Page:The reign of William Rufus and the accession of Henry the First.djvu/361

 *



possession of their rights and property, exactly as if the Bishop had remained in occupation of his see. We may even venture to guess that they had a somewhat fuller possession of them during the Bishop's absence. We are expressly told by the local historian that the Red King did not deal with Durham as he dealt with other churches; he took nothing from the monks, and even gave them something of his own. The new society—for it must be remembered that the monks of Durham were a body of Bishop William's own bringing in —flourished so greatly during this irregular state of things that it was now that they built their refectory. But a time of more settled order was now to come. Bishop William of Saint-Calais, whatever had been his crimes three years back, was among those whom King William had engaged by his treaty with his brother to restore to their lands and honours. Besides this general claim, it was believed, at Durham at least, that the banished prelate had earned his restoration by a signal service done to the King. In the third year of his banishment an unnamed Norman fortress was holding out for the King; but its garrison was sore pressed, and its capture by the enemy seemed imminent. The Bishop, by what means of persuasion we are not told, but it does not seem to have been by force, caused the besiegers to raise the siege. This service won the King's thorough good*