Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 24.djvu/614

Rh 578 WILLIAM II [ENGLAND in the interest of the monarchy. He treated vacant bene fices as if they had been lay fiefs and bishops as tenants- in-chief, while he made simony the rule and degraded the heads of the church into servile courtiers. He had kept the see of Canterbury vacant for nearly four years, when a severe illness aroused him to a sense of his enormities. Sending for Ansehn, at that time abbot of Bee, he forced the crozier into his unwilling hands (1093). Anselm in sisted on three conditions, that the temporalities of the see should be fully restored, that William should act in ecclesiastical affairs by his counsel, and that he should be allowed to recognize Urban II. as pope. After some hesi tation William yielded the first demand, and Anselm did homage for the temporalities. The other two demands remained unsettled. In December 1093 Anselm was con secrated archbishop of Canterbury. On the outbreak of war against Normandy in 1094 Anselm offered William a contribution of ,500. William declared the sum in sufficient and angrily rejected the gift. Anselm refused to offer more, lest he should seem, even by a gift after his appointment, to be guilty of simony. Other grounds of quarrel were found in the reproofs which the archbishop levelled against the vices of the court, and his demand for ecclesiastical reform. In 1095 a more serious dispute arose. Anselm asked leave to go to Rome in order to obtain his pallium from the pope. As this involved a recognition of Urban, and William wished to secure his independence by acknowledging no pope, the permission was refused. The archbishop demanded that the question should be discussed at a great council. Accordingly an assembly was held at Rockingham (March 1095), in which Anselm was treated by the king as if he had been on trial for contumacy. The bishops sided with the king ; the laity took part mostly with the primate. Anselm refused to renounce allegiance to the pope, but denied that this was incompatible with obedience to the king. The assembly broke up without coming to a decision. William now tried to win over the pope and received a legate who brought with him the pall. In the hope of getting the legate to suspend Anselm, he consented to recognize Urban. But, when he found that the pope had no intention of throwing over the archbishop, he reconciled himself with Anselm and allowed him to take the pall from the altar at Canter bury. But it was not long before he found an opportunity of taking his revenge. A contingent of knights sent by the primate to aid the king in his Welsh war (1097) was de clared to be worthless, and Anselm was summoned to ex plain his conduct at court. Tired of the persecution and despairing of reform, Anselm again asked leave to go to Rome. William, believing, whether rightly or not, that Anselm intended to appeal against him, refused his request. Twice repeated, it met with the same answer. Anselm was charged with having broken his oath to observe the laws of the kingdom in threatening to leave England with out the king s permission. He answered that he had only sworn to the laws subject to his duty to God and the verdict of his conscience. This answer alienated many who had supported him on the previous occasion. He was asked to swear that he would not appeal against the king, and on his refusal was ordered to leave the country. In October 1097 Anselm left England. William at once seized the archbishopric and kept possession of it till his death. The unscrupulous tyranny which Rufus displayed in his quarrel with Anselm was equally characteristic of his tem poral government. The feudal customs of aids, reliefs, escheats, &c., were developed into a great system of extor tion. The townsfolk and the cultivators of the soil were weighed down by heavy taxes. The forest laws were carried out with ruthless severity. On the other hand, order was maintained, and the tyranny was to a certain extent veiled or limited by the frequent use which William made of his great councils, in the trials of great men like Odo, in the declaration of war, in the settlement of disputes such as that with Anselm. It is clear that the national assembly was neither extinct nor inefficient during this reign. It was in this period too that the office of justiciar became permanent in the person of William s chief minister, Ralph Flambard, although in his hands its powers were used merely in support of despotism. In his private character William was as vicious as in his public capacity he was tyrannical. He was harsh and violent, extravagant and lustful, regardless of God and pitiless to man. He had a strong vein of mockery and sarcasm, and no little of the grim Norman humour. Almost the only redeeming feature of his character is his chivalrous observation of his plighted word; but for ordinary promises or obligations he had no respect. He died under mys terious circumstances in the New Forest, Hampshire, on 2d August 1100. William II. was not married; he was succeeded by his brother Henry. Authorities. Ordericus Vitalis, Historia Ecclesiastica ; Geoffrey Gainwr, Jlistoire des Angles; Eadnier, Historia Novontm; the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; Freeman, Reign of William Rufus. (G. W. 1 .) WILLIAM III. (1650-1702), king of England and prince of Orange, 1 was the son of William II., stadtholder of the United Netherlands, and Mary, daughter of Charles I. of England. He was born on 14th November 1650. His father died eight days before his birth, whereupon the states-general abolished the office of stadtholder. As he grew up, William became the head of the party, at once democratic and monarchical, which was attached to the house of Orange. But all power was concentrated in the hands of John de Witt and other leaders of the rival or aristocratic republican party. Hence William learned caution, reserve, insight into character, and the art of biding his time. When, however, France and England declared war upon the Netherlands in the spring of 1672, the rapid success of the French arms, and the rejection by Louis of the terms offered by the Dutch Government, produced a revolu tion in favour of William. A popular rising obliged De Witt to repeal the perpetual edict (which ratified the sup pression of the stadtholdership in 1667), and on 8th July 1672 the prince of Orange was declared by the states- general stadtholder, captain-general, and admiral for life. The revolution was followed by a riot in which John and Cornelius de Witt lost their lives. There appears no evi dence connecting William with the attack on the De Witts ; but he made no attempt to punish it : on the contrary, he rewarded the leaders. Then, rejecting the outrageous terms offered by the allies, he placed his private fortune and the revenues of his offices at the disposal of the state, and declared himself ready to die in the last ditch. In order to check the French advance the sluices were opened and vast tracts of country placed under water. The Dutch fleet prevented an English landing. An alliance was made with the elector of Brandenburg, whose forces effected a useful diversion on the eastern frontier. Next year (1673) William lost Maestricht, but he more than balanced this disaster by treaties with Spain and the empire. The war now began to turn in his favour. Early in 1674 the French troops evacuated Holland, and in February of the same year peace was made with England in the treaty of Westminster. As the tide turned, William s allies became more active in his behalf. The league of The Hague, the first of those great coalitions by which he sought to set a limit to the aggressions of Louis XIV., was joined by the elector of Brandenburg, who had been obliged a year 1 For somo account of this family, see HOLLAND, vol. .ii. pp. 74 and 79 .v/.