: lative enactments are attributed to the witan in conjunction with the king. The same diversity appears in treaties concluded with foreign powers. Some bear only the name of the king in others the witan are introduced as sanctioning the instrument by their concurrence. In their judicial capacity they compromised or decided civil controversies among themselves; summoned before them state criminals of great power and connexions; and usually pronounced the sentence of forfeiture and outlawry against those whom they found guilty. As legislators they undertook to provide for the defence of the realm, the prevention and punishment of crimes, and the due administration of justice.' Vol. I. pp. 359-361. The continual agitations of the realm do not seem to have prevented the active prosecution of commerce, or the acquisition of wealth. When William the Norman revisited his continental dominions after the Conquest, the English whom he carried in his train, attracted much attention: the females were admired as models of beauty, and their attire excited astonishment by its magnificence. The Conqueror took with him such a profusion of wealth as to give a somewhat extravagant idea of the prosperity of his new possessions; and one of his historians tells his readers, that England far surpasses the Gauls in abundance of the precious metals. If in fertility it may be termed the granary of Ceres, in riches it should be called the treasury of Arabia. The English women excel in the use of the needle, and in the embroidery of gold; the men in every species of elegant workmanship. Moreover, the best artists of Germany reside among them; and merchants import into the island the most valuable specimens of foreign manufacture.' On other authorities it is stated, that embroidery and goldsmiths' work of superior execution were known to the continental nations by the term operu Anglica.' The immediate effects of the Norman invasion were, no doubt, injurious, and the reigns of the first English monarchs of the race of Rollo were stern and oppressive. The military devastations of William, and the extreme fondness of the new line of sovereigns for the chase, transformed many valuable tracts of land into unprofitable wastes, and visited the natives with intolerable privations. It may, perhaps, be difficult to determine whether the country derived improvement, or not, from the intermixture of the invaders, or from the introduction of new customs, tenures, laws, and tribunals. We are reluctant to engage in a discussion at once so dubious and extensive; though Mr. Lingard bas furnished a skilful selection of materials elucidatory of these topics. The first Henry conferred some benefits upon bis subjects, and distinguished himself by providing for the due administration of justice; but his personal rapacity, the severity of his temper, and his destructive passion for the chase, inflicted sufferings not to be compensated by the casual equity of his rule. Henry II. ascended the throne amid the calamities with which the fierce contests and baronial oppressions of the stormy reign of Stephen had visited England. He found that there were still in reserve for him additional perplexities in the encroachments of the clergy, and the turbulence of his sons. We have already adverted to the view taken by Mr. Lingard of the quarrel between Henry and Becket. For no other purpose conceivable by us, than that of prejudicing the reader's mind against the former, and thus preparing him to side with the latter as the victim of craft, violence, and oppression, an unfavourable character of the monarch is introduced, contrary to the usual practice, at the commencement of his reign. It is, however, powerfully, though, we think, not quite fairly drawn. Before I proceed with this narrative, I shall lay before the reader a sketch of the king's character, as it has been delineated by writers, who lived in his court, and observed his conduct under the vicissitudes of a long and eventful reign. Between the conqueror and all his male descendants there existed a marked resemblance. The stature of Henry was moderate, his countenance majestic, and his complexion florid: but his person was disfigured by an unseemly protuberance of the abdomen, which he sought to contract by the united aid of exercise and sobriety. Few persons have equalled him in abstemiousness, none perhaps in activity. He was perpetually in motion on foot or on horseback. Every moment, which could be spared from more important concerns, he devoted to hunting: but no fatigue could subdue his restlessness: after the chase he would snatch a hasty repast, and then rising from table, in spite of the murmurs of his attendants, keep them walking or standing till bed-time. During his education in the castle of Gloucester he had acquired a knowledge of letters: and after his accession delighted in the conversation of the learned. Such was the power of his memory, that he is said to have retained whatever he had heard or read, and to have recognised at the first glance every person whom he had previously seen. He was eloquent, affable, facetious; uniting with the dignity of the prince the manners of the gentleman: but under this fascinating outside was concealed a heart, that could descend to the basest artifices, and sport with its own honour and veracity. No one would believe his assertions or trust his promises: yet he justified this habit of duplicity by the maxim, that it is better to repent of words than of facts, to be guilty of falsehood than to fail in a favourite pursuit. Though possessed of ample dominions, and desirous of extending them, he never obtained the laurels of a conqueror. His ambition was checked by his caution. Even in the full tide of prosperity he would stop to calculate the chances against him, and frequently plunged himself into real, to avoid imaginary, evils. Hence the characteristic feature of his policy was delay a hasty decision could not be recalled: but he persuaded himself that procrastination would allow him to improve every advan tage which accident might offer. In his own dominions he wished, says a contemporary, to concentrate all power within his own person. He was jealous of every species of authority which did not emanate from himself, and which was not subservient to his will. His pride delighted in confounding the most haughty of his nobles, and depressing the most powerful families. He abridged their rights, divided their possessions, and married their heiresses to men of inferior rank. He was careful that his favourites should owe every thing to himself, and gloried in the parade of their power and opulence, because they were of his own creation. But if he was a bountiful master, he was a most vindictive enemy. His temper could not brook contradiction. Whoever hesitated to obey his will, or presumed to thwart his desires, was marked out for his victim, and was pursued with the most unrelenting vengeance. His passion was the raving of a madman, the fury of a savage beast. In its paroxysms his eyes were spotted with blood, his countenance seemed of flame, his tongue poured a torrent of abuse and imprecation, and his hands were employed to inflict vengeance on whatever came within his reach. On one occasion Humet, a favourite minister, had ventured to offer a plea in justification of the king of Scots. Henry's anger was instantly kindled. He called Humet a traitor, threw down his cap, ungirt his sword, tore off his clothes, pulled the silk coverlet from his couch, and unable to do more mischief, sate down, and gnawed the straw on the floor. Hence the reader will perceive that pride and passion, caution and duplicity, formed the distinguishing traits in his character.' Vol. II. pp. 41, 2, 3. A Catholic clergyman is not exactly the individual to whom we should look for a fair statement of all the transactions which distinguish the reign of John as one of the most remarkable in the English annals; but, making some necessary deductions on the score of professional partialities, Mr. Lingard has acquitted himself satisfactorily. The Great Charter is justly represented, not as a new code, nor as an assertion of the fundamental principles of legislation, but as a correction of palpable abuses in the old system, and as the assertion of certain rights and immunities in opposition to the encroachments of the crown. On the occasion of the celebrated parliament summoned by Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester, in 1265, Mr. L. enters into the much agitated question respecting the composition, in prior times, of the great council of the realm. It is beyond controversy, that, in this instance, representatives were present from the counties, cities, and boroughs; but it has been contended, that it was a novel measure, adopted by Leicester for the furtherance of his own views. Mr. Lingard embraces this opinion. He holds that under the earlier Norman kings, the parliaments were constituted strictly on feudal principles, being, on ordinary occasions, composed of the bishops and abbots, the earls and 'barons, the ministers and judges, and the neighbouring knights, holding of the crown; but, under more pressing circumstances, the monarch was accustomed to summon the whole body VOL. XVI. N.S. C sufferings not to be compensated by the casual equity of his rule. Henry II. ascended the throne amid the calamities with which the fierce contests and baronial oppressions of the stormy reign of Stephen had visited England. He found that there were still in reserve for him additional perplexities in the encroachments of the clergy, and the turbulence of his sons. We have already adverted to the view taken by Mr. Lingard of the quarrel between Henry and Becket. For no other purpose conceivable by us, than that of prejudicing the reader's mind against the former, and thus preparing him to side with the latter as the victim of craft, violence, and oppression, an unfavourable character of the monarch is introduced, contrary to the usual practice, at the commencement of his reign. It is, however, powerfully, though, we think, not quite fairly drawn. Before I proceed with this narrative, I shall lay before the reader a sketch of the king's character, as it has been delineated by writers, who lived in his court, and observed his conduct under the vicissitudes of a long and eventful reign. Between the conqueror and all his male descendants there existed a marked resemblance. The stature of Henry was moderate, his countenance majestic, and his complexion florid: but his person was disfigured by an unseemly protuberance of the abdomen, which he sought to contract by the united aid of exercise and sobriety. Few persons have equalled him in abstemiousness, none perhaps in activity. He was perpetually in motion on foot or on horseback. Every moment, which could be spared from more important concerns, he devoted to hunting: but no fatigue could subdue his restlessness: after the chase he would snatch a hasty repast, and then rising from table, in spite of the murmurs of his attendants, keep them walking or standing till bed-time. During his education in the castle of Gloucester he had acquired a knowledge of letters: and after his accession delighted in the conversation of the learned. Such was the power of his memory, that he is said to have retained whatever he had heard or read, and to have recognised at the first glance every person whom he had previously seen. He was eloquent, affable, facetious; uniting with the dignity of the prince the manners of the gentleman: but under this fascinating outside was concealed a heart, that could descend to the basest artifices, and sport with its own honour and veracity. No one would believe his assertions or trust his promises: yet he justified this habit of duplicity by the maxim, that it is better to repent of words than of facts, to be guilty of falsehood than to fail in a favourite pursuit. Though possessed of ample dominions, and desirous of extending them, he never obtained the laurels of a conqueror. His ambition was checked by his caution. Even in the full tide of prosperity he would stop to calculate the chances against him, and frequently plunged himself into real, to avoid imaginary, evils. Hence the characteristic feature of his policy was delay a hasty decision could not be recalled: but he persuaded himself that procrastination would allow him to improve every advan. tage which accident might offer. In his own dominions he wished, says a contemporary, to concentrate all power within his own person. He was jealous of every species of authority which did not emanate from himself, and which was not subservient to his will. His pride delighted in confounding the most haughty of his nobles, and depressing the most powerful families. He abridged their rights, divided their possessions, and married their heiresses to men of inferior rank. He was careful that his favourites should owe every thing to himself, and gloried in the parade of their power and opulence, because they were of his own creation. But if he was a bountiful master, he was a most vindictive enemy. His temper could not brook contradiction. Whoever hesitated to obey his will, or presumed to thwart his desires, was marked out for his victim, and was pursued with the most unrelenting vengeance. His passion was the raving of a madman, the fury of a savage beast. In its paroxysms his eyes were spotted with blood, his countenance seemed of flame, his tongue poured a torrent of abuse and imprecation, and his hands were employed to inflict vengeance on whatever came within his reach. On one occasion Humet, a favourite minister, had ventured to offer a plea in justification of the king of Scots. Henry's anger was instantly kindled. He called Humet a traitor, threw down his cap, ungirt his sword, tore off his clothes, pulled the silk coverlet from his couch, and unable to do more mischief, sate down, and gnawed the straw on the floor. Hence the reader will perceive that pride and passion, caution and duplicity, formed the distinguishing traits in his character.' Vol. II. pp. 41, 2, 3. A Catholic clergyman is not exactly the individual to whom we should look for a fair statement of all the transactions which distinguish the reign of John as one of the most remarkable in the English annals; but, making some necessary deductions on the score of professional partialities, Mr. Lingard has acquitted himself satisfactorily. The Great Charter is justly represented, not as a new code, nor as an assertion of the fundamental principles of legislation, but as a correction of palpable abuses in the old system, and as the assertion of certain rights and immunities in opposition to the encroachments of the crown. On the occasion of the celebrated parliament summoned by Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester, in 1265, Mr. L. enters into the much agitated question respecting the composition, in prior times, of the great council of the realm. It is beyond controversy, that, in this instance, representatives were present from the counties, cities, and boroughs; but it has been contended, that it was a novel measure, adopted by Leicester for the furtherance of his own views. Mr. Lingard embraces this opinion. He holds that under the earlier Norman kings, the parliaments were constituted strictly on feudal principles, being, on ordinary occasions, composed of the bishops and abbots, the earls and 'barons, the ministers and judges, and the neighbouring knights, holding of the crown; but, under more pressing circumstances, the monarch was accustomed to summon the whole body VOL. XVI. N. S. C |