Orderic, whose English patriotism is dashed with a personal friendship and admiration for William, but chroniclers like Bromton, the author of the 'Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,' and Henry of Huntingdon, seem to think that the oath which William wrung by treachery and cunning from Harold, should have bound the latter, if not to betray his country, at least to desert the post to which that country had called him, and in which he alone could save her.1 Men holding this view while they had risked all for their country's independence while yet there was hope were hardly likely to desert a leader to whom they had voluntarily pledged themselves.

But there was a third reason more powerful perhaps than either of these which would have led them to support William and his son in the case of the later rebellions against their authority. This reason I will explain by the words of one of the most English of chroniclers. God chose

1 More strangely still this doctrine seems to some extent to have been adopted by a living writer, Pearson's History of England in the Early and Middle Ages, chap. xxi. p. 244. Speaking of Gurth's attempt to persuade Harold to leave the army at Hastings, Mr. Pearson says, 'the Nemesis of his crimes had overtaken him ; he could not in honour desert the men whom he ought in honour never to have commanded.'

the Normans to exterminate the English nation. because they appear so much to excel all peoples by their prerogative of singular cruelty; for their nature is such that when they have so crushed down their enemies that they can add nothing further, they oppress each other, and reduce their own lands into poverty and waste; and always when the lords of the Normans have worn out their enemies, since they cannot abstain from acting cruelly, they wear out their friends by hostile attacks.' These bitter words were amply justified by the events which immediately followed the Norman Conquest.

The earlier insurrections at Exeter, in Kent, and Northumbria, were, no doubt, genuine efforts after English independence, either local or national, and the insurgents trusted at worst to no less worthy support than their kinsmen the Danes.1 But the later risings were evidently mere attempts of ambitious Norman nobles to trade in English patriotism for their own advantage. What, then, could Waltheof find in common with men like Eustace of Boulogne, or Wulstan with Odo of Bayeux ?

1 Florent. Wigorn., p. 3.

When, in the latter case, Rufus opposed a second Norman invasion, he might well call on the English, under pain of being called 'Nithing,' to rally round him. But this was but a slight step upwards, or, properly speaking, it was rather the sign of remaining power than the recovery of lost ground. And it was a sign not wholly of advantage to the English. William might feel the value of Waltheof's alliance, but he could take advantage of that alliance-of the treachery, that is, of a wicked wife, and the too great trustfulness of the generous Earl himself to bring him to the block. He could make use of the courage and saintliness of Wulstan, but he tried none the less to drive him from his see.3

2

1 Compare the accounts given by Orderic (vol. ii. p. 261) with those in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, vol. ii. pp. 181–183; Guill. Malmesb., Book iii. vol. ii. p. 430; Bromton, p. 974 (ed. and vol. as above); Florence of Worcester (p. 10) mentions Waltheof's repentance and submission, but not his wife's treachery.

2 As to Wulstan's resistance to the insurrection of Roger of Hereford, see Florent. Wigorn., p. 11, and Sim. Dunelm. de Gest. Reg. Angl. p. 207 (ed. and vol. as above). As to his part in resisting Odo of Bayeux, see Ang. -Sax. Chron., vol. ii. p. 191; Florent. Wigorn., pp. 23-25.

3 As to the attempt to expel him from his see, see Bromton, p. 976 (ed. and vol. as above); Chronique de Normandie, p. 116, chap. 1.

In short, there could be nothing but suspicion between the Conqueror and the conquered, and any feeling of the usefulness of the latter would merely embitter the suspicion in the mind of the former. If this was so with William I. still more must it have been so with Rufus. To him the thought of faithful subjects meant merely an additional opportunity for tyranny. For he knew that the same reason which made them useful, made them also harmless. They could be depended on not to accept Odo or Robert in his place, therefore they had none to look to but him. In case of an invasion they might be employed with safety; in time of peace they were at his mercy.

But the horrors of the reign of Rufus did not break out at once upon his accession. We may, indeed, hesitate to accept the assertion of William of Malmesbury that even in the earlier years of his reign he was a 'Mirror of Kings,' but we may gladly suppose that (as he implies rather than says),1 Lanfranc's restraining influence did keep the young King within the limits at least of some degree of decency. Yet it was well for Lanfranc's

1 See also Eadmer's Hist. Nov., Book I. p. 14.

reputation as a guide and controller of youth, that he died early in this reign; for brave1 and honest as he undoubtedly was, he was not the man to whom a nation could look for help or sympathy amid the flood of corruption and impurity which was soon to burst on the country.

2

Coming unwillingly from the repose of his abbey at Bec to mix in the politics of a nation whom he despised for want of culture, he set himself, earnestly no doubt, but without any sympathy with the wants and wishes of the English, to promote learning and reform the monasteries. His own clearly-established primacy was no doubt necessary to that end. Therefore, with Northumbria only half subdued, he tried to enforce a claim over Thomas of York, which was not clearly established even in the time of Becket. It was necessary, as he thought, to secure learned bishops. Therefore, the

3

See his rebuke to the flatterers of William (Vita S. Lanfranci, chap. xiii. ed. Paris, 1648). Also his refusal to acknowledge the subjection of England to the Pope at a time when he was specially considered the champion of orthodoxy, Epistolæ S. Lanfranci, p. 378; letters, 7, 8.

2 Vita S. Lanfranci, chap. vi. p. 7.

Eadmer's Hist. Nov., Book I. p. 9, ed. Selden; Ang. -Sax. Chron., vol. ii. p. 175; Vita S. Lanfranci, chap. x. p. 11; Epistolæ, 3rd letter, p. 301.