Chapter VII: Introduction (1)

I was led into the following investigation from a natural and kind of instinctive curiosity, and a desire of knowing what was the antient state of the Court to which I have the honour, by the favour of his Grace William the late Duke of Devonshire, to compose a part. It is obvious to suppose that so large a body must have undergone various revolutions, and have borne very different complexions according to times and circumstances: and having occasion to consult some MSS. in the Lord Chamberlain's Office, by his Lordship's permission, upon a matter of no consequence to relate, I thought I discerned, in the course of my search, that materials were to be found sufficient to furnish out a detail. Having free access to the use of a large Library, and by the favour of many friends, to whom I take this opportunity of testifying my obligations, I was enabled to trace back the state of the Court in darker ages, though but by a glimmering light.

Notwithstanding ample revenues have always been provided for support of the dignity and splendour of the Royal House of the Kings of England, equal, if not perhaps superior, to those of any Court in Europe, yet we shall find they have varied very much in different Reigns, as times and circumstances have required; though not always for laudable reasons. Some of our Kings have been so profuse, that, either from their extensive liberality, or more frequently worse inducements, they have thereby lessened the estates of the Crown so very much, that retrenchments, either in the number or expence of their Households (and sometimes both) have become the necessary consequence. Others[66] have found the Crown Revenues so much contracted at their Accession, that they have been obliged to demand resumptions of grants made by their immediate Predecessor, in order to enable themselves to support the Regal dignity with a proper degree of splendour. Others[67], again, from a wanton spirit of prodigality, have rendered it necessary for them to resume even _their own_ grants; a measure equally scandalous to the character of the Prince, as derogatory to the honour of the Crown.

As to _resumptions_, several of each sort will be seen in the following sheets, antecedent to the Reformation; and since that period there have been repeated occasions for _reductions (ex necessitate rei)_ in the tumultuous reigns of Charles the First, Charles the Second, and James the Second.

When we speak of the superior magnificence of our own Court, we may add, that no other makes so liberal appointments to its Officers, could we know the Establishments of the rest.

[66] Henry II.

[67] William Rufus.

In France they figure away with thousands of livres _per annum_; but, when these come to be liquidated into pounds sterling, the idea is lost, and the appointment of a Lord of the Bed-chamber sinks down into a salary not superior to our Gentlemen Ushers.

In Poland the Officers of the State and Household have no salaries nor fees[68]; but are content with the honour, unless the King chose to reward them with a _Starostie_, a kind of Fiefs inherent in the Crown for this purpose.

[68] See Letters concerning the present state of Poland, printed for
T. Payne, 1773, Letter iii. p. 57.

At the Court of Turin, the salaries of the Officers of the Court are extremely small, and every way inadequate to their rank. Frugality and œconomy, exercised in a Royal manner, are the characteristics of that Court; insomuch as that, if the Officers of State had not an income arising from their patrimony, their salaries would not afford them food and raiment[69].

[69] Lord Corke's Letters from Italy, published 1773, p. 52.

The Emperor of Germany has one very singular prerogative, very inconvenient to the inhabitants of Vienna, that of taking to himself the _first floor_ of every house in the City (a few privileged places excepted) for the use of the _Officers of his Court and Army_; so that, on this account, says my Author[70], "Princes, Ambassadors, and Nobles, usually inhabit the second stories; and the third, fourth, and even fifth floors (the houses being large and high) are well fitted up for the reception of opulent and noble families." The houses being so large, a single floor suffices for most of the principal and largest families in the City.

[70] Dr. Burney, in his Present State of Munich, in Germany, vol. I.
pp. 205, 295.

For particulars relative to the Court of Denmark, it may be sufficient to refer to the account given by Lord Molesworth, who resided several years as Envoy Extraordinary from King William III.

WILLIAM I.

After that great Revolution called _The Conquest_, it is to be supposed that a competent part, and that no inconsiderable one, was allotted for the support of the Dignity of the King's House. How large the establishment of the Household was, it would be very difficult to ascertain at this distance of time; but we know that the Conqueror's Revenues were very great, and that, besides the public branch of it for the defence of the Kingdom against invasions from abroad, there must have been an ample residue to maintain the Court in dignity and magnificence at home. William, as soon as he was seated on his new Throne, was careful to make a general and accurate Survey of the whole kingdom, notwithstanding there had been a Survey taken within less than 200 years by King Alfred, then remaining at Winchester.[71] But William's jealous caution did not permit him to trust to this. He saw the necessity there was to make the most of things; and, looking on money as a necessary means of maintaining and increasing power, he accumulated as much as he could, though rather, perhaps, from an ambitious than a covetous motive; at least his avarice was subservient to his ambition; and he laid up wealth in his coffers, as he did arms in his magazines, to be drawn out on proper occasions, for the defence and enlargement of his dominions[72].

[71] Called Codex Wintoniensis. See Sir John Spelman's Life of
Alfred.

[72] Lord Lyttelton's Life of Henry II. vol. i. p. 74; edit. 8vo.

In William's Survey, which we call _Domesday Book_, particular attention was first paid to the King's right; and the _Terra Regis_ (as it was called), which consisted of such lands as either had belonged to the Crown, or to the King individually, was placed first; and, upon the whole, 1422[73] manors, or lordships, were appropriated to the Crown; besides lands and farms, and besides quit-rents paid out of other subordinate manors. Whether William assumed to himself and the Crown more than he ought, is hard to say; but it is to be supposed he was not very sparing or delicate. The _Terra Regis_ is said to have consisted of such lands as Edward the Confessor was found to have been possessed of, the alienation of which was held impious; to which some think William added the forfeited estates of those who opposed him at the decisive battle of Hastings[74]; and likewise the lands of such Barons, and others, who afterwards forsook him. These advantages he might, perhaps, be glad to take, as they enabled him better to reward his Norman friends and followers, who were numerous; and furnished him likewise with a plea to enrich himself, by annexing part of such lands to the Crown, and distributing the rest, with a reservation of quit-rents and services. We may add to these, many apparently unjustifiable means which the Conqueror used to enrich himself, though by the greatness of the antient Crown-estate, and the feudal profits to which he was legally entitled, he was already one of the richest Monarchs in Europe. The Saxon Chronicle says, he omitted no opportunity of extorting money from his subjects upon the slightest pretext, and speaks of it as a thing of course[75]. It must be owned, however, (says Lord Lyttelton) that, if his avarice was insatiably and unjustly rapacious, it was not meanly parsimonious, nor of that sordid kind which brings on a Prince dishonour and contempt. He supported the _dignity of the Crown_ with a _decent magnificence_; and, though he never was _lavish_, he was sometimes _liberal_[76].

[73] Domesday Book.

[74] Rapin.

[75] "_Pro more suo_, extorsit multum pecuniæ suis subditis
ubicunque haberet aliquem pretextum, sive jure sive aliter."
Chron. Sax. p. 187. In another place the writer says, he extorted
money, "partim justè, maximâ verò ex parte injustè, rebus parùm
urgentibus." p. 191.

[76] Lord Lyttelton's Henry II. vol. i. p. 74.

Thus did the Conqueror leave an ample and splendid revenue to his Successor, sufficient to maintain his Court in dignity and magnificence, and adequate to every expence both foreign and domestic. It is, at this day, almost impossible to discover the nature and magnitude of William's Household; but most probably, as it was numerous, it was likewise magnificent; though, perhaps, composed of Officers and Offices very different from what have been adopted in succeeding Reigns.

We read of Treasurers, for such a King _must_ have: and in the next Reign mention is made of Robert Fitz-Hamon, _Gentleman of the Bed-chamber_[77], who conquered Wales, while William Rufus was engaged in a war with Scotland, anno 1091; and we afterwards read of other Officers similar to what we have at present, though the rudeness of the times rendered most of the offices now in being unnecessary, which seem to have been added from time to time, as luxury and refined necessity required, and in conformity to the pride and ostentatious spirit of the Prince who erected them.

[77] _Gentleman of the Bed-chamber_ means what we now call a _Lord
of the Bed-chamber_; which last is a title of a late introduction.
When the _Gentleman_ was the superior, the next subordinate Officer
was the _Groom_; which last title continues to this day. Had the
first been originally called _Lords_, the latter would probably have
been styled the _Gentleman_. William of Malmsbury speaks of the
_Cubicularius_ in that ridiculous instance of William Rufus's absurd
profusion with respect to the price of a pair of hose; by whom, I
should suppose, he means an inferior Officer of the _Bed-chamber_,
by the rough language he uses to him; no less than calling him a
_son of a whore.--Filî, ait, meretricis._

It is probable, however, that what was wanting in parade, was equalled by an expence in hospitality, which must, of course, employ a great many Domestics of different kinds in their several departments, to which we may suppose were added many of a Military nature, which the situation of the Conqueror rendered necessary in his new dominion.

There being but few Placemen in those times, the Court was chiefly composed of Ecclesiastics, Barons, Knights, and other Military Gentlemen, led by the hopes of preferment or promotion; and Lord Lyttelton says, William was always liberal to his Soldiers and to the Church[78]. The Barons were, at this time of day, the chief Council of the Realm; they held their Baronies of the King, for which they were perpetually doing homage; and on these accounts the Court must have been crowded,--at least much frequented.

[78] Life of Henry II. vol. i. p. 74.

As to the internal part of the Court, I mean the Attendants on the Royal person, we know but very little. King Alfred, however, who lived 200 years before the Conquest, during his attention to the Police of his Kingdom in general, did not forget the internal good government of his Household; for we learn from Ingulphus[79] that he divided his Attendants into three classes, who were appointed to wait by turns, _monthly_.

[79] Dividens Familiam in tres Turmas, singulis Turmis singulos
Principes imposuit; et unusquisque Princeps cum suâ Turmâ per unum
mensem in Regis Ministerio Palatium conservavit. Uno mense completo,
exiens ad proprios agros cum suâ Turmâ, propriis negotiis per duorum
mensium spatium intendebat; et interim secundus Princeps per unum
mensem, et tertius Princeps per alium mensem post illum in Regis
Palatio ministrabat: ut postea propriis utilitatibus per duos menses
quælibet Turma vacaret. Hâc revolutione Servorum suorum, totiusque
familiæ suæ rotatione, usus est omni tempore vitæ suæ. Ingulph.
Hist. p. 870.

Whether this mode was continued by his Successors, I do not learn. William might perhaps reject it as being Saxon, and adopt a plan similar to the French Court, in compliment to his Norman adherents. This routine of waiting, not much unlike the present mode, rendered the service of Alfred's attendants both œconomical, and agreeable to themselves. Sir John Spelman, in his Life of King Alfred, supposes that the Officers who are now called _Quarter-waiters_ are, from their title, a relique of this mode of waiting established by Alfred. But this (with deference to the Gentlemen of that Corps) seems to be going too far, and does not agree with Ingulphus, from whom Sir John takes his account; who says, that the Officers of King Alfred's Household were divided into three classes, and that each class waited alternately monthly, not quarterly; so that no one class waited two consecutive months, and each would, of course, wait _four months_ in the year, with an interval of two months between each wait. It is true, they would renew their waiting once in a quarter of course, from the number of classes, but no part of them attended for a quarter together; and I apprehend the Quarter-waiters received their name because they waited a quarter of a year at a time by turns, as their superiors, the Daily-waiters, waited daily by turns. Alfred's Household most resembled the Gentlemen Pensioners in the mode of attendance, who, to this day, wait in _classes_ quarterly.

I shall now give Sir John Spelman's account at large (as I have Ingulphus's), where he gives a supposed, and not improbable, reason for this mode of attendance.

"He [Alfred] having, it seems, observed the course that Solomon took in preparing timber at Lebanon for the Temple, where thirty thousand, assigned to the work, went by ten thousand at a time, wrought there a month, and then returning, stayed two months at home, until their turn in the fourth month came about again[80]--he, applying this to his own occasions, ordained the like course in his attendance, making a triplicate thereof, insomuch that he had a three-fold shift of all Domestic Officers; each of which were, by themselves, under the command of a several _Major-domo_[81], or Master of the Household, who, coming with his servants under his charge, to wait at Court, stayed there a month, and then returning home, were supplied by the second ternary, and they again by the third, until the course coming about, the first of them (after two months recess at home) did, with the quarter[82], renew their monthly service at the Court. I should conjecture (continues he) that the King, for his more honourable attendance, took this course in point of Royalty and State, there being (as it then stood with the State) very few men of quality fit to stand before a King, who, by their fortunes or dependency, were not otherwhere besides engaged; neither was there, in those times, any great assurance to be had of any man, unless he were one of such condition, whose service, when the King was fain to use one month in the quarter, it was necessary for the common-wealth that he should remit them the other two months unto their own occasions. Neither used he this course with some of his Officers only (as there are those who understand it to have been a course taken only with those of his Guard), but with all his whole attendance; neither used he it for a time only, but for his whole life; and I little doubt but that the use at Court, at this day, of Officers, _Quarter-waiters_, had the first beginning even from this invention of the King[83]."

[80] Ingulph. ubi supra.

[81] Princeps. Ingulphus, in eod.

[82] This, I suppose, led Sir John into the above supposition about
the Quarter-Waiters.

[83] Spelman's Life of Alfred, edit. Hearne, p. 198.

The Translator of this Life of Alfred into Latin, Dr. Obadiah Walker, has taken a little latitude in the last sentence of this passage, and has wandered totally from the mark. His words are, "Neque multum dubito quin _Dapiferi_ hodierni (quos _Quarter-waiters_ appellamus) qui per singulos anni quadrantes, Regi ad _mensam_ ministrant, ab hoc Regis instituto, manarint." Now it is pretty certain that the Quarter-waiters are not Officers at all connected, by their post, with the King's _table_, they being a secondary degree of _Gentlemen Ushers_, called in a grant of Fees temp. Car. I. (in Rymer's Fœdera) _Ante-Ambulones_. The Doctor seems, by the word _Dapiferi_, to have confounded them with the _Sewers_; which is strengthened by the following words, "qui ad _mensam_ ministrant."

It is allowed that King Alfred enlarged his Household very much; but, what was the nature and office of the individuals of it, we shall probably never be able to gather. We may, however, fairly suppose his Retinue in number, and his Court in splendour, was far superior to those of any of his Predecessors.

Of the _Conqueror's Court_ we know still less, neither do I learn that King Alfred's establishment was followed by his immediate successors; but it is reasonable to suppose that the _Court_, as well as the _Kingdom_, would be new-modelled, and assume a different face, upon so great a revolution as that of the Conquest.

WILLIAM RUFUS.

Notwithstanding the fair inheritance left by the Conqueror, equal to the Regal Dignity, and the exigences of the State, William Rufus, the successor, not only dissipated the great treasure of which he was possessed at the demise of his Father, but ran into so extravagant a profusion of expence, that he was at last obliged to apply to resources, unwarrantable in themselves, and derogatory to his Crown and Dignity. The late King's treasures were said to amount to 60,000_l._; but, according to Henry of Huntingdon[84], who lived very near the time, to 60,000 pound _weight_ of silver, exclusive of gold, jewels, plate, and robes; and "the silver money alone (says Lord Lyttelton[85]), according to the best computation I am able to make, was equivalent at least to nine hundred thousand pounds of our money at present:" but this would not suffice; for the Crown-lands, which were held so sacred by his ancestors, were alienated; and he was at last compelled, as a dernier resort, to resume his own grants, a practice now used for the first (but not the last) time, and a measure equally scandalous and iniquitous. Rufus's ordinary revenues did not probably exceed those of his Father; but, as he ran into more needless and wanton expenses, he was necessitated to make frequent demands upon his people. Considering the influence of artful Churchmen, in those times of Papal tyranny, over weak Princes, it is not to be wondered that Rufus should be easily prevailed upon by Ranulphus, Bishop of Durham[86], who was Master both of his Councils and his Conscience, to resume his own grants, though made for valuable considerations; or to take any measure, however unwarrantable and unprecedented--

"Tantum Religio potuit suadere malorum."

[84] Erant autem in Thesauro 60 Mille Libræ Argenti. Lib. vi.

[85] Introduction to the Life of Henry II. The Reader may see his
Lordship's grounds of computation in a long note on this passage.
The Saxon Chronicle says, the King's Treasures were _difficiles
numeratu_, p. 192.

[86] Lord Lyttelton calling him Ralph Flambard, a Norman. Life of
Henry II. vol. i. p. 87, where his character may be seen at large.

Amongst other acts of rapacity, made in a manner necessary by his former profusion, he kept the See of Canterbury vacant four years (upon the death of Lanfranc), that he might take the profits to his own use; nay, he did the same by the Bishoprick of Lincoln, and all others that became void in his Reign; and at the time of his death he had in his hands the Sees of Canterbury, Winchester, Salisbury, twelve[87] rich Abbeys, besides many other Benefices of less consideration[88]; so little regard has ever been paid to things _sacred_ by Arbitrary Princes (as our Kings were at that time) to gratify either their necessities or their passions. But this was not the worst part of the story; for, not satisfied with the First-fruits, to which he was entitled,--after he had seized the vacant Benefices, and pillaged them of every thing valuable (even to the very Shrines), he sold them publicly to the best bidder, without regard to merit or capacity[89].

[87] The Saxon Chronicle says but Eleven.

[88] Matthew Paris.

[89] Saxon Chronicle.

After having been led, by the nature of the subject, to speak thus freely of this King's rapacity, it is but justice to mention an instance of his generosity. It is related that, two Monks striving to outbid each other for a rich Abbey, the King perceived a third standing by, who did not bid any thing; to whom the King addressing himself, asked "how much _he_ would give?" The Monk replied, "he had no money, and, if he had, his conscience would not suffer him to lay it out in that manner:" upon which the King swore his usual oath[90] "that he best deserved it, and should have it for nothing[91]."

[90] "Per Vultum di Lucca." See Lord Lyttelton's note, vol. i. p.
424, octavo. I have seen a private letter from his Lordship in
defence of his opinion.

[91] Higden.

Though William was thus continually filling his coffers with these dishonourable and sacrilegious spoils, yet was he avaricious without frugality, covetous and prodigal at the same time; always in want, and devising new ways to raise money, however mean and despicable. I cannot omit one artful and almost ludicrous method which Rufus practised to raise money, in the war with his brother Robert, who had engaged the French in his interest. "Under pretence (says M. Rapin, from Simeon Dunelmensis, Matthew Paris, &c.) that there was occasion for supplies of men, William Rufus [then in Normandy] sent orders into England, to raise, with all possible speed, 20,000 men. In raising this army, such were purposely taken for soldiers who were well to pass, or to whom it was very inconvenient to leave their families. When these levies were going to embark, the King's Treasurer told them, by his order, "that they might every man return home, upon payment of ten shillings each." This news was so acceptable to the soldiers, listed thus against their wills, that there was not one but who was glad to be dismissed at so easy a rate. By this means William raised the sum of 10,000_l._ with which he bribed the French to retire. Various other instances of extortion and rapacity (though not attended with so much ingenuity as this) might be adduced from the history of this Reign, recorded by contemporary writers; but enough has been mentioned to convince us that but little order or decorum is to be expected within the walls of the Court of so unprincipled a King. On the contrary, indeed, all writers agree[92] in their accounts of the dissolute manners of his Household and Adherents, which called forth rigid edicts in the next Reign, for the suppression of vices which had grown too flagrant to be removed by reprobation alone. The crimes laid to the charge of his retinue were, some of them, of the most serious nature, and required an uncommon exertion of severity; as we shall see presently. "In the magnificence of his _Court_ and buildings, however, (says Lord Lyttelton[93],) he _greatly_ exceeded any King of that age. But though his profuseness (continues his Lordship) arose from a noble and generous nature, it must be accounted rather a vice than a virtue; as, in order to supply the unbounded extent of it, he was very rapacious. If he had lived long, his expences would have undone him, and they had brought him some years before his death into such difficulties, that even if his temper had not been despotic, his _necessities_ would have rendered him a Tyrant.

[92] "Ipse namque, et qui ei famulabantur (says Matthew Paris) omnia
rapiebant, omnia conterebant, et subvertebant. Adulteria violenter,
et _impunè_ committebant, quicquid fraudis et nequitiæ antea non
erat, his temporibus pullulavit." Henry of Huntingdon uses nearly
the same, but rather stronger, expressions.

[93] Introduction to History of Henry II.

HENRY I.

After so bad an œconomist (to say no worse of William Rufus), we may hope to see a more prudent direction of the revenues of the State, and a less abandoned Retinue about the Royal Person. This is, however, no great compliment to Henry, who succeeded: for a moderate character will appear with some degree of lustre, after one so very much disfigured as that of Rufus. Henry had, without question, many good qualities. He was a wise and prudent Prince, and, as the Saxon Chronicle says, "magno honore habitus[94];" but yet, we shall discover, one of his ruling passions was avarice, when we come to look nearly into his interior conduct in life. There was a glaring inconsistency in his very outset; for, soon after his accession, we find him punishing and imprisoning the abettors of William Rufus's exactions, and, among the rest, Ranulph Bishop of Durham, the _Minister_ and instrument of all those oppressive and unwarrantable measures; and yet, very soon after, we behold Henry sequestering to his own use the revenues of the Archbishopric of Canterbury, and keeping them in his hands for five years, after the example of the very man whose rapacious conduct he had, but just before, publicly condemned[95]. It is true he recalled many grants bestowed upon _creatures_ and undeserving persons in the late Reign; but whether upon motives of justice or avarice I do not determine. It will be found that he died exceedingly rich for those times (by whatever means the wealth was amassed); for he did not omit any opportunity of taxing his subjects, where he could do it with a tolerable grace, though he did it not in so bare-faced a manner as Rufus had done. Thus he availed himself of an antient Norman feudal custom, on occasion of the marrying his eldest daughter[96]. This custom was not now first established by Henry himself, as some have supposed[97]; but was one of the antient aids due to the King from his subjects, and having lain dormant many years, was now revived, but not introduced otherwise, than that Henry happened to be the first King, of the Norman race, who married his eldest daughter. In this he might be justifiable enough; but then he seems to have laid the tax at a prodigious high rate, for it is said, by some calculations, to have amounted to upwards of 800,000_l._ sterling. Among other things, Henry was very attentive to the reformation of abuses and irregularities that had crept into the _Court_ during the Reign of his Brother.

[94] Saxon Chronicle, p. 237.

[95] Morem fratris sui Willielmi Regis secutus. Eadmer.

[96] Aide à Fille marier.

[97] Polydore Vergil.

The accounts given of William's Court are surprizing for that age, when one would suppose our ancestors to have been rough and unpolished, little addicted to the softer vices, and totally unacquainted with the effeminacies of succeeding times; but we find that, notwithstanding men's minds were then so much turned to war and athletic diversions, excess and sensuality prevailed in a very scandalous manner among the Nobility, and even among the Clergy. Vanity, lust, and intemperance, reigned through the whole kingdom. The men appeared so effeminate in their dress and manners, that they shewed themselves men in nothing but their attempts upon the chastity of women[98]. So William of Malmsbury, speaking of the effeminacy of William Rufus's Court, says, "Mollitie corporis certare cum fœminis--gressum frangere--gestu soluto--et latere nudo incedere, Adolescentium specimen erat: enerves--emolliti--expugnatores alienæ pudicitiæ, prodigi suæ." By many evidences it appears that a luxury in apparel was very general among the Nobles and Gentry of that age; even the Nuns were not free from it.

[98] Eadmer.

The garments of the English, before their intermixture with the Normans, were generally plain; but they soon adopted the fashions of these new-comers, and became as magnificent in their dress as their fortunes could bear[99]. So that we see the French have, ever since the Conquest, been the standard of the English dress; and though we often complain of the folly of our times, in adopting French modes, it appears to be a practice that has existed time immemorial. Lord Lyttelton informs us (from Ordericus Vitalis) that there was a revolution in dress in William Rufus's reign, not only in England, but in all the Western parts of Europe; and that, instead of close coats, which till then had been used, as most commodious for exercise and a military life, trailing garments with long sleeves, after the manner of the Asiaticks, were universally worn. The men were also very nice in curling and dividing their hair, which, on the fore-part of their heads, was suffered to grow very long, but cut short behind[100];--a style of head-dressing, which, if introduced now, would spoil all the _Macaroni's_ of the age; for their comfort, however, it may be inferred from hence that similar beings have long subsisted in some shape or other.

[99] Lord Lyttelton.

[100] Introduction to Life of Henry II.

To return to Henry. We find the reformation of his _Court_ was one of the first steps towards ingratiating himself with his subjects. The _Courtiers_, for the most part, sure of impunity, were wont to tyrannize over the people in a shameful manner. Not content with every species of oppression, and of secretly attempting the chastity of women, they gloried in it publicly. To remedy these disorders in his _Court_, Henry published a very severe edict against all offenders in general, and particularly against _Adulterers_; and such as abused their power by oppressing the people, he ordered to be put to death without mercy. Some who were already notorious on that account were banished the Court, among whom was Ranulph Bishop of Durham, who was likewise imprisoned by the advice of the great Council of the Kingdom[101]. This was in the first year of Henry's Reign; but it had so little effect, that five years afterwards we find a _second_ reformation; for, the former proclamation being ineffectual, it was necessary to publish another, with still greater penalties; and this severity was unavoidably necessary, to check the licentiousness that had crept in, from the connivance which offences of every kind had hitherto met with.

[101] Matthew Paris.

Thus, we see, the dissoluteness of William Rufus's Court did not die with him; nor is it an easy thing to subdue so many-headed a monster as Vice in power. When the Magnates set bad examples in _Courts_, the inferior Officers are always ready to ape them; and crimes that in the commission are common to all men very soon descend from the _Prince_ to the _Page_. In the King's progresses during the late Reign, the _Court_ and its Followers committed many outrages of a very serious nature, in places where they lodged; such as extorting money from the hosts who entertained them, and abusing the chastity of women without restraint. But now the grievance was become much worse; for Henry's Attendants, in his progresses, plundered every thing that came in their way; so that the country was laid waste wherever the King travelled; for which reason people, when they knew of his approach, left their houses, carrying away what provisions they could, and sheltering themselves in the woods and bye-places, for fear their provisions should be taken away by the King's Purveyors[102]. These things called loudly for redress: it was therefore made public, by the King's command, that whoever, belonging to the Court, spoiled any goods of those who entertained them in these progresses, or abused the persons of their hosts, should, on proof, have their eyes put out, or their hands and feet cut off[103]. To us these seem cruel and unwarrantable punishments; but it must be remembered that, at this day, punishments were not prescribed, but arbitrary; there was no common law, and but little statute-law, and nothing to regulate the hand of Justice, which was directed by caprice, and the temper of the reigning King. Coiners of false money were grown so numerous and bare-faced, employed and even protected by the great men about the Court, that this kind of imposition on the publick became, among the rest, an object of redress, and the penalty inflicted was the loss of eyes and genitals.

[102] Eadmer.

[103] Eadmer.

Taking the whole together, one must conclude that the profligacy, and wanton cruelty, of the King's _Suite_ must have been very enormous, to have required punishments so repugnant to natural mercy;--but we can but ill judge, at so distant a period, of the necessity there might be for such severity.

The Kings, in these ages, moved their _Court_ very frequently, and often to considerable distances; and, as the state of the roads would not permit them to travel far in a day, they were forced to accommodate themselves as well as they could at such houses as lay convenient, there being then no receptacles of a public nature. These motions of so large a body of people, added to the frequency of them, were often, of themselves, very oppressive to the Yeomanry, who were obliged to supply the Court with carts and horses from place to place; and the abuse the people sustained in this kind of Purveyance was the occasion of edicts afterward to restrain any from _taking carriages_ from the subject, for this purpose, except by the persons authorized and appointed to the office, who were called the King's _Cart-takers_, a post which is now in being, though out of use. But, although the Court was not fixed in these times, yet the Kings generally kept the Feast of Christmas in one place[104], according to their liking or convenience. The other Feasts they kept at different places, as it happened, they having Palaces almost at every considerable place in the Kingdom, _viz._ besides London and its environs, at York, at Gloucester, Winchester, Salisbury, Marlborough, Bath, Worcester, and many other places, too numerous to mention _nominatim_. The great Feasts (together with that of St. George, after the institution of the Order of the Garter,) were kept with great solemnity, even so late as the Reign of King ... when the public observance of them was dropped by the King and Court.

[104] _Pro more_, as the Monkish writers say: though Henry I. does
not appear to have confined himself to keep the Feast of Christmas
at one place. According to the Saxon Chronicle, William I. had
stated places for each Feast; and on these occasions the Kings wore
their Crowns. "Ter gessit [Willielmus] suam Coronam singulis annis
quoties esset in Angliâ; ad _Pascha_ eam gessit in _Winchester;_
ad Pentecosten in _Westminster;_ et ad _Natales_ in _Gloucester_."
Chronic. Saxon. p. 190. So before anno 1085 "Rex _induta Corona_
tenuit Curiam in _Winchester_ ad _Pascha_, atque ita Itinera
instituit ut esset ad _Pentecosten_ apud _Westminster;_ ubi armis
militaribus honoravit filium suum Henricum;" p. 187.

William Rufus was not so uniform. He sometimes held his Court
at one, and sometimes at another; but for the most part the
Easter-Court at Winchester, as his Father had done. At Whitsuntide
1099, he kept his Court for the first time in his new Hall at
Westminster (Saxon Chronicle); for which purpose, I suppose, he
built it. Henry I. was not regular in the places where he kept his
Court, but it was held oftener in Westminster Hall than any where
else, perhaps on account of its novelty and convenience in point of
magnitude, or for greater magnificence. The custom of wearing the
Crown during the celebration of the great Festivals was much left
off, however, after Henry II. It is said to have grown by degrees
into disuse after Henry II. and his Queen, 1136, laid their Crowns
on the Altar, after their third Coronation at Worcester, vowing they
would never wear them again. What the occasion of this vow was,
nobody has told us; and Lord Lyttelton does not even guess at the
reason.

Henry was not wanting in splendour and magnificence on these occasions. Eadmerus, speaking of one of them, and more might be produced, says, "Rex Henricus [in Festivitate Pentecostes] _curiam_ suam Lundoniæ in _magnâ_ mundi _gloriâ_, et _diviti apparatu_ celebravit." Wherever the King kept his Court, or indeed wherever he resided, _there_ was, of course, the general resort of all the great men of the time, who brought with them, no doubt, large retinues; and in so great a concourse it is no wonder there should be many disorderly and abandoned people, in spite of all edicts and penalties.

Hitherto I have met with very little mention of any Officers of the _Court_ or _Household_. In this Reign, however, we hear of William de Tankerville, whom Lord Lyttelton calls, "Henry's _Great Chamberlain_." The Annotator on M. Rapin calls him only _Chamberlain_; and Matthew Paris, _Camerarius_; but this unquestionably means _Treasurer_, or _High Treasurer_, and not the great Officer we now understand by the _Chamberlain_, or the _Great Chamberlain_. The Latin term for these is _Cambellanus_, which Du Cange says, is--"diversus à _Camerario_, penes quem erat cura _Cameræ_ seu Thesauri Regii--_Cambellano_ autem fuit cura _Cubiculi_[105]. We have the term _Chamberlain_, in the sense of _Camerarius_, still preserved in the City of London, where the Treasurer is called the _Chamberlain_, and the office the _Chamber_; and indeed this Officer, of every Corporation, is, for the most part, called the _Chamberlain_. In the account given by the Saxon Chronicle[106] of the persons who were so unfortunately drowned with Prince William, King Henry's son, in returning from Normandy, in the year 1120, it is said there perished "quamplurimi de Regis familiâ, _Dispensatores_[107], _Cubicularii_[108], _Pincernæ_[109], aliique Ministri;" indeed all who were on board perished, except one man. These, it is supposed, were all menial and inferior Officers of the King's Household; those of a higher rank, and who appertained to the King's person, probably being on board the same ship with himself.

[105] Du Cange, Gloss. in voce _Cambellanus_.

[106] P. 222.

[107] The _Dispensatores_ should seem to be something like our
Gentlemen of the Buttery, Pantry, &c.; or such as delivered out
provisions of various sorts in their several provinces.

[108] The _Cubicularii_ I have already supposed to mean the inferior
Officers of the Bed-chamber.

[109] The _Pincernæ_, Butlers,--"_Pincerna_, qui Vinum Convivis
miscet;" Du Cange in voce: and _Pincernare_, he says, is "Vinum
prægustare priusquam Principi propinetur;" Idem in voce. So that it
seems to be what we call _A Yeoman of the Mouth_.

STEPHEN.

Stephen, at his accession, found in his Uncle's Treasury upwards of 100,000_l._[110] besides plate and jewels, the fruits of Henry's rapacity and oppression. As Stephen came in upon a doubtful title, the people were willing to take this opportunity of securing themselves against future usurpations and exactions; and accordingly, after some debate about the succession, when Stephen was placed on the throne, they imposed a new oath upon their new King; which imported, that he should fill the vacant Bishoprics, that he should not seize the Woods which belonged to private persons, upon frivolous pretences, as his Predecessors had done; but be content with the Forests which belonged to the two Williams, and make restitution of such as Henry had usurped. The Bishops, on the other hand, took a conditional oath, that they would pay allegiance no longer than he should continue to maintain the privileges of the Church. All this, and more, Stephen afterwards confirmed by Charter; but yet it tended only to amuse the people, till he was fully seated in his Throne, and felt himself a King; for, not many months after the signing the Charter, wherein he particularly covenants not to meddle with vacant Bishoprics, do we find that, upon the death of the Archbishop, he seized the revenues of the See of Canterbury, and kept them in his hands above two years. It is true, he only followed the examples of his Predecessors; but with this aggravation, that Stephen had given the most sacred engagements that can be had between men, that he would not intermeddle with the revenues of the vacant Bishoprics, but that they should be sequestered in the hands of Ecclesiastics till the vacancy was filled. No wonder then that a King, with so little regard to every tie, however sacred, should soon be involved in tumultuous scenes of disaffection and revolt. To heal this wound, and to buy off the reproaches of his subjects (of whose assistance he foresaw he should soon have occasion, in growing ruptures with neighbouring Powers), he not only became lavish of _titles_ and _honours_, but alienated many of the Crown lands, to secure the interest of such as he thought might be serviceable to him. But this bounty had not the desired effect: some who accepted his favours thought them no more than their due; others, who were passed by, became jealous, and thought themselves neglected, and soon shewed their resentment, which proved the source of the approaching troubles. So difficult is it to regain the lost esteem of a brave and spirited people!

[110] William of Malmesbury; "Æstimabantur denarii fere ad centum
millia libras," p. 179.

One very great error in the politics of the preceding three Kings was, heaping favours and honours on the Normans, to the exclusion of the English; by which the affection of the Natives was warped, the natural security of the Kingdom (the People) divided, and their hearts turned against the King and his Adherents. The filling the Court with Normans, and lavishing honours and estates amongst them, was weakening the attachment of the English to such a degree, that it became eventually out of the power of the latter to support the Royal Family when it wanted protection. Stephen, at his accession, had made large promises to the Barons, to engage them in support of his weak title to the Throne; and had given them strong assurances that they should enjoy more privileges and offices under him, than they had possessed in the Reigns of his Norman Predecessors. These promises (which, perhaps, were never intended to be performed) answered Stephen's end, by securing to him the Crown, and were the sole motive that induced the Barons to concur so warmly in his interest; and the non-performance was the cause of the general revolt that happened in a few years. From the time of Stephen's accession, he had been perpetually reminded by his _Courtiers_ of his large promises, which he was forced to parry by other still larger promises, and often by actual grants, to satisfy those that were most importunate.

Their private resentments were covered with public outside[111]; but most Writers agree that this was only an ostensible excuse for an opportunity to gratify their revenge; and that the true reasons of discontent were, that they did not receive rewards and emoluments equal to their expectations, and Stephen's promises. The greatest after-engagements that the King could devise were not, however, sufficient to secure the allegiance of his Courtiers; every one was grasping at the same posts, the same estates, the same honours. Reason has little weight among such claimants; and it is no wonder that the situation of the parties should kindle a flame that should spread itself over the whole Kingdom.

[111] The breach of his oath to Matilda.

During so turbulent a period, it is not to be supposed that much attention should be paid to the interior regulation of the King's House or Household; it was probably as much distracted as the rest of the Kingdom. The King being obliged to fly about from place to place, as the exigency of affairs required, there was little time to study _State_ and _Magnificence_ in his _Court_. In the former part of Stephen's Reign his Court was extremely magnificent, exceeding that of his Predecessors. He held his Court at Easter, in the first year of his Reign, at London, which was the most splendid, in every respect, that had yet been seen in England[112]. One may judge a little of the hospitality of the Court in those days, by the manner of living among the Nobility: for at this time, and many ages after, the great halls of the castles or principal manor-houses of the Nobility and Gentry were crowded with vast numbers of their vassals and tenants, who were daily fed at their cost. And in houses of inferior rank, upon occasions of feasting, the floor was strewed with flowers, and the jovial company drank wine out of gilded horns, and sang songs when they became inebriated with their liquor[113]. This custom of strewing the floor, in those days, was a part of the luxury of the times; and _Becket_, when he was Chancellor, in the next Reign, according to a contemporary Author[114], ordered his hall to be strewed every day, in the winter with fresh straw or hay, and in summer with rushes, or green leaves, fresh gathered; and this reason is given for it, that such Knights as the benches could not contain might sit on the floor without dirtying their fine cloaths. But even this rustic simplicity was mixed with great magnificence in gold and silver plate[115]. This custom of strewing the rooms extended to the apartments of the Kings themselves in those days; for in the time of Edward I. "Willielmus filius Willielmi de Aylesbury tenet tres virgatas terræ ... per serjeantiam inveniendi _stramen_ ad straminandam cameram Domini Regis in _Hyeme_ et in _Æstate Herbam_ ad juncandam[116] cameram suam[117]." It may be observed, further, that there is a relique of this custom still subsisting; for at Coronations the ground is strewed with flowers by a person who is upon the establishment, called the _Herb-strewer_, with an annual salary.

[112] Quâ nunquam fuerat splendidior _in Angliâ_ multitudine,
magnitudine, auro, argento, gemmis, Vestibus, omnimodâ dapsilitate.
Henry of Huntingdon, Lib. viii.

[113] Lord Lyttelton, from John of Salisbury.

[114] Fitzstephen.

[115] Idem. Vide Lord Lyttelton's Life of Henry II. vol. iii. p. 483.

[116] _Juncare_ is properly, to strew with rushes.

[117] Blount's Jocular Tenures.

But the commotions of this Reign even put a stop to these meetings of the Court and Council[118], and all Royal magnificence was broken down and defaced. Had it not been for the turbulency of the times, Stephen might doubtless have kept a very large Household, and a splendid Court; for, added to the wealth he inherited with the Crown from his Predecessor, he had large revenues, derived from different sources; _viz._ the demesnes of the Crown, escheats, feudal profits from the demesnes of others, fines, aids, and several others; but the exigency of his affairs, and the situation to which he was reduced with his Barons, obliged him to give largely, and at last to resume what he had before given, the price of the dissembled affection of his Courtiers.

[118] Jam quippe Curiæ solennes, et ornatus Regii Schematis prorsus
evanuerant. Annals of Waverly.

Stephen had liberality, and loved splendour; so that, had he lived in times more favourable to it, he would, probably, have shone with great lustre in his _Court_ and _Household_, if we may take the Court which attended him in his first year, and the magnificence there exhibited, for a specimen.

King Stephen, being a Foreigner, and an Usurper, might not choose to ask _Aids_ of the people of England, and it does not appear that he did. He had two sons, Eustace and William, both of whom lived to be married, and no doubt were _Knights_, which, according to the complexion of the times, every person of the least consequence was, though these Princes do not appear to have received that honour in England. King Stephen was unpopular; and being embroiled in domestic wars with his Cousin the Empress Maud, made no demands of _aids_ of this sort of which we are speaking. His two elder Sons died in his life-time; and his third, William, was by Henry II. restored to his titles of Earl of Bolleigne, Surrey, and Mortaine; and dying without issue, was succeeded by his sister Mary, who, after having been Abbess of Ramsey, was married to the second son of Theodoric, Earl of Flanders, who, in her right, was Earl of Bolleigne.

King Stephen, during the internal disquietudes in the Kingdom, was taken prisoner by _Maud_, the Empress, and afterwards released at the suit of his Son _Eustace_. It is not said that any sum of money was paid on the occasion, and indeed it will admit of a question whether the Norman _aid_, allowed for ransom of the King's Person if taken prisoner, would extend to such a domestic war. The Kingdom was divided; and the Title to the Crown suspended, and in such an unquiet hour, it was difficult for the Nation at large to refuse or comply.

HENRY II. (PLANTAGENET.)

Henry at his Accession found himself so contracted in his Royal Revenues, by the imprudence of his immediate Predecessor, Stephen, that some spirited measures became necessary, to enable him to support his dignity equal to the Sovereign of a great Kingdom, and his own wishes.