he exercised towards his barons and nearest connections, must not unfrequently have caused him to appear in their eyes as hateful as he must ever have done to the subjugated people.

His consort, Matilda, died a few years before him (3rd Nov. 1083) at Caen. She had borne him four sons, Robert, Richard, William, and Henry. Of his daughters, we know of Cecilia, an abbess at Caen; Constance, married to Alan Fergant, count of Brittany and earl of Richmond, who died childless; Agatha, first betrothed to the Anglo-Saxon king Harold, and afterwards to Alphonso king of Gallicia, but died before her marriage; Adela, married to Stephen count of Blois, whose third son, named after his father, afterwards made a conspicuous figure in the annals of England; Adeliza, who died a nun1; and Gundrada, married to William of Warenne, earl of Surrey. One praise, and a rare one among

1 W. Malm. pp. 455, sq. W. Gemmet. viii. c. 34. Ord. Vital. pp. 512, 573. [In Domesday i. fol. 49, mention occurs of a daughter of William named Matilda—“" Goisfredus, filie regis camerarius, tenet de rege Heche ......Goisfredus vero tenet eam de rege, pro servitio quod fecit Mathildi ejus filie." Of a daughter thus named we find no trace in the chronicles; but Mr. Blaauw (Archæolog. xxxii. p. 119.) suggests, that Gundrada and Matilda may be the Dano-Norman and Flemish names of the same individual; an identity of which I hardly entertain a doubt, the components of either name being synonymous with those of the other, though in inverse order, viz. Goth. gunbs, Ohg. kund, O. Nor. gunnr, bellum ; O. Nor. râd, vires, might; and Goth. mahts, Ohg. maht, might; Goth. hilds, A. S. hild, bellum. In corroboration of this supposition, I will remind the reader, that the Norman Emma assumed the name of Ælfgifu, on her marriage with Æthelred; and Eadgyth that of Matilda, on her marriage with Henry I. Gundrada (O. Nor. masc. Gunnrâör) is in fact a translation of Matilda.

2 In a charter (Monast. V. p. 12. Rymer, i. p. 3) William calls her his daughter; and William of Warenne, on the occasion of founding the priory at Lewes, names queen Matilda as her mother. A document of the pair, from a chartulary of the abbey of Cluny, is cited in C. G. Hoffmann, Nova Scriptorum ac Monumentorum Collectio, tom. i. Lips. 1731. The chroniclers ignore her, except Orderic, who calls her a sister of Gherbod the Fleming. See Orderic, p. 522. (Maseres, p. 254.) Documentary

the princes of his family, is due to William-that of contiEven the voice of slander has been unable to utter

nence.

evidence of their posterity exists in the charter of Castleacre Priory in Norfolk. See Monast. Angl. v. pp. 49, sq. [The following notes, chiefly from Ellis's Introduction to Domesday, (vol. i. p. 507) will, it is hoped, be thought of sufficient interest to justify their insertion. "Gundreda was really a daughter of the Conqueror. William de Warren's second charter of foundation, granted to Lewes priory, in the reign of Rufus, states this fact distinctly: Volo ergo quod sciant qui sunt et qui futuri sunt, quod ego Willielmus de Warrena, Surreiæ comes, donavi et confirmavi Deo et Sancto Pancratio et monachis Cluniacensibus, quicunque in ipsa ecelesia Sancti Pancratii Deo servient imperpetuum, donavi pro salute animæ meæ et animæ Gundredæ uxoris meæ et pro anima domini mei Willielmi regis, qui me in Anglicam terram adduxit, et per cujus licentiam monachos venire feci, et qui meam priorem donationem confirmavit, et pro salute dominæ meæ Matildis reginæ, matris uxoris meæ, et pro salute domini mei Willelmi regis, filii sui, post cujus adventum in Anglicam terram hanc cartam feci, et qui me comitem Surregiæ fecit.'

"Gundreda is also acknowledged by the Conqueror himself as his daughter, in the charter, by which he gave to the monks of St. Pancras the manor of Walton in Norfolk, the original of which is preserved in the Cott. MS. Vesp. F. III. fol. 1. He gives it pro anima domini et antecessoris mei regis Edwardi...... et pro anima Gulielmi de Warenna, et uxoris suæ Gundredæ, filiæ meæ, et heredibus suis.'

"Gundreda died in child-bed at Castle Acre in Norfolk, May 27th 1085, and was interred in the chapter-house of Lewes priory. Her tomb was found in 1775 in Isfield church in Sussex, (forming the upper slab of the monument of Edward Shirley, cofferer to Henry VIII.) whither it was supposed to have been taken at the dissolution of Lewes priory. It was removed in that year to the church of Southover. It was ornamented in the Norman taste, and the inscription was obscure and mutilated; the names of Gundreda and St. Pancras, however, appeared upon it. See Sir William Burrell's Collections for the History of the Rape of Lewes in Sussex, MS. Donat. Brit. Mus.

"William de Warren himself died June 24th 1088. The Register of Lewes priory, MS. Cott. Vesp. A. HV. preserves the epitaph which was formerly upon his tomb, also at Lewes."

"On Tuesday mornLewes, and Hastings

The following is from the Athenæum, No. 940. ing, as the workmen employed by the Brighton, Railway Company were removing the earth in the priory grounds at Lewes, their progress was arrested by a stone, on the removal of which they discovered two cists, or coffers, side by side. On the lid of one was the word Gundreda,' perfectly legible; and on the lid of the other,

more than one ill-founded reproach against him1. At all events, we know of no illegitimate offspring left by him.

'Will'us.' On removing the lids, the remains appeared to be quite perfect, and the lower jaw of William, earl de Warren, in extraordinary preservation. The cists in which the bodies were deposited were not more than three feet in length, and about two feet wide, and there is no doubt that they had been removed from some other place, and re-interred; and, according to tradition, the bodies of William de Warren and Gundreda his wife were re-interred two hundred years after their decease. These interesting and ancient relics were removed to Southover church, in which there is a very ancient tablet to the memory of 'Gundreda,' and it is intended to place the remains near this tablet."

"It is obvious," writes Mr. Blaauw, (Archæolog. xxxi. p. 439,) “that the bodies have been transferred from their original sepultures to these cists at some period not recorded, but probably on their being found decayed, when, in the progress of the buildings of the priory, the chapterhouse, in which they were buried, was completed." For an interesting account of Gundrada, the reader is recommended to consult the two valuable papers by Mr. Blaauw, above referred to.-T.

I Will. Malm. p. 453. [“ Non desunt qui ganniant eum ...... volutatum cum cujusdam presbyteri filia, quam per satellitem, succiso poplite. Matildis sustulerit, quapropter illum exhæredatum, illam ad mortem fræno equi cæsam."-T.]

IN nothing did the complete triumph of William the Conqueror more manifestly display itself than in the succession to the English throne established solely in conformity with his wish. So entirely broken was the power of the AngloSaxons, that neither the claims of the royal race, represented by Eadgar Ætheling, and not denied by the Normans themselves, were of any avail; nor was any regard paid to the sons of Harold, at that time sojourning beyond sea. Neither the right nor the semblance of an election was conceded to the Norman and Anglo-Saxon chieftains, and even that of primogeniture was violated. The bequest of Normandy to the eldest son was in accordance with the feudal law of France, to violate which the Conqueror would, at the same time, have scrupled as little as any of the other French princes, who entertained consideration for their suzerain only when it suited them. The assignment of England to the second son may have appeared illegal to the Anglo-Saxons1, yet not so to the Normans, as we have already remarked, 1 Eadmer, p. 13.

that among them the paternal inheritance in Normandy descended to the eldest son, while the frequently greater, though less secure, acquisitions by conquest in Apulia, Brittany, and other provinces, fell to the share of the younger1. More probable, however, than reasons founded on right, are those deducible from William's knowledge of the characters and capabilities of his sons; and even if he judged too favourably of his second son, and had constantly preferred him to his elder brother, it was, at the same time, but too evident, that Robert, weak-minded, wavering, fondly priding himself in eloquence, valour, and other knightly accomplishments, was unequal to the task of ruling England, and to the struggle with its inhabitants.

The younger son, William, who, at his father's death, had not attained his twenty-fifth year, had been educated and knighted by Lanfranc, and had distinguished himself by his courage and bodily activity. The alacrity with which he attended to every intimation of a wish on the part of his father, combined with the qualities just mentioned, gained him the affection of that dark and suspicious prince. On his deathbed, William gave him a letter to the archbishop of Canterbury, in which he conferred on that prelate the office of crowning his son William king of England. Even before the prince could embark at Witsand, the intelligence of his father's death overtook him. To the most influential and intimate friend of the Conqueror, this his last wish could be no matter of surprise. He caused his royal pupil to promise, that as king he would ever practise justice, equity, and mercy; defendt he Church, and ever follow his precepts and counsel. Whereupon, preventing all discussions about an election, after a lapse of eighteen days only from the death of the

1 Examples: the sons of William fitz Osbern (see p. 156); of Roger of Montgomery, whose eldest had Belesme and Alençon; the second, Hugh, the earldom of Shrewsbury.

2 The ceremony of knighting at that time is thus described by Orderic, p. 665: "Eum lorica induit, et galeam capiti ejus imposuit, eique militiæ cingulum in nomine Domini cinxit."-T.