G. & M. 48.) Church building. (Barnard 7.) example was shown of obedience flowing from duty instead from fear and from mere self-interest were encouraged. The marriage of the clergy was forbidden. This was done not merely because a married priest would be entangled in worldly affairs, but because it would in those days be almost impossible for him to escape from the lowering influence of a companion who was by no means looked on then as a helper and an equal. The true remedy no doubt lay in raising the position and dignity of women, but that was not yet attempted. The building of Churches began to be of stone instead of wood and wattle. Edward the Confessor had already built Westminster Abbey in the Norman style, with its massive pillars, round arches, (Barnardi.-iv, lxxii.) and zig-zag ornament, but now similar buildings arose at Canterbury, London (St. Paul's), Winchester (the Transepts), Gloucester, and elsewhere. Church organisation was improved. New Bishoprics were created at Ely, Llandaff and S. David's; and the "Bishop's Stool" in existing dioceses was removed from villages to towns. The Bishops of Dorchester, Sherborne and Selsey became the Bishops of Lincoln, Salisbury and Chichester, and were thus brought into closer touch with national life. e, diocesan reorganisation. (Stubbs i, 311.) V. Foreign affairs. 1. Scotland. William's turbulent relations with his subjects, English and Norman, were paralleled by those with his neighbours. The (Freeman 152-154) King of Scotland, Malcolm III., championed the claims of Edgar Atheling, grandson of Edmund Ironside, whose sister Margaret he had married. In 1070 he invaded England. Again in 1079 while William was absent in Normandy he crossed the border with his troops. But on each occasion his success was small and shortlived. In 1072 he was forced to acknowledge William as his overlord, and the Lowlands of Scotland, where many of the men who held lands in England also had power, fell largely under "English" influence in regard to language and customs. 2. France. With the King of France, who was nominally the overlord of the Duke of Normandy, William was constantly at war. could not without difficulty exercise effective control over his domains across the Channel, and the King of France naturally tried to improve his own position by helping William's rebellious vassals. In 1073 Maine broke away from his rule but was reconquered, and Englishmen readily helped him in the task. In 1077 there was a rebellion of his eldest son Robert in Normandy, assisted by King Philip, William of Breteuil and B. of Gerberoi, 1079. Robert of Belesme. For a time it was dangerous but it ended in 1080 by a reconciliation with Robert. VI. William's death and work. 1087. Another rebellion of Robert occurred in 1087. As William rode into Mantes which he had captured and given up to pillage and fire, his horse suddenly reared among the embers and William, internally injured by being flung against the saddle, was carried to Rouen to die. He had done a great work. The effects of the Norman Conquest, so far as England was concerned, may be summarised as follows: 1. The Royal Power had been vastly increased by the 2. In the Law, although the actual outward changes were 4. In general the Nation grew in unity. Local and personal (Stubb i. 269. i. His character WILLIAM II. 1087-1100. ii. His relations with the Baronage a. Attempts at repression b. Rebellions iii. The Clergy a. Flambard's abuses b. Anselm appointed Archbishop of Canterbury d. Council of Rockingham iv. William's death and work. 1. William II's character. (Stubbs i, 328. G. & M. 50.) (G. & M. 50.) (Stubbs i, 324.) 1. Baronage. a, repressed and robbed. William I. had centred the whole power in the hands of the king. What would happen if the all-powerful king were a bad man? To this question William II. was to supply a speedy answer. The Conqueror left three sons: 1. Robert, who became Duke of Normandy. 2. William, who became King of England. 3. Henry, who became, later, both King of England and Duke of Normandy. William II., called Rufus' from his red hair and ruddy complexion, was a man whose passions were utterly unrestrained. Like his father he was vigorous and masterful, but, unlike his father, he knew nothing of the claims of religion, morality, or even family. He seemed to represent selfishness in its most hateful form, and showed himself the enemy of God and man alike. His father's work had made him absolute, and his own talents enabled him to take advantage of the weakness and disunion of his subjects, to exercise his powers to the full and in the worst ways. He at once used for his own ends the support which the English had been wont to give to the King against the Baronage. Lust of power and lust of gold led him to embark on a vast career of plunder and tyranny. He showed how William I.'s feudalism 1eadily lent itself to extortion. The skill and knowledge of Ranulf Flambard, his able and unscrupulous minister and abettor, showed how it could be made into a system of sheer oppression. The Barons were taught that the conditions on which they held their lands subjected them to penal exactions in the form (Stubbs i, 319, 324.) of Special Aids. Lands descending to a minor lapsed into the King's hands and during the minority were stripped and robbed. Reliefs were enforced to their fullest possible amount from heirs on attaining their majority, and from heiresses on their marriage. The lands of the Church were plundered in the same way. The Sees were treated as lay holdings, and on a vacancy were dealt with like the rest. Long delays were purposely made before successors were appointed and the nominee had to agree to the robberies which had taken place in the interval, as well as to pay a heavy bribe for his appointment. The Baronage tried to resist, and Odo, who had been released, set up Robert of Normandy as King. But William cleverly threw himself upon the support of the English, and the National Fyrd rallied to his summons. Rochester Castle, which Odo had fortified, was speedily taken and Odo driven into exile. Next year Archbishop Lanfranc died, and the sole check on. the King was thus removed. No successor was appointed and Flambard's evil skill came into full play. Robert again began hostilities, but Flambard collected sufficient money from the English to bribe the King of France to withdraw his support from his vassal. For a time, too, the energies of the Barons were turned into another channel by an outbreak of war with the Welsh. William skilfully freed himself from dangerous opponents among the Barons by letting them loose on the Welsh, allowing them to keep on easy feudal terms what lands they could conquer. In this way much of South Wales was brought under English rule. b, Rebellions. 1088. 1089. 1091.4. 1094. 1095. Next year however saw another attempt of the Baronage to shake off the King's oppression. Robert Mowbray Earl of Northumberland rose, but William's victories at Newcastle and Bamborough brought about the capture of Mowbray, and the First Crusade which was everywhere attracting adventurous spirits drew off many of the discontented Barons from England. Duke Robert of Normandy went with them, pawning Normandy to William to provide the expense of the expedition. Meanwhile William had been engaged in a far more serious III. The Clergy. difficulty, and one which was complicated by religious and moral questions. 1096. abuses. In accordance with Flambard's general policy the see of a, Flambard's Canterbury was left vacant on Lanfranc's death in 1089. That the estates were plundered and wasted and the see robbed was only the least part of the evil. The whole organisation of the Church fell into confusion, when there was no Archbishop of Canterbury, and the practical effects may be imagined when William I.'s action in regard to the Ecclesiastical Courts is remembered. Besides, the injury to religion and morality itself must have been very serious as year by year went by and no Archbishop was appointed. Archbishop. At last a dangerous illness brought William face to face with b,Anselm appointed the prospect of death, and before the King of Terrors even the Red King's courage failed. Anselm of Bec, who happened to (Church, St. Anselm, Green 73.) c, Outbreak of quarrel. be in England at the time, was forced, almost by physical force, to accept the dangerous office. He was Prior of Bec, where he had succeeded Lanfranc, as he now succeeded him at Canterbury. The pupil had surpassed his master in learning and piety: indeed Anselm was famous throughout Europe for his theological and philosophical works. The King no sooner recovered from his illness than he began to pick a quarrel with the Archbishop, with a bitterness which seemed to be increased by his remembrance of Anselm's reluctance to accept the office and his own share in forcing it upon him. Anselm had refused to commit the sin of simony on his appointment; and he had made it a condition of his acceptance that the revenue of the see which had been confiscated during the vacancy should be restored. Both these exasperated the King and were made grounds of complaint. Anselm as Prior of Bec had long ago acknowledged Urban as Pope: William alleged truly that his father had forbidden the recognition of any Pope without royal leave. But in the son's case royal authority was merely tyranny, used for the selfish ends of a (Wakeman 98-101) bad man, while the strength of Anselm's position was that he stood for moral right and the higher claims of conscience. (G. & M. 52.) d. Council of In vain the Bishops, who were appointed by the King, ranged themselves on the side of William. The better conRockingham, 1095. science of the nation was with Anselm. Barons and people supported him at the Council of Rockingham and the King was obliged to yield. 1097. e, Appeal to the Pope. (Trench ix, xi.) IV William's death and work. A fresh cause of quarrel was found on the outbreak of a Welsh rebellion in 1097. The Archbishop was summoned to answer in the King's Court on the charge of failing to fulfil his feudal obligations. He knew it was futile to hope for justice there for the King's Court simply registered the King's will. It was the same all over Europe, and this fact explains the power which the Papacy was winning at this time. For the Court of Rome, strengthened by the zeal and ability of great and good men like Hildebrand, was at this time a place where justice was, at any rate, the object, and where moral considerations ranked higher than brute force. No wonder therefore that the power of the Papacy was high: it was a triumph of moral rightfulness over mere arbitrary will. To the Court of the Bishop of Rome, so promising then, though soon to sink to a level as low as that of the kings of Christendom, Anselm appealed, and left the country to prosecute his suit. Soon after William was found dead in the New Forest. He had gone there to hunt, and none ever knew whether he had fallen by mistake or by the arrow of one of the many he had so grievously wronged. The charcoal burners who found his cold |