to the bishop, and the other part to the abbot of S. Martial’s, under homage to whom it was governed by the viscount. Each part had its own enclosure. There was no castle in the ordinary sense of that word; but the abbot’s part, which was the more populous and important part of the town, seems to have taken the title of _castrum_. The case was somewhat like that of the city of Tours and the _Castrum S. Martini_, or Châteauneuf. [15] Geoff. Vigeois, 308-10. [16] R. Torigni, a. 1159. [17] Treaty in Lyttelton, _Henry II_, iv. 174. [18] “Ad corredium Ricardi filii Regis £10 6_s._ 8_d._ per breve Regis,” Pipe Roll 9 Hen. II (1162-3) 71. Cf. an entry, _ib._, 72; “in porcis et ovis et minutis rebus contra festum filii Regis 100_s._” Henry was in London that year in the first week of March (Eyton, _Itin._ Hen. II, 59), and again on October 1 (_Mater. for Hist. Becket_, iv. 201). It is possible that the royal family may have been there also in September, and that the “festum filii Regis” may have been Richard’s birthday; but it is perhaps more likely to have been that of young Henry, February 28. [19] R. Torigni, a. 1165. [20] Gerv. Cant., i. 205. [21] _Mater. for Hist. Becket_, Ep. ccliii., vi. 74. [22] R. Torigni, a. 1167. Cf. _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, Ep. cclxxvii., vi. 131. [23] R. Torigni, _l.c._ Cf. _Chronn. S. Albini_ and _S. Sergii_, a. 1166. [24] R. Torigni, _l.c._ [25] Geoff. Vigeois, 318; R. Torigni, a. 1168; _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vi. 456. [26] _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, _l.c._ [27] “Robertus de Silli,” _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vi. 456; “Robertus de Selit,” Geoff. Vigeois, 318; “Robertus et frater ejus de Silleio,” R. Torigni, a. 1167. The name appears as “de Silliaco” in _Mat. for Hist. Becket_, vii. 165, 178, 247, 606, 610, 616. It cannot be Sillé in Maine as I suggested in _Angevin Kings_, ii. 137; it can hardly be anything else than Seilhac.