OR,
THE HISTORY
OF THE
ROYAL HOUSEHOLD.
————
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, Ithought 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 eventheir owngrants; a measure equally scandalous to the character of the Prince, as derogatory to the honour of the Crown.
As toresumptions, several of each sort will be seen in the following sheets, antecedent to the Reformation; and since that period there have been repeated occasions forreductions (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.
In France they figure away with thousands of livresper 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 aStarostie, a kind of Fiefs inherent in the Crown for this purpose.
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].
The Emperor of Germany has one very singular prerogative, very inconvenient to the inhabitants of Vienna, that of taking to himself thefirst floorof every house in the City (a few privileged places excepted) for the use of theOfficers 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.
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.
After that great Revolution calledThe 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 didnot 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].
In William's Survey, which we callDomesday Book, particular attention was first paid to the King's right; and theTerra 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 theCrown more than he ought, is hard to say; but it is to be supposed he was not very sparing or delicate. TheTerra Regisis 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 richestMonarchs 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 thedignity of the Crownwith adecent magnificence; and, though he never waslavish, he was sometimesliberal[76].
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 natureand 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 Kingmusthave: 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 therudeness 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.
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 Courtmust have been crowded,—at least much frequented.
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.
Whether this mode was continued by hisSuccessors, 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 calledQuarter-waitersare, 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, waitfour monthsin 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, butno 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 inclassesquarterly.
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 athree-fold shift of all Domestic Officers; each of which were, by themselves, under the command of a severalMajor-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 wasfain 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]."
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 quinDapiferihodierni (quosQuarter-waitersappellamus) qui per singulos anni quadrantes, Regi admensamministrant, ab hoc Regis instituto, manarint." Now it is pretty certain that the Quarter-waiters arenot Officers at all connected, by their post, with the King'stable, they being a secondary degree ofGentlemen Ushers, called in a grant of Fees temp. Car. I. (in Rymer's Fœdera)Ante-Ambulones. The Doctor seems, by the wordDapiferi, to have confounded them with theSewers; which is strengthened by the following words, "qui admensamministrant."
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 theConqueror's Courtwe 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 theCourt, as well as theKingdom, would be new-modelled, and assume a different face, upon so great a revolution as that of the Conquest.
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 60,000l.; but, according to Henry of Huntingdon[84], who lived very near the time, to 60,000 poundweightof 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, thoughmade for valuable considerations; or to take any measure, however unwarrantable and unprecedented—
"Tantum Religio potuit suadere malorum."
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 thingssacredby 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 thingvaluable (even to the very Shrines), he sold them publicly to the best bidder, without regard to merit or capacity[89].
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 muchhewould 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]."
Though William was thus continually filling his coffers with these dishonourable and sacrilegious spoils, yet was he avariciouswithout 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 10,000l.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 ofseverity; as we shall see presently. "In the magnificence of hisCourtand buildings, however, (says Lord Lyttelton[93],) hegreatlyexceeded 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, hisnecessitieswould have rendered him a Tyrant.
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 Retinueabout 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, theMinisterand 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 justbefore, publicly condemned[95]. It is true he recalled many grants bestowed uponcreaturesand 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. Inthis 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 800,000l.sterling. Among other things, Henry was very attentive to the reformation of abuses and irregularities that had crept into theCourtduring the Reign of his Brother.
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 Williamof 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.
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 theMacaroni'sof the age; for their comfort, however, it may be inferred from hence that similar beings have long subsisted in some shape or other.
To return to Henry. We find the reformation of hisCourtwas one of the first steps towards ingratiating himself with his subjects. TheCourtiers, 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 hisCourt, Henry published avery severe edict against all offenders in general, and particularly againstAdulterers; 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 asecondreformation; 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.
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 inCourts, the inferiorOfficers are always ready to ape them; and crimes that in the commission are common to all men very soon descend from thePrinceto thePage. In the King's progresses during the late Reign, theCourtand 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, spoiledany 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.
Taking the whole together, one must conclude that the profligacy, and wanton cruelty, of the King'sSuitemust have been very enormous, to have required punishments so repugnant to natural mercy;—but we canbut ill judge, at so distant a period, of the necessity there might be for such severity.
The Kings, in these ages, moved theirCourtvery 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 fromtaking carriagesfrom the subject, for this purpose, except by the persons authorized and appointed to the office, who were called the King'sCart-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 generallykept 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 mentionnominatim. 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.
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]curiamsuam Lundoniæinmagnâmundigloriâ, etdiviti apparatucelebravit." Wherever the King kept his Court, or indeed wherever he resided,therewas, 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 theCourtorHousehold. In this Reign, however, we hear of William de Tankerville, whom Lord Lyttelton calls, "Henry'sGreat Chamberlain." The Annotator on M. Rapin calls him onlyChamberlain; and Matthew Paris,Camerarius; but this unquestionably meansTreasurer, orHigh Treasurer, and not the great Officer we now understand by theChamberlain, or theGreat Chamberlain. The Latin term for these isCambellanus, which Du Cange says, is—"diversus àCamerario, penes quem erat curaCameræseu Thesauri Regii—Cambellanoautem fuit curaCubiculi[105].We have the termChamberlain, in the sense ofCamerarius, still preserved in the City of London, where the Treasurer is called theChamberlain, and the office theChamber; and indeed this Officer, of every Corporation, is, for the most part, called theChamberlain. 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 onboard 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.
Stephen, at his accession, found in his Uncle's Treasury upwards of 100,000l.[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 Woodswhich 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 shouldbe 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 oftitlesandhonours, 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!
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 affectionof 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 remindedby hisCourtiersof 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.
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 distractedas 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 studyStateandMagnificencein hisCourt. 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 companydrank 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; andBecket, 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 inveniendistramenad straminandam cameramDomini Regis inHyemeet inÆstate Herbamad 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 theHerb-strewer, with an annual salary.
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, andthe 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.
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 hisCourtandHousehold, 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 askAidsof 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 wereKnights, 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 ofaidsof this sortof 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 byMaud, the Empress, and afterwards released at the suit of his SonEustace. It is not said that any sum of money was paid on the occasion, and indeed it will admit of a question whether the Normanaid, 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 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.
Henry soon saw that the resumption of several grants made by Stephen was absolutely necessary; and these having been conferred on great and powerful men, the measure must be conducted with firmness and delicacy. In a Treaty made at Winchester, after the close of the Civil Commotions in the late Reign, after Stephen had contented himself that Henry, then Duke of Normandy, should assume the Rights and Power of a King, reserving to himself onlythe Image of the Royal Dignity, it was stipulated,inter alia, by a separate and secret article, that the King (Stephen) "should resume what had been alienated to the Nobles,or usurped by them, of the Royal Demesne[119]." This article was limited to whatever lands or possessions had belonged to the Crown at the death of King Henry I.; all which were to be restored, except those that Stephen had granted to William his Son, or had bestowed on the Church. Among these resumable gifts were some made by Matilda; for she too, acting as Sovereign, had followed Stephen's example, in giving away certain parts of the Estate of the Crown, to reward her adherents. Add to these, much that had been usurped by the Barons of both Parties, without any warrant, by the licence of the times, on unjustifiable pretences[120]. No article of the Treaty of Winchester was more necessary to be fulfilled than a resumption of all these alienations, which had been neglected by Stephen, indigent as he was; for, had this not been now executed, Henry would have been little better than Stephen, a Sovereign without a Royal Revenue—"Rex et preterea nihil."—His power would soon have vanished; and theBarons, having usurped the Crown Lands, would very soon have contended for the Sovereign Power: and had not Henry exerted the spirit and conduct which he soon shewed, it is more than probable the Government of the Kingdom at this period had sunk into an Aristocracy. Henry, therefore, as soon as he was well and fully confirmed on the Throne, set about the execution of this secret article of the Treaty of Winchester, relating to the alienated lands, which Stephen had neglected. The necessity of this measure, however arduous and disagreeable in itself, appeared in the most glaring colours to Henry; for Stephen's extravagance, and the insatiable demands of his faction, had induced him to alienate so much of the ancient Demesne of the Crown, that the remaining Estate was not (as has been said) sufficient to maintain the Royal Dignity. Royal Cities, and Forts of great consequence, had been also granted away, which could not be suffered to continue in the hands of the Nobles, without endangering the peace of the Kingdom. Policy and Law concurred in demanding these concessions back again. The Antient Demesneof the Crown was held so very sacred, and so inalienable, that no length of time could give a right of prescription to any other possessors, even by virtue of grants from the Crown, against the claim of succeeding Princes[121]. William Rufus made grants, and revoked them at pleasure, to supply his extravagance and ridiculous humour. This was base and unmanly. Henry's resumptions neither impeached his generosity nor his justice. The grants he reclaimed were such as sound policy and the exigencies of the State demanded, being made by a weak Prince in embarrassed situations; as they were all of no earlier date than the Reign of King Stephen, and had not been transmitted down through several generations. Foreseeing, however, that this step would raise much discontent in those who were to be affected by it, who were numerous and powerful, Henry was cautious not to act without a legal sanction, and the approbation of his Council. He therefore summoned a Parliament, wherein almost all his Nobles were present; and having properly laid before them the wants ofthe Crown, the losses it had suffered, the illegality of the grants, and the urgent necessity of a speedy resumption; obtained their concurrence to it, and proceeded to put it into immediate execution. The vigour of his government was such, that he met with less opposition than he had reason to expect; very near all that had been granted to Laymen, or usurped by them, from the Royal Demesne, was surrendered to him without bloodshed, after a little delay, and some ineffectual marks of reluctance in a few of the greatest Barons[122]. The cause assigned for these resumptions was not a defect in the title of the grantor, nor any unworthiness in the grantee, but the apparent and indispensable necessity of recovering the just and inseparable Rights of the Crown. No distinction was made between the grants of Stephen and Matilda; for that would have carried an appearance of Henry's acting from motives, not of Royal economy and public expediency, but of party revenge; and by this equal and impartial proceeding, he left the adherents of Stephen no reason to complain.In the course of this business, however, Henry was once very near losing his life; for Roger de Mortimer would not submit, which obliged Henry, incensed by his obstinacy, to lead an army against him, with which he assaulted, among others, the castle of Bridgnorth, in Shropshire, which was defended by Mortimer himself. Henry commanded in person, and exposed himself to so much danger, that he would have been infallibly slain, if a faithful vassal (Hubert de St. Clare[123]) who stood by his side, had not preferred the King's life to his own; for, seeing an arrow aimed at Henry by one of Mortimer's archers, he stepped before him, and received it in his own breast. The wound proved mortal, and he expired in Henry's arms; recommending his daughter, an only child, and an infant, to the care of that Prince[124]. It is hard to say which deserves the most admiration (continues my NobleAuthor[125]) a subject who died to save his King, or a King whose personal virtues could render his safety so dear to a subject whom he had not obliged by any extraordinary favours[126].
Henry, now firmly seated on his Throne, possessed of an ample Royal Revenue, confirmed the Charter of his Grandfather, Henry I; but, not content only to restore good Laws, he enforced a due execution of them. This Reign is so pregnant with interesting events, and shining transactions of a public nature, that it is no wonder Historians are silent as to lesser matters, such as the internal direction of hisCourt; but there is, I think, little question to be made but that it was magnificent; and as England became in his Reign one of the most powerfulStates in Europe, one would infer that hisCourtwas likewise equal (at least) to any other in dignity and splendour. He entertained at one time, in his Palace at Westminster, the several Ambassadors of Manuel, Emperor of Constantinople; of Frederic, Emperor of the Romans; of William, Archbishop of Triers; of the Duke of Saxony; and of Philip, Earl of Flanders: an uncommon resort in these days, who, doubtless, were attracted by the power of the King, and both received from, and added, lustre to the brilliancy and magnificence of his Court[127].
Lord Lyttelton, after giving an account of his person and temper, speaking of his munificence, says, he assigned the tenth part of the Provisions of hisHouseholdto be constantly given in daily alms to the poor; which one must imagine to have been a very considerable donation, considering the hospitable manner of living in those days. "His own table (continues his Lordship) was frugal, his diet plain, and in his dress he affected theutmost simplicity, disliking all ornaments which might encumber him in his exercise, or shew an effeminate regard to his person." He introduced the Angevin fashion of wearing short cloaks or mantles (contrary to the mode that prevailed in William Rufus's Reign), which he himself had worn from his childhood, and from which he obtained the sobriquet, or nick-name, of Court-Mantle[128]. In this he would soon be followed by his Court, and the People; for it is every day seen how fast the fashions of the Great descend into the remotest parts of the Kingdom. Lord Lyttelton, however, observes, that the long garments introduced temp. Will. Rufus, were not wholly laid aside; so that Henry's fashion did not prevail universally[129]. The use of silk made by silk-worms (theBombycina) was brought hither from Sicily about this time; there was also acostly stuff at this day in great request here, called in LatinAurifrisium. What it was called in English, Mr. Camden declares himself ignorant[130]; but supposes itnotto mean Embroidery, although, by other testimonies,thatwas much worn by the Nobility, and was termed in LatinOpera Phrigia, and the corruption seems very easy and allowable. "Whatever it was," says he, "it was much desired by the Popes, and highly esteemed in Italy."
Hitherto I have not been able to learn any thing concerning Henry'sHousehold, or the internal disposition of his Family. He appears himself to have lived in a great degree of familiarity with his Courtiers, whom he honoured with his intimacy; and would frequently unbend, and lay aside the King, and was fond of thedesipere in loco. But "his good humour and jocularity," says Lord Lyttelton, "seems to have been sometimes tooplayful in the eye of the public; and to have carried him into things that wereinfra dignitatem[131]." In a note on this passage, his Lordship gives a pleasant story, which I shall relate, to relieve the Reader, and certainly cannot do it better than in his Lordship's own words, from Fitz-Stephen's Life of Archbishop Becket. "As the King and Becket, his Chancellor[132], were riding together through the streets of London, in cold and stormy weather, the King saw, coming towards them, a poor old man, in a thin coat, worn to tatters. Would it not be a great charity (said he to the Chancellor) to give this naked wretch, who is so needy and infirm, a good warm cloak? Certainly, answered that Minister; and you do the duty of a King, in turning your eyes and thoughts to such objects. While they were thus talking, the man came near; the King asked him if he wished to have a good cloak? and, turning to the Chancellor, said,—You shall have the merit of this good deed of charity; then suddenly laying hold on a fine new scarlet cloak, lined with fur, which Becket had on,he tried to pull it from him, and, after some struggle, in which they had both like to have fallen from their horses, prevailed. The poor man had the cloak, and the Courtiers laughed, like good Courtiers, at the pleasantry of the King[133]."
King Henry II. in the early part of his life, was in a very doubtful situation with regard to his accession to the Crown of England, which depended upon the success of his Mother, the Empress, against the Usurper, King Stephen. As soon, however, as he attained hissixteenthyear, A. D. 1149, he came over into England; and at Carlisle, where his Great Uncle David, King of Scots, then lay, was by him made a Knight, among several others of equal age, at the feast of Pentecost[134], and for which noAidcould be demanded.
His issue, which is all that concerns the matter before us, consisted of four Sons: Henry, Richard, Geoffrey, and John; and three Daughters, Maud, Alianor, and Joan.
It is difficult, in a Reign where the subjects were so loaded with taxations of every kind, and so generally and indiscriminately imposed, to separate any particular charge from the aggregate. Henry was a Prince that would not forego his rights and privileges; and, as his Children were all natives of England, would doubtless avail himself of such laws and indulgences as he found established, and as would operate in his favour on their account. It does not appear, upon the face of common history, that anyAidwas paid for theKnighthoodof his eldest Son, though I have not the least doubt but that it was comprehended in some of those numerous subsidies, tallages, &c. which he levied, from time to time, on his subjects, for his transfretations (to use a Monkish word) into foreign parts. There is some ground for the surmise that the charge might be enveloped in some of those exactions; for, though there was a national contribution orAiddemanded for the marriage of one of his daughters, yet it does not transpire but in a general Inquisition for the purpose of discoverigwhat monies had been received, in every County, by the Sheriffs, &c. This was effected by Itinerant Justices, who were dispatched over the whole Kingdom; and, among other articles contained in their general commission, they were directed to inquire—"concerning theAidto marry the King's Daughter, what was received in every hundred, in every township, and of every man, and who received it[135]." This took place in the year 1170, in the sixteenth year of the King's Reign.
With regard to this King'stransfretations, as I have called them, he was not contented with mere feudal contributions in lieu of personal service; but, upon a rupture with France, respecting settlements upon an intended marriage between two Sons of Henry (Henry, the then eldest, and Richard, the then second Son) with two Daughters of France; the King commanded all hisTenants in capite, Earls, Barons, and Knights, to attend him in person, properly prepared withhorse and arms, who were to serve a whole year in Normandy at their own charge[136].
To conclude all I have to observe upon the subject of exactions towards the King's expences in foreign wars, when he passedoutre-mer; I can but remark one, which fell not a little heavy on the subject, imputable indeed to the religious frenzy of the times, which was occasioned by a joint resolution ofHenry of EnglandandPhilip of Franceto go to the relief ofJerusalem, in what is known by the name of theHoly War. These levies were made in the most oppressive manner; every one whodid notgo in person being taxed to the extent of his property real and personal; and this was not called anAid, aSubsidy, or aTallage, but (forsooth!) anAlms[137]. It ought not to be forgotten that those whodidgo, whether Clerk or Layman, were to have a free pardon of all sins repented of; and their securities were God, St. Peter, St. Paul, and the Pope[138].