did. When they were there gathered, the king bade them that they should

choose them an archbishop of Canterbury, whomsoever they would. Then spake the bishops among themselves and said that never more would they have a monkish man to be archbishop over them; and they all went together to the king and prayed that they might choose a man of the clergy, whomsoever they would, for archbishop; and the king granted the same to them. This was all afore done through the bishop of Salisbury and through the bishop of Lincoln before he was dead; for that they loved never the rule of a monk, but were ever against monks and their rule. And the prior and the monks of Canterbury and all the other monkish men that were there withstood it full two days, but it availed nothing, for the bishop of Salisbury was strong and ruled all England, and was against it all that he might and could be. Then chose they a clerk, William of Corbeil by name; he was canon of a monastery called Chich (St. Osyth). And they brought him before the king, and the king gave him the archbishopric, and all the bishops accepted him, but the monks and earls and almost all the thegns that were there withstood him. At the same time the envoys of the count (of Anjou) departed from the king unsatisfied and cared nought for his favour. At the same time there came a legate from Rome by name Henry; he was abbot of the monastery of St. Jean d’Angely, and he came for the Romescot. And he said to the king that it was against right that a clerk should be set over monks, and therefore had the monks before chosen an archbishop in their chapter according to right. But the king would not undo it for love of the bishop of Salisbury. Then soon thereafter the archbishop went to Canterbury, and was there received, though it was against their will, and was there forthwith consecrated as bishop by the bishop of London and the bishop Ernulf of Rochester and the bishop William Giffard of Winchester and the bishop Bernard of Wales and the bishop Roger of Salisbury. Then soon after in Lent the archbishop went to Rome for his pall, and with him went the bishop Bernard of Wales, and Sigfrid abbot of Glastonbury, and Anselm abbot of St. Edmunds, and John archdeacon of Canterbury and Giffard, who was the king’s household chaplain. At the same time the archbishop Thurstan of York went to Rome at the Pope’s command, and came thither three days before the archbishop of Canterbury came, and was there received with great worship. Then came the archbishop of Canterbury and was there full seven nights before he could come to speech with the Pope. That was because it had been given to the Pope to understand that he had received the archbishopric against the will of the monks of the monastery, and against right. But that overcame Rome which overcomes all the world, that is, gold and silver. And the Pope was appeased and gave him his pall; and the archbishop swore obedience to him in all things that the Pope enjoined upon him, on the altar of St. Peter and St. Paul; and the Pope sent him home then with his blessing.

THE DEATH AND CHARACTER OF HENRY I.

=Source.=--Henry of Huntingdon, _Historia Anglorum_, ed. Arnold, p. 253. (Rolls Series.)

In the thirty-fifth year King Henry stayed continuously in Normandy, and though destined never to return, he often purposed to return to England; but his daughter detained him through constant quarrels arising from many causes by her intrigues between the king and the count of Anjou. These vexations irritated the king to anger and bitterness, which resulted, some say, in a natural torpor, and afterwards, it is thought, caused his death. At any rate, on his return from hunting at St. Denis in the Forêt des Lions, he ate a dish of lampreys, of which he was always fond, though they always disagreed with him. A physician had forbidden him to eat them, but the king ignored his sound advice on the poet’s principles--

“Ever we strive against the law, And love to taste forbidden fruit.”

So this meal brought on an evil humour and was followed by the old violent symptoms, which resulted in a complete collapse, his aged frame sinking into a deadly lethargy, the natural struggle of his constitution provoked an acute fever in the effort to throw off the poison in his system, but his powers of resistance failing, the great king died on 1 December after a reign of thirty-five years and three months....

On the death of the great king Henry, his character was freely discussed by the people, as is usual in the case of the departed. Some asserted that three splendid gifts especially distinguished him; supreme wisdom, for he was profound in counsel, acutely farseeing and brilliant in speech; success in war, for apart from other famous exploits he overcame the king of France in battle; and wealth, in which he far surpassed all his predecessors. Others, however, took a different point of view, and urged that he was tainted by three vices; avarice, because, like all his house, though rich, he impoverished the poor with taxes and exactions, and snared them in the toils of the informer; cruelty also, because he put out the eyes of his kinsman, the count of Moretuil, when in captivity (this horrible crime could not be known until death laid bare the king’s secret acts), and other instances also were alleged, of which I say nothing; and excess also.... Such was the common division of opinion. But in the terrible time that followed, amid the savage anarchy of the Norman traitors, all that Henry had done, whether as king or despot, seemed more than excellent in comparison with worse evil.

THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN (1135).

=Source.=--_Gesta Stephani_, ed. Howlett, vol. iii., p. 3. (Rolls Series, Chronicles of Stephen, Henry II., and Richard I.)

When king Henry, giver of peace to his country and father of his people, passed away in death, the unhappy event threw the whole country into anarchy and total confusion. The land, which during his reign had been the seat of justice and the home of law, became on his decease a sink of iniquity and a hotbed of all malice. England, formerly the abode of right, the habitation of peace, the throne of piety, the mirror of religion, became the dwelling-place of perversity, the refuge of discord, the school of disorder, and the mistress of all rebellion. The reverend bonds of sacred friendship were straightway broken among the people, the most intimate ties of mutual kinship were loosed, and those who had worn the garments of daily tranquillity were whelmed by the noise of battle and the madness of war. For every man was seized with a new passion for barbarity, to run riot against his neighbour, and to reckon his glory by the measure of his wrongs to the innocent.

The established laws, that restrain an undisciplined people, were wholly neglected, nay rather annulled, and men straightway accomplished any crime which their unlawful passions inspired. To use the words of the prophet, “There was no soundness from the sole of the foot to the crown of the head,” for from the lowest to the highest their minds were sick, and either they wrought havoc or assented to the havoc which others wrought. Even the wild beasts, which were aforetime peaceably preserved in every district, as though confined by enclosures, were everywhere loosed and hunted by all and slain by all indiscriminately and without fear. This, indeed, was a lesser evil, and a matter of small complaint; none the less it was amazing how so many thousands of beasts, that before had covered the whole country in thronging herds, were now suddenly annihilated, so that out of so vast a number you would scarcely discover two together. When at length this great and indescribable plenty began so to decline that, as men say, a bird was a rarity and scarce a stag could anywhere be seen, folk turned their violence against each other and robbed their neighbours, each plundering each in turn, and plotting ambush and destruction for each other, as the prophet said, “Man rose up without mercy against man, and everyone was set against his neighbour.” Whatever crime was suggested by passion in times of peace, was now swiftly brought to an issue, when vengeance might seize its opportunity; dissembled hatred and hidden malice burst forth to light and was openly avowed.

While the English were indulging in this disastrous anarchy, breaking the restraints of justice and freely rioting in all sorts of wickedness, Stephen, count of Boulogne, a man of illustrious and noble lineage, landed in England with a few followers. King Henry, the peacemaker, loved him above all his nephews, not only because of his close tie of kinship, but for the manifold excellencies that specially distinguished and adorned him. What is rare indeed in our times, he combined riches with modesty, generosity with courtesy; yet in all military encounters and any siege of his enemies, he was daring and courageous, cautious and persistent. Being the man he was, as soon as rumours of king Henry’s death reached him, he conceived a bold design in his heart, like Saul, and since he was beyond seas, hurried to the coast, and obtaining by good fortune a favourable breeze, steered for England on which his thoughts were set. Landing, as said before, with a very small following, he hastened to London, the metropolis and queen of the whole country. Stirred by his coming, the whole city came out to meet him with a noisy welcome, dancing with joy and festivity to have recovered in Stephen another Henry, the loss of whose guardianship they were but now deploring. So the elder and more prominent men summoned a council, and making common provision, in their judgment, for the good estate of the realm, unanimously conspired to elect him king. They urged that the whole realm was liable to the chances of evil fortune, where the fount of all governance and the head of justice was lacking. It was vital to them at once to establish a king, who should restore peace for the common good, punish rebels by force of arms, and justly administer the laws. Moreover it was their right, their special privilege, on the death of their king, themselves to set his successor on the throne. There was no other at hand to fulfil a king’s part and put an end to the perils of the realm, save only Stephen, who, it seemed, had been brought to them by the will of Heaven; he was worthy of the dignity in the eyes of all, as well by the distinction of his birth as by the excellence of his character. These points were heard and welcomed by all without open contradiction, and by common counsel they decided to offer him the throne and to appoint him king with their unanimous support, both parties covenanting by a treaty confirmed, it is said, by mutual oaths, that the citizens on the one hand would support him with their wealth and maintain him with their strength during his life, and that he, on the other hand, should devote all his energies to the pacification of the realm for the benefit of them all.

THE PERJURY OF THE BARONS (1135).

=Source.=--Henry of Huntingdon, _Historia Anglorum_, ed. Arnold, p. 256. (Rolls Series.)

In haste came Stephen, younger brother of Theobald, count of Blois, an active and resolute man, and though he had sworn an act of fealty to king Henry’s daughter, yet, relying on swift and bold measures, he tempted God by seizing the crown of the realm. William, archbishop of Canterbury, the first to take the oath to the king’s daughter, to his shame, blessed him as king, wherefore God decreed against him the same judgment which he had decreed against the priest who smote Jeremiah, to wit, that he should die within a year. Roger too, the great bishop of Salisbury, the second to take the aforesaid oath, and dictator of the oath to all the rest, added his weighty support to Stephen’s claims; wherefore afterward by the just judgment of God he was seized and tortured by the king whom he had made, and suffered a miserable end. But why linger? All who had sworn the oath, prelates and earls and barons alike, offered their allegiance to Stephen and did him homage. It was an evil omen that the whole of England, without hesitation, without a struggle, in the twinkling of an eye, so suddenly submitted to him.

THE CORONATION OATH OF KING STEPHEN (1136).

=Source.=--William of Malmesbury, _De gestis regum Anglorum_, ed. Stubbs, vol. ii., p. 541. (Rolls Series.)

“I, Stephen, by the grace of God, by assent of the clergy and people, elected king of England, and consecrated by the lord William, archbishop of Canterbury and legate of the holy Roman Church, and afterwards confirmed by Innocent, Pope of the holy see of Rome, out of reverence and love for God, grant that Holy Church be free, and confirm to it due reverence. I promise that I will not do or permit any simony in the church or in matters ecclesiastical. I admit that justice and power over ecclesiastical persons and all clerks and over their goods, and the distribution of ecclesiastical goods is in the hands of the bishops, and I confirm the same. I decree that the immunities of churches confirmed by their charters, and their customs observed by ancient use, remain inviolate, and I confirm the same. I grant that all possessions and holdings of churches, which they had on the day on which king William my grandfather was alive and dead, be theirs freely and absolutely, quit of all recovery by any claimants. But as touching anything held or possessed before the death of the king, whereof the church is now deprived, and for which the church shall sue hereafter, I reserve the same to my indulgence and dispensation for discussion or restitution. Moreover I confirm all grants made after the death of the king by the generosity of kings, the benefaction of princes, or the offering or sale or exchange of the faithful. I promise to make peace and to do justice in all things, and to preserve the same so far as in me lies. I reserve to myself the forests which king William my grandfather, and William the Second my uncle made and held; the rest, which king Henry added thereto, I give back and grant quit to the churches and the realm. And if any bishop or abbot or other ecclesiastical person before his death shall reasonably distribute his goods, or ordain the distribution thereof, I grant that the same shall remain valid; and if he be forestalled by death, the same distribution shall be made for the salvation of his soul by the counsel of his church. Moreover when sees be void of their proper pastors, both they and all the possessions thereof shall be committed into the hand and guardianship of the clerks and good men of the same church, until a pastor be canonically instituted. I utterly uproot all exactions and fines and injustices evilly imposed whether by sheriffs or by others whomsoever. I will observe good laws and the ancient and just customs in murder-fines and pleas and other causes, and I command and ordain that the same be observed. Given at Oxford in the year 1136 after the incarnation of our Lord, in the first year of my reign.”

* * * * *

I scorn to give the names of the many witnesses, for he so basely broke almost all his promises, as if he had sworn only in order to show himself to the whole realm as an oath-breaker. I must speak the truth, gentlest of princes though he was; for if he had lawfully obtained the kingdom, and in administering the same had not lent too ready an ear to the intrigues of evil-minded men, verily little would have been lacking to his royal dignity. Under him, however, the treasure of some churches was plundered, their landed possessions were given to laymen; the churches of the clergy were sold to aliens; bishops were imprisoned and forced to transfer their goods; and abbeys were granted to unworthy men, either to reward friends or to pay debts. Still I consider that these evils must be ascribed to his counsellors rather than to himself; for they persuaded him that he need never lack money so long as there were monasteries packed with treasure.

FEUDAL ANARCHY UNDER STEPHEN.

=Source.=--_The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, ed. Thorpe, vol. i., p. 382. (Rolls Series.)

When the traitors perceived that he was a mild man, and soft and good, and did no justice, then did they all wonder. They had done homage to him and sworn oaths, but had held no faith; they were all forsworn and brake their fealty; for every mighty man built his castles and held them against him; and they filled the land full of castles. They cruelly oppressed the wretched men of the land with castle-works. When the castles were made, they filled them with devils and evil men. Then they took those men whom they deemed to have any possessions, both by night and by day, husbandmen and women, and put them in prison for gold and silver, and tortured them with unspeakable torture, for never were martyrs so tortured as they were. They hanged them up by the feet, and smoked them with foul smoke; they hanged them by the thumbs or by the head, and hung fires on their feet; they put knotted cords about their heads, and twisted them so that it went to the brain. They put them in dungeons, in which were adders and snakes and toads, and so killed them. Some they put in a “crucet hus,” that is, in a chest that was short and narrow and shallow, and put sharp stones therein, and pressed the man therein, so that they brake all his limbs. In many of the castles were ... neck-bonds, so that two or three men had enough to bear one. It was made thus, that is, fastened to a beam; and they put a sharp iron about the man’s throat and his neck, so that he might no wise sit or lie or sleep, but must bear all that iron. Many thousands they killed with hunger; I cannot and may not tell all the wounds or all the tortures which they wrought on wretched men in this land; and it lasted the nineteen winters while Stephen was king; and ever it was worse and worse. They laid gelds on the towns continually ...; when the wretched men had no more to give, they robbed and burned all the towns, so that thou mightest well go all a day’s journey, and thou wouldst never find a man settled in a town, nor the land tilled. Then was corn dear, and meat and cheese and butter, for there was none in the land. Wretched men died of hunger; some went seeking alms, who were sometime rich men; some fled out of the land. Never yet had more wretchedness been in the land, nor did heathen men ever do worse than they did; for everywhere they spared neither church nor churchyard, but took all the goods that were therein, and then burned the church and all together. Nor spared they a bishop’s land, nor an abbot’s, nor a priest’s, but robbed monks and clerks, and every man another who anywhere could. If two or three men came riding to a town, all the township fled before them, deeming that they were robbers. The bishops and clergy cursed them ever, but nothing came thereof, for they were all accursed and forsworn and lost. However a man tilled, the earth bare no corn, for the land was all undone with such deeds, and they said openly that Christ slept, and his saints. Such and more than we can say we endured nineteen winters for our sins.

WALES AND THE WELSH (1136).

=Source.=--_Gesta Stephani_, ed. Howlett, vol. iii., p. 10. (Rolls Series, Chronicles of Stephen, Henry II., and Richard I.)

Wales is a land of woods and pastures, adjoining England on its nearest borders, and jutting into the sea on the other side throughout its whole extent. It abounds in stags and fish, and cows and oxen. The men it rears are savage, swift of foot by nature, fighters by habit, and untrustworthy and unsettled alike. When the Normans had conquered England in battle, they established their sovereignty over this land also with numberless castles. They crushed the natives with spirit, and civilised them with patience; to ensure peace they imposed upon them law and ordinances, and brought the land to such fertility and abundant plenty, that you would deem it in no wise inferior to the most fruitful part of Britain. But on the death of king Henry, when the peace and concord of the realm were buried with him, the Welsh, who always cherished mortal hatred of their lords, wholly cast off the yoke to which their treaties bound them, and issuing in bands from divers places, made hostile inroads now here, now there, and with plunder, fire and sword, wasted towns, burned houses, and slaughtered men. They first attacked the district of Gower on the seacoast, a beautiful and abundantly fertile spot, and surrounded and entirely put to the sword a band of knights and footmen massed against them to the number of 516. Thereafter, exulting in the successful issue of their first uprising, they boldly overran all the marches of Wales, bent on every crime and ready for any mischief, neither sparing age nor reverencing rank, and suffering no time or place to check their violence. Rumours of this rebellion reached the ears of the king, who, to curb their unbridled audacity, sent a force of knights and archers, hired at a great cost of treasure, to crush them. Some, however, after many glorious exploits, were slain there, while the rest, unable to endure the savage onslaughts of the enemy, after much toil and expense, retreated with dishonour.

THE BATTLE OF THE STANDARD (1138).

=Source.=--Richard of Hexham, _De gestis regis Stephani_, ed. Hewlett, vol. iii., p. 159. (Rolls Series, Chronicles of Stephen, Henry II., and Richard I.)

The king (of Scotland) passing by Durham with his army wasted the crops as far as the river Tees, and after his custom broke into, plundered and burned the towns and churches which he had earlier left untouched; and crossing the Tees also, he began to work the same havoc. But the pity of God, stirred by the tears of innumerable widows, orphans and wretched men, suffered him no longer to practise impiety so great without punishment. The preparations of him and his men for such wickedness, all his stores, and what he intended to do and whither to go, did not escape the men of Yorkshire. So the barons of that county, to wit, archbishop Thurstan, who, as will appear later, was a prime mover in this business, and William de Aumâle, Walter de Ghent, Robert de Bruce, Roger de Mowbray, Walter Spec, Ilbert de Lacy, William de Percy, Richard de Courcy, William Fossard, Robert de Stutevill, and the other mighty and learned men, assembled at York and discussed eagerly among themselves what plan to adopt in this crisis. And since many hesitated, suspecting the treason of others and mutually distrustful, and since they had no commander and leader in war, for king Stephen their lord was overwhelmed at that season with equal difficulties in the south of England and could not come to them at present, and since they feared to oppose their slight forces to numbers so superior, it seemed as if they would altogether abandon the attempt to defend themselves and their country; but Thurstan, their archbishop, a man of great persistence and worth, encouraged them with his speech and counsel. For he was the pastor of their souls, and unlike the hireling, regarded not his own safety by flight from the ravaging wolf, but rather was torn by the keenest compassionate grief at the scattering and undoing of his flock and the destruction of his country, and left no step untried, no stone unturned, to find a remedy for such monstrous evils. Wherefore, both by the divine authority entrusted to him and by the royal power then committed to him in this matter, and by their fealty and honour, he faithfully admonished them not to allow themselves through cowardice to be overthrown in a single day by the worst sort of barbarism.... He also promised them that he would cause the priests of his diocese to march together with them to battle, with their crosses and their parishioners, and purposed himself, God willing, to be present at the fight. At the same troubled season Bernard de Balliol, one of the chief men of that district, came to them from the king with a large body of knights, and both on the king’s and his own behalf inflamed their hearts to the same purpose. Urged therefore by the commands both of their king and of their archbishop, they were all with one accord confirmed in one same purpose, and each returned to his home. Soon after they all reassembled at York with their munitions and arms ready for war. So when they had done penance privately, the archbishop enjoined on them a three-days’ fast with alms, and thereafter solemnly gave them absolution and God’s and his own blessing, and though by reason of great infirmity and the weakness of old age he was carried in a litter wherever he was needed, yet to arouse their courage he determined to go with them. But they forced him to remain, beseeching him to be content to intercede for them by prayer and alms, watching and fasting and by other godly works; they would gladly fight the enemy for God’s church and for His minister, as He should deign to help them, and as their order demanded. Thereupon he delivered to them his cross and the banner of St. Peter and his own men; and they went to the town of Thirsk. Thence they sent Robert de Brus and Bernard de Balliol to the king of Scotland, who was now wasting the land of St. Cuthbert, as was said above; they begged him, with the greatest deference and friendliness, to desist thenceforth from his cruel measures, and promise faithfully to ask the king of England to confer on Henry, son of the king of Scotland, the county of Northumberland, which that king had demanded. But he and his men hardened their hearts, rejected their overtures, and treated them with scornful contempt. So Robert abjured the homage he had done to him, and Bernard the fealty which he had once sworn, when captured by him, and both returned to their fellows. Thereupon all the chief men of that county, and William Peverel and Geoffrey Halsalin from Nottinghamshire, and Robert de Ferers from Derbyshire, and other weighty and wise men, bound and fortified themselves in turn with oaths, that none of them would desert the others in this business, so long as they could each render mutual aid, and so all would either die or conquer together. At the same time the archbishop sent to them Ralph Novellus, bishop of Orkney, with one of his own archdeacons and other clerks, who in his stead should enjoin penance and give absolution to the bands of people daily flocking thither from all quarters. He also sent to them the priests with their parishioners, as he had promised them.

While, then, they were looking for the coming of the Scots, the scouts, whom they had sent in advance, returned, reporting that the king had already crossed the river Tees with his army, and after his custom was now devastating their district. So they went to meet him with the utmost haste, and passing through the town of Northallerton, reached at break of day a field two miles distant therefrom. Forthwith some of them set up the mast of a ship in the middle of a scaffold which they had brought, and called it the Standard.... On the top thereof they hung a silver box containing the body of Christ, and the banners of St. Peter the Apostle, and St. John of Beverley and St. Wilfred of Ripon, confessors and bishops. This they did that Jesus Christ our Lord, by the presence of His body, might be their leader in the war which they had undertaken for the defence of His church and their country, at the same time providing hereby that, if any of them should be by chance separated from their fellows and scattered, they would have a sure signal by which to return to them and there find assistance. They had hardly equipped themselves with arms for the fight, when the king of Scotland was reported to be at hand with the whole of his army ready and arrayed for battle. Therefore a great part of the knights left their horses and became footmen, and the choicest of them were arrayed with archers and set in the front rank, the rest, except the ordainers and directors of the battle, being packed about the Standard in the centre of the position, while the remainder of the troops were massed around them on every side in a dense rampart. The band of horsemen and the horses of the knights were withdrawn a little farther, that they might not take fright at the noise and clamour of the Scots. In like manner among the enemy the king himself and almost all his men became footmen and their horses were kept farther back. In the forefront of the battle were the Picts, in the middle the king with his knights and Englishmen; and the rest of the barbarous horde pressed around on all sides. While they marched to battle in such order, the Standard with its banners was seen not far away, and at once the hearts of the king and his followers were struck with a mighty fear and terror. But hardened in their malice, they yet strove to fulfil the evil work begun by them. So on the octave of the Assumption of St. Mary, 22 August, between the first and third hours, the strife of this battle began and ended. For straightway at the first onset innumerable Picts were slain, and the rest threw down their arms and basely took to flight. The field was choked with corpses, large numbers were captured, and the king and all the residue fled. Of that great army, all were either killed or captured or scattered like sheep whose shepherd is smitten down, and in wonderful wise, as if deprived of their sense, they fled as much away from their own land into the neighbouring parts of their enemies’ country, as towards their native land. But wherever they were found, they were killed like sheep for slaughter; and so by the righteous judgment of God, those who had woefully slain and left the dead unburied were themselves more woefully cut to pieces, and found no burial after the fashion of their own or the foreigners’ land, but were exposed to dogs, birds and wild beasts, or torn and dismembered, or left to decay and putrefy under the open sky. The king also, who a short time before in his excessive pride of heart and in the magnitude of his army seemed to have raised his head among the stars of heaven, and therefore threatened to destroy utterly the whole or the greatest part of England, was now shorn of his glory, and accompanied by but a few, and covered with the utmost shame and disgrace, scarcely escaped alive.

The degree of the divine vengeance appeared most clearly in the fact that the army of the vanquished was beyond estimation larger than that of the conquerors; nor could the number of the slain be counted by any man. For, as many bear witness, of the army which left Scotland alone, more than ten thousand are reckoned to have been missing from the ranks of those who returned, for throughout divers parts of Deira, Bernicia, Northumberland, Cumberland and other districts, many more were cut off after the battle than were slain in the battle. The English army, on the other hand, lost few of its numbers, speedily gaining a victory by God’s aid; and dividing the booty which was found there in great quantities, in a short while almost wholly broke up, and every man returned to his own home, restoring to the churches with joy and thanksgiving the banners of the saints which they had received. Verily they had marched to this battle in their finest array and all their wealth, as it had been to a royal marriage feast.

KING STEPHEN’S ATTACK ON THE BISHOPS (1139).

=Source.=--William of Malmesbury, _Historia Novella_, ed. Stubbs, vol. ii., pp. 547-555. (Rolls Series.)

In the year 1139 after the Incarnation of our Lord, the venom of malice, which king Stephen’s heart had long been fostering, at length burst forth openly. Rumours were spreading about England that earl Robert was on the eve of coming from Normandy with his sister;[37] and in expectation thereof many were disaffected towards the king, not only in will but in deed, whereupon he repaired his losses by wronging others. Many were seized at court against the king’s honour, on mere suspicion of supporting the opposite party, and forced to surrender their castles and submit to whatsoever conditions he chose. There were at that time in England two exceeding powerful bishops, Roger of Salisbury, and his brother’s son, Alexander of Lincoln. Alexander had built the castle of Newark, for the defence and honour of the bishopric, as he said. Roger, who wished to display magnificence in the building of castles, had erected more imposing fortifications at Sherborne and Devizes, covering a large area of ground with his buildings. He had begun a castle at Malmesbury in the churchyard itself, hardly a stone’s throw from the principal church. The castle of Salisbury, though it was the king’s own property, had passed into his keeping by grant of king Henry, and had been surrounded with a wall. Some of the powerful laity, stirred to envy that they should be surpassed by clerks in their wealth of heaped-up treasure and the size of their towns, cherished in their hearts a sullen jealousy. So they poured their discontents into the king’s ear, urging that it would all unquestionably turn to the king’s destruction, since, as soon as the empress came, they would welcome their lady by surrendering their castles, drawn to her by the memory of her father’s favours; they must therefore be at once forestalled and constrained to yield up their fortresses.... The king, though too favourably inclined to these advisers, for some time pretended not to listen to their attractive proposals, easing the bitterness of postponement either by his regard for the holy office of the bishops, or, as I incline to think, by his fear of the odium involved. In the end he only put off the execution of the policy thus urged upon him until the first favourable opportunity. That arose in the following manner.

A council of the nobility was held at Oxford on 24 June, which the prelates aforesaid attended. The bishop of Salisbury was most unwilling to go. I heard him say: “By my Lady St. Mary, I know not why, but I have no liking for this journey. This I know, that I shall be of as much use in the court as a foal in a battle.” For so his heart foreboded ills to come. Fortune, as it turned out, seemed to favour the king’s desires; a riot arose between the men of the bishops and the men of Alan, count of Brittany, over a claim to quarters; the end was melancholy, for the men of the bishop of Salisbury, who were then sitting at table, left their meal unfinished and jumped up to fight. The affair was settled with curses first and swords afterwards. The retainers of Alan were driven off, his nephew barely escaping alive, while the bishops’ party did not secure a bloodless victory, many being wounded and one knight killed. The king seized the opportunity and ordered the original instigators to summon the bishops to satisfy his court for their retainers’ breach of the king’s peace; the satisfaction demanded was the delivery of the keys of their castles as pledges of their good faith. They were ready to give satisfaction, but hesitated to surrender the castles, whereupon he commanded that they should be closely confined, to prevent their departure. So he took them to Devizes, bishop Roger unbound, but the chancellor, his nephew (or more than his nephew), in fetters; his object was to take the castle, which had been built at a great and almost incalculable cost, not for the glory of the church, as the prelate himself alleged, but, in sober truth, to its detriment. Upon investment, the castles of Salisbury, Sherborne and Malmesbury were surrendered to the king; Devizes itself was given up after three days, bishop Roger voluntarily imposing abstinence upon himself, that by his personal suffering he might induce the bishop of Ely, who held the castle, to yield.[38] Alexander, the bishop of Lincoln, gave way also without more ado, purchasing his delivery by the surrender of the castles of Newark and Sleaford.

This action of the king was widely discussed from opposite standpoints. Some said that the bishops were rightly dispossessed of their castles, because they had defied the canons in erecting them; they ought to be preachers of the gospel of peace, not builders of houses that might harbour the authors of evil. This view was urged and further amplified by the arguments of Hugh, archbishop of Rouen, who stoutly championed the king with all his eloquence. Others said the contrary, and this party had the support of Henry, bishop of Winchester, legate in England of the apostolic see, brother of king Stephen.... “If bishops,” he said, “in any wise forsake the way of justice, the canons, not the king, must be their judge; they ought to have been deprived of no possession without a public ecclesiastical council; the king had acted not from zeal for righteousness, but for his own private benefit, since he had not given the castles back to the churches, at whose charges and on whose lands they had been built, but had delivered them to laymen, and those by no means favourable to religion.” He urged these considerations in the king’s presence both privately and publicly, pressing him to deliver and make restitution to the prelates, but his labour was wasted, his plea ignored. Wherefore, determined to exert the force of the canons, he summoned his brother instantly to appear before the council which was to be holden on 29 August at Winchester.

On the appointed day almost all the bishops of England, with Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury ... came to Winchester.... The bull of Pope Innocent was first read in the council, whereby from March 1, if I remember rightly, he had delegated part of his charge to the lord bishop of Winchester as his legate in England.... Next followed in the council the legate’s address in Latin, prepared for the learned, touching the disgraceful seizure of the bishops, of whom the bishop of Salisbury had been taken in the chamber of the court, and the bishop of Lincoln in his lodging, while the bishop of Ely, fearing a like fate, had escaped disaster by a hasty flight to Devizes; it was a scandalous crime that the king should have been so led astray, at the instigation of others, as to order violent hands to be laid on his men, especially bishops, in the peace of his court. To the king’s dishonour was added an offence against Heaven, to wit, that under the cloak of the bishops’ guilt, churches were robbed of their possessions. He was so indignant at the king’s outrage against God’s law, that he would rather himself suffer great inconvenience to his person and his possessions than that the episcopal dignity should be so basely humiliated. He had many times warned the king to make amends for his sin; and at last the king had consented to the summoning of a council. The archbishop and the rest should take counsel together as to necessary action; he would not fail in the execution of their advice either out of love for the king, his own brother, or out of fear of losing his possessions, or even of risking his life.

While he was gradually enlarging upon this theme, the king, confident in his own cause, sent earls to the council to ask why he had been summoned.... They were accompanied by one Aubrey de Vere, a man well versed in all kinds of legal causes.... The sum of his charges was as follows: bishop Roger had committed many offences against king Stephen; he had scarcely ever been to the court without riots being stirred up by his men, presuming on his power; as often at other times, so lately at Oxford they had assaulted the men and even the nephew of count Alan.... The bishop of Lincoln had instigated his men to riot, out of his old hatred against count Alan. The bishop of Salisbury secretly supported the king’s enemies and only disguised his treachery for the moment; the king had many unquestionable proofs of it, the chief being that he refused a single night’s lodging to Roger de Mortemer and the king’s knights led by him, when they were in mortal terror of the Bristol rebels. Everybody was saying that as soon as the Empress should have come, he would attach himself to her with his nephews and his castles. Therefore Roger was seized not as a bishop, but as the king’s servant, who had at once administered his affairs and received his wages. The king had not taken the castles by force, but both the bishops had voluntarily surrendered them to escape the accusation of the rioting which they had incited in the court. The king had found in the castles a small sum of money which was lawfully his, for bishop Roger had collected it in the time of king Henry, the king’s uncle and predecessor, from the rents due at the royal Exchequer. The bishop had willingly yielded up both money and castles, for fear of his offences against the king, and the king had no lack of witnesses thereto. For his part, the king was willing that his agreement with the bishops should remain unimpaired.

Bishop Roger exclaimed in reply that he had never been king Stephen’s minister, and had never received his wages. He threatened, moreover, in his anger, thinking shame to give way to his misfortunes, that if he could not obtain justice in that council for the property wrested from him, he would seek it in the hearing of a higher court....

So much was said on both sides, and at the king’s request the cause was adjourned to the next day, and then on the morrow postponed to the following day until the coming of the archbishop of Rouen. When he came and all were in suspense to hear his opinion, he said that he allowed that the bishops might have castles, if they could prove by the canons that they might rightfully hold them; but since they could not, it was the height of wickedness for them to fight against the canons. “Grant,” he said, “that they may lawfully have them; surely, in troubled times, it is the duty of the nobles, as among other nations, to hand over all the keys of their fortresses to the will of the king, who must make war for the peace of all. Therefore the whole argument of the bishops falls to the ground; either it is wrong according to the canons for them to have castles, or, if this be permitted by the king’s indulgence, they ought to hand over the keys, yielding to the necessity of the situation.”

To this the aforesaid pleader, Aubrey, added, that the king had been informed of the bishops’ intention, expressed among themselves, to send some of their number to Rome against the king. “And the king,” he said, “recommends that none of you venture to do it, for if anyone should leave England against his will and the dignity of the realm, he will perhaps find it less easy to return. Furthermore he himself, seeing himself aggrieved, appeals you at the court of Rome.”

The king’s despatch of this message, part warning, part threat, made his purpose obvious, and in consequence the council broke up, the king refusing to suffer canonical censure, and the bishops failing to execute their plans against him, and that for two reasons, first, because it would have been overbold to excommunicate a prince without the Pope’s knowledge, and second, because they heard, and some saw, swords unsheathed about them. The struggle was no mere word-play, but a matter of life and death. None the less, the legate and the archbishop did not refrain from pursuing their duty; they humbly knelt before the king in his chamber and prayed him to take pity on the church and on his own soul and reputation, and not to allow a schism to arise between state and church. He courteously rose, but, although he moderated his disapproval of their action, he made no effort to fulfil his good promises, following rather his evil advisers.

THE CHARACTER AND CAREER OF ROGER, BISHOP OF SALISBURY.

=Source.=--William of Newburgh, _Historia rerum Anglicarum_, ed. Howlett, vol. i., p. 35 (Rolls Series, Chronicles of Stephen, Henry II., and Richard I.); and William of Malmesbury, _Historia Novella_, ed. Stubbs, vol. ii., p. 557 (Rolls Series).

A few words must be said, since occasion offers, of Roger’s early career and progress, so that his wretched end may show forth the majesty of the divine judgment. In the reign of king William the younger he was a quite obscure priest, it is said, who lived by his office in the outskirts of Caen. At that time the young Henry was at war with his brother, and going on his way with his knights chanced to pass the church in which Roger ministered, and asked for service to be celebrated in his presence; the priest acceded to the request, and was quick to begin and swift to finish, pleasing the knights twice over, so that they remarked that nowhere could knights discover a more accommodating chaplain. So when the prince said “Follow me,” he clove to him no less than Peter to his heavenly King at the same words. Peter left his boats to follow the King of kings; he left his church to follow the son of a king; and as chaplain at will to him and his knights, became a blind leader of the blind. And though he was almost destitute of learning, he profited so well by a native cunning that in a short while he won his lord’s affection and took charge of his most secret affairs.

* * * * *

On December 11 (1139) Roger, bishop of Salisbury, was relieved by death from the quartan ague which had long afflicted him; they say that his illness was the result of vexation at the severe and repeated injuries suffered by him at the hands of king Stephen. For my part I consider that God made him an example to the rich of the fickleness of circumstance, that they should not put their trust in the uncertainty of riches, for, as the apostle says, some who seek thereafter have suffered shipwreck of their faith. He attached himself first to prince Henry, afterwards king, by his wise management of his household and his restraint on extravagance; for before his reign Henry had been forced by his scanty resources to study economy and spend carefully, owing to the ungenerous behaviour of his brothers, William and Robert. Recognising his habit of mind, Roger earned his gratitude in the time of his poverty to such a degree that after his ascension to the throne, Henry could deny him little or nothing that he chose to ask, bestowing on him estates, churches, prebends of clerks, entire abbeys of monks, and finally committing to his charge the realm itself; at the beginning of his reign he made him chancellor, and not long after, bishop of Salisbury. So Roger heard causes, Roger regulated expenditure, Roger had charge of the treasury, and that too both when the king was in England, and also when he was in Normandy, as happened often and for long periods, without an associate or a witness. Not the king only, but the barons, even those who were secretly jealous of his prosperity, and above all the king’s ministers and debtors, gave him whatever he pleased. If any estate adjoined his own and promised to serve his purpose, he extorted it forthwith either by prayer or purchase, or if that failed, by force. He had no rival, in the memory of our own times, in the building of palaces and the splendour of the houses which he erected throughout his possessions, to maintain which his successors but labour in vain. He spared no expense to beautify to the utmost his own cathedral with marvellous ornament and construction. Verily it was wonderful to behold how honours of all kinds were heaped about him in rich abundance, and gathered into his hand; how great was his glory, and how unbounded his power, that he should have made bishops of his two nephews, educated by himself to be men of notable learning and industry; bishops, too, of no mean sees, but of Lincoln and Ely, the wealthiest, I suppose, in the realm....

Under king Stephen his power declined, except that at the beginning of his reign he secured for his nephews the offices of chancellor and treasurer, and for himself the borough of Malmesbury, the king often repeating to his friends, “By the birth of God, I would give him the half of England, if he asked for it, until times change; he shall tire of asking before I tire of giving.” But in his latter years fortune, which before had smiled upon him overmuch and overlong, struck him at last with cruel scorpion-sting. What a blow it was to see men wounded, who had served him well, to see his most devoted knight cut to pieces, and on the next day to see himself a prisoner, and his nephews, the great bishops, one forced to fly, and the other, dearest of all, bound with chains; and afterwards, on the surrender of the castles, to behold his treasures plundered and himself in the council taunted with the vilest abuse, and last of all, when he lay at Salisbury at death’s door, to see the residue of his money and plate, which he had put upon the altar for the completion of the church, carried off against his will. Saddest of all I count it, and even I cannot withhold my pity, that while many thought his end pitiful, there were scarce any who pitied him; so much hatred and envy had his excessive power drawn upon him, and that too undeservedly, in the case of some whom he had himself advanced to honour.

THE BATTLE OF LINCOLN (1141).

=Source.=--John of Hexham, _Symeonis Historiæ Regum Continuatio_, ed. Arnold, vol. ii., p. 307. (Rolls Series, Simeon of Durham.)

In the month of January at Lincoln, Ranulf, earl of Chester, with his men, conspired and set their determination on harassing the king and the realm. Now an earthquake was thrice felt in the city at Christmastide. The plot was speedily made known to king Stephen, who forthwith appeared there and besieged the earl. The latter, however, escaped by night from the tower in which he was shut, and straightway went to Robert earl of Gloucester, whose daughter he had married, and persuaded him and the household of the Empress to aid him, and the Welsh likewise. The king’s elder supporters advised him to gather an army, declaring that they had come unarmed to have speech with him, and were not equipped for battle. The king rejected their counsel, saying that the earls were but lads inexperienced in war, and would not dare to attack him; for he had been duped by the friendship of the young earls, who supported the king with words, but cherished the strength of his enemies with counsel and aid. So on the day of the Purification of St. Mary, Robert earl of Gloucester, Ranulf earl of Chester, and William de Romar, his brother, drew near with a strong force, Robert being the leader and disposer of the battle. The king also led forth his followers to the fight. Alan, earl of Richmond, with his men, abandoned the king and the struggle, before the battle was yet begun. William earl of York, withdrew from the fight and exposed the king to peril. His opponents therefore, with a boldness born of confidence, cut down all who resisted. They captured Bernard de Balliol, Roger de Mowbray, Richard de Courcy, William Fossart, William Peverel, William Clerfeith and many others. Many were slain and in the end all were scattered, including even Waleran count of Mellent. But the king stood in the forefront like a lion, braver than the bravest, afraid of no man’s onset. He cut down all who came within reach, until his sword broke in his hands. Thereupon a citizen of Lincoln put in his hand a Danish axe; and it is difficult to describe the heroic courage with which he faced his enemies. At last, however, he saw himself left alone and almost all his fellows scattered; yet no man dared to lay hands on him to take him. When earl Ranulf attempted an attack upon him, the king smote him on the head with the axe, and, beating him to his knees, taught him not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think. Finally, of his own will he summoned earl Robert, his cousin, and to him, as the son of king Henry, he, himself a king, consented to surrender his person.[39] So he was taken to Bristol and there put in safe keeping.

THE DEPOSITION OF KING STEPHEN (1141).

=Source.=--William of Malmesbury, _Historia Novella_, ed. Stubbs, vol. ii., p. 574. (Rolls Series.)

On the second day after the Octave of Easter (April 11) a council of archbishop Theobald and all the bishops of England and many abbots was opened with great ceremony at Winchester under the presidency of the legate. Those who were not there sent reasons for their absence by proctor or letter. The proceedings of this council I will set forth for posterity with complete accuracy, since I was myself present, and I remember the whole perfectly. On that day, after reading the letters of excuse whereby some justified their absence, the legate summoned the bishops apart and discussed with them his secret intention; and afterwards the abbots, and last of all the archdeacons, were summoned. Of his purpose nothing was made public, but the thoughts and speech of all men were busy with what was likely to be done.

On the third day the legate spoke to this effect: that by the Pope’s condescension he held his place in England, wherefore by his authority the clergy of England had been assembled at this council, that they might deliberate together touching the peace of the country, which was in grave peril of shipwreck. In the time of king Henry, his uncle, England had been a unique abode of peace, so that through the activity, the spirit and the labour of that unrivalled prince, not only the natives, whatsoever their might and rank, dared not make trouble, but also by his example all neighbouring kings and princes themselves yielded to peace and desired or forced their subjects to do the like. The same king, some years before his death, had caused the whole realm of England and the duchy of Normandy to be bound by the oath of all bishops and barons alike to his daughter, sometime Empress, his sole surviving child of his first wife, if he should fail of a male successor by the wife he had married from Lorraine. “And cruel fortune,” said he, “grudged him his desire, so that he died in Normandy without heir male. So, because it seemed long to wait for the Lady, who delayed her coming to England, for she was dwelling in Normandy, the peace of the country was provided for, and my brother was suffered to become king. Yet, though I pledged myself as surety between him and God that he would honour and exalt Holy Church, and maintain good laws and uproot evil, I grieve to remember, I am ashamed to recall, what manner of king he has shown himself; how no justice has been done on offenders, how peace was wholly destroyed almost within a year; bishops seized and forced to surrender their possessions; abbeys sold, churches plundered of their treasures; evil men’s counsel regarded, and good men’s put aside or wholly despised. You know how often I appealed to him, as well by myself as by the bishops, especially in the council summoned last year for this purpose, and yet I won nothing but disfavour. It can escape no man, who thinks aright, that I ought to love my mortal brother, but much rather ought to regard the cause of my immortal Father. Therefore, since God has judged my brother, permitting him without my connivance to fall into the power of the mighty, in my right as legate I have asked you all to assemble hither, that the kingdom be not imperilled for lack of a ruler. Yesterday the matter was discussed in secret before the greater part of the clergy of England, whose right it is above all men to elect and ordain a prince. First, then, as is justly due, calling God to our aid, we elect as lady of England and Normandy, the daughter of the peaceful, the glorious, the wealthy, the excellent king, incomparable in our times, and we promise her fealty and maintenance.”

After all present had either suitably applauded his declaration or by silence refrained from opposition, the legate added: “We have summoned by messengers the men of London, who rank almost as nobles in England through the greatness of the city, and have sent them safe conduct, and I trust that they will not delay their arrival beyond to-day; let us give them good grace until the morrow.”

On the fourth day came the men of London, and after being conducted into the council, put their case so far as to say that they had been sent by the commune of London not to raise strife but to pray for the release of their lord the king from captivity; and that all the barons who had long been admitted into their commune, earnestly demanded the same of the lord legate and of the archbishop and all the clergy there present. The legate answered them fully and clearly, and to prevent the fulfilment of what they requested, repeated his speech of the previous day, adding, however, that it did not become the men of London, who were esteemed in England as nobles, to support the cause of those who had abandoned their lord in battle, by whose counsel he had dishonoured Holy Church, and finally who appeared to show favour to the men of London solely in order to drain them of their money.... They took counsel together and said that they would report the decree of the council to their fellows, and give it their countenance so far as they could.

On the fifth day the council broke up after the excommunication of many of the royal party, in particular, William Martel, formerly king Henry’s butler, and afterwards sewer[40] to king Stephen; he had grossly exasperated the legate by intercepting and pilfering much of his property.

It was a heavy task, however, to win over the goodwill of the men of London, for though these events took place, as I have said, immediately after Easter, it was only a few days before Midsummer that they consented to receive the empress. By that time the greater part of England had duly accepted her governance.... But at the very moment when she thought to secure possession of the whole of England, all was changed. The men of London, always mistrusted, and murmuring among themselves, now burst out into expressions of open hatred, and even, it is said, lay in wait for the Lady and her earls. They had warning and escaped, and left the city gradually without rioting and with a kind of knightly discipline. The empress was accompanied by the legate and David king of Scotland, her uncle, and her brother Robert, then as always, in all things, the partner of his sister’s fortunes, and, in short, all of her party escaped to a man. The men of London, learning of their departure, flew to their houses and plundered everything which they had left behind in their haste.

THE CAREER OF GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE (1143.)

=Source.=--William of Newburgh, _Historia rerum Anglicarum_, ed. Howlett, vol. i., p. 44. (Rolls Series, Chronicles of Stephen, Henry II., and Richard I.)

At the same time king Stephen seized Geoffrey de Mandeville in his court at St. Albans, not indeed honourably and according to the law of nations, but for his deserts and out of fear, with an eye rather to the expedient than to the chivalrous. For Geoffrey was a man of consummate daring and of equal strength and cunning, strengthening his hold on the famous Tower of London with two noteworthy added fortifications, and achieving great ends by an ingenious subtlety. For these reasons he inspired fear in the king himself, who, however, was at pains to conceal his sense of wrong suffered at the other’s hands, and watched for a convenient season to take his revenge.

Some years before the king had acquired the treasures of the bishop of Salisbury, and, despatching a large sum of money to Louis, king of the French, had married his son Eustace to Constance, Louis’ sister, planning by a match with so great a prince to strengthen his son’s chance of succession against the count of Anjou and his sons; and Constance was in London with the queen, her mother-in-law. When the queen would have gone elsewhere with her daughter-in-law, the aforesaid Geoffrey, then master of the Tower, prevented her, and seizing her daughter-in-law out of her hands, in spite of her stout resistance, kept her, permitting the queen to depart with ignominy. Afterwards at the king’s demand he reluctantly resigned his noble booty to her father-in-law, who for the time dissembled his just indignation. Now this wrong seemed to have been at length forgotten, when the barons assembled at the royal summons at St. Albans, and among them appeared this bandit; whereupon, forthwith seizing the opportunity, the king gave vent to his righteous anger and putting Geoffrey in bonds, extorted from him the Tower of London with the two other fortresses which he held. Stripped of his defences, but released, his incapacity to rest, his mighty spirit, his almost incomparable resource, and his extraordinary genius for evil, led him to gather together an impious crew, at whose head he burst into the monastery of Ramsey; without fear, he drove out the monks, and turned the famous and holy place into a den of thieves, and the sanctuary of God into the home of the devil, ravaging the country round with constant sallies and expeditions. Success increased his confidence, and going further afield, he harassed and menaced king Stephen with the boldest assaults. During this wild outburst it seemed as if God was asleep and took no thought for human affairs, or even his own, that is, the church; and pious men cried out of their trouble, “Arise, why sleepest thou, O Lord?” But, as the apostle says, after God endured with much patience vessels of wrath fit for destruction, “he arose,” as the prophet says, “as from sleep, and smote his enemies in their hinder parts,” that is, in the latter years of those whose earlier career seemed prosperous. In a word, shortly before the destruction of that impious wretch, as is proved by the true testimony of many, the walls of the church into which he had burst, and of the adjacent cloister, sweated with real blood, by which, as afterwards appeared, was signified both the enormity of his crime and the now imminent judgment upon the enormity. But since the evil men, given over to a reprobate mind, were in no wise frightened by a portent so horrible, their abandoned leader, while storming a castle of his enemies among the serried ranks of his followers, was struck on the head by the arrow of a common footman; and from that wound the reckless fighter, though at first he made light of it, died after a few days, and took with him to hell the burden of the church’s anathema, from which he could never be absolved.

His two most cruel followers, of whom one was over the knights and the other over the footmen, are reported to have perished by diverse mishaps. The one died by a fall from his horse, his head being crushed on the ground and his brains scattered; the other, Rainer by name, the chief destroyer and burner of churches, when crossing the sea with his wife, brought the ship to a standstill in mid ocean by the weight of his sins. The sailors and others who were crossing at the same time were reduced to stupefaction, but, following the ancient example, cast lots, and the lot fell upon Rainer; and when, to prevent the possibility of accident, they cast lots a second and a third time with the same result, it was declared to be the judgment of God. So, in order that all might not perish with him and on his account, he was put out in a boat with his wife and his ill-gotten wealth. The ship immediately leapt forward and was borne on its usual course. But the boat sank under the weight of the sinner, and was overwhelmed in the waves.

THE TREATY OF PEACE BETWEEN KING STEPHEN AND PRINCE HENRY (1153).

=Source.=--Henry of Huntingdon, _Historia Anglorum_, ed. Arnold, p. 289. (Rolls Series.)

Meanwhile archbishop Theobald urgently treated with the king, to induce him to come to terms with the duke, speaking often with the king in person and with the duke by messenger.

His efforts were seconded by Henry bishop of Winchester, who before had woefully disturbed the realm by conferring the crown upon Stephen his brother; now, stirred to repentance and seeing the whole country ruined by plunder, fire and slaughter, he shared in the negotiations for peace, to put an end to the awful evils. Above all, the providence of God, which makes peace and permits evil, purposing to stay the scourge that smote England according to her deserts, prospered their work until their efforts were blessed by the calm of peace and a treaty confirmed by oaths. Oh! priceless joy, oh! blessed day! when the illustrious prince, led by the king himself, was received with honour in the city of Winchester at the head of a splendid procession of bishops and warriors, amid the acclamation of a numberless throng of the people. For the king received him as his adopted son and acknowledged him heir to the throne. Thence the king brought the duke with him to London, where he was received with equal joy by a numberless multitude of people and magnificent processions, as so great a man deserved. So did the mercy of God shed a halo of peace and lighten the darkness of the ruined realm of England.

This accomplished, king Stephen and his new son parted in joy and affection, to meet again, for this treaty was confirmed before Christmas. But on the octave of the Epiphany they met once more at Oxford, after the duke had spent almost a year in the conquest, or rather the resurrection of England. There then the chief men of the English, by the king’s command, did to the duke the homage and fealty due to a lord saving to the king due honour and fealty during his life. From this brilliant gathering they joyfully departed to their own homes, blessed by a new peace. Again after a short interval of time they met at Dunstable. There a brilliant day was somewhat clouded. The duke was displeased that the castles, which had been everywhere built after the death of king Henry and put to the worst uses, were not destroyed, as had been determined and confirmed by the solemn treaty of peace between them; a great part had now been razed, but the castles of some had been spared either by the clemency or the connivance of the king, whereby their mutual adherence to the compact seemed to be impaired. The duke, on complaining hereon to the king, suffered a repulse, but, deferring to his new father, reluctantly postponed the question, that the light of their harmony might not seem to be extinguished by him; they parted peaceably, and not long after, by the king’s licence, the victorious duke returned to Normandy.

BILLING AND SONS, LTD., PRINTERS, GUILDFORD

_THE NEW MOVEMENT IN HISTORY TEACHING_

_Crown 8vo. viii + 120 pp. 1s. net each_

BELL’S ENGLISH HISTORY SOURCE-BOOKS

JOINT EDITORS

S. E. WINBOLT, M.A., Christ’s Hospital, Horsham; KENNETH BELL, M.A., Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford

_VOLUMES NOW READY_

=449-1066. THE WELDING OF THE RACE.= By the Rev. JOHN WALLIS, M.A., Christ’s Hospital, Horsham.

=1066-1154. THE NORMANS IN ENGLAND.= Edited by A. E. BLAND, B.A. (Public Record Office). [_In preparation._

=1154-1216. THE ANGEVINS AND THE CHARTER.= Edited by S. M. TOYNE, M.A.

=1216-1307. THE GROWTH OF PARLIAMENT.= By W. D. ROBIESON, University of Glasgow.

=1307-1399. WAR AND MISRULE.= Edited by A. A. LOCKE.

=1399-1485. THE LAST OF FEUDALISM.= Edited by W. GARMON JONES, M.A., University of Liverpool. [_Ready immediately._

=1485-1547. THE REFORMATION AND THE RENAISSANCE.= Edited by F. W. BEWSHER, B.A.

=1547-1603. THE AGE OF ELIZABETH.= Edited by ARUNDELL ESDAILE, M.A.

=1603-1660. PURITANISM AND LIBERTY.= Edited by KENNETH BELL, M.A.

=1660-1714. A CONSTITUTION IN MAKING.= Edited by G. B. PERRETT, M.A.

=1714-1760. WALPOLE AND CHATHAM.= Edited by K. A. ESDAILE.

=1760-1801. AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.= Edited by S. E. WINBOLT, M.A.

=1801-1815. ENGLAND AND NAPOLEON.= Edited by S. E. WINBOLT, M.A.

=1815-1837. PEACE AND REFORM.= Edited by A. C. W. EDWARDS, Christ’s Hospital, Horsham.

=1837-1856. COMMERCIAL POLITICS.= By R. H. GRETTON, M.A. [_In preparation._

=1856-1876. FROM PALMERSTON TO DISRAELI.= Edited by EWING HARDING, B.A.

=1876-1887. IMPERIALISM AND MR. GLADSTONE.= Edited by R. H. GRETTON.

=1535-1913. CANADA.= By JAMES MUNRO, M.A., University of Edinburgh.

=1637-1688. THE SCOTTISH COVENANTERS.= By J. PRINGLE THOMSON.

* * * * *

=1689-1746. THE JACOBITE REBELLIONS.= By J. PRINGLE THOMSON.

LONDON: G. BELL AND SONS, LTD.

_OPINIONS OF THE PRESS_

“The compilers have taken a sensible view of their functions. They give a sufficiency of statutes and documents; but they have been more particularly at pains to unearth narratives, character-sketches, and passages of satire or argument. They aim at stimulating the imagination and at provoking discussion. Teachers will be grateful to them for avoiding hackneyed material; and it will indeed be an expert who browses in either of these volumes without finding that his attention is called to unfamiliar but most attractive sources of information. For our own part, we have been incited by Mr. Bell to look up Bradford’s ‘History of Plymouth Plantation,’ and by Mr. Perrett to send for the ‘Lives of the Norths.’ These volumes are just of the right length. They contain a hundred and twenty pages apiece, which is about what the intelligent school-boy may be expected to assimilate in the course of one term. And each relates to a period of manageable proportions--the sort of period that is set for a ‘Local’ or a ‘Certificate’ examination as a special subject. It would be difficult for a school-boy, however willing, to work over the whole of English history with the deliberation which the use of such a source-book implies. But the occasional study of a short period on these lines is essential if history is to be made a living subject. The series that Messrs. Bell are preparing will give to teachers the widest possible range of choice; for it will contain twenty volumes, the first dealing with Roman Britain and the last with the years 1901-1912.... Each volume will be a capital shilling’s worth.”--_Manchester Guardian._

“Must make the study of history infinitely easier both for teacher and pupil, and infinitely more interesting.”--_Spectator._

“Will make the history lesson a real pleasure to the scholar.”--_Educational News._

“As incentives to greater interest in history, they cannot fail to be most useful both to teacher and student.”--_Athenæum._

“Every secondary school should have the series in use.”--_Education._

LONDON: G. BELL AND SONS, LTD.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] To be “in lot and scot” is in modern phrase “to pay rates.”

[2] _I.e._, if he be killed.

[3] Date unknown.

[4] _I.e._, “alms.” To hold in “almoin” is to hold by the sole service of prayers for the grantor.

[5] The hide was at once a measure of land normally consisting of about 120 acres, and a fiscal unit; a Domesday manor containing ten hides for purposes of taxation might comprise a larger area than 1,200 acres.

[6] A socman holds land by the service of attending the lords’ court or soke.

[7] Highway robbery.

[8] Housebreaking.

[9] _I.e._, the precincts, one mile and a half round.

[10] _I.e._, from all national and local burdens, whether financial, judicial, or otherwise.

[11] Rights of jurisdiction.

[12] Toll.

[13] Right to summon possessors of stolen property to name the person from whom they received it.

[14] Apprehension of offenders.

[15] Payment for watch and ward.

[16] Market, fair, and port tolls.

[17] Fine for housebreaking.

[18] Highway robbery and the fine due for the same.

[19] Fine for bloodshedding.

[20] Fine for bastardy.

[21] This clause, from “with sac and soc” to “larceny,” grants to the abbey full rights of jurisdiction, with tolls, and fines for the offences specified.

[22] William of St. Karileph, Bishop of Durham, accused of participation in the rebellion of Bishop Odo.

[23] Dispossessed.

[24] Charged with.

[25] _I.e._, an absolute possession, free from all feudal service.

[26] The chronicler and the archbishop.

[27] Dishbearer to the royal household.

[28] _I.e._, by lavish bribery.

[29] A toll on travellers.

[30] A toll on cargoes.

[31] A soke is a court and an area of jurisdiction.

[32] The money-value set on a man if he were killed.

[33] The fine for changing the ground of an action once begun in court.

[34] Literally, a chess-board.

[35] In actual coin.

[36] _I.e._, agreements with the crown touching feudal payments.

[37] Matilda the Empress.

[38] On the other hand, the author of _Gesta Stephani_ states: “The king ordered that the two bishops should be separately confined in foul places and tortured with sharp fasting, and that the chancellor, son of the bishop of Salisbury, now seized and thrown into chains, should be hanged in front of the castle gate, unless the bishop of Ely should surrender the castle and admit the king’s force.”

[39] This account does not agree with that of Henry of Huntingdon, who states that he was taken by William de Kahaines, after his battle-axe and sword had broken.

[40] Dish-bearer.

Transcriber’s Notes

As most of the text in this book consists of quotations from different sources, inconsistencies in spelling, punctuation, and hyphenation have been retained. Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines also have been retained.

Simple typographical errors were corrected; occasional unbalanced quotation marks were retained except as noted below.

Page 47: Closing quotation mark added after “to its ratification....”.

Page 56: Closing quotation mark added after “something for nothing.”.