therefore, to remit all his riches in Italy, he had persuaded many considerable barons to take the same course, in hopes that when he should mount the papal throne, he would bestow on them more considerable establishments in that country. The king, from whom all these projects had been carefully concealed, at last got intelligence of the design, and ordered Odo to be arrested. He was sent prisoner to Normandy, where he was detained in custody during the remainder of this reign, notwithstanding the remonstrances and menaces of the Pope Gregory, to whom William replied, that he had arrested Odo not as bishop of Bayeux, but as earl of Kent.

Another domestic event gave the king much more concern, in the year 1082. It was the death of Matilda, his consort, for whom he had ever preserved the most sincere friendship. Three years afterwards, he passed into Normandy with Edgar Atheling, to whom he willingly permitted to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. He was detained on the continent by a misunderstanding_which broke out between him and the king of France, Philip I. William's displeasure was exasperated by the account he received of some railleries which that monarch had thrown out against him. William, ' who was become corpulent, had been detained in bed by sickness, upon which Philip was heard to express his surprise, that his brother of England should be so long in being delivered of his big belly. The king sent him word, that he should soon be up, and would, at his churching, present so many lights at Notre Dame, as would, perhaps, give little pleasure to the king of France. diately on his recovery, he led an army into l'Isle de France, and laid every thing waste with fire and sword. He took the town of Mantes, which he reduced to ashes. But his horse starting aside of a

Imme

sudden, he bruised so severely his belly on the pummel of the saddle, that apprehending the consequences, he ordered himself to be carried in a litter to the monastery at St. Gervais at Rouen. Finding his illness increase, and being sensible of the approach of death, he began to turn his eyes to a future state, and was now struck with remorse for all his cruelties and depredations. He endeavoured to atone for them by large presents to churches and monasteries, and by giving liberty to many prisoners whom he unjustly detained. He then bequeathed Normandy and le Maine to his eldest son Robert. He wrote to Lanfranc, desiring him to crown William, king of England, and left to Henry the possessions of his mother Matilda; but foretold that he would one day surpass both his brothers in power and opulence. He expired on the 9th of September, 1087, in the sixty-third year of his age, in the 21st of his reign over England, and in the 54th of that over Normandy.

William the Conqueror was endowed with wonderful talents, courage, and vigour of mind. His 'bold and enterprising spirit was always guided by prudence; as his unbounded ambition by the dictates of sound policy; he is, however, to be considered rather as an extraordinary man than as a great man, as there is no real greatness where there is no virtue; and unfortunately for William's glory, there is not one of his actions which may be properly called virtuous, when the whole of them show him as a cruel, revengeful, rapacious tyrant, for whom all means criminal or not were indifferent, provided they answered his purposes. He was so destitute of principles, so heart-hardened against all feelings of justice and humanity, that he was equally ostentatious in his clemency and in his severity, never preferring one to the other, but according to his interests. He has been praised for his

liberalities to his followers, but were they not his only support? and could he expect to keep them without considerable rewards? besides, what did those liberalities cost him? had he not, as the universal proprietor of England, a whole kingdom to bestow? If after having conquered that country, and insured its submission by a sufficient military force always in readiness, he had tried to conciliate by justice and gentleness the minds of the peaceable inhabitants which form everywhere the majority; his memory, celebrated only for his valour, energy, and military achievements, would still be blessed as that of a great and good monarch. As to the pretended good fortune to which the greatest part of his successes are commonly attributed, it was certainly a lucky chance for him to find in the right heir to the throne he wanted to usurp, a prince of such incapacity as was Edgar Atheling, whose feeble hands were much more fit to wear a pilgrim's staff than a sceptre; but it does not follow that his successes in all circumstances may be with some justice ascribed to fortune, as on the contrary it is a constant fact, that any man very enterprising, and succeeding in all his enterprises must absolutely be a man of great abilities, and such was undoubtedly William the Conqueror. He introduced in England the feudal law, such as it existed in Normandy; and as it became the chief foundation both of the political government and of the jurisprudence established in this country, it is necessary to have a just idea of this law to explain the state of this kingdom, and of all others in Europe, which were governed by similar institutions.

The German governments, which may be considered as the cradle of the feudal system, being rather a confederacy of independent warriors than a civil subjection, derived their principal force from many inferior and voluntary associations,

which individuals formed under a particular head or chieftain. The glory and power of the chief consisted in the number, the bravery, and the zealous attachment of his retainers, whose duty required that they should accompany him in all wars and dangers, that they should fight and perish by his side. The prince himself was nothing but a great chieftain, chosen among the rest on account of his superior valour and abilities; and he derived his power from the voluntary association or attachment of the other chieftains.

When an association, actuated by these principles, subdued a large territory, they assigned a share for supporting the dignity of their prince and government; they distributed other parts under the title of fief, to the chiefs who were the retainers of the prince. These made new partitions of their portion among their own retainers, and these second partitions formed what was called mesne fee or arriere fief.

The express condition of all these grants, which were first considered as a military pay, was, that they might be resumed at pleasure, and that the possessor so long as he enjoyed them, should still remain in readiness to take the field as soon as called by the chieftain for the defence of the association.

The kingdoms of Europe were universally divided into baronies, and these into inferior fiefs, which were likewise subdivided into mesne fees or arriere fiefs. Thus the vast fabric of feudal subordination became solid and comprehensive. It formed every where an essential part of the political constitution, and the barons who followed the fortunes of William the Conqueror were so accustomed to it, that they could scarcely form an idea of any other species of civil government. According to the principles of the feudal law in England, the king was the supreme lord of the landed property; all possessors

who enjoyed the fruits or revenue of any part of it, held them either mediately or immediately of him. The land was considered as a species of benefice, which was the original conception of a feudal property, and the vassal owed in return for it stated services to his baron, as the baron himself did for his land to the crown. The vassal was obliged to defend his baron in war, as the baron, at the head of his vassals was bound to fight in defence of the king and kingdom. The king could, at his pleasure, command the attendance of his barons and their vassals, in which consisted all the military force of the kingdom; and could employ them during forty days either in resisting a foreign enemy or reducing his rebellious subjects.

Besides these military services which were casual, there were others imposed of a civil nature which were more habitual and durable. The king, when he found it necessary for the interest of the state to demand any service of his barons or his chief tenants, beyond what was due by their tenures, was obliged to assemble them in order to obtain their consent, and when it was necessary to determine any controversy which might arise among the barons themselves, the question was discussed in their presence, and decided according to their consent or advice. In these two circumstances of consent and advice consisted chiefly the services of the ancient barons, and this implied all the essential elements of government.

The case was the same with the barons in their courts as with the king in the great council, or supreme council which assumed the denomination of parliament in the year 1222, under the reign of Henry III. The archbishops, bishops, and most considerable abbots were as well as the barons constituent members of this council, as having possessed that privilege through the whole Saxon