Читать книгу The Leading Facts of English History - D. H. Montgomery - Страница 15

[2] "William, in short, had no king of right to the crown, whether by birth, bequest, or election." (E. A. Freeman's "Short History of the Norman Conquest," p. 65.) [3] Guizot; see also note 1 on page 64.

124. William's Death (1087).

In less than a year from that time, William went to Normandy to quell an invasion led by his eldest son, Robert. As he rode down a steep street in Mantes, his horse stumbled and he received a fatal injury. He was carried to the priory of St. Gervase, just outside the city of Rouen.

Early in the morning he was awakened by the great cathedral bell. "It is an hour of praise," his attendant said to him, "when the priests give thanks for the new day." William lifted up his hands in prayer and expired.

125. His Burial (1087).

His remains were taken for interment to St. Stephen's church, which he had built in the city of Caen, Normandy. As they were preparing to let down the body into the grave, a man suddenly stepped forward and forbade the burial. William, he said, had taken the land, on which the church stood, from his father by violence. He demanded payment. The corpse was left on the bier, and inquiry instituted, and not until the debt was discharged was the body lowered to its last resting place.

"Thus," says the old chronicle, "he who had been a powerful king, and the lord of so many territories, possessed not then of all his lands more than seven feet of earth," and not even that unttil the cash was paid for it. But William's bones were not to rest when finally laid in the grave, for less than five centuries later (1532) the French Protestants dug them up and scattered them.

126. Summary (1066–1087).

The results of the Norman Conquest may be thus summed up:

1. The Conquest was not the subjugation of the English by a different race, but rather a victory won for their advantage by a branch of their own race.[1] 2. It found England a divided country (S71); it made it a united kingdom. It also united England and Normandy (SS108, 191), and brought the new English kingdom into closer contact with the higher civilization of the Continent. This introduced fresh intellectual stimulus, and gave to the Anglo-Saxon a more progressive spirit. 3. It modified the English language by the influence of the Norman-French element, thus giving it greater flexibility, refinement, and elegance of expression. 4. It substituted for the fragile and decaying structures of wood generally built by the Saxons, Norman castles, abbeys, and cathedrals of stone. 5. It hastened influences, which were already at work, for the consolidation of the nation. It developed and completed the feudal form of land tenure, but it made that tenure strictly subordinate to the Crown, and so freed it, in great measure, from the evils of Continental feudalism (SS86, 150). 6. It reorganized the English Church and defined the relation of the Crown to that Church and to the Pope (S118). 7. It abolished the four great earldoms (S64), which had been a constant source of weakness, danger, and division; it put an end to the Danish invasions; it brought the whole of England under a strong monarchical government, to which not only all the great nobles, but also their vassals or tenants, were compelled to swear allegiance (SS121, 122). 8. It made no radical changes in the English laws, but enforced impartial obedience to them among all classes.[2]

[1] It has already been shown that Norman, Saxon, and Dane were originally branches of the Teutonic or German race. (SS36, 62). [2] Professor E. A. Freeman, who is the highest authority on this subject (see especially his "Short History of the Norman Conquest"), holds the view that the coming of William was, on the whole, the greatest advantage to England. Nearly all leading historians agree with him; for a different view consult Professor C. Oman's "England before the Norman Conquest," pp. 648–651.

William Rufus[3]—1087–1100

[3] William Rufus: William the Red, a nickname probably derived from his red face.

127. William the Conqueror's Bequest (1087).

William the Conqueror left three sons—Robert, William Rufus, and Henry. He also left a daughter, Adela, who married a powerful French nobleman, Stephen, Count of Blois. On his deathbed (S124) William bequeathed Normandy to Robert. He expressed a wish that William Rufus should become ruler over England, while to Henry he left five thousand pounds of silver, with the prediction that he would ultimately be the greatest of them all.

Before his eyes were closed, the two sons, who were with him, hurried away—William Rufus to seize the realm of England, Henry to get possession of his treasure. Robert was not present. His recent rebellion (S124) would alone have been sufficient reason for alloting to him the lesser portion; but even had he deserved the scepter, William knew it required a firmer hand than his to hold it.

128. Condition of England.

France was simple an aggregation of independent and mutually hostile dukedoms. The ambition of the Norman leaders threatened to bring England into the same condition. During the twenty-one years of William the Conqueror's reign, the Norman barons on the Continent had constantly tried to break loose from his restraining power. It was certain, then, that the news of his death would be the signal for still more desperate attempts.

129. Character of William Rufus.

Rufus had his father's ability and resolution, but none of his father's conscience. As the historian of that time declared, "he feared God but little, man not at all." He had Caesar's faith in destiny, and said to a boatman who hesitated to set off with him in a storm at his command, "Did you ever hear of a king's being drowned?"

130. His Struggle with the Barons.

The barons broke the solemn oath which they had taken in the previous reign (S122) to be faithful to the Crown. During the greater part of the thirteen years of the new King's reign they were fighting against him. On William's part it was a battle of centralization against disintegration. He rallied the country people to his help—those who fought with bows and spears. "Let every man," said the King, "who would not be branded infamous and a coward, whether he live in town or country, leave everything and come to me" (S85).

In answer to that appeal, the English people rallied around their

Norman sovereign, and gained the day for him under the walls of

Rochester Castle, Kent. Of the two evils, the tyranny of one or the

tyranny of many, he first seemed to them preferable.

131. William's Method of raising Money; he defrauds the Church.

If in some respects William the Conqueror had been a harsh ruler, his son was worse. His brother Robert had mortgaged Normandy to him in order to get money to join the first crusade (S182). William Rufus raised whatever funds he desired by the most oppressive and unscrupulous means.

William's most trusted counselor was Ranulf Flambard. Flambard had brains without principle. He devised a system of plundering both Church and people in the King's interest. Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, died three years after William's accession. Through Flambard's advice the King left the archbishopric vacant and appropriated its revenues to himself. He practiced the same course with respect to every office of the Church.

132. The King makes Anselm Archbishop (1093).

While this process of systematized robbery was going on, the King suddenly fell ill. In his alarm lest death was at hand, he determined to make reparation to the defrauded and insulted priesthood. He invited Anselm, the abbot of a famous monastery in Normandy, to accept the archbishopric. Anselm, who was old and feeble, declined, saying that he and the King could not work together. "It would be," said he, "like yoking a sheep and a bull."

But the king would take no refusal. Calling Anselm to his bedside, he forced the staff of office into his hands. Anselm became the champion of the freedom of the Church. But when the King recovered, he resumed his old practices and treated the Archbishop with such insult that he left the country for a time.

133. William's Merit; his Death.

William II's one merit was that he kept England from being devoured piecemeal by the Norman barons, who regarded her as a pack of hounds in full chase regard the hare that is on the point of falling into their rapacious jaws.

Like his father, he insisted on keeping the English Church independent of the ever-growing power of Rome (S118). In both cases his motives were purely selfish, but the result to the country was good.

His power came suddenly to an end (1100). He had gone in the morning to hunt in the New Forest (S119) with his brother Henry. He was found lying dead among the bushes, pierced by an arrow shot by an unknown hand.

William's character speaks in his deeds. It was hard, cold, despotic, yet in judging it we should consider the woulds of that quaint old writer, Thomas Fuller, when he says, "No pen hath originally written the life of this King but what was made with a monkish penknife, and no wonder if his picture seems bad, which was thus drawn by his enemy."

134. Summary.

Notwithstanding William's oppression of both Church and people, his reign checked the revolt of the baronage and prevented the kingdom from falling into anarchy like that existing in France.

Henry I—1100–1135

135. Henry's Charter of Liberties.

Henry, third son of William the Conqueror, was the first of the Norman kings who was born and educated in England. Foreseeing a renewal of the contest with the barons (S130), he issued a Charter of Liberties on his accession, by which he bound himself to reform the abuses which had been practiced by his brother William Rufus. The charter guaranteed: (1) The rights of the Church (which William Rufus had constantly violated); (2) the rights of the nobles and landholders against extortionate demands by the Crown; (3) the right of all classes to protection of the old English customs or laws.

The King sent a hundred copies of this important document to the leading abbots and bishops for preservation in their respective monasteries and cathedrals (S45).

As this charter was the earliest written and formal guarantee of good government ever given by the Crown to the nation, it marks an important epoch in English history. It may be compared to the statements of principles and pledges issued by our modern political parties. It was a virtual admission that the time had come when even a Norman sovereign could not dispense with the support of the country. It was therefore an admission of the truth that while a people can exist without a king, no king can exist without a people.

Furthermore, this charter established a precedent for those which were to follow, and which reached a final development in the Great Charter wrested from the unwilling hand of King John somewhat more than a century later (S198). Henry further strengthened his position with his English subjects by his marriage with Maud, nice of the Saxon Edgar, a direct descendant of King Alfred (S51).

136. The Appointment of Bishops settled.

King Henry also recalled Anselm (S132) and reinstated him in his office. But the peace was of short duration. The Archbishop insisted, as did the Pope, that the power of appointment of bishops should be vested wholly in Rome. The King was equally determined that such appointments should spring from himself. Like William the Conqueror (S118), he declared: "No one shall remain in my land who will not do me homage" (S86).

The quarrel was eventually settled by compromise. The Pope was to invest the bishop with ring and crosier, or pastoral staff of office, as emblems of the spiritual power; the King, on the other hand, was to grant the lands from which he bishop drew his revenues, and in return was to receive his homage or oath of allegiance.

This acknowledgement of royal authority by the Church was of great importance, since it gave the King power as feudal lord to demand from each bishop his quota of fully equipped knights or cavalry soldiers (SS150, 152). This armed force would usually be commanded by the bishop in person (S140).

137. Henry's Quarrel with Robert; the "Lion of Justice."

While this Church question was in dispute, Henry had still more pressing matters to attend to. His elder brother Robert (SS124, 127) had invaded England and demanded the crown. The greater part of the Norman nobles supported this claim, but the English people held to Henry. Finally, in consideration of a heavy money payment, Robert agreed to return to Normandy and leave his brother in full possession of the realm. On his departure, Henry resolved to drive out the prominent nobles who had aided Robert. Of these, the Earl of Shrewsbury, called "Robert the Devil," was the leader. With the aid of the English, who hated him for his cruelty, the earl was at last compelled to leave the country.

He fled to Normandy, and, in violation of a previous agreement, was received by Henry's brother Robert. Upon that, Henry declared war, and, crossing the Channel, fought (1106) the battle of Tinchebrai,[1] by which he conquered and held Normandy as completely as William, Duke of Normandy, had conquered England forty years before. The King carried his brother captive to Wales, and kept him in prison during his life in Cardiff Castle. This ended the contest with the nobles.

[1] Tinchebrai, Normandy, in the region west of Caen and Avranches. (See map facing p. 54.)

By his uprightness, his decision, his courage, and by his organization of better courts of law (S147), Henry fairly won the honorable title of the "Lion of Justice"; for the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" says, "No man durst misdo against another in his time."[2]

[2] See, too, the Summary of Constitutional History in the Appendix, p. vi, S7.

138. Summary.

The three leading points of Henry I's reign are: (1) the self-limitation of the royal power embodied in his Charter of Liberties; (2) the settlement of old disputes between the King and the Church; (3) the banishment of the chief of the mutinous barons, and the victory of Tinchebrai, with its important results.

Stephen—1135–1154

139. The Rival Candidates.

With Henry I's death two candidates presented themselves for the throne—Henry's daughter, Matilda (for he left no lawful son), and his nephew, Stephen. In France the custom of centuries had determined that the crown should never descend to a female. It was an age when the sovereign was expected to lead his army in person, and it certainly was not expedient that a woman should hold a position one of whose chief duties she could not discharge. This French custom had, of course, no force in England; but the Norman nobles must have recognized its reasonableness; or if not, the people did.[1]

[1] Before Henry's death, the baronage had generally sworn to support Matilda (commonly called the Empress Matilda, or Maud, from her marriage to the Emperor Henry V of Germany; later, she married Geoffrey of Anjou). But Stephen, with the help of London and the Church, declared himself "elected King by the assent of the clergy and the people." Many of the barons now gave Stephen their support.

Four years after Stephen's accession Matilda landed in England and claimed the crown. The east of England stood by Stephen, the west by Matilda. For the sake of promoting discord, and through discord their own private ends, part of the barons gave their support to Matilda, while the rest refused, as they said, to "hold their estates under a distaff." In the absence of the Witan or National Council (S80), London unanimously chose Stephen King (1135).

The fatal defect in the new King was the absence of executive ability. Following the example of Henry (S135), he issued two charters or pledges of good government; but without power to carry them out, they proved simply waste paper.

140. The Battle of the Standard (1135).

David I of Scotland, Matilda's uncle, espoused her cause and invaded

England with a powerful force. He was met at North Allerton, in

Yorkshire, by the party of Stephen, and the battle of the Standard was

fought.

The leaders of the English were both churchmen, who showed that they could fight as vigorously as they could pray (S136). The standard consisted of four consecrated banners, surmounted by a cross. This was set up on a wagon, on which one of the bishops stood. The sight of this sacred standard made the English invincible. (See map facing page 436.)

After a fierce contest the Scots were driven from the field. It is said that this was the first battle in which the English peasants used the long bow; they had taken the hist, perhaps, from the Norman archers at the battle of Hastings (SS73, 74). Many years later, their skill in foreign war made that weapon as famous as it was effective (S238).

141. Civil War (1138–1153).

For fifteen years following, the country was torn by civil war. While it raged, fortified castles, which, under William the Conqueror, had been built and occupied by the King only, or by those whom he could trust, now arose on every side. These strongholds became, as the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" (S99) declares, "very nests of devils and dens of thieves." More than a thousand of these castles, it is said, were built. The armed bands who inhavited them levied tribute on the whole country around.

Not satisfied with that, these miscreants seized those who were suspected of having property, and, in the words of the "Chronicle," "tortured them with pains unspeakable; for some they hung up by the feet and smoked with foul smoke; others they crushed in a narrow chest with sharp stones. About the heads of others they bound knotted cords until they went into the brain." "Thousands died of hunger, the towns were burned, and the soil left untilled. By such deeds the land was ruined, and men said openly that Christ and his saints were asleep."

The sleep, however, was not always to last; for in the next reign, Justice, in the person of Henry II, effectually vindicated her power. The strife for the crown continued till the last year of Stephen's reign. Then the Church came to the rescue, and through its powerful influence the Treaty of Wallingford (in Berkshire) was made. By that treaty it was agreed that Matilda's son Henry should succeed Stephen.

142. Summary.

Stephen was the last of the Norman kings. Their reign had covered nearly a century. The period began in conquest and usurpation; it ended in gloom. We are not, however, to judge it by Stephen's reign alone, but as a whole.

This considered, it shows at least one point of advance over the preceding period—the triumph of the moral power of the Church over feudal discord. But Stephen's reign was not all loss in other respects, for out of the "war, wickedness, and waste" of his misgovernment came a universal desire for peace through law. Thus indirectly this weak King's inefficiency prepared the way for future reforms.