(M50)
As soon as the news of Harold's coronation reached William of Normandy, he
claimed the crown which Edward the Confessor had promised him. According
to every principle of succession recognised in England, at the time, he
had no right to the crown whatever. When the Norman invader landed at
Pevensey, Harold was at York, having recently succeeded in defeating his
brother Tostig, the deposed Earl of Northumbria, who, with the assistance
of Harold Hardrada, had attacked the northern earls, Edwine and Morkere.
On hearing of the Duke's landing, Harold hastened to London. A general
muster of forces was there ordered, and Edwine and Morkere, who were bound
to Harold by family tie--the King having married their sister--were bidden
to march southward with the whole force of their earldoms. But neither
gratitude for their late deliverance at the hands of their brother-in-law,
nor family affection, could hurry the steps of these earls, and they
arrived too late. The battle of Senlac, better known as the battle of
Hastings, had been won and lost (14th Oct., 1066), the Norman was
conqueror, and Harold had perished. For a second time within twelve months
the English throne was vacant.(76)
The times were too critical to hold a formal gemot for the election of a
successor to the throne; but the citizens of London and the sailors or
"butsecarls" (whom it is difficult not to associate with the "lithsmen" of
former days) showed a marked predilection in favour of Edgar the Atheling,
grandson of Edmund Ironside, and the sole survivor of the old royal line.
The Archbishop, too, as well as the northern earls, were in his favour,
but the latter soon withdrew to their respective earldoms and left London
and the Atheling to their fate.(77) Thus, "the patriotic zeal of the men
of London was thwarted by the base secession of the northern traitors."
(M51)
After waiting awhile at Hastings for the country to make voluntary
submission, and finding that homagers did not come in, William proceeded
to make a further display of force. In this he betrayed no haste, but made
his way through Kent in leisurely fashion, receiving on his way the
submission of Winchester and Canterbury, using no more force than was
absolutely necessary, and endeavouring to allay all fears, until at length
he reached the suburbs of London.(78)
He had been astute enough to give out that he came not to claim a crown,
but only a right to be put in nomination for it. To the mind of the
Londoner, such quibbling failed to commend itself, and the citizens lost
no time in putting their city into a posture of defence, determined not to
surrender it without a blow.
(M52)
Upon William's arrival in Southwark, the citizens sallied forth. They
were, however, beaten back after a sharp skirmish, and compelled to seek
shelter again within their city's walls. William hesitated to make a
direct attack upon the city, but hoped by setting fire to Southwark to
strike terror into the inhabitants and bring them to a voluntary
surrender. He failed in his object; the city still held out, and William
next resorted to diplomacy.
(M53)
The ruling spirit within the city at that time was Ansgar or Esegar the
"Staller" under whom, as Sheriff of Middlesex, the citizens had marched
out to fight around the royal standard at Hastings. He had been carried
wounded from the field, and was now borne hither and thither on a litter,
encouraging the citizens to make a stout defence of their city. To him, it
is said, William sent a private message from Berkhampstead, asking only
that the Conqueror's right to the crown of England might be acknowledged
and nothing more, the real power of the kingdom might remain with Ansgar
if he so willed. Determined not to be outwitted by the Norman, Ansgar (so
the story goes) summoned a meeting of the eldermen (_natu majores_) of the
City--the forerunners of the later aldermen--and proposed a feigned
submission which might stave off immediate danger. The proposal was
accepted and a messenger despatched. William pretended to accept the terms
offered, and at the same time so worked upon the messenger with fair
promises and gifts that on his return he converted his fellow citizens and
induced them by representations of the Conqueror's friendly intentions and
of the hopelessness of resistance, to make their submission to him, and to
throw over the young Atheling.
(M54)
Whatever poetic tinge there may be about the story as told by Guy of
Amiens, it is certain that the citizens came to the same resolution, in
effect, as that described by the poet, nor could they well have done
otherwise. The whole of the country for miles around London, had already
tendered submission or been forced into it. The city had become completely
isolated, and sooner or later its inhabitants must have been starved out.
There was, moreover, a strong foreign element within its walls.(79) Norman
followers of Edward the Confessor were ever at hand to counsel submission.
London submitted, the citizens accepting the rule of the Norman Conqueror
as they had formerly accepted that of Cnut the Dane, "from necessity." An
embassy was despatched to Berkhampstead, comprising the Archbishop of
York, the young Atheling, the earls Edwine and Morkere, and "all the best
men of London," to render homage and give hostages,(80) and thus it was,
that within three months of his landing, William was acknowledged as the
lawfully elected King of England, and, as such, he crowned himself at
Westminster, promising to govern the nation as well as any king before him
if they would be faithful to him.
(M55)
The conciliatory spirit of William towards the Londoners is seen in the
favourable terms he was ready to concede them. Soon after his coronation--
the precise date cannot be determined--he granted them a charter,(81) by
which he clearly declared his purpose not to reduce the citizens to a
state of dependent vassalage, but to establish them in all the rights and
privileges they had hitherto enjoyed.
The charter, rendered into modern English, runs as follows:--
"William, King, greets William, Bishop, and Gosfregdh, Portreeve, and all
the burgesses within London, French and English, friendly. And I give you
to know that I will that ye be all those laws worthy that ye were in King
Eadward's day.(82) And I will that every child be his father's heir after
his father's day and I will not suffer that any man offer you any wrong.
God keep you."
The terms of the charter are worthy of study. They are primarily
remarkable as indicating that the City of London was, at the time, subject
to a government which combined the secular authority of the port-reeve
with the ecclesiastical authority of the bishop. It was said, indeed, to
have been greatly due to the latter's intercession that the charter was
granted at all, and, in this belief, the mayor and aldermen were long
accustomed to pay a solemn visit to the bishop's tomb in St. Paul's
church, there to hear a _De profundis_ on the day when the new mayor took
his oath of office before the Barons of the Exchequer.(83)
(M56)
As regards the port-reeve--the _port-gerefa_, _i.e._, reeve of the port or
town of London(84)--the nature and extent of his duties and authority, much
uncertainty exists. Whilst, in many respects, his position in a borough
was analogous no doubt to the shire-reeve or sheriff of a county, there
were, on the other hand, duties belonging to and exercised by the one
which were not exercised by the other. Thus, for instance, the port-reeve,
unlike the sheriff, exercised no judicial functions in a criminal court,
nor presided over court-leets in the city as the sheriff did in his county
by _turn_, the latter being held independently by the alderman of each
ward.(85)
(M57) (M58) (M59)
In the next place the charter brings prominently to our notice the fact
that there was already existing within the City's walls a strong Norman
element, existing side by side with the older English burgesses, which the
Conqueror did well not to ignore. The descendants of the foreign merchants
from France and Normandy, for whose protection Ethelred had legislated
more than half a century before, had continued to carry on their
commercial intercourse with the Londoners, and were looking forward to a
freer interchange of merchandise now that the two countries were under one
sovereign. Their expectation was justified. No sooner had London submitted
to the Norman Conqueror than, we are told, "many of the citizens of Rouen
and Caen passed over thither, preferring to be dwellers in that city,
inasmuch as it was fitter for their trading, and better stored with the
merchandise in which they were wont to traffic."(86) But by far the most
important clause in the charter is that which places the citizens of
London in the same position respecting the law of the land as they enjoyed
in the days of their late king, Edward the Confessor. Here there is
distinct evidence that the Conqueror had come "neither to destroy, nor to
found, but to continue."(87) The charter granted nothing new; it only
ratified and set the royal seal(88) to the rights and privileges of the
citizens already in existence.
(M60)
It is recorded that William granted another charter to the citizens of
London, vesting in them the City and Sheriffwick of London, and this
charter the citizens proffered as evidence of their rights over the
cloister and church of St. Martin le Grand, when those rights were
challenged in the reign of Henry VI.(89) This charter has since been lost.
(M61)
The compact thus made between London and the Conqueror was faithfully kept
by both parties. Having ascended the English throne by the aid of the
citizens of London, William, unlike many of his successors, was careful
not to infringe the terms of their charter, whilst the citizens on the
other hand continued loyal to their accepted king, and lent him assistance
to put down insurgents in other parts of the kingdom. The fortress which
William erected within their city's walls did not disturb their
equanimity. It was sufficient for them that, under the Conqueror's rule,
the country was once more peaceful, so peaceful that, according to the
chronicler, a young maiden could travel the length of England without
being injured or robbed.(90)
(M62)
The close of the reign of William the First witnessed the completion of
"Doomsday," or survey of the kingdom, which he had ordered to be made for
fiscal purposes. For some reason not explained, neither London nor
Winchester--the two capitals, so to speak, of the kingdom--were included in
this survey. It may be that the importance of these boroughs, their wealth
and population, necessitated some special method of procedure; but this
does not account for the omission of Northumberland, Cumberland,
Westmorland, and Durham, from the survey. We know that Winchester was
afterwards surveyed, but no steps in the same direction were ever taken
with respect to London. The survey was not effected without disturbances,
owing to the inquisitorial power vested in the commissioners appointed to
carry it out.
(M63)
William died whilst on a visit to his duchy of Normandy, and "he who was
before a powerful king, and lord of many a land, had then of all his land,
only a portion of seven feet."(91) the same which, to this day, holds his
mortal remains in the Abbey at Caen. He was succeeded by William his son.
The death of the father and accession of his son was marked by fire,
pestilence, and famine.(92)
(M64)
A fire destroyed St. Paul's and the greater part of the City. Maurice,
Bishop of London, at once set to work to rebuild the Cathedral on a larger
and more magnificent scale, erecting the edifice upon arches in a manner
little known in England at that time, but long practised in France. The
Norman Conquest was already working for good. Not only the style of
architecture, but the very stone used in re-building St. Paul's came from
France, the famous quarries of Caen being utilised for the purpose.(93)
There was already in the city, one church built after the same manner, and
on that account called St. Mary of Arches or "le Bow." The object of
setting churches and other buildings upon vaults was to guard against
fire. Whatever defence against fire this method of building may have
afforded, it was certainly no defence against wind. In 1091, the roof of
St. Mary-le-Bow was clean blown off, huge baulks of timber, 26 feet long,
being driven into the ground with such force that scarce 4 feet of them
could be seen.(94)
(M65)
The reign of the new king was one of oppression. Nevertheless, he
continued to secure that protection for life and property which his father
had so successfully achieved, so that a man "who had confidence in
himself" and was "aught," could travel the length and breadth of the land
unhurt, "with his bosom full of gold."(95) He also had an eye for the
protection of the city, and the advancement of its commerce, surrounding
the Tower of London by a wall, and repairing the bridge which had been
nearly washed away by a flood.(96)
(M66)
On the 2nd August, 1100, the Red King met his death suddenly in the New
Forest, and the next day was buried at Winchester. According to a previous
agreement, the crown should have immediately devolved upon his brother
Robert. Crowns, however, were not to be thus disposed of; they fell only
to those ready and strong enough to seize them. Robert was far away on a
crusade. His younger brother Henry was on the spot, and upon him fell the
choice of such of the witan as happened to be in or near Winchester at the
time of the late king's death.(97)
(M67)
The two days that elapsed before his coronation at Westminster (5th
August), the king-elect spent in London, where by his easy and eloquent
manner, as well as by fair promises, he succeeded in winning the
inhabitants over to his cause, to the rejection of the claims of Robert.
The election, or perhaps we should rather say, the selection of Henry by
the witan at Winchester, was thus approved and confirmed by the whole
realm (_regni universitas_), in the city of London.
The choice was made however on one condition, viz.:--that Henry should
restore to his subjects their ancient liberties and customs enjoyed in the
days of Edward the Confessor.(98) The charter thus obtained served as an
exemplar for the great charter of liberties which was to be subsequently
wrung from King John.
(M68)
Another charter was granted by the new king--a charter to the citizens of
London--granted, as some have thought, soon after his accession, and by way
of recognition of the services they had rendered him towards obtaining the
crown. This however appears to be a mistake. There is reason for supposing
that this charter was not granted until at least thirty years after he was
seated on the throne.(99)
(M69)
The chief features of the grant(100) were that the citizens were
thenceforth to be allowed to hold Middlesex to farm at a rent of L300 a
year, and to appoint from among themselves whom they would to be sheriff
over it; they were further to be allowed to appoint their own justiciar to
hold pleas of the crown, and no other justiciar should exercise authority
over them; they were not to be forced to plead without the city's walls;
they were to be exempt from scot and lot and of all payments in respect of
Danegelt and murder; they were to be allowed to purge themselves after the
English fashion of making oath and not after the Norman fashion by wager
of battle; their goods were to be free of all manner of customs, toll,
passage and lestage; their husting court might sit once a week; and
lastly, they might resort to "withernam" or reprisal in cases where their
goods had been unlawfully seized.
(M70)
Touching the true import of this grant of Middlesex to the citizens at a
yearly rent, with the right of appointing their own sheriff over it, no
less than the identity of the justiciar whom they were to be allowed to
choose for themselves for the purpose of hearing pleas of the crown within
the city, much divergence of opinion exists. Some believe that the
government of the city was hereby separated from that of the shire wherein
it was situate, and that the right of appointing their own justiciar which
the citizens obtained by this charter was the right of electing a sheriff
for the city of London in the place of the non-elective ancient
port-reeve. Others deny that the charter introduced the shire organization
into the government of the city, and believe the justiciar and sheriff to
have been distinct officials.(101) The latter appear to hold the more
plausible view. Putting aside the so-called charter of William the First,
granting to the citizens in express terms _civitatem et vice-comitatum
Londoniae_, as wanting in corroboration, a solution of the difficulty may
be found if we consider (1) that the city received a shire organization
and became in itself to all intents and purposes a county as soon as it
came to be governed by a port-reeve, if not as soon as an alderman had
been set over it by Alfred; (2) that the duties of the shrievalty in
respect of the county of the city of London were at this time performed
either by a port-reeve or by one or more officers, known subsequently as
sheriffs, and (3) that for the right of executing these duties no rent or
ferm was ever demanded or paid.(102)
If this be a correct view of the matter, it would appear that the effect
of Henry's grant of Middlesex to the citizens to farm, and of the
appointment of a sheriff over it of their own choice, was not so much to
render the city independent of the shire, as to make the shire subject to
the city. It must be borne in mind that no sheriff (or sheriffs) has ever
been elected by the citizens for Middlesex alone, the duties appertaining
to the sheriff-wick of Middlesex having always been performed by the
sheriffs of the city for the time being.(103) Hence it is that the
shrievalty of London and Middlesex is often spoken of as the shrievalty of
"London" alone, and the shrievalty of "Middlesex" alone (the same officers
executing the duties of both shrievalties) and the _firma_ of L300 paid
for the shrievalty of Middlesex alone is sometimes described as the
_firma_ of "London," sometimes of "Middlesex," and sometimes of "London
and Middlesex."(104)
(M71)
The right of electing their own justiciar granted to the citizens by Henry
resolves itself into little more than a confirmation of the right to elect
their own sheriffs.(105) Just as sheriffs are known to have held pleas of
the crown in the counties up to the time of the Great Charter (although
their duties were modified by Henry I, and again by Henry II, when he
appointed Justices in eyre) so in the city of London, no one, except the
sheriffs of London could hold pleas of the crown, and an attempt made by
the Barons in 1258 to introduce a justiciar into the Guildhall was
persistently challenged by the citizens.(106)
Even those who stedfastly maintain that in the country the sheriff and
justiciar grew up to be two distinct officers, the one representing local
interest and the other imperial, are willing to allow that in the city of
London such distinction was evanescent. The office of justiciar in the
city was twice granted _eo nomine_ to Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of
Essex, and it is twice mentioned as having been held by one named Gervase,
who (there is reason to believe) is identical with Gervase de Cornhill, a
Sheriff of London in 1155 and 1156; but the office became extinct at the
accession of Henry II.(107)
(M72)
The events which followed Henry's decease afford us another instance of
the futility of all attempts at this early period to settle the succession
to the crown before the throne was actually vacant. The King's nephew,
Stephen of Blois, and the nobility of England had sworn to accept the
King's daughter Matilda, wife of Geoffery of Anjou, as their sovereign on
the death of her father; yet when that event took place in 1135, Stephen,
in spite of his oath, claimed the crown as nearest male heir of the
Conqueror's blood.(108)
There was no doubt of his popularity, whilst Matilda on the other hand
injured her cause by marrying an Angevin. On the continent a bitter feud
existed between Norman and Angevin; in England the Norman had steadily
increased in favour, and England's crown was Stephen's if he had courage
enough to seize it.
Landing on the Kentish coast, his first reception was far from
encouraging. Canterbury and Dover, held by the Earl of Gloucester, refused
to acknowledge him and closed their gates on his approach. Undismayed by
these rebuffs, Stephen pushed on to London, where he was welcomed by every
token of good will. The Londoners had been no party to the agreement to
recognise Matilda as Henry's successor; they had become accustomed to
exercising a right of sharing in the choice of a king who should reign
over them, and they now chose Stephen. "It was their right, their special
privilege," said they, "on the occasion of the king's decease, to provide
another in his place."(109) There was no time to be lost, the country was
in danger, Stephen was at hand, sent to them, as they believed, by the
goodness of Providence. They could not do better than elect him: and
elected he was by the assembled aldermen or eldermen (_majores natu_) of
the City.
Such is the story of Stephen's election as given by the author of the
"Gesta Stephani," one who wrote as an eye-witness of what took place, but
whose statements cannot always be taken as those of an independent
chronicler of events. Informal as this election may have been, it marks an
important epoch in the annals of London. Thenceforth the city assumes a
pre-eminent position and exercises a predominant influence in the public
affairs of the kingdom.(110)
(M73)
From London Stephen went down to Winchester, where he was heartily
welcomed by his brother Henry, recently appointed papal legate. Next to
London, it was important that Stephen should secure Winchester, and now
that London had spoken, the citizens of Winchester no longer hesitated to
throw in their lot with the king. Winchester secured, and Stephen put in
possession of the royal castle and treasury, he returned to London, where
all doubts as to the validity or invalidity of his election were set at
rest by the ceremony of coronation (Dec. 1135).
(M74)
In the spring of the following year (April 1136), a brilliant council of
the clergy and magnates of the realm was held in London,(111) reminding
one of the Easter courts of the days of the Conqueror which latterly had
been shorn of much of their splendour. The occasion was one for
introducing the new king to his subjects as well as for confirming the
liberties of the church, and Stephen may have taken special care to
surround it with exceptional splendour as a set off against the meagreness
which had characterised the recent ceremony of his coronation.(112)
(M75)
In the meanwhile the injured Matilda appealed to Rome, but only with the
result that her rival received formal recognition from the Pope. Three
years later (1139) she landed in England accompanied by her brother, the
Earl of Gloucester. She soon obtained a following, more especially in the
west; and Winchester--the seat of the royal residence of the queens of
England since the time when Ethelred presented the city as a "morning
gift" to his consort at their marriage--became her headquarters and
rallying point for her supporters, whilst London served in the same way
for Stephen.
(M76)
After nine months of sieges and counter sieges, marches and counter
marches, in which neither party could claim any decided success, Stephen,
as was his wont, withdrew to London and shut himself up in the Tower, with
only a single bishop, and he a foreigner, in his train. Whilst safe behind
the walls of that stronghold, negotiations were opened between him and the
empress for a peaceful settlement of their respective claims (May, 1140),
Henry of Winchester acting as intermediary between the rival parties.(113)
The negotiations ended without effecting the desired result.
(M77)
Matters assumed an entirely different aspect when Stephen was made
prisoner at Lincoln in the following year (2nd Feb., 1141). Henry of
Winchester forsook his role of arbitrator, and entered into a formal
compact with the empress who arrived before Winchester with the laurels of
her recent success yet fresh, agreeing to receive her as "Lady of
England," (_Domina Angliae_) and promising her the allegiance of himself
and his followers so long as she would keep her oath and allow him a free
hand in ecclesiastical matters.(114)
(M78)
This compact was entered into on the 2nd March, and on the following day
the empress was received with solemn pomp into Winchester Cathedral. It
remained for the compact to be ratified. For this purpose an
ecclesiastical synod was summoned to sit at Winchester on the 7th April.
The day was spent by the legate holding informal communications with the
bishops, abbots, and archdeacons who were in attendance, and who then for
the first time in England's history claimed the right not only of
consecration, but of election of the sovereign.(115)
On the 8th April, Henry in a long speech announced to the assembled clergy
the result of the conclave of the previous day. He extolled the good
government of the late king who before his death had caused fealty to be
sworn to his daughter, the empress. The delay of the empress in coming to
England (he said) had been the cause of Stephen's election. The latter had
forfeited all claim to the crown by his bad government, and God's judgment
had been pronounced against him. Lest therefore, the nation should suffer
for want of a sovereign, he, as legate, had summoned them together, and by
them the empress had been elected Lady of England. The speech was received
with unanimous applause, those to whom the election did not commend itself
being wise enough to hold their tongue.
(M79)
But there was another element to be considered before Matilda's new title
could be assured. What would the Londoners who had taken the initiative in
setting Stephen on the throne, and still owed to them their allegiance,
say to it? The legate had foreseen the difficulty that might arise if the
citizens, whom he described as very princes of the realm, by reason of the
greatness of their city (_qui sunt quasi optimates pro magnitudine
civitatis in Anglia_), could not be won over. He had, therefore, sent a
special safe conduct for their attendance, so he informed the meeting
after the applause which followed his speech had died away, and he
expected them to arrive on the following day. If they pleased they would
adjourn till then.
(M80)
The next day (9th April) the Londoners arrived, as the legate had
foretold, and were ushered before the council. They had been sent, they
said, by the so called "commune" of London; and their purpose was not to
enter into debate, but only to beg for the release of their lord, the
king.(116) The statement was supported by all the barons then present who
had entered the commune of the city(117) and met with the approval of the
archbishop and all the clergy in attendance. Their solicitations, however,
proved of no avail. The legate replied with the same arguments he had used
the day before, adding that it ill became the Londoners who were regarded
as nobles (_quasi proceres_) in the land to foster those who had basely
deserted their king on the field of battle, and who only curried favour
with the citizens in order to fleece them of their money.
(M81)
Here an interruption took place. A messenger presented to the legate a
paper from Stephen's queen to read to the council. Henry took the paper,
and after scanning its contents, refused to communicate them to the
meeting. The messenger, however, not to be thus foiled, himself made known
the contents of the paper. These were, in effect, an exhortation by the
queen to the clergy, and more especially to the legate himself, to restore
Stephen to liberty. The legate, however, returned the same answer as
before, and the meeting broke up, the Londoners promising to communicate
the decision of the council to their brethren at home, and to do their
best to obtain their support.
(M82)
The next two months were occupied by the empress and her supporters in
preparing the way for her admission into the city, the inhabitants of
which, had as yet shown but little disposition towards her. But however
great their inclination may have been to Stephen, they at length found
themselves forced to transfer their allegiance and to offer, for a time at
least, a politic submission to the empress. Accordingly, a deputation went
out to meet her at St. Albans (May 1141), and arrange terms on which the
city should surrender.(118)
More delay took place; and it was not until shortly before midsummer
(1141), that she entered the city. Her stay was brief. She treated the
inhabitants as vanquished foes,(119) extorted large sums of money,(120)
and haughtily refused to observe the laws of Edward the Confessor they
valued so much, preferring those of the late king, her father.(121)
(M83)
The consequence was that, within a few days of her arrival in London, the
inhabitants rose in revolt, drove her out of the city(122) and attacked
the Tower, of which Geoffrey de Mandeville was constable, as his father
William had been before him.(123)
(M84)
This Geoffrey de Mandeville had been recently created Earl of Essex by
Stephen, in the hope and expectation that the fortress over which Geoffrey
was governor, would be held secure for the royal cause. The newly fledged
earl, however, was one who ever fought for his own hand, and was ready to
sell his fortress and sword to the highest bidder. The few days that the
empress was in the city, afforded her an opportunity of risking a trial to
win over the earl from his allegiance. To this end she offered to confirm
him in his earldom and to continue him in his office of Constable of the
Tower, conferred upon him by Stephen; in addition to which, she was ready
to allow him to enjoy lands of the rent of L100 a year, a license to
fortify his castles, and the posts of sheriff and justiciar throughout his
earldom. The bait was too tempting for the earl not to accept; and a
charter to the above effect was drawn up and executed.(124)
(M85)
Scarcely had the fickle earl consented to throw in his lot with the
empress before she had to flee the city. The departure of the empress was
quickly followed by the arrival of her namesake, Matilda, the valiant
queen of the captured Stephen; and again the earl proved false to his
allegiance and actively supported the queen in concert with the
citizens.(125)
(M86)
With his aid(126) and the aid of the Londoners,(127) the queen was enabled
to reduce Winchester and to effect the liberation of her husband by
exchanging the Earl of Gloucester, brother of the empress, for the
captured king.
(M87)
After being solemnly crowned, for the second time,(128) at Canterbury,
Stephen issued a second charter (about Christmas time, 1141),(129) to
Geoffrey de Mandeville, confirming and augmenting the previous grant by
the empress. Instead of sheriff and justiciar of his own county of Essex
merely, he is now made sheriff and justiciar of London and Middlesex, as
well as of Hertfordshire.
(M88)
But even these great concessions failed to secure the earl's fidelity to
the king. Again he broke away from his allegiance and planned a revolt in
favour of the empress who recompensed him with still greater dignities and
possessions than any yet bestowed. This second charter of the
empress,(130) is remarkable for a clause in which she promises never to
make terms with the Londoners without the earl's consent, "because they
are his mortal foes."(131) But the plans of the earl were doomed to be
frustrated. The empress, tired of the struggle, soon ceased to be
dangerous, and eventually withdrew to the continent, and Stephen was left
free to deal with the rebel earl alone. With the assistance of the
Londoners, who throughout the long period of civil dissension, were
generally to be found on the winning side, and held as it were the balance
between the rival powers, Stephen managed after considerable bloodshed to
capture the fortifications erected by the Earl at Farringdon.(132)
(M89)
The earl was subsequently treacherously arrested and made to give up his
castles. Thenceforth his life was that of a marauding freebooter, until,
fatally wounded at the siege of Burwell, he expired in September, 1143.
(M90)
Notwithstanding the absence of the empress and the death of the faithless
earl, a desultory kind of war continued to be carried on for the next ten
years on behalf of Henry of Anjou, son of the empress. In 1153 that prince
arrived in England to fight his own battles and maintain his right to the
crown, which the king had already attempted to transfer to the head of his
own son Eustace. This attempt had been foiled by the refusal of the
bishops, at the instigation of the pope, to perform the ceremony. The
sudden death of Eustace made the king more ready to enter into
negotiations for effecting a peaceful settlement.
(M91) (M92)
A compromise was accordingly effected at Winchester,(133) whereby Stephen
was to remain in undisputed possession of the throne for life, and after
his death was to be succeeded by Henry. The news that at last an end had
come to the troubles which for nineteen years had disturbed the country,
was received with universal joy, and Henry, conducted to London by the
king himself, was welcomed in a manner befitting one who was now the
recognised heir to the crown.(134)