Forest, the victim of an arrow from an unknown hand. The common story names Walter Tirel, who was certainly close at hand and fled the country without venturing to abide the issue of a trial. But a certain Ralph of Aix is also accused; and Tirel, from a safe distance, solemnly protested his innocence.
It remains to notice the main features of the domestic administration which made the names of William and his minister, Ralph Flambard, infamous. Respecting the grievances of the laity we have few specific details. But we are told that the “moots” all over England were “driven” in the interests of the king; which perhaps means that aids were extorted from the shire-courts. We also learn that the forest-laws were rigorously administered; that the king revived, for certain offences, the death-penalty which his father had abolished; that all men were vexed by unjust gelds and the feudal classes by unscrupulous misinterpretations of the customs relating to the incidents of wardship, marriage and relief. On one occasion the militia were summoned in considerable numbers for a Norman expedition, which was no part of their duty; but when they arrived at the sea-coast they were bidden to hand over their journey money and go home. The incident is not uninstructive as a side-light on the king's finance. As to the oppression of the church we are more fully informed; after allowing for exaggeration there still remains evidence enough to prove that the ecclesiastical policy of Rufus was unscrupulously venal. Vacant sees and abbacies were either kept for years in the hands of the king, who claimed the right of a feudal guardian to appropriate the revenues so long as the vacancy continued; or they were openly sold to the highest bidder. The history of Anselm's relations with the king is fully narrated by the biographer Eadmer. Anselm received the see of Canterbury in 1093, after it had been in the king's hands for upwards of four years. William made the appointment in a moment of repentance, when sick and at death's door. But he resented Anselm's demand for full restitution of the temporalities and his refusal to make any payment, in the nature of an aid or relief, which might be construed as simoniacal. Other grounds of quarrel were found in the reproofs which the primate aimed at the vices of the court, and in his requests for leave to hold a church-council and initiate reforms. Finally, in 1095, Anselm exasperated the king by insisting on his right to recognize Urban II. as the lawful pope. By the “customs” of the Conqueror it had been the rule that no pope should be recognized in England without the king's permission; and Rufus was unwilling that the English Church should be committed to either party in the papal schism which had already lasted fifteen years. Anselm, on the other hand, asserted that he had accepted the primacy on the distinct condition that he should be allowed to acknowledge Urban. The dispute came before a great council which was held at Rockingham (Feb. 25, 1095). The king demanded that the assembly should adjudge Anselm guilty of contumacy, and was supported by the bishops. The lay barons, however, showed their ill-will towards the king's general policy by taking Anselm's part. Rufus was forced to give way. He recognized Urban, but entered upon intrigues at Rome to procure the suspension of the archbishop. Finding that Urban would not betray a loyal supporter, the king fell back upon his authority as a feudal suzerain. He taxed Anselm with having failed to provide a satisfactory quota of knights for the Welsh war (1097). The archbishop, seeing that he was never to be left in peace, and despairing of an opportunity to effect the reforms on which his heart was set, demanded urgently that he should be allowed to leave England for the purpose of visiting Urban. Both the king and the barons suspected that this was the first step towards an appeal to the pope's jurisdiction against that of the royal court. Leave was at first refused; but ultimately, as Anselm continued to press his demand, he was suffered to depart, not without experiencing some petty insults on his way (Oct. 1097). The motive of the king's apparent clemency was soon revealed. He seized the estates of the archbishopric, and kept them in his own hands for the future. The friends of the archbishop were thus justified in their assertion that the zeal of Rufus for his father's “customs” was a mere cloak for avarice and tyranny.
In appearance William II. was unattractive; bull-necked, with sloping shoulders, extremely corpulent and awkward in his gait. His long locks and clean-shaven face marked his predilection for the new-fangled fashions which contemporary ecclesiastics were never weary of denouncing. His features were strongly marked and coarse, his eyes grey and deeply set; he owed his nickname to the fiery hue of his complexion. He stuttered violently and in moments of passion was almost inarticulate. His familiar conversation was witty and blasphemous. He was surrounded by a circle of vicious parasites, and no semblance of decorum was maintained in his household. His character was assailed by the darkest rumours which he never attempted to confute. He died unmarried and without issue.
The main authorities for the reign are the Peterborough Chronicle (ed. C. Plummer, 2 vols., Oxford, 1892-1899); Eadmer's Vita Anselms and Historia Novorum (ed. M. Rule, “Rolls” series, 1884); William of Malmesbury's De gestis regum (ed. W. Stubbs, “Rolls” series, 2 vols., 1887-1889); Orderic Vitalis' Historia ecclesiastica (ed. A. le Prévost, 5 vols., Paris, 1838-1855). Of modern works the most exhaustive is E. A. Freeman's Reign of William Rufus (2 vols., Oxford, 1882). See also J. H. Round's Feudal England (London, 1895). (H. W. C. D.)
WILLIAM III. (1650-1702), king of England and prince of Orange, was the only son of William II., prince of Orange, stadtholder of the Dutch republic, and Mary, daughter of Charles I. of England, and was born at the Hague on the 4th of November 1650, eight days after his father's death. His father had attempted a coup d'état, which had failed, with the result that on his death the office of stadtholder was abolished. Power passed into the hands of John de Witt, who represented the oligarchic element and the special interests of one province, Holland, and was taken from the Orange party which represented the more democratic element and the more general interests of the Seven Provinces. William inherited the baleful lustre, without the substantial power, which his ancestors had given to the name of Orange. He grew up among enemies, and became artful, suspicious and self-controlled, concealing his feeling behind the mask of an immobile, almost repulsive, coldness. Like Charles XII. of Sweden and the younger Pitt, he was a wonderful example of premature mental development.
In 1672 Louis XIV. suddenly invaded Dutch territory. The startling successes of the French produced a revolution among the Dutch people, who naturally turned for help to the scion of the house of Orange. On the 8th of July 1672 the states general revived the stadtholderate, and declared William stadtholder, captain-general and admiral for life. This revolution was followed by a riot, in which John de Witt and his brother Cornelius were murdered by the mob at the Hague. Evidence may be sought in vain to connect William with the outrage, but since he lavishly rewarded its leaders and promoters this circumstance is not very much to his credit. The cold cynicism with which he acted towards de Witt is only matched by the heroic obstinacy with which he confronted Louis. Resolved as he said “to die in the last ditch,” he rejected all thought of surrender and appealed to the last resource of Dutch patriotism by opening the sluices and laying vast tracts under water. The French army could not advance, while the French and English fleets were defeated by the Dutch admiral, De Ruyter. William summoned Brandenburg to his aid (1672) and made treaties with Austria and Spain (1673). In August 1674 he fought his first great battle at Seneffe, where, though the struggle was not unequal, the honours lay with Condé. The French evacuated Dutch territory early in 1674, but continued to hold places on the Rhine and in Flanders. In April 1677 William was badly beaten at St Omer, but balanced his military defeat by France by a diplomatic victory over England. In November 1677 he married Mary, eldest daughter of James, duke of York, afterwards King James II., and undertook negotiations with England in the following year which forced Louis to make terms and sign the treaty of Nijmwegen in August 1678, which gave
