of Jumièges, viii. 32), and seems to have treated clergy of holy life with respect. Contemporaries were much impressed by his wisdom; he did not love war, and preferred to gain his ends by craft. An unforgiving enemy, he was said to be an equally steadfast friend. He was, however, such a thorough dissembler that no one could be sure of his favour; and Robert Bloet [q. v.], bishop of Lincoln, declared that when he praised any one he was sure to be plotting that person's destruction (De Contemptu Mundi). He was cruel, and his cruelties proceeded from a cold-hearted disregard of human suffering. Policy rather than feeling guided his actions. Without being miserly, he was avaricious, and the people suffered much from his exactions, which, though apparently not exorbitant in amount, were levied with pitiless regularity alike in times of scarcity and plenty. His justice was stern. Unlike his father, he caused thieves, robbers, and other malefactors to be hanged, and sometimes inflicted such sweeping punishments that the innocent must have suffered along with the guilty. Criminals were constantly blinded and mutilated, though in his later years he often substituted heavy fines for these punishments. He strictly enforced the forest laws; no one was allowed, except as a special privilege, to hunt on his own land or to diminish the size of his woods; all dogs in the neighbourhood of a forest were maimed, and little difference was made between the slayer of a deer and of a man (Orderic, p. 813; William of Newburgh i. c. 3). On the whole, however, Henry's harsh administration of justice was good for the country; while it brought suffering to the few, it gave peace and security to the many. His despotism was strong as well as stern; no offender was too powerful to be reached by the law. Private war he put down peremptorily, and peace and order were enforced everywhere. He exalted the royal authority, and kept the barons well under control, both by taking sharp measures against those who offended him, and by choosing his counsellors and chief officers from a lower rank, raising up a number of new men, whom he enriched and ennobled in order to make them a counterpoise to the power of the great houses of the Conquest (Orderic, p. 805). Although he kept a large number of stipendiary soldiers, to whom he was a liberal master (Cont. William of Jumièges, viii. 22), he was persuaded by Anselm to sharply restrain them from injuring the people, as they had done in his brother's time, and as they did in the earlier years of his own reign (Eadmer, Historia Novorum, iv. col. 470). Trade was benefited by his restoration of the coinage, and the severity with which he punished those who issued bad money or used false measures; he is said to have made the length of his own arm the standard of measure throughout the kingdom (Gesta Regum, v. 411). The peace and order which he established were highly valued by the people, and the native chronicler, though he makes many moans over his exactions, yet, writing after his death, and looking back in a time of disorder to the strong government of the late reign, says of him: ‘Good man he was, and great awe there was of him. No one durst misdo another in his time. Peace he made for man and deer. Whoso bare his burden of gold and silver no man durst say to him aught but good’ (Anglo-Saxon Chron. sub an. 1135; for Henry's character, both as a man and as a king, see more at large in Norman Conquest, v. 153–61, 839–45, where full references are given; also Stubbs, Constitutional History, vol. i. secs. 110–12).
In the first days of his reign Henry imprisoned, in the Tower of London, Ranulf Flambard [q. v.], bishop of Durham, the evil minister of Rufus, and began to appoint abbots to the abbeys which his brother had kept vacant in order to enjoy their revenues. He met Anselm at Salisbury, on his return to England about Michaelmas, and required him to do homage as his predecessor had done, and receive back from him the temporalities of the see, which were then in the king's hands. Anselm refused, and Henry, who could not afford to quarrel with him, and would probably in any case have been unwilling to do so, agreed to delay the matter, in order that the pope might be consulted whether he could so far change his decrees as to bring them into accordance with the ancient custom of the kingdom. In this dispute as to the question of investiture [for which see under Anselm] Henry took his stand on the rights of his crown as handed down by his predecessors, and on the undoubted usages of his realm. He made no new demand; the innovation was introduced by Anselm, who, in obedience to papal instructions, refused to accept the temporalities from Henry, as he had accepted them from Rufus, and as former archbishops had accepted them from former kings. Nor did Henry make the quarrel a personal matter; he did not persecute the archbishop, or thwart him in the exercise of his office, as Rufus had done. He behaved throughout with a due regard to law, and on the whole acted fairly, though he naturally availed himself of every lawful means to gain his point. He was urged by his coun-
